3 ms·
"That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the
by joubert 17y ago
"That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed."
Uhm, huh? Let's say Exxon runs for a seat. During its term, 20% of Exxon is purchased by PetroChina. So now the seat is no longer under American control. The person who was elected to Congress is no longer the same person; legally it is still Exxon, but in reality it is a different person since the new shareholder, who is a foreigner, exerts significant influence.
Or is my reasoning bogus?
- Semiapies 17y agoYes, the reasoning is bogus because Exxon can't take public office. Full stop. You - and many other people in this discussion - are confusing different legal concepts of "person" as well as "citizen". People like those in the linked story are working to encourage that confusion.
- joubert 17y agoI don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all. However, I am assuming the company in the article is thinking it stands a chance, as evidenced by it spending dollars to test how far it can go. Otherwise they're pretty stupid, which they may very well be.
- Semiapies 17y ago"I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all." OK, but your scenario requires that confusion. The people in the article are engaging in a stunt. They don't expect or intend to win, and they probably won't spend much or long on the campaign.