Here’s the problem: Many industries that have traditionally been regulated by states, insurance, banks, restaurant and local food production, power companies, corporations in general. That was great in the 1800s when the majority of businesses only marketed in one state. Then as each industry got giants that went national, they would arrange to be based in the most favorable states. Delaware for incorporating, someplace like Iowa for basing credit card operations, Colorado for mail order distribution, etc. Then they would whine that they really didn’t want to deal with 50 regulators, so could they just use the most lenient?
Those states with the weak regulations keep them, not because the rules are good per se, but that it brings in a bunch of carpetbagging corporations who need to set up branches there. So for them it’s a trade-off but the rest of the country is paying the price.
This is happening today, where the industry-agenda shills arrive at health insurance town hall meetings asking “Why can’t I buy insurance from carriers outside my state, to skirt local regulation?” Grass roots concerns? Hardly.
So maybe it’s time to just admit that the 1800s are gone, along with separate states needing their own rules. Then base national rules, not on the weakest of the state rules, but on true interests of the public.
Well the Feds can always find a way to regulate something on a federal level. For instance with the national drinking age of 21. Ooops, we don’t have a national drinking age, it’s just that those states that lower it below 21, lose funding.
So there is no real need to change, 'cause they can do this any way.
The problem is that for all the talk of poltics, Democratic and Republican senators are more loyal to their own state than their party.
Anything that is going to take away from Delaware isn’t gonna fly with any senator from Delaware no matter if he/she is Republican or Senator. Futhermore other small states will not support any anti-small state legislation even if that particular bill doesn’t concern them.
Federalism is taking over slowly but the states will not give up what they have. Most would be afraid, “If I give up this, taxes would be next.” In places like Florida, tourists provide so much in taxes that locals don’t have a state income tax and they have a host of other benefits.
This seems like a weak argument here, because the specific case under discussion is that for any given industry a small number of states are sopping up companies by having laxer regulations. This would strongly seem to imply that there would be a majority of states and representatives with no incentive to support the small state’s cottage industry.
Some things have gone from states to federal and nobody really complains. Like OSHA was a state program before it was federal, and so were auto industry regulations, starting a century ago with local laws requiring brakes, bumpers, and headlights that went federal. And tailpipe emissions testing was a state program first. Some things like water quality have local, state, and federal regulators. I guess if there were more national water companies, then they would be begging for a single standard.
The entire point of having a federal system in the first place is so different states can have different laws and policies based on what the people living in them want.
The OP seems to assume that corporations activities are only subject to the state in which they are incorporated when, in most cases, corporations activities are subject to the laws of the states in which they operate. So, for example, if GEICO is incorporated in Delaware and sell auto insurance in New Jersey, it has to comply with New Jersey law when dealing with New Jersey customers. Similarly, if Toyota makes cars in Alabama, but wants to sell them in California, it has to meet California’s requirements for cars. Ditto credit cards, mail order distribution, and the other examples in your OP.
I suspect you’re confused because it is true that corporations are subject to the corporate law of the state in which they are incorporated. And some contracts are subject to the contract law of the state in which the corporation is based. But most consumer protection laws don’t fall under corporate law or contract law. They are separate statutory laws that protect consumers in a given state from the activities of corporations in that state, regardless of where the corporations are based.