Newsome is a gormless coward but the state Congress is actually relatively progressive and has some amount of collective spine. Hell if that piss weasel Bianco or what's his name win there's a solid chance the California Congress would just impeach day one. The only reason Bianco probably isn't in a cell is because the Sheriff's have way too much leeway.

Jesus, no way? I can't look that one up, my brain can't handle it right now. Logging off the internet for the night...

not sure it will have any effect in federal politics but love it at the state level

I like that except they will definitely find a way to undercut that right quick just like they did with the GameStop stuff, illegally I might add

so, organizing people and doing stuff like that under the table to get around limits and such is the basis of a lot of different crimes.

Um, I think you mean the US overthrew their monarchy and annexed it.

But let's not forget the golden maxim of democracy: It's OK when WE do it!

Now would you like a nice pamphlet called "Russia BAD very very BAD"? We'll only put the Raytheon CorrectThink(^tm)^ beams on low! At first...

Citizens united was one of the worst things to happen to U.S. citizens.

$110 to file an LLC, plus $300/yr fee.

• Delaware has a turnout around 500k voters.
• Assume say 25% are absolute morons who will swallow any propaganda you put out.
• $41 million + recurring $112 million buys you enough corporate votes to win every vote in the state.
• Welcome to Shadowrun without all the fun parts.

Huh? Hawai'i is among the bluest states in general elections. What are you talking about? It's kind of famously a one-party state (source: I live in Hawai'i)

(Now, whether or not those who have a D next to their name are kind of closet Republicans is a different conversation)

It's wild how hard the West side of O'ahu went for Trump. I get that decades of Democrats not hardly doing anything for Kanaka Maoli is bound to breed resentment, but I cannot fathom how folks can think that Trump is somehow going to support Hawaiian sovereignty. I mean, da guy is actively trying to cut federal funding for things like Hawaiian Homelands and OHA. Lolo!

As for Green, Schatz, and Case... we deserve better.

I'm out here in the thick of it. Bout to head down to Makaha beach and watch sunset and drink a beer. Trump get one "Hawaii Strong" and they give'm plenty votes. Then we get Samantha Decorte, buggah dont do nothin. But I try to not even see how the Kanaka community is a monolith. Plenty ain't down with that "Don't mistake Aloha for strength" angry reactionary politics, but they a minority within the Kanaka community.

I think the biggest issue we face on the west side is something that even few Democrats are willing to address, which is that people here don't think government can work. They just don't believe its possible because they've never seen it. And fair enough right like I get it because I've also never seen a government that works for its people.

What I think we need is something like the Mandami race. We need to have a candidate, maybe for governor, but someone who is there to make the argument that Hawaii needs to be affordable so that local kine can stay local. Someone who is committed to the project of making government work for the people.

In Hawaii's two houses, only one rep. voted against it.

Hold for the supreme court overturning it in 4... 3...

I'm sure Clarence Thomas has a gift about it. Wait, did I say "gift?" What a silly thing to say. I meant "opinion."

It will once it gets appealed up to SCOTUS and the right wing bought & paid for majority slips it back over.

Kinda the point of state's rights

It doesn’t take effect until 2027. So they have plenty of time to overturn it and keep cheating for the midterm elections.

This is the next thing for the r/wallstreetbets folks should do! Put all that GME $$$ to good use!

It’s funny I was looking through my notifications and saw this one after replying to the other guy with my GME comment.

Genuinely wild that democracy is propped up by private industry to ensure their own interests. Its farcical.

The planet is fine (well, apart from the fact that it has that ugly smear that is 'Murica on it)

The civilised world sneers at 'Murica for good reason

We would like to isolate the US like you'd send a petulant toddler to their room

Can we just wipe Delaware off the map and replace it with Puerto Rico?

Oh no. It's not even new. WTF, Delaware?

Nonresident voting in local elections has been permitted ​in Fenwick Island since it was incorporated in 1953, according to the court ruling. In 2008, Delaware's General Assembly amended ‌the charter ⁠to allow non-resident voting by artificial entities, including corporations, partnerships, trusts and limited liability companies, which must be chartered in Delaware.

