Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
tldr
The new law simply states that corporations doing business in Hawaii do not have the power to engage in local, state, or federal political campaigns, that that was not one of the powers enumerated in the state’s corporate charter. It further specifies a range of penalties—including losing the right to conduct any business in the state at all—if they do.
This sounds good, hope it's effective and can be copied by other states.
So if I understand it, this is an extension of the "corporate personhood" debate. If corporations are people, then they are entitled to free speech including the freedom in how they spend their money. However corporations are entities created by the state, not people, therefore the state has the right to define what powers a corporation has.
Basically your not restricting the type of spending allowed, a corporation doesn't have the ability to spend.
I hope this argument works. I expect it will make its way through the courts over the next several years. It was the Robert's Court that decided Citizens United and it's only grown more conservative over the years, so I would suspect they would claim this is still a restriction. But maybe they've see the damage Citizens United has done or just simply affirm that states, as the creators of corporations, have the right to define what they can do.
Moore’s argument compels these courts to grapple with the very substantial body of law that defines corporations and their powers as creations of the states. The Alitos and Thomases will doubtless find a way, however implausible, to wriggle around that, but even if the usual suspects on the federal bench proceed in customary pro-business lockstep, actions like Hawaii’s will fuel in many ways the growing populist and popular revolt against oligarchy and corporatocracy.
We know that we have these scumbag "justices" and yet they persist
Reading through this I'm reminded of Reclaim Democracy!'s Our Hidden History of Corporations in the U.S.
Already being challenged in court, let's see if it holds up
I wonder if this will take precedence over the supremacy clause?
How long until corporations find a novel way to bribe politicians in Hawaii?