SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.newsweek.com/cost-me-the-election-data-centers-trigger-voter-backlash-12118327
A wave of voter anger over massive data center projects is beginning to reshape U.S. politics, with local officials and senior lawmakers losing elections after backing controversial developments tied to the artificial intelligence boom.
In Utah on Wednesday, State Senate President J. Stuart Adams—one of the most powerful Republicans in the state—lost his primary election after supporting a major data center development near the Great Salt Lake, in one of the clearest signs yet of the growing political risks tied to the industry.
At the local level, the fallout was just as direct. "Do I think that the data center vote cost me the election? Yes I do," former Box Elder County Commissioner Lee Perry said after conceding his primary race, after voting to advance the same project.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 28, @10:54PM (10 children)
The Constitution doesn't have to. I was very careful in how I expressed the facts:
The rights of natural people are being taken away, thus the constitutional quandary. The rights of corporate personhood are a mechanism for honoring those natural person rights. It could be done in a different way, but you'd still finish at the same end point.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aafcac on Monday June 29, @04:18AM (9 children)
There's no inherent reason for spending money to be considered speech. That's just something that SCOTUS invented in order to justify allowing the wealthy to have an undue influence over elections. Speech is speech, printing things, putting things over the airwaves, on tv or on the internet. There's really no valid reason why we are tied to the idea of allowing people with great sums of money to engage in so much "free speech" that now people think that the government is the problem and not also think that corporations and the Epstein class are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @11:18AM (1 child)
And "printing things, putting things over the airwaves, on tv or on the internet" is free, right? Free speech isn't free as in beer. That's how money gets into the equation. And if you heavily regulate such speech, then the people in control of paid speech that can't be regulated (say troll farms in foreign countries), have an advantage.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday June 30, @04:42PM
Essentially yes, there was public access TV as an option for people that didn't own a media out let, I remember there were some pretty low budget people on there, and the cost to put stuff up on the internet is trivially cheap This is my second posting here this morning and I'm out like a couple cents worth of electricity. Even the poorest people these days have the ability to post things on the internet using a smartphone, so to suggest that there is any sort of significant barrier to getting messages out based on money right here is questionable at best.
Sure, there was a period where the printing press, TV, movies and radio weren't super accessible, but that's like 30 years ago at this point and all of those types of media are dying as they can't compete with the internet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @11:42AM (6 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, @03:39PM (1 child)
A corporation is comprised of a group of people. But that group is not a separate person. The group may have some of the powers and responsibilities of an individual, biological person, but that does not make it a person.
Can corporations marry each other? Does a corporation have a biological sex at its birth? Does a corporation have a right to vote in elections? Can a corporation hold public office?
If you can't answer yes to all of those questions and provide cogent explanations for why you're saying yes, then it's a sign that corporations aren't people. If you're insisting that corporations are people but can't marry other corporations or hold public office, then you're denying rights to "corporate personhood people" that you provide to real people.
So are you going to continue to gaslight everyone that "corporate personhood people" are actual people?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @06:14PM
My point was that rights are being taken from real people not legal constructs.
Are you going to read?
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday June 30, @04:37PM (3 children)
They already had, there were campaign donation limits that had been in place prior to those rulings. And, it's not like SCOTUS hasn't been going well out of it's way to invent reasons why you can't regulate that stuff.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @06:16PM (2 children)
And those unconstitutional limits were gone afterward. Funny how that works!
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday July 01, @03:21AM (1 child)
They're not a unconstitutional, SCOTUS ruled them to be, which is kind of funny as the court gave itself the right to declare things to be unconstitutional, not the constitution itself.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 01, @05:17AM
Already explained why.
Who should be doing it instead? Trump perhaps? It's one of those implied powers you hear about.