The power to create and limit corporations has been the exclusive power of States for 200 years and upheld multiple times in SCOTUS.
Devils advocate:
You’re also sure it will be upheld under this SCOTUS?
SCOTUS will not have time for this before the midterms. So still a win for now.
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 Republicansimportant.
Ugh unfortunately a valid point.
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.
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!”
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?
I didn’t down vote, but I really would prefer text
My thinking is that any major corporation isn’t willing to give up business in an entire state but that’s a great question and if someone has a more definitive answer I’d love to hear it.
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.
Removed by mod
I’m not a defeatist. I called you out for spamming, which you were, cause a mod deleted your spam and the comments where you were insulting me and others.
Your modlog is public. If you lie about it, everyone can see that you lied.
Corporations literally just won the right to straight up vote in elections in Delaware…
Which bill are you referring to?
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?
And that right can be expressly denied by states now!
I can smell the corporatism coming
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…
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.
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.
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.
Always has been 🔫
Kinda the point of state’s rights
Meanwhile, Delaware is making it so corporations can vote there.
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…
That just means they’re desperate for votes ;)
A lot of companies are Delaware companies despite not being in Delaware.
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.
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.
Shit’s getting wild.
Delaware says corporations can vote.
Hawaii says corporations can go fuck themselves lol
How very ridiculous, now watch how the feds will bend over backwards to keep Citizens United and corporate cash; it’s been a windfall for our poor beleaguered representatives who just need money even though they already make more than the vast majority of their constituents.
Good job, Hawaii, thank you! (will the governor even sign? let’s watch)
Citizens united was one of the worst things to happen to U.S. citizens.
Citizens United in Getting Fucked, amirite?
(will the governor even sign? let’s watch)
Hard to say. A brief look at Josh Green indicates to me he’s a true public servant being Democrat and having spent 2 decades as a physician.
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.
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.
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.
In Hawaii’s two houses, only one rep. voted against it.
Primary those traitors.
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.
Yeah. Makes sense. Still, should make the change effective immediately.
This is the equivalent of “we’re going to fix the problem next time”
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?
Genuinely wild that democracy is propped up by private industry to ensure their own interests. Its farcical.
It’s almost like capitalism is inherently incompatible with democracy.
except all those democracies where its completely fine.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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”?
Edit: The article OP shared helped
- 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.
Thanks, the article helped more than the video :)
Thanks for sharing both.
Yea I prefer reading as well!
not sure it will have any effect in federal politics but love it at the state level
It will once it gets appealed up to SCOTUS and the right wing bought & paid for majority slips it back over.
This is a state which was once a kingdom, but private corporations slowly encroached on it in the guise of improving its standing in the world, until the oligarchy launched a takeover which deposed the kingdom completely then systematically handed rule over to the US.
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…
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.
