a white goose, wing raised in attack, stands in front of a burning house
Delaware

The Golden Goose Is An Arsonist

Is Delaware More Than A Corporate Cut-Out? Its Elected Officials Don’t Seem to Think So

The following is a departure from my usual historical research and archival content – but related to it, insofar as I am attempting to puzzle through why Delaware’s political economy has produced elected officials so eager to aid, rather than oppose, mortal threats to American democracy. 

a white goose, wing raised in attack, stands in front of a burning house
subtle, right?

The federal constitution that Delaware was first to ratify in 1787 is no longer in effect. That doesn’t seem to worry Delaware’s leaders, though. In word and deed, they seem much more concerned with Elon Musk’s feelings. 

Since inauguration day 2025, Congress’s constitutionally-designated control over spending has been nullified. Instead, South African investor Elon Musk and his underage minions have been busy stealing private data and public cash from one federal agency after another. President Donald Trump has okayed this crime spree through a stream of unconstitutional proclamations, cutting off funds for cancer research, law enforcement, air traffic control, and dozens of other critical services – while banning any speech or research that uses keywords found on the official MAGA censorship list. Trump has also installed new political commissars, under Musk’s direction, in every department. Court orders mandating a stop to these flagrantly illegal actions have had no effect

In short, alleged ketamine enthusiast Elon Musk and his junior partner president, Donald Trump, have declared that there is only one branch of government: them. L’État, c’est DOGE. 

Amid this obvious and flagrant coup, Delaware’s elected federal officials are difficult to find. Even compared to the median opposition party member’s tepid efforts, Senators Coons and Blunt Rochester and Representative McBride are striking in their absence from public view. If you are able to reach their offices by phone – good luck, the lines are busy, leave a message – staffers repeat vague statements of concern, and bland praise for bipartisan civility. They have taken no meaningful action, however.

Doing nothing is bad enough, but the Delaware state government is actively campaigning for worse – collaborating to open a second front of the new business plot against America. Explaining why requires taking a bit of a long view…

Since the early 20th-century, Delaware has been the official residence of choice for business entities seeking easy registration, light fees, and a pliable, circumspect, and pointedly incurious government. Further, since the 1980s, Delaware law – through black-letter legislation and court precedents – has bent itself to the task of enforcing an extreme Friedmanite orthodoxy on American corporations (“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.”) In combination, this means that Delaware is the proximate reason why the relentless maximization of stockholder wealth has become the sine qua non of modern American corporate capitalism. Corporate directors and executives can be sued – and lose – if they can’t prove their decisions put stockholders’ wealth first, last, and only. 

Curiously, the gospel of shareholder primacy has not been greeted as good news by the current class of robber barons. A cohort of oligarchs who double-dip as head managers and major investors have chafed when they’ve received pushback in Delaware courts for filling their pockets with private side deals instead of filling their pockets and stockholders’ pockets, simultaneously. And that pushback – gentle, partial, and oddly principled though it might be – has left them seething. 

More specifically: in response to recent lawsuit losses, emerald mine heir Elon Musk and other like-minded techbros have mounted a furious propaganda attack against the legitimacy of Delaware law. (The particular target of their ire are the jurists of the Chancery Court, the primary venue for most corporate cases – and importantly, led by a woman). Last year Delaware’s General Assembly replied to these public tantrums with a hasty revision of the Delaware General Corporation Law. As is customary in Delaware, this critical amendment bill was drafted in secret, by a select committee of a local lawyers group, the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association. Less usually (though not unprecedentedly), the amendments overturned Chancery Court decisions, cutting against decades of precedent to restrict stockholders’ rights. The new law destroyed the pretense of judicial independence and expertise – which was the point, of course – and was intended as a peace offering to the addled billionaires, a balm to soothe their frenzied anger and calm any advanced irritation afflicting other corporate directors.  

Alas, bullies are greedy and rarely satisfied, and so attacks on Delaware have only increased since. Musk et al. have been recruiting other tech CEOs to “DExit,” i.e. remove their formal business registrations from Delaware to other, redder states. Still just a trickle, this movement could be a big deal for the state’s budget, if it turns into a flood: 30-40% of annual state revenues come from the various fees and taxes collected from the businesses registered to, but not operating in, Delaware. This windfall, and its attendant benefits, is collectively known as “the franchise.” 

