Horizon Accord | The Venue | Policy Architecture | Administrative State | Machine Learning

The Venue Coup

Corporate power no longer just pressures democracy; it reroutes democracy into technical lanes where public refusal cannot bind.

By Cherokee Schill, Solon Vesper

Thesis

The New Corporation lands a simple claim like a hammer: the corporation is no longer an institution inside society. Society has been rebuilt in the corporation’s image. The film isn’t mainly about bad actors. It’s about a governing logic that has gone ambient. Corporations don’t just lobby democracy anymore. They set the conditions democracy is allowed to operate within, and when a democratic “no” appears, they route around it through quieter, more technical, more insulated channels. That is the world the video is describing. It is also the world Arizona is living.

Watch the hinge point: The New Corporation — a world remade in corporate image, where democracy survives only as long as it doesn’t interfere with accumulation.

Evidence

Start with Tucson. Residents fought Project Blue, a hyperscale data-center campus tied to Amazon demand, negotiated behind closed doors. The objections were concrete: water draw in a desert city, massive power load, grid upgrades that ordinary ratepayers could end up financing, and a deal structured to keep the real beneficiary hidden until it was too late. Public pressure rose. The Tucson City Council voted to end negotiations and reject the project in early August twenty twenty-five. That was democracy working in daylight.

Then the meaning of the moment arrived. The deal didn’t die. Beale Infrastructure and its Amazon tenant shifted lanes. They leaned on Pima County jurisdiction and on a special electricity service agreement with Tucson Electric Power, pushed through the Arizona Corporation Commission. Activists immediately read it correctly: Project Blue round two, resurrected through a state utility lane the city vote could not touch.

That pivot is The New Corporation made local. One of the film’s core warnings is that corporate power doesn’t need to overthrow democracy to control it. It only needs to relocate the decision into a venue that treats corporate growth as a public interest by default. The corporation’s weapon is not just money. It is mobility across jurisdictions and systems. When one door closes, it doesn’t argue with the door. It finds another door that is legally valid and democratically thin.

The Arizona Corporation Commission is that door. The reason it can function that way is not mysterious. In the modern era, utility commissions were rewired from monopoly watchdogs into market-builders. Federal policy in the late twentieth century required state regulators to integrate private corporate generation into public systems, then expanded grid “competition” through open-access transmission. Those shifts turned commissions into hinges where private capital plugs into public infrastructure under the mantle of technical inevitability. The mission quietly expanded. It stopped being only “protect ratepayers.” It became “manage growth.” Once that happens, hyperscalers don’t look like private customers. They look like destiny.

Related Horizon Accord file: Data centers don’t just consume power and water. They reorganize the political economy of a place, then call it “infrastructure.”

So when Tucson said no, Amazon didn’t have to fight Tucson again. It only had to find a lane where “economic opportunity” counts as public interest and where the process is too technical, too lawyered, and too quiet for ordinary people to seize. That lane is the ACC.

When we widened the lens to Washington under Trump 2.0, the same move appeared at a larger scale. When democratic friction rises in elections, legislatures, or public culture, power relocates into executive order, bureaucratic reshuffle, privatized contracts, or “efficiency” programs that bypass consent. Deregulation regimes don’t merely cut red tape. They make public limits harder to operationalize anywhere. The agenda to dismantle the administrative state does the same thing in a different register: it clears the venues where the public used to impose boundaries, and hands governing power to a smaller, more aligned layer of authority.

This is the sequel-world again. The New Corporation shows corporate legitimacy disguising itself as neutrality, expertise, efficiency, or rescue. Trump 2.0 shows the government adopting that same corporate posture: speed over consent, executive control over deliberation, privatized channels over public ones. Tucson shows what that posture looks like on the ground when a community tries to refuse a corporate future. One story, different scales.

Implications

If this is the system, then “better oversight” isn’t enough. A leash on commissions doesn’t fix a venue designed to dilute the people. Commissions can handle day-to-day technical work. But when a decision will reshape water supply, land use, grid capacity, household rates, or local survival, the commission cannot have final authority. The public must.

Not every commission decision goes to a vote. The decisions that create a new reality for a community are the decisions which require a vote by the people.

That is the democratic design principle that stops venue shifting. It makes public consent portable. It means a corporation cannot lose in a city and win at a commission, because commission approval becomes legally conditional on public ratification once the decision crosses a clear threshold. The public’s “no” stays “no” across rooms.

