Robinhood canceled a bunch of people's trades retroactively because it was harming the corporations that were shorting the stock.

It'll never be enforced, and the Hawaii Democrats know it. I guarantee you that before the year is out the USSC will rull from the shadow docket that this is unconstitutional. Like, what type of federal government do you think is in power right now?

Loopholes are a free pass when the judicial branch won't enforce the laws that stop it. All of that is great when everyone is acting in good faith, except the government doesn't act in good faith anymore.

Evil wins when good men do nothing.

SCOTUS/Judicial branch would not be the ones the ones enforcing the laws the states would.

A lot of companies are Delaware companies despite not being in Delaware.

that’s a lotta power you’re ceding to the state, mate

anarchism 😎

edit: think about it. only the state's cronies get to keep their money when their taxpayer-funded enterprise crashes and burns?

i don’t think democrats would like it

not you too ignoring that the video you posted says he signed on 14 may 😭

@KneeTitts@lemmy.world @Mulligrubs@lemmy.world

Likely due to state corporate taxes.

These state restrictions/etc on corporate powers are for all corporations who operate in the state regardless of what state they were originally incorporated in.

So AFACT any corporation can vote in delaware, not just delaware based ones.

I used to be a Libertarian, convinced by the whole idea of "government that governs least is the government that governs best" or whatever. But in that I was also exposed to the US Founder theories about government being a kind of "necessary evil." After awhile I came to realize that, yeah maybe government is a "necessary evil" but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and make that necessity something can work for us rather than against us. Which helped me see that Libertarianism is basically a grift to let wealth-hoarders maintain their addiction at the expense of everyone else. So yeah, bring on the Hawai'i Mamdani! I mean, the whole ahupua'a concept is based on equal distribution of resources and goods!

wait for the supreme court to overturn it because it "violates the free speech of companies" or sth

that's why we need states' rights, sothat we're resilient against the bullshit of the fed.gov. because let's face it, 90% of the fuck-ups happen at the fed.gov level. the municipality can do a lot of good. the city builds schools, the fed.gov goes to war with iraq.

mamdani paves the way. that's what we need in every city. taxes should be paid to the city, not to the fed.gov. that's what brings political power down to the lower level, closer to the people, holds politicians more directly accountable since they now live within walking distance of the population and every vote matters more on the smaller level.

Absolutely. I would encourage you to give the video a watch as this part directly addresses your concerns about 'violates free speech' and state rights.

It's a damn shame Mamdani is ineligible to run for president.

Shit's getting wild.

Delaware says corporations can vote.

Hawaii says corporations can go fuck themselves lol

They really should do this with a lot more activities, make gambling legal but illegal for any corporation to be involved in. That way a couple friends can make friendly wagers but huge corporations aren't ruining millions of lives through gambling addiction.

Instead we have it completely backwards, legal for corporations to take bets with a house advantage doesn't matter how many people gamble their rent money away, but then if joe schmoe has poker night at his house with a few friends, he's got to worry about the cops raiding his home.

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

Let's hope that the oligarchs that own the news we watch, the newspapers we read, and the streaming service we consume, stay kind and don't start using those platforms for spreading propaganda! Man I'd be so upset if it turns out that all this time I've been watching and reading propaganda and taking it as fact and basing my opinions on it.

Does Citizens United even matter that much anymore? We're at the point where individual billionaires are making massive campaign donations and even transparent bribes. Removing the ability for corporations to contribute to campaign finance just reveals one layer of dark money, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power of wealth in politics.

Even in all of those cases, I'm of the view that if it isn't a democratized organization, then it is at least a potential threat to democratized institutions.

It matters in that a lot of actors would rather remain private (as demonstrated by the very existence of super-PACs).

However, all of this money should be cut off from our elections. What other country does this? The USA has a constant campaign cycle and we're spending an unfathomable amount of money to pitch unpopular candidates. We can do that for free, believe it or not we don't need to buy advertising from FOX and NBC.