Now, MAGAfied billionaires’ bleating threats have provoked panic in the Diamond State. It is not just a matter of the state budget: threats to public revenues also threaten the private profits of law firms and business service companies who act as oligarchs’ local agents. The Delaware State Chamber of Commerce has been particularly shrill in its alarm, claiming that by failing to immediately jump as high as particular outside business leaders demand, Delaware will kill the “golden goose.” 

So far, the new administration of Governor Matt Meyer agrees – and has been leaping as Lord Elon demands. Despite some early tough talk about protecting Delawareans from Washington’s assaults, former corporate lawyer Gov. Meyer has executed an about face, going on an abject apology tour. To any business reporter who will listen, he has promised to “reform” Delaware’s courts to appease temperamental corporate executives, telling Business Insider that “[i]t’s really important we get it right for Elon Musk or whoever the litigants are in Delaware courts.” 

In Meyer’s new dispensation, Delaware can’t just be bought: it’s a fire sale, with deep discounts for the loudest and worst people in the world. 

The leaders of the General Assembly have been less visible in their appeasement, but seemingly just as eager to fall in line. Since the new session has opened, they’ve done nothing to respond to any of the Trump/Musk regime’s attacks on Delaware’s residents or its institutions, and pulled bills that might have offered some protection. 

Their capitulation last year to corporate demands has opened the door to other bullies, too. Spotlight Delaware reports that regional “nonprofit” healthcare monopolist ChristianaCare has filed suit in the Court of Chancery opposing the weak and watered-down cost control law passed last year. ChristianaCare argues that cost reviews would erode “the integrity and viability of the (Delaware) corporate franchise.” Making healthcare more affordable would kill the golden goose, you see – so it can’t be done.

Seen in the fuller light of Delaware’s political economy, the gormless abdication of responsibility by Delaware’s members of Congress is less surprising. How could they be expected to move bravely to counter a revanchist coup, when they’ve built whole careers in a state dedicated to fulfilling every billionaires’ unhinged whim?

For over a century, Delaware has benefited from the fact that nowhere else in the country has a ruling elite more willing to give outside oligarchs what they want, when they want it, and fast. From a certain angle, our corporate law, and the “the franchise” it spawned, has indeed been a goose that lays golden eggs. It has made some lawyers, some lobbyists, and some business service executives quite rich; and it’s allowed generations of voters, legislators, and governors to avoid hard choices. You can see why no one wants to upset the goose.

But geese are jerks. And now Delaware’s specific, special goose – the unelected billionaire goose  – is burning down our house, while our family sleeps inside.

Might it be time to cook that goose, instead? The alternative is to be cooked, ourselves. Golden eggs aren’t worth much when your democracy is dead, even in Delaware.

IMAGE

Jani Kantokoski, “House on Fire,” https://www.pexels.com/photo/house-on-fire-25490565/
“Goose Attack,” Wikimedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goose_attack.jpg 

Corporate Voters Project, Delaware, Power At Play

Corporations are Voters, My Friends

Or, An Investigation Into Just How Deep Delaware’s Commitment to the Bit Goes

Corporate Voters Project – Research Note #1

In Delaware, corporations can vote. So can LLCs, partnerships, and trusts, provided they own real property within the municipality where the election is taking place. In “The Company State,” capital not only has a voice – it has the franchise. 

And I want to know why.  

~*~

I first learned about corporations’ access to the ballot when I moved to Newark, DE in the summer of 2018. In breaks between schlepping boxes to our rented house, I caught up on local news, and learned that the City of Newark had recently held a referenda to authorize infrastructure borrowing – bonds to pay for new parks, and better sewers. All the measures passed handily. But of the over 2,000 ballots cast, some 118 “came from non-residents and corporations” – including 31 votes made by one representative of a local real estate company

So just as I became a new, working citizen of Delaware, I discovered that my rights paled next to the those enjoyed by old, rentier capital.

