10 ms·

Hawaii passes law bypassing Citizens United, governor signs it

57 points by pzxc 5mo ago

pzxc 5mo ago
First state in the nation to do it (a few others are trying), a few days ago the Hawaii legislature passed, and today the Governor signed, a bill saying that CORPORATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO BUY POLITICAL ADS This takes PAC and SuperPAC money out of politics (at least in Hawaii) and gets around the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United vs FEC.
- zeusdclxvi 5mo ago
  No it doesnt, it will not be upheld in court, as the Democratic Hawaiian AG even argues in the article
- brg 5mo ago
  Does this extend to the GOP and DNC? They are both corporations, and politics may be a lot better if they were not able to advertise.
- AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
  "Gets around"? Or places a state restriction on what the Supreme Court is going to consider to be "free speech"? I expect this to be appealed to the Supreme Court, and for it to be ruled unconstitutional there.
java-man 5mo ago
This should be in the U.S. Constitution.
- pstuart 5mo ago
  Aside from the change in the economic landscape, there's also the fact that they wrote it with the elite in mind (white male property owners), so they already had complete control.
  - nielsbot 5mo ago
    But now we know better
    - pstuart 5mo ago
      At least voting has opened up to the general public. The pity there is that misinformation, tribalism, and ignorance does not make for a well-informed voter, and that problem is just getting worse.
- IcyWindows 5mo ago
  Individuals should be able to get together and crowd fund a movie about a political figure without the government stopping them.
  - nielsbot 5mo ago
    Are you saying corporations and PACs buying ads is the same as people pooling their monies to fund a movie?
    - uqual 5mo ago
      Pretty much, yes. A shareholder (i.e. part owner of the corporation) has chosen to "peaceably assemble" with other like minded individuals by buying stock. They have elected representatives (directors on the board of directors) to further the interests of the group. Sometimes the group's interests include political issues. For example directors of Widget Corp may well want to promote a candidate running against the candidate running on a "Ban Widgets because they are 'addictive'" platform. This is no different than people joining together to support candidates who are pro-choice or pro-"life". They pay dues and make donations to an organization (such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund) which supports the individual's interests. The organization then decides who to support and makes donations or otherwise advance those those candidates' campaigns through a PAC. In some cases some of those individuals also make "in kind" contributions under the direct organized umbrella of the political entity (such as spending hours "door knocking" or "phone banking") that, combined with their cash donations to the candidate, exceed the $3,500 individual contribution limit. Just because one assembled with others to further their financial interests doesn't suddenly mute them or take away their First Amendment rights. For example, some donate to the DSA because they think they or their family will benefit financially if the DSA candidates get elected and can push through certain legislation. Surely that their interest is, at least in part, financial does not mute them.
      - 7e 5mo ago
        You are confusing non-profits with for-profit corporations. For profit corporations (the kind with shareholders) are legally required to behave selfishly (the profit motive) which means, in practice, that corporations are their own agents which act independently of the shareholder. That’s because corporate board members and executives would be personally liable if they did anything but allow the corporation to act like a raging sociopath. That’s the definition of “fiduciary duty”. Corporations are, in effect, autonomous, unaligned evil AIs.
- uqual 5mo ago
  One can certainly propose a Constitutional Convention and get two-thirds the state legislatures to agree or convince two-thirds of the US Senators and two-thirds of the US Representatives to advance an amendment to effectively eliminate the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. But I predict it will be tough sledding and even if that's successful, getting three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify the resulting modifications will be even harder. Although, incumbents might like the idea as it would increase their job security.

57 points by pzxc 5mo ago

pzxc 5mo ago

First state in the nation to do it (a few others are trying), a few days ago the Hawaii legislature passed, and today the Governor signed, a bill saying that CORPORATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO BUY POLITICAL ADS This takes PAC and SuperPAC money out of politics (at least in Hawaii) and gets around the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United vs FEC.

zeusdclxvi 5mo ago
No it doesnt, it will not be upheld in court, as the Democratic Hawaiian AG even argues in the article
brg 5mo ago
Does this extend to the GOP and DNC? They are both corporations, and politics may be a lot better if they were not able to advertise.
AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
"Gets around"? Or places a state restriction on what the Supreme Court is going to consider to be "free speech"? I expect this to be appealed to the Supreme Court, and for it to be ruled unconstitutional there.

java-man 5mo ago

This should be in the U.S. Constitution.

pstuart 5mo ago
Aside from the change in the economic landscape, there's also the fact that they wrote it with the elite in mind (white male property owners), so they already had complete control.
- nielsbot 5mo ago
  But now we know better
  - pstuart 5mo ago
    At least voting has opened up to the general public. The pity there is that misinformation, tribalism, and ignorance does not make for a well-informed voter, and that problem is just getting worse.
IcyWindows 5mo ago
Individuals should be able to get together and crowd fund a movie about a political figure without the government stopping them.
- nielsbot 5mo ago
  Are you saying corporations and PACs buying ads is the same as people pooling their monies to fund a movie?
  - uqual 5mo ago
    Pretty much, yes. A shareholder (i.e. part owner of the corporation) has chosen to "peaceably assemble" with other like minded individuals by buying stock. They have elected representatives (directors on the board of directors) to further the interests of the group. Sometimes the group's interests include political issues. For example directors of Widget Corp may well want to promote a candidate running against the candidate running on a "Ban Widgets because they are 'addictive'" platform. This is no different than people joining together to support candidates who are pro-choice or pro-"life". They pay dues and make donations to an organization (such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund) which supports the individual's interests. The organization then decides who to support and makes donations or otherwise advance those those candidates' campaigns through a PAC. In some cases some of those individuals also make "in kind" contributions under the direct organized umbrella of the political entity (such as spending hours "door knocking" or "phone banking") that, combined with their cash donations to the candidate, exceed the $3,500 individual contribution limit. Just because one assembled with others to further their financial interests doesn't suddenly mute them or take away their First Amendment rights. For example, some donate to the DSA because they think they or their family will benefit financially if the DSA candidates get elected and can push through certain legislation. Surely that their interest is, at least in part, financial does not mute them.
    - 7e 5mo ago
      You are confusing non-profits with for-profit corporations. For profit corporations (the kind with shareholders) are legally required to behave selfishly (the profit motive) which means, in practice, that corporations are their own agents which act independently of the shareholder. That’s because corporate board members and executives would be personally liable if they did anything but allow the corporation to act like a raging sociopath. That’s the definition of “fiduciary duty”. Corporations are, in effect, autonomous, unaligned evil AIs.
uqual 5mo ago
One can certainly propose a Constitutional Convention and get two-thirds the state legislatures to agree or convince two-thirds of the US Senators and two-thirds of the US Representatives to advance an amendment to effectively eliminate the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. But I predict it will be tough sledding and even if that's successful, getting three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify the resulting modifications will be even harder. Although, incumbents might like the idea as it would increase their job security.