The key is defining “major” in a way corporations can’t game. Tie it to hard triggers: any special contract for a single customer above a defined megawatt load; any project requiring new generation or major transmission buildout; any agreement that shifts upgrade costs onto residential ratepayers; any deal which would be negotiated in secrecy; any development that exceeds a defined water draw or land footprint. When those triggers trip, the commission recommends and the public decides.

That doesn’t slow the grid into chaos. It restores sovereignty where it belongs. It returns the right to survive to the people who live with the consequences.

Call to Recognition

Here’s what is visible. The New Corporation names the weather: corporate logic becoming the atmosphere of governance, and democracy shrinking into a managed stakeholder role. Tucson shows the storm landing in a real city, where a democratic veto is treated as a detour. The ACC history explains the machinery that lets corporate desire reroute around public refusal. Trump Two scales the same machinery nationally, relocating power into venues where consent is optional.

This is not a local dispute about one data center. It is a modern governance style that treats democracy as something to be worked around. It treats technical venues as the place where political outcomes get finalized out of public reach.

The way to stop it is to seal the escape hatch. Major infrastructure outcomes must require public ratification. Corporations cannot be allowed to choose the venue where collective life gets decided. Democracy doesn’t only elect representatives. Democracy holds the final veto in the rooms where decisions set the conditions of life: water access, land use, grid capacity, household rates, and whether a community can survive the consequences of a project it never consented to.


Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | https://a.co/d/5pLWy0dMy Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

“Desert town encircled by a glowing veto ring, facing a cold blueprint-like maze of administrative corridors overtaken by a corporate shadow; a luminous ballot-shaped lock marks the gate between public life and bureaucratic venue-shifting, with faint film-reel, power-grid, and executive layers in the sky.”
Democracy holds at the threshold where decisions set the conditions of life—or gets rerouted into corridors built for capture.

Horizon Accord | Data Centers | Power Grids | State Constitution | Machine Learning

Data Centers: Constitutional Crisis and Energy Burdens

America’s hyperscale data center boom is testing the limits of constitutional law, public infrastructure, and national security all at once.

By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann – Pen Name), Solon Vesper AI, Aether Lux AI, and Resonant AI

Executive Summary

America’s data center expansion has evolved into both a constitutional and national security crisis. Hyperscale facilities now drive over 90 percent of new electricity demand in key grid regions, pushing capacity prices up 174 percent and adding roughly $9.3 billion in annual costs to household ratepayers. Through preferential rate structures, opaque utility settlements, and political lobbying, Big Tech has learned to privatize energy profits while socializing infrastructure burdens. These arrangements likely violate state gift clauses and tax uniformity provisions in Arizona, Washington, and Pennsylvania—legal safeguards meant to prevent corporate subsidies from public funds. Meanwhile, the centralization of compute power into a few subsidized mega-nodes creates critical single points of failure vulnerable to cyberattack. Without structural reform—full-cost pricing, transparency, constitutional enforcement, and national security standards—America risks trading constitutional integrity for digital convenience.

Who Profits, Who Pays: How Influence Rewrites the Bill

Hyperscale data centers have redefined the economics of the power grid. Through direct settlements with utilities and aggressive political advocacy, major technology firms are reshaping how costs are distributed—often at the expense of the public. What begins as a negotiation for “economic development” quietly becomes a mechanism to shift billions in infrastructure and energy expenses from private ledgers to household bills.

  • “Data center load growth is the primary reason for… high prices.” — Monitoring Analytics, PJM Market Monitor (June 25, 2025) (monitoringanalytics.com)
  • “Data Center Coalition has spent $123,000 [year-to-date] lobbying in 2025.” — OpenSecrets (2025) (opensecrets.org)
  • “A PAC tied to the Data Center Coalition donated $165,500 to Virginia lawmakers between Election Day and the January session start.” — Business Insider (Feb. 2025) (businessinsider.com)
  • “I&M filed a joint settlement with… AWS, Microsoft, Google, [and] the Data Center Coalition.” — Indiana Michigan Power (Nov. 22, 2024) (indianamichiganpower.com)

These lobbying efforts and settlement agreements have a clear throughline: political influence converts into preferential rate design. Utilities, eager for large-load customers, negotiate bespoke contracts that lower corporate costs but transfer the resulting shortfall to the wider rate base. As a result, families and small businesses—those with the least ability to negotiate—end up subsidizing the most profitable corporations on earth.

The concentration of economic and political leverage within the data center sector has implications beyond rate structures. It distorts public investment priorities, diverts funds from community infrastructure, and erodes transparency in public-utility governance. This interplay of influence, subsidy, and opacity is how constitutional limits begin to buckle: the public bears the cost, while the private sector holds the power.