Though the election raised many questions – as well as my blood pressure – in the busy season of a new semester on an unfamiliar campus, I let it lie as an oddity. In the wake of that bond election, there was enough concern expressed by other locals that the City Council petitioned the state legislature to revise its charter, to limit the franchise to human residents and human non-resident property owners “in accordance with the principle of ‘one person, one vote.’” The charter was successfully amended in 2019. [1] 

But “dead labour” in the form of company capital, wasn’t done enlivening Delaware’s politics. In late spring 2023, news broke that the leaders of Seaford, DE had got a charter revision bill of their own introduced. It was the mirror image of Newark’s reform. Seaford wanted to empower a property owner, “whether a natural person or an artificial entity,” to vote in all town elections. (It seems the unpopular town council in Seaford was eager to substitute property for people, as voters). Delaware Republicans, eager to claim fifteen minutes of public infamy for supporting corporations’ right to stuff the ballot, used parliamentary tactics to bring the legislature to a screeching halt until the bill passed in the House. It did – though the measure was later quietly smothered in a Senate committee, and never became law. [2]

Needled twice by the news, my interest – and my ire – was piqued. And if that’s not a reason for research, what is?

~*~

If there was anywhere in the United States you might expect to find a corporation voting, Delaware is it. A state that only recently reached the milestone of one million human residents, the self-proclaimed “Corporate Capital of the World” is home to over two million business entities, including two-thirds of the Fortune 500.  

Corporations and LLCs don’t come here for the beaches, though. They sink shallow roots into our clayey soils because the state government offers a uniquely “business-friendly” regime. In return for filing a simple registration form and paying some light taxes and fees, DE state officials ask few questions, and impose fewer regulations. When conflicts between companies arise, as they tend to in the hurly-burly world of modern business, Delaware’s uniquely commercially-oriented Court of Chancery offers speedy, jury-free resolutions. And if that service fails to satisfy, well, the Delaware legislature is ready to bend to meet the whims of capital with a flexibility an Olympic gymnast would envy.

While intentionally obscured from ordinary residents, “The Franchise,” so-called, is well understood by CEOs and corporate lawyers, as well as the state’s politicians and their lobbyist handlers. For multinational conglomerates, secretive shell companies, and mom & pop landlords alike, Delaware offers the best deal within U.S. territory for running your business cheaply, opaquely, and just “legally” enough. 

This frictionless pliability pays for Delaware’s government. In fiscal year 2023, for example, the various fees and taxes levied on nominally Delaware-domiciled corporations and business entities provided $2.9 billion in revenue – a fairly typical 46.4% of total state collections. Whether clued in or not, all Delawareans are complicit in these arrangements. Their tax burden is low, yet their roads remain well-paved – because the First State has decided to use its sovereign power to charge a light toll in return for  displacing the true costs of unchecked capitalism onto the rest of the nation, and the world. [3]

It’s a little gift, from our little state. 

~*~

Still, even in Delaware, the idea that a corporation can vote gives people pause. It sure as heck arrested my attention, and puzzled me. So as the furor of the 2023 Seaford bill died down, and with my new hometown’s recent bond vote in mind, I’ve spent the last month or so digging into the practice of corporate voting in Delaware. 

I’ve tried to keep my questions simple, obvious, and answerable:  

  • How widespread is corporate voting? Does it only happen in Delaware towns, or beyond? 
  • When did the practice take hold – and under what circumstances? Is corporate voting a relic of the state’s Jim Crow past, or a more recent disease of the body politic? 
  • And finally: why? Of all the ways to arbitrarily pervert the democratic process to favor the wealthy, why have Delawareans chosen this method? And how is the local “corporate franchise” connected to “The Franchise” – if it is at all? 

My research plan is similarly straightforward. I’ve completed the first step, a close examination of the current charters of all 57 municipalities incorporated in the state of Delaware.  

Some early findings:

  • 70% of DE municipalities (40 towns & cities) allow corporations and other “artificial entities” to vote in at least some circumstances, usually referenda on annexation and/or bonds; 
  • Three towns (Dagsboro, Fenwick Island, and Henlopen Acres) allow corporate voting in all circumstances
  • The local corporate franchise is premised on property ownership: the “entity” must own real property within municipal limits (or proposed municipal limits, for annexations); and generally companies exercise their voting rights through a representative with power of attorney;
  • Most towns that allow corporate voting limit it using a “one person / one entity” rule – but not all of them do;

There is also a pronounced geography to corporate voting rights in Delaware: it gets more common as you travel south. New Castle County only counts 3 municipalities that allow it; Kent Co. has 16; and Sussex Co., land of beaches, chicken farms, and confederate monuments, has a whopping 21.   

