The Delaware House has teed up a vote on a bill that would give businesses a vote in the town of Seaford, Delaware — a proposal with frightening implications for elections in a time when lawmakers are increasingly targeting voting rights.
The bill allows Seaford — a town of roughly 8,500 people — to amend its charter to allow non-resident business owners to cast a vote in local elections, meaning that corporate entities and businesses would enjoy the same voting rights as actual citizens in the town. Rather than the democratic principle of “one person, one vote,” the bill codifies the principle of “one person/entity/one vote,” as the bill text reads.
Though a business owner living in Seaford wouldn’t be allowed to vote in a local election twice, a business owner who resides out of town would be allowed to cast a vote. This means that a business owner would get to vote multiple times: in the place they live in as a citizen, and in Seaford or any other place with a similar law where their business is located.
The bill passed the state House Administration Committee unanimously last month. The legislature has set a vote on the bill for Tuesday.
There are 234 entities registered in Seaford. This means that business owners could potentially be the deciding factor in elections, as only 340 people total voted in the last city council election in April; one city council member lost his reelection by 54 votes.
Voting rights advocates have denounced the bill, saying that it erodes democratic values and projects a dangerous message that businesses should enjoy the same rights as people.
“‘One person, one vote’ is a long agreed upon principle that governs our elections. Proponents of this bill have tried to frame this as an innocuous way to give business owners more power, but in reality, this legislation has the power to transform our elections for the worse,” said Claire Snyder-Hall, executive director of watchdog group Common Cause Delaware.
“In tandem with Delaware’s lenient incorporation regulations, this legislation could give LLCs, trusts, and outsiders the power to dominate Seaford’s elections,” Snyder-Hall continued. “Artificial entities should not have voting rights.”
If the legislature approves the proposal, it wouldn’t be the first time in Delaware, where incorporated businesses outnumber the population 2 to 1, due in large part to the state’s lenient corporate income tax laws that allow business owners to stay anonymous.
In Newark, Delaware, the city council was forced to specify that businesses don’t get a vote after one property manager voted 31 times in a 2018 referendum greenlighting $28 million in capital investments.
Some progressive lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban towns from allowing businesses to vote in municipal elections, but the bill has not seen any movement.
The Seaford proposal harkens to centuries past when voting rights in the U.S. were restricted to landowners, as was the case in the 1700s and 1800s; during much of this time, only white men who owned land could vote. To this day, white people are overrepresented in business ownership.
In other words, the proposal is a form of voter suppression, diluting the views of actual people while giving favor to business owners. Snyder-Hall also likened the proposal to a worse version of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that granted corporations the same right to free speech in campaign finance as individuals.
“After Citizens United, this is another step down the road to corporate tyranny,” Snyder Hall told The Lever. “It’s bad enough that Citizens United gives corporations free speech rights. Now Seaford wants to give voting rights to corporations.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.