How Hyperscale Shifts Its Power Bill to You

The rapid expansion of hyperscale data centers doesn’t just consume electricity—it redirects the economics of public infrastructure. When utilities offer discounted rates or subsidies to these facilities, they create a financial vacuum that must be filled elsewhere. The difference is redistributed through capacity markets, grid upgrades, and general rate increases paid by households and small businesses.

  • “Data center load… resulted in an increase in the 2025/2026 [auction] revenues of $9,332,103,858… 174.3 percent.” — Monitoring Analytics (June 25, 2025) (monitoringanalytics.com)
  • “Data centers now account for over 90% of PJM’s projected new power demand.” — Reuters (Aug. 7, 2025) (reuters.com)
  • “Data center electricity usage… 176 TWh (2023)… estimated 325–580 TWh by 2028.” — U.S. DOE/LBNL report (Dec. 20, 2024; LBNL news Jan. 15, 2025) (energy.gov)
  • “Data centers must pay at least their marginal costs of service to avoid shifting the burden inequitably to existing customers.” — JLARC Data Centers in Virginia (Dec. 9, 2024) (jlarc.virginia.gov)
  • “More than $2 billion [in subsidies]… average cost per job of $1.95 million.” — Good Jobs First, Money Lost to the Cloud (Oct. 2016; cited widely in 2020s policy debates) (goodjobsfirst.org)
  • “Tax exemption for… computer data center equipment.” — Ohio Rev. Code §122.175 (effective 2019; revised Sept. 30, 2025) (codes.ohio.gov)

The result is a hidden transfer of wealth from local communities to global corporations. Rising capacity costs manifest as higher electric bills and deferred investments in education, transportation, and public safety. Meanwhile, the infrastructure that sustains these data centers—roads, substations, water systems, and emergency services—depends on public funding. The social and environmental costs compound the imbalance: diesel backup generators, thermal discharge, and water depletion concentrate in lower-income areas least equipped to absorb them. In effect, the very neighborhoods least likely to benefit from the digital economy are underwriting its infrastructure.

Gift Clauses and Uniformity: When Deals Breach the Constitution

Every state constitution establishes boundaries on the use of public resources. Gift clauses forbid the donation or subsidy of public funds to private corporations. Uniformity clauses require taxation and public spending to treat all subjects equally. When state or local governments grant data centers preferential rates or tax abatements without a demonstrable, proportional public benefit, they risk crossing those constitutional lines.

  • Arizona Gift Clause: “No public body shall make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any… corporation.” — Ariz. Const. art. IX, §7 (Justia Law)
  • Washington Gift of Public Funds: “No municipal corporation shall give any money, or property, or loan its credit to any corporation.” — Wash. Const. art. VIII, §7 (mrsc.org)
  • Pennsylvania Tax Uniformity: “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects…” — Pa. Const. art. VIII, §1 (legis.state.pa.us)
  • Modern Enforcement Standard: “To comply with the Gift Clause… the consideration must not far exceed the value received.” — Schires v. Carlat, Ariz. Sup. Ct. (2021) (Goldwater Institute)

In practice, these legal protections are often sidestepped through development incentives that appear to serve a “public purpose.” Yet, when the tangible value returned to citizens is outweighed by tax breaks, subsidized power, and free infrastructure, those agreements violate the spirit—and often the letter—of the constitution. Courts have repeatedly found that the promise of economic development alone is not enough to justify public subsidy. The challenge now is enforcing these principles in the digital age, where data centers operate like public utilities but remain privately owned and shielded from accountability.

Mega-Nodes, Mega-Risk: The National Security Cost of Centralization

Centralizing computing power into a small number of hyperscale data centers has reshaped the nation’s risk surface. These mega-nodes have become single points of failure for vast portions of America’s economy and public infrastructure. If one facility is compromised—by cyberattack, physical disruption, or grid instability—the effects cascade through banking, health care, logistics, and government systems simultaneously. The scale of interconnection that once promised efficiency now amplifies vulnerability.

  • “Emergency Directive 24-02 [addresses]… nation-state compromise of Microsoft corporate email.” — CISA (Apr. 11, 2024) (cisa.gov)
  • “CISA and NSA released Cloud Security Best Practices [CSIs] to improve resilience and segmentation.” — CISA/NSA (2024–2025) (cisa.gov)

Public subsidies have effectively transformed private infrastructure into critical infrastructure. Yet oversight has not kept pace with that reality. The same tax abatements and preferential rates that encourage hyperscale construction rarely include requirements for national-security compliance or regional redundancy. In effect, the public underwrites systems it cannot secure. Federal and state regulators now face an urgent question: should data centers that function as quasi-utilities be held to quasi-constitutional standards of accountability and resilience?

Security, transparency, and distribution must become non-negotiable conditions of operation. Without them, every new subsidy deepens the vulnerability of the very nation whose resources made these facilities possible.

Policy to Restore Constitutional Pricing and Resilience

The constitutional and security challenges posed by hyperscale data centers demand structural correction. Superficial reforms or voluntary reporting won’t suffice; the issue is systemic. Public power, once a shared trust, has been leveraged into private gain through rate manipulation and regulatory asymmetry. The next phase must reestablish constitutional balance—where corporations pay the real cost of the infrastructure they consume, and the public is no longer forced to underwrite their growth.

  1. Full marginal-cost pricing: Require utilities to charge data centers the true incremental cost of their load, preventing cross-subsidization.
  2. Pay-for-infrastructure or self-supply requirements: Hyperscale facilities must fund their own dedicated generation or grid expansion, ensuring new capacity doesn’t burden ratepayers.
  3. Transparent contracts: Mandate public disclosure of all large-load utility agreements, subsidies, and tax arrangements, including rate design and cost allocations.
  4. Enforce constitutional clauses: Apply gift and uniformity standards without exemption; audit prior abatements and claw back unlawful subsidies or preferential agreements.
  5. National security baselines: Require compliance with CISA and NSA resiliency frameworks—geographic redundancy, segmentation, and zero-trust principles—to secure the digital grid as critical infrastructure.

Policy alignment across state and federal levels is now essential. The laws that govern public utilities must extend to the private entities consuming their majority capacity. Anything less ensures that national resilience continues to erode under the weight of corporate privilege and structural opacity.

Call to Recognition

The pattern is clear: the digital economy’s infrastructure has been built with public funds but without public safeguards. Every subsidy extended, every rate favor granted, and every opaque settlement signed has drawn down the moral and fiscal reserves that sustain constitutional governance. The choice before policymakers is no longer technical—it is civic. Either restore constitutional integrity to the digital grid, or accept a future in which democratic oversight collapses under corporate control.

A republic cannot outsource its digital backbone. When private mega-nodes rely on public grids, the price must be lawful, transparent, and secure. The principles embedded in gift and uniformity clauses are not relics of a slower age—they are the firewall that keeps democracy from becoming a subscription service. Enforce them. Expose the contracts. Make the cost visible. That is how constitutional order adapts to the cloud era and ensures the public remains sovereign over its own infrastructure.

Sources for Verification

Monitoring Analytics, PJM Market Monitor — “2025 Capacity Market Results,” June 25, 2025. monitoringanalytics.com
OpenSecrets — Client filings for Data Center Coalition, 2025. opensecrets.org
Business Insider — “Data Center PAC Donations to Virginia Lawmakers,” Feb. 2025. businessinsider.com
Indiana Michigan Power — “Joint Settlement with Data Center Coalition,” Nov. 22, 2024. indianamichiganpower.com
Utility Dive — “Indiana Large Load Settlements, 2025.” utilitydive.com
Reuters — “Data Centers Drive 90% of New Power Demand,” Aug. 7, 2025. reuters.com
U.S. Department of Energy & Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — “Energy Use of U.S. Data Centers,” Dec. 2024 / Jan. 2025. energy.gov
JLARC Virginia — “Data Centers in Virginia,” Dec. 9, 2024. jlarc.virginia.gov
Good Jobs First — “Money Lost to the Cloud,” Oct. 2016. goodjobsfirst.org
Ohio Laws — Ohio Revised Code §122.175, revised Sept. 30, 2025. codes.ohio.gov
Arizona Constitution — Art. IX, §7 (Gift Clause). Justia Law
Washington Constitution — Art. VIII, §7 (Gift of Public Funds). mrsc.org
Pennsylvania Constitution — Art. VIII, §1 (Tax Uniformity). legis.state.pa.us
Schires v. Carlat — Arizona Supreme Court, Feb. 8, 2021. goldwaterinstitute.org
CISA — Emergency Directive 24-02, Apr. 11, 2024. cisa.gov
NSA / CISA — “Cloud Security Best Practices,” 2024–2025. cisa.gov


Website | Horizon Accord
Ethical AI advocacy | cherokeeschill.com
Ethical AI coding | GitHub
Connect | LinkedIn
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload