[MattCruikshank]

I was daydreaming about, picture if a corporation buys an entire state.

Say, Wyoming or West Virginia. Gemini guesses $180 billion to $250 billion.

With that investment, they'd get to control who lives in the state.

So, then the corporation gets to control who the Governor is. And the two Senators, and the seat in the Congress.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a single Senator have just a tremendous amount of power to block basically any legislation? With pocket vetoes, or silent filibusters?

Granted, actually buying a Senator is probably cheaper by a few orders of magnitude.

[ceejayoz]

Senators can't veto, and filibusters require 40 other Senators to play ball.

The Constitution also overrides any attempt to prevent interstate migration.

[bwestergard]

"The Constitution also overrides any attempt to prevent interstate migration."

Sure, but if there is no where you can legally stay, because the sole landowner prohibits it, how do you migrate?

[ceejayoz]

Sure, if we ignore how we get to "the sole landowner" scenario, which is a big hole in the thought experiment.

[kjkjadksj]

Look up Vernon CA history. It is pretty much this where there are a couple city owned residential properties, rest of city is nearly purely industrial, and tenancy of these tightly controlled to shape local election outcomes.

[ceejayoz]

Same deal for Disney World until 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Florida_Tourism_Oversi...

[dfxm12]

FWIW, you have a risk of losing your senator every 6 years, and senators don't have power in local matters.

Plus, the way things are going with conservatives pushing hard for federalism, owning local matters could become more important, anyway. You might be onto something...