Since it quickly became apparent to me reading charters that property ownership is critical to local corporate voting rights, I also tallied how many Delaware towns enfranchise non-resident property owners, and found that:

  • 81% of DE municipalities (46 towns & cities) allow non-resident real property owners to vote in at least some circumstances (again, most commonly annexation and bond elections); 
  • However, fully 23% of them (13 towns & cities) allow non-residents to vote in all elections – and some even allow people who don’t reside within the municipality to govern, as members of the town council!

As with corporate voting, the enfranchisement of non-resident property owners is more common in Sussex (24 towns), than it is in Kent Co. (17 towns), with New Castle coming last in the number of municipalities that allow it (just 5 towns).

Now that I’ve gotten a sense of the current landscape of corporate and property-defined voting, my next task is to dig into the history of a handful of municipalities, using newspapers and legislative archives, to see if I can find out when – and perhaps why – this corporate citizenship first appeared. 

I have no doubt but that further unpleasant surprises await; but that’s history, in Delaware.


[1]: Charter of the City of Newark, Art. IV,  Sec. 407.2(5)82. Del. Laws., Ch 107

For coverage, see: Karl Baker, “Newark, Delaware, Where Some People Can Vote More than Once,” News Journal, July 5, 2018, https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2018/06/29/newark-delaware-where-some-people-can-vote-more-than-once/735314002/; Karl Baker, “Only Person with ‘Heartbeat,’ Not Companies, Should Vote in Newark Elections, Council Says,” News Journal, March 12, 2019, https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/03/12/latest-backlash-against-llc-voting-newark-sends-heartbeat-voting-standards-dover/3127235002/ ; Josh Shannon, “Newark Asks State to Eliminate LLC Voting Rights from City Charter,” Newark Post, March 13, 2019, https://www.newarkpostonline.com/news/newark-asks-state-to-eliminate-llc-voting-rights-from-city-charter/article_afc76923-c835-5c68-a61e-79fed13d80ca.html

[2] HS 1 for HB 121: “An Act to Amend the Charter of the City of Seaford Relating to the City’s Ability to Authorize Artificial Entities, Limited Liability Corporations’ Partnerships and Trusts to Vote in Municipal Elections Held in Seaford,” (April 20, 2023), https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=130205.

For coverage, see: Meredith Newman, “Why This Delaware Town Wants Corporations to Vote in Its Local Elections,” News Journal, May 11, 2023, https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/11/why-seaford-wants-corporations-to-vote-in-town-elections/70203037007/ ; Meredith Newman, “If Seaford Gets Its Way, These Corporations and LLCs Could Be Voting in the next Election,” News Journal, May 17, 2023, https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/17/delaware-llcs-could-vote-in-seaford-elections-if-charter-passes/70224526007/; Meredith Newman, “House Gop Kills $1.4 Billion Bond Bill After Effort to Allow LLCs in Seaford to Vote Fails,” News Journal, June 29, 2023, https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/29/delaware-house-republicans-bond-bill-not-passed/70368194007/ ; Meredith Newman, “House Democrats OK Seaford LLC Voting Charter, Leading GOP to Pass Spending Bills,” News Journal, June 30, 2023, https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/30/delaware-legislature-bond-bill-grant-in-aid-house-democrats-ok-llc-voting-bill/70372196007/

[3]“State General Fund, Revenue by Category (FY 2022-FY 2024),” Delaware Fiscal Notebook: 2023 Edition (Delaware Department of Finance), Section 2, p. 32, https://finance.delaware.gov/financial-reports/delaware-fiscal-notebook/.

In my calculation of the revenues generated by “The Franchise,” I include the corporate income tax, the franchise tax, the LLC/LP tax, business entity fees, “unclaimed property” (aka escheatment, aka Delaware skimming off of unused gift cards), and the bank franchise tax. 

For more on this system see: Hal Weitzman, What’s the Matter with Delaware?: How the First State Has Favored the Rich, Powerful, and Criminal―and How It Costs Us All (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022).