Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBGpEcPrbso

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/addressing-questions-surrounding-hawaiis-bold-move-to-undo-citizens-united/

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYSEGhzgHKv/

CONTACT YOUR STATE LEVEL REPRESENTATIVE NOW!!

https://www.ncsl.org/legislative-leaders/state-legislative-leaders

The power to create and limit corporations has been the exclusive power of States for 200 years and upheld multiple times in SCOTUS.

Lets fuckin GO!

Devils advocate:

You're also sure it will be upheld under this SCOTUS?

It is in conference committee now, one step away from Gov. Josh Green’s (D) desk.

Note that the bill is out of conference committee now (with these changes) and was signed on 14 May.

Obviously not but wtf are they gonna do about it? They can't reign in a senile clown. As if they're gonna do anything California or New York gives a fuck about at this point.

Absolutely based. Great job Hawaii!

BASED AF

This is a terrific model for the other states.

SCOTUS will not have time for this before the midterms. So still a win for now.

What are they going to do?

"Corporations are people as per already established rulings."

"Political contributions are considered speech as per already established rulings."

"Hawaii is taking away poor poor corporations right to free speech under the first amendment, therefore it's unconstitutional and will be made null and void. Have fun shoveling money at your chosen candidates corporations! Don't forget my paycheck!"

Latest last week tonight is An eye opener on what they can really do when pressed by time and don't give a fuck.

The "Shadow docket" says hi.

In this instance it isn't law yet so I doubt there will be a rush to get to the SCOTUS yet, but the shadow docket is their favorite go-to with this administration to rush through whatever ruling they deem will help Republicans important.

As a non-USAian and not a lawyer, what is the difference between power and speech? Isn't removing the power to "speak" (donating money) not an infringement on "free speech"?

Edit: The article OP shared helped

1. Doesn’t this violate Citizens United?

No. As Dean Soifer put it: Citizens United “struck down a federal regulation that prohibited an already-empowered corporation from spending its resources in elections. Neither that case nor any other has addressed whether a state must grant political spending power in the first place.”

It's like bring born without a mouth: you can't speak so there's nothing to prevent --> no infringement on "free speech".

Good question. TLDR speech is expression not capability

Corporations are legal entities created by the government whose jurisdiction they operate. As such everything they are allowed to do is fundamentally authorized by the state that creates them.

The video in the main link actually does a fantastic job of explaining this if you watch it through. Here is the relevant part to your question.

https://youtu.be/oBGpEcPrbso?t=212

Thanks, the article helped more than the video :)

Thanks for sharing both.

Yea I prefer reading as well!

We'll see how it goes. Politics in Hawaii are very.. different that the continent. There are very entrenched power structures still in place from the kidnapping of Queen Liluokalani. Effectively the same sugar planter families responsible for the coup still largely control business and politics on the islands. And they were eugenics practicing but jobs looking to maintain a plantation system modeled after slave systems in the American South and the Caribbean, complete with racial heirarchies and the Master and Servants act. The impacts of that history get largely glazed over with lei stands and Aloha.

Most people outside of the islands probably don't know terms like "Asian settler colonialism" or recognize that in large part, the modern Hawaiian sovereignty movement is as rightwing and reactionary as the boogalou boys, and as kookie as the sovcits movement. Hawaii might be a blue state but it's hardly a monolith.

Also, Green, Schatz and Case all suck massively. I can't find any one to run to replace Case.

Do this to USA? And what gun, self driving and AI companies will do after?

I'm sorry I don't follow.

If you don't stop these companies will infiltrate politicians with money to pass lows in their favour, so they make even more money.

Love it.

Just kinda sucks that your rights are dependent on your zip code here in the US.

All the way up until the US Supreme shuts that down

Minorities have had to deal with this since about the 1500s.

Hawaii is a Republican state but somewhat progressive. And so is Alaska.

https://youtu.be/oBGpEcPrbso?t=212

Don't wanna be the party popper, but corporations will still find a way. It would just happen more covertly.

Sure but the current supreme court is openly corrupt. But who knows how far they are willing to go.

Guessing it will be something like a "donate and we'll compensate that donation y%", where y might even exceed 100, or maybe even just a vague "if x candidate wins, we'll be doing so well everyone will probably get a raise".

People are allowed to create independent campaigns for candidates as long as they don't coordinate with the official campaign. These independent campaigns can spend unlimited money and are protected by the first amendment since citizens united passed. But most people dont want to go through the hassle of creating a campaign.

What Hawaii has done will stop PACs and is a big step to stop dark money.

Fully agree. But what is the enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS to make the states repeal these laws if they indeed pass them?

Constitutional power is fundamentally different from the legal precedents SCOTUS has been overturning. Violating the constitutional right of a state could set a new precedent of State Supreme Courts ruling SCOTUS decisions illegitimate -based on constructional law.

I just don't see what SCOTUS can do about it other than wag their corrupt fingers in the air.

I am just saying what happened over the table will start happening under the table. I come from third world, I am just uttering what I see here

I don't know, I don't think we had zip codes in the 1500s...?

That has been how things have in been done in the US for almost a century

Ugh, Instagram. Would love to watch it but I'm not using that garbage platform.

Corporations literally just won the right to straight up vote in elections in Delaware…

Unfortunately I can't find a clip of her speech anywhere else online.

Yes, that's why Hawaii is doing this--to stop that.

I mean, personally I'm glad I at least have rights in my state rather than being stuck with the lowest common denominator of bigoted shitbag decision making.

I'm glad for you.

Still shitty that so many in this country don't.

And you're almost certainly correct, but honestly that would still be an improvement to legalized corruption.

But what is the enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS to make the states repeal these laws if they indeed pass them?

When it comes to the federal government, the answer to "what are they gonna do about it?" is basically always "They're going to use violence." Bush and Obama both raided cannabis dispensaries in legal states.

Granted I'm not sure exactly what they'd target in this case and it would create even more public backlash, so maybe there's a chance that this change survives.

Not sure what the downvotes are for unless they just don't like having a video as a response.

I'm a bit confused on the language because he says the state the corporation was created in give them their rights, so wouldn't any corporation not from that state be able to spend anyway?

Meanwhile, Delaware is making it so corporations can vote there.

Which bill are you referring to?

Quick search, I found this from Reuters

Always has been 🔫

POTUS has already played that card and the American people saw right through it.

like how is SCOTUS going to force the 4th and 12th largest economies in the world (California & New York) to do anything? Especially if other states join them.

If they use Economic retribution Canada will step the fuck in and make exclusive trade deals.

IMO if states wanted to repel federal agencies, they could.

so wouldn't any corporation not from that state be able to spend anyway?

I believe you are correct. This is why as many states as possible need to follow suit.

I didn't down vote, but I really would prefer text