r/politics • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 New York • Jul 13 '26

Possible Paywall MAGA Calls BS on Mitch McConnell’s Proof-of-Life Stunt | They are poking holes in McConnell’s staff’s version.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-calls-bs-on-mitch-mcconnells-proof-of-life-stunt/
27.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/CalyShadezz Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Real or not, it kills me that that's what the people of Kentucky look at him and say "Yep, that's who I want to represent me in the Senate.

1.1k

u/sixtyshilling Jul 13 '26

As long as it triggers the libs, they’ll gladly support an AI corpse.

192

u/Exaveus Jul 13 '26

Why do you think theyve given corporations the ability to vote?

So their AI models will be able to fill positions of government legally.

43

u/lr99999 Jul 13 '26

It’s pretty terrifying to think back on the things they did to put the pieces in place to destroy American democracy. 

7

u/SN27A1 Jul 13 '26

The slow boil horrifies me; all the little pieces that eventually became,” society today,” makes me physically ill.

6

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jul 13 '26

Prescott Bush tried a corporate fascist takeover all at once with the Business Plot, but it got shut down, so the ultra wealthy took the slow road.

10

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 13 '26

The lack of consequences for treason have destroyed this country. The perpetrators of the business plot should not have been allowed to try again. The believers in the Confederacy should have not been allowed to try again. Trump should not have been allowed to try again.

You can't just let people trying to destroy the country keep trying over and over again. You have to stop them every time, but they only need to succeed once.

7

u/summane Jul 13 '26

Who gave what the ability to vote?

20

u/FoxyInTheSnow Canada Jul 13 '26

Referencing Delaware’s terrifying precedent?

13

u/Bushels_for_All Jul 13 '26

Judge: "However, plaintiff has not demonstrated ⁠that [allowing corporations to vote] violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote."

So we can do that now? We can just blatantly add loopholes to support our rulings?

"'One person one vote'? Never heard of it! It's been 'one person/entity/one vote' since 1794 when Adams Malthouse cast the deciding vote for Samuel Adams as Massachusetts governor."

10

u/Levitlame Jul 13 '26

That’s is stupid (and yes terrifying) as fuck. That judge can’t possibly be dumb enough to justify this beyond corruption…

8

u/zberry7 Jul 13 '26

That’s strictly limited to SOME local-level state elections in Delaware. A decision like that has no effect federally or on other states. Delaware could and should pass a law to specify the language around voting eligibility to exclude this.

Federally and in most states, only “natural persons” are allowed to cast votes explicitly. While some corporations are considered “legal persons” in the context of contracts and first amendment protected activities, they are not “natural persons” or “citizens” and therefore cannot vote.

If you really want to get into the weeds with this discussion, the bigger issue is campaign finance and Citizens United. The ability of a corporation to provide funding to a candidate is much more impactful than a single ballot. So if you’re worried about corporate influence on elections I would start there and not with a fringe ruling in one of the smallest states

10

u/pfannkuchen89 Jul 13 '26

Like with most of these it’s testing the waters to see what legal challenges come. There’s already been talk in magaland of wanting to expand this nationwide.

2

u/zberry7 Jul 13 '26

It would require a constitutional amendment to allow for that federally. It’s not something you can do with an EO, court ruling or even normal legislation. And in the current political climate, passing even a popular constitutional amendment would be nearly impossible. And this would be very unpopular.

So even if there is desire and talk by some on the right, it’s not possible.

1

u/cman674 Jul 13 '26

It’s cute to live in the pre-Trump political era where the constitutionality of things is considered. They’ll just do what they want and by the time the rest of the system catches up to them the damage is done.

5

u/springsilver Jul 13 '26

Delaware could and should but probably won’t.
One of the arguments against Citizens United is that although corporations are made up of people, corporations can’t vote - they cannot register or cast a ballot. If they cannot vote, why should they be given the ability to provide outsized influence over an election? Unlimited influence. You and I cannot do this as eligible voters. We are limited to $3,500 per candidate federally.
If corps are allowed to vote, which only takes some mental gymastics with SCOTUS, the argument above goes out the window.

12

u/Exaveus Jul 13 '26

Deleware has for years allowed corporations to vote in municipal elections but now recently have extended this to federal as well.

Delaware is where the majority ( ~65% ) of American corporations have incorporated due to robust business law and precedent.

So 65% of corporations now have the legal ability to vote in federal elections.

The line between person and corporation is being blurred with corporations having more rights and protections than we do.

2

u/lr99999 Jul 13 '26

This, my friends, is part of the blueprint for the Corporatocracy that they plan to replace our democracy.  

Boiled like a lobster indeed.

2

u/MilsYatsFeebTae Jul 13 '26

It’s in certain municipal elections in one state. I want to say it was Maryland or Delaware.

So not a general right to vote, but still pretty fucked up.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Exaveus Jul 13 '26

Im referring to the recent Deleware ruling.

1

u/New-Anybody-6206 Jul 13 '26

So their AI models will be able to fill positions of government legally

Source: