Corporations, Personhood, and Voting Rights

[IBCoupe]

From Move to Amend:

City of Aurora, CO Proposes Giving Corporation Right to Vote
August 18, 2011
By:  Libertarian Party Of Colorado
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Libertarians Condemn City of Aurora Granting Voting Priveledges to Gaylord Entertainment Corporation

It's come to the attention of the Libertarian Party of Colorado that the City of Aurora, Colorado is proposing to allow Gaylord Entertainment the right to vote, in addition to the $300 million dollars worth of incentives they plan on giving Gaylord to build their new private hotel complex in the northern part of the city.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado stands firm against corporations voting in elections. "Giving a corporation the right to vote is really a form of fascism. If we allow corporations to vote, there will be nothing to stop corporations from buying and influencing any elections that they choose." said Rob McNealy, Media Director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

The pertinent section and clause of the "incentive agreement" http://t.ymlp35.com/... is on page 56, section 2 where it states: "WITH RESPECT TO ANY TAXABLE OR REAL PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE AREA OR PROPOSED AREA WHOSE OWNER IS NOT A NATURAL PERSON, ONE NATURAL PERSON WHO IS QUALIFIED TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THIS STATE AND IS DESIGNATED BY SUCH OWNER TO VOTE FOR SUCH OWNER, WHETHER SUCH NATURAL PERSON RESIDES IN THE AREA OR PROPOSED AREA OR NOT. SUCH DESIGNATION SHALL BE IN WRITING AND FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK. ONLY ONE SUCH PERSON MAY BE DESIGNATED BY EACH OWNER."

The Aurora City Council will be having a hearing about the Gaylord Entertainment deal, and we encourage all citizens concerned about this to have their voices heard by testifying.  The public hearing will be held during the upcoming City Council meeting on Monday the 22nd, 2011 at 7:30PM, at the Aurora Municipal Center located at 15151 East Alameda Parkway, Aurora, CO 80012.

So the city of Aurora, CO has decided to tie the right to vote at least partially to property-ownership, in order to allow Corporations a proxy vote in elections. The language, apparently, gives a vote to any entity, even if not a natural person, that owns property.

That entity gets one vote through a natural person of its assignment. I'm going to keep looking into this in order make sure I've got it right, but in the meantime: what are your thoughts?

[Encryptshun]

My first thought is that the excerpt could benefit from some plain-English translation. I write and read commercial contracts every day (well, I did until this job). I have a Master's in English and have been trained how to write, read and dissect our language, but nothing prepared me for that jumbled-up mess of linguistic austerity. lol

So what's the difference between "taxable personal property" and "real personal property"? What's the difference between "area" and "proposed area" (is this a land-grab too)? How do they define "owner" if it's not a sole proprietorship? Does that mean each voting shareholder ("owner") can cast a ballot in an election?

[stebo0728]

Hey, the lefties always seem to think corporations pay taxes. If they pay taxes shouldn't they then get to vote? Just sayin....

[IBCoupe]

No, Stebo. They are not citizens. are you seriously advocating for some people to have multiple votes? Really?

Upon further investigation, this seems slightly less sinister, but not terribly benign: it's part of a sweetheart deal, and would grant corporations a say in any vote to raise property taxes in selective zones within Aurora.

It's possible there's more to it, but being that it's 134 pages of legalese, I'm relying on the ingenuity of other people with less to do. That's all that's Beemer divined thus far.

[stebo0728]

This is interesting to ponder. Consider a corporation that owns property somewhere remotely from its headquarters. There is no one in the vicinity of said property to cast a vote of interest for the corporation in local elections. The corporation HAS a local interest, but no one to represent that local interest. Contrast that to a small business owner, say a barber. He owns his shop, and he has a vote at election time. However, the big guy doesn't, I'm surprised honestly to have never heard murmurs of this sort before now. I mean the property may or may not be a complete sitting duck. IF it has local employees, you have to assume that at least a portion of them would vote, and also assume that they would vote in the interest of their employer. Those are 2 big assumptions however. Cutting off our noses to spite our face is a national pass-time. However, if the local property has NO employees, then it could be a sitting duck. I still dont think I like treating a corporation the same as a "person".

[stebo0728]

No, Stebo. They are not citizens. are you seriously advocating for some people to have multiple votes? Really?

JOHNNY 5 ALIVE!

[AZhitman]

All I can say in this case is, follow the money.