I'm not familiar with world-wide campaign financing rules, but it seems to me almost anything else would be preferable to corporate sponsorship and control of politics.

Your reply in "Hawaii just entirely removed corporations' power to spend money in politics. This could be a game changer for US democracy." was removed as personal attacks (rule d)2). Please don't chase such ego-matching lines of conversation under upliftingnews.

And that right can be expressly denied by states now!

I'm of the belief this changes nothing or makes things worse. Political advertising is very regulated (not that the US government enforces regulation). The money isnt going to disappear from the race it will shift from political to non political. Once its non political it opens up a lot more options for influence.

except all those democracies where its completely fine.

It would be better if the politicians wore patches on their sport coats showing who their sponsors are. Larger patches for larger donors

Such as?

Interesting that Democrats have become the party of state's rights now.

The more capitalism is limited, the better it is to live in those places. Unless of course the country is owned or populated by oligarchs, because their slaves probably don't tip the scales on the data that gets published.

They'll probably prefer it to the gallows. The people are really starting to get antsy.

It's always been a defensive redoubt for the party out of power. Very popular among Democrats during the Bush and Reagan years, too.

a couple friends can make friendly wagers

This was already legal.

The prohibition on gambling is predicated on a share of the winnings going to a House. Specifically, "bookmaking", where a broker arranged odds and returns on multiple parties. Regulated gambling is all predicated on state enforcement of fair betting procedures and machines with set odds.

Nobody was getting arrested for doing handshake bets on the Nicks playoff outcome. At the same time, no court was going to honor a lost bet as a debt owed to the winning party.

that was trump's plan all along :p

As someone who doesn’t speak legalese, are the changes significative? Does everything written in the article still apply?

you're saying they would be afraid of the gallows, for the sole purpose of saying they'd do it, which would mean that we wouldn't need to give them the gallows. that is one step away from saying we don't need the gallows because they'd do it by themselves. that is dangerous.

I think so. There's just one significant change that I don't think affects the main goal.

The law said that corporations had artificial-person rights, "the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs", including (but not limited to) those in a list. _Citizens United _ basically tacked electoral spending onto that list. The original bill would make the law say "[corporations will only have these rights that we say and nothing else]" followed by the original list. The version that was signed is much more like the original law; it said corporations had artificial-person rights other than electoral spending including (but not limited to) those in the original list.

There was also a later amendment that changed the effective date from 1 January to 1 July.

…being honest I didn’t really understand what the change entails but thanks anyway, I’m sure someone else with more knowledge in US law will find the answer useful!

Is it though? Is it fine for the majority of people in the world that there are a few countries that extract wealth from elsewhere so that their citizens can have a better life?

I mean yeah but why can't Nick charge 10$ a person to cover food drinks and service? That would be illegal, but a multinational conglomerate using the power of the state to ruin addicts' lives is encouraged.

why can’t Nick charge 10$ a person to cover food drinks and service?

You've just described how legal poker halls work.

Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa, the Americas

In other words, the entire world. Including the United States, which is part of the Americas, and whose democracy is perfectly healthy and completely uncorrupted by any effects of capitalism. /s

You can hate Trump all you want and I do but he is democratically elected and we'll have to wait until 2028 to see if that changes.

The problems with money (capital) in American politics started long before Trump. Even before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the doors to unlimited corporate spending in 2010, money was a stronger predictor of election outcomes than early polling and campaign finance laws had been eroding at least as far back as 1976.

Just beacause the person with the most votes is in office doesn't mean that everything is "just fine" - the process of how candidates are chosen, access to voters, media spin of their campaigns, districting, polling place access, polling station access (hours, location, laws around time off work to vote), early voting and mail-in rules - all affect the eventual outcome and all are completely broken in the US.

Is it still a democracy? Technically yes. But it's on life support, and it's the billionaires and major corporate donors that will decide whether and when to pull the plug.

We don't like videos as a response.