Several other towns in Delaware allow companies and other legal entities to vote in local elections if they own property in the municipality.

So not only is the state of DE a tax haven, and cravenly pro-corporate at that, but this would allow all those companies chartered there (with nothing more than a rented closet and PO Box) to continue to vote for the status quo. If the good people of that state wanted to vote these assholes out and/or make corporate voting illegal, it's possible that they no longer can.

I think the reason for it is if they had it take effect now it would be appealed to USSC and then stayed anyway.

A state can do that? That's AMAZING!

If this passes the courts, then this is a massive game changer. Blue states can do it, and once they start getting better, the Red states will want to it, and they can have the battle with the wealthy to remain corrupt. That will be fun to watch.

Primary those traitors.

Great!

Wait what did they do with the GameStop stuff? I haven’t heard of this.

Yeah. Makes sense. Still, should make the change effective immediately.

This is the equivalent of “we’re going to fix the problem next time”

Citizens United in Getting Fucked, amirite?

family/neighborhood/city/state/country/empire/hemisphere/world. Always weird to me where people draw the line. Bigger means more folks get to say what your rights are. Smaller means less people get the widely agreed rights.

It's certainly cheaper to bribe a handful of representatives than it is to bombard the entire population with propaganda.

Although it's wishful thinking to suggest they won't go back to that to get what they want.

PLEASE DO!

Well, if every state had the same laws we wouldn't have a fallback position. We thankfully have the option of pushing to change federal law when the opportunity arises, but as we've seen since the election there's a degree of flimsiness there. Having strong state-level legislation in places where it isn't too controversial preserves better policy through bad administrations. We can continue to serve as an example and build support, and it gives people somewhere to go if they need to get out of their own states.

Without more atomic and variable state laws, it would be much harder to make real progress at a national level. The EU's model of smaller nations banding together lends itself to a similar strategy. It means you can build consensus at the local level, show that what you want works, and build out from there.

I'd love to see more of the policies we have locally applied to a national level, but they certainly wouldn't get there if we didn't have a more isolated arena in which to develop them. Conservatives can take advantage of localized political development too, but they lack the benefit of not being evil.

Thankfully we can at least provide somewhere to go for many of them, and we will continue to serve as a rallying point for developing better policy at the national level when the opportunity arises.

It's almost like capitalism is inherently incompatible with democracy.

The reasoning explained in the article makes sense to me, but as a non-lawyer I've learned that lawyer logic is not always the same as the kind the rest of the universe operates on. But I sure hope this works!

Or every citizen to register ten corps each and fight back with more votes... Won't end well, no matter.

Apparently you also have to own land so average folks are hosed.

Can states ban corporations? That'd be nice.

There it is. 😐

Corporations are fundamentally state created entities. So in theory a state could do that.

But corporations aren't inherently bad. For instance Municipal Housing Corporations are usually the vehicle for producing rent-controlled affordable housing.

Not for profits are also corporations.

If we want to nationalize things like energy and internet away from the private sector we would still use corporations to do that.

Fuck ya LETS GOOOO

will the governor even sign?

And, how long till the corporations filthy lawyers find 20 loop holes to get around it?

Couple things.

When a corporation acts beyond the powers its state has granted, the act is ultra vires: outside the entity’s authority and void as a matter of law. The doctrine is older than the country.

• article

So basically loopholes aren't a free pass if the effective outcome is ultra vires than the action will be void by law.

The ones that do work would effectively be zero day exploits that the state legislature could patch. I would also expect state legislatures to uncover some of these loopholes during the process and preemptively amend their bills to prevent them.

Ban private corporations.

Or create new structures.

Its all made up!

We can change to suit our needs.

Maybe if enough of us do it they'll make something happen

That "something" is much more likely to be "partnering with Trump to have you labeled as a domestic terrorist and thrown in a concentration camp alongside all those immigrants with no criminal records" than "reforming the laws that allow them to engage in bribery and quid pro quo deals"

With "AI" and all these new mega scale data centers popping up, they'll be able to do both at the same time for half the price!