Comment by faramarz

Undemocratic or capitalistic but with a cap?

If it were such that individual states with greater agency could negatively impact neighbouring states and in Chevrons original case, environment and agriculture, then it’s a dangerous precedent of opening up states to competitive market at the detriment greater societal impact and responsibilities. Both positive and negative but the incentives are there to push towards later in pursuit of fast profits and deferred responsibilities.

Am I making sense? States can compete for corporate interests, while we know full well who runs the senate: lobbyists with deep pockets.