4 ms·
Hawaii just found a way around Citizens United. Other states are following
- xyst 5mo agoCitizens United might be cooked, finally.
- wanoir 5mo agoFascinating! But does this only apply if the company is incorporated in that particular state? If there is any state that doesn’t adopt the new law structure, then companies will just re-incorporate to that other state. Of course, not every company may find it worthwhile to do that. So on the whole, it will probably mean companies that aren’t that involved in political spending will become even less involved. But, the largest spenders may find it worthwhile to re-incorporate so they can continue to do it.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- mindslight 5mo agoCorporations/LLCs generally have to explicitly register with every state they do business in. Presumably at this juncture they can be subject to the same restrictions. No idea how this concretely plays out with this law though.
- blevinstein 5mo ago[dead]
- sgc 5mo agoHawaii can only make laws for Hawaii. So I don't even think it could stop a Hawaiian corporation from spending political dollars in another state. But it can probably stop corporations from spending money in Hawaii even if they are not incorporated there. This law will make its way to the supreme Court relatively quickly I expect.
- wanoir 5mo ago[dead]
- verdverm 5mo agoMore info https://afj.org/article/corporate-power-reset-movement-updates-from-the-states/ https://afj.org/article/corporate-power-reset-movement-updat... https://www.americanprogress.org/article/addressing-questions-surrounding-hawaiis-bold-move-to-undo-citizens-united/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/addressing-question...
- polski-g 5mo agoUnconstitutional on 14th amendment grounds and first amendment grounds. They are privileging speech rights from some groups over other groups (unions v corps).
- mgh95 5mo agoNot necessarily. Unions are typically organized as a not-for-profit. The legislation acts on all entities including unions.
- mindslight 5mo agoRepeat after me: Corporations and LLCs are not individuals. Corporations and LLCs are government creations. Corporations and LLCs do not have natural rights.
- gruez 5mo ago>Repeat after me: Corporations and LLCs are not individuals. Corporations and LLCs are government creations. They are however, groups of individuals.
- mindslight 5mo agoI know that's part of the Supreme Council's current justification for why corpos deserve natural rights, but I don't really see what it actually has to do with anything. Regardless of how corpos might be regulated, the individuals associated with a corpo are all still capable of exercising their free speech rights in their own individual capacity. Declaring that the government-created legal entity should not be able to direct individuals to speak a certain way fundamentally preserves those individuals' rights. The corpo's owners are also still able to freely speak on the corpo's interests using their own individual rights.
- Arodex 5mo agoYeah, and those individuals already have rights. I don't know why you think the group itself should have rights too on top of it. Should we give corporations the right to vote? Should its members would have double voting rights?
- LocalH 5mo agoCorporations, as an entity, deserve no Constitutional rights. Only the individuals that make them up, and as individuals, not as a group.
- tanseydavid 5mo ago"Corporations are people" should be the example quote under the definition of "Gaslighting".
- BizarroLand 5mo agoIf corporations are people, and they kill someone, why do they only have to pay a fine and/or possibly elect certain employees to go to prison? I can't poison a billion+ people like monsanto did and then pay a portion of the profits as restitution. If I poison 1 person I go to jail for life.
- upboundspiral 5mo agoStories like this one, though rare, often remind me that there is hope, and that society is not static. That even though there is corruption, and setbacks, by continuously pursuing a goal we can slowly claw our way towards a better tomorrow.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- bzmrgonz 5mo agoWe have to do something tho. Today I was thinking out loud how it would be awesome if we could build a middle ground party around mamdani and company, along with like minded individuals. Sure he couldn't run for President, but what if the Party was different in it's constitutional structure. What I'd party power was divided into two heads, chairman(who vehemently defends the brand), and the political leader (charismatic figure dujur). This setup would mimic nature, close to perfect ecosystems in nature make use of antagonistic forces to maintain balances and preserve environment. This thir party would exist smack in the middle of the spectrum. Let the Oligarchs have the republican party, and let the corporatist/wall-street/speculators have the Democratic party. The Pleb/people can build a new modern real and functional party in 2026. Why Mamdani?? He just achieved what seems like an impossible fiscal feat, in your face Bezos and his bold claim that taxing the Rich won't make a difference. Honestly guys, the Mandani movement has gained cosmic gravity power with that move, I'm talking probably surpassing Bill Clinton's mobilization and even the legendary "yes we can" of Obama fame. Even if he cannot run for President. We'll make him Governor of the new Moderate Centric Progressive People's Party. First constitutional commandment: Though shalt not take candy from Corporations.
- metalman 5mo agohigh school, something, magna carta seperation of church and state, something, something NOW, we need a seperation of business from state, where state regulation is explisetely antagonistic to mega business/bank acumulation of assets/capital. It has to happen, and soon, or China, which maintains an actual functional central government, will thrive, while we decend further into a new dark age.
- burnt-resistor 5mo agoSeparation between wealth and church and journalism and state.