It doesn’t take effect until 2027. So they have plenty of time to overturn it and keep cheating for the midterm elections.
I think the reason for it is if they had it take effect now it would be appealed to USSC and then stayed anyway.
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?
Yeah. Makes sense. Still, should make the change effective immediately.
This is the equivalent of “we’re going to fix the problem next time”
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 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.
As someone who doesn’t speak legalese, are the changes significative? Does everything written in the article still apply?
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!
Absolutely based. Great job Hawaii!
Ugh, Instagram. Would love to watch it but I’m not using that garbage platform.
Unfortunately I can’t find a clip of her speech anywhere else online.
This is a terrific model for the other states.
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”?
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.
Thanks, the article helped more than the video :)
Thanks for sharing both.
Yea I prefer reading as well!
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.
Yes, that’s why Hawaii is doing this–to stop that.
Love it.
Just kinda sucks that your rights are dependent on your zip code here in the US.
Minorities have had to deal with this since about the 1500s.
I don’t know, I don’t think we had zip codes in the 1500s…?
The Spanish brought slaves to Florida in the early 1500s, but I doubt they would ha e been treated the same if they had escaped to other parts of what is now the US.
Uhh, I was just making a glib joke about specifically the “zip code” aspect of the statement…
Kinda the point of state’s rights
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.
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.
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.
Always has been 🔫
All the way up until the US Supreme shuts that down
Sure but the current supreme court is openly corrupt. But who knows how far they are willing to go.
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.
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.
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.
You could be right… but as a Californian, I’d never underestimate Gavin Newsom’s spinelessness.
Well I guess it’s up to you Californians to bend his spine in your favour.
https://www.ncsl.org/legislative-leaders/state-legislative-leaders
Regardless, not trying plays into the favour of the corporate fascists. What do we have to lose if this doesn’t work?
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.
Hawaii is a Republican state but somewhat progressive. And so is Alaska.
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)
Don’t wanna be the party popper, but corporations will still find a way. It would just happen more covertly.
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.
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
And you’re almost certainly correct, but honestly that would still be an improvement to legalized corruption.
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.
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.
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.
Corporations literally just won the right to straight up vote in elections in Delaware…
Which bill are you referring to?
Quick search, I found this from Reuters
So, the ruling requires you to own land.
So someone should buy a few acres and sell 1x1 foot lots for a boat load of money.
Can we just wipe Delaware off the map and replace it with Puerto Rico?
PLEASE DO!
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.
“However, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote.”
Never in my life have I ever seen it written this way.
I also like the note about there being “far more corporations” in DE than residents. So I guess this is just a case of it not having been demonstrated yet. I wonder how much it costs to license a company in DE. I wonder how hard it would be for the Internet to absolutely make these morons eat their words. 2 elections? 3?
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
Wait what did they do with the GameStop stuff? I haven’t heard of this.
$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.
This is the next thing for the r/wallstreetbets folks should do! Put all that GME $$$ to good use!
Holy shit that is insane
Judge rules Fenwick Island’s corporate voting does not dilute human votes
So I can buy a building and sell closet space to other companies (which I also own) for infinite voting power. This is absurd.
What’s preventing a megacorp from buying a bunch of small shell companies and voting in their own best interest?
I am curious how the voting actually works, though.
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.
There it is. 😐
Yeah, it seems like a very simple argument that since every individual owner of a corporation gets a vote, that the owners as a group should not get an additional vote.
I mean, the courts are no longer about what’s logical or fair, obviously, but still.
Ugh. I don’t want to live on this planet anymore
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
Did you forget about other places such as the uk and Germany?
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.
