The colony question was why the colonies could have taxes directed directly to them... but not have a representative in Parliament.
It would be more like Puerto Rico having a tax imposed directly toward them... but not have a member in Congress.
The Parliament felt the levies realistic as the colonies were the ones that benefited from the military expenditure for the French and Indian War. The colonist argued as recognized citizens (which would be our format of resident) that they should not be singled out without representation.
They didn't of course have a problem with all those that paid the levies that were not allowed a say. Voting was a restricted right.
The shareholders... per court findings... are the owners of the corporation and own a share of each property the same as a deed that has both a husband and wife or two partners listed on it.
The finding that corporations could make political contributions was based on the fact that each shareholder had a First Amendment Right that could be used individually or collectively, and not be restricted.
So what your proposing is that voting should be a restricted right... which is what it currently is by only allowing residents to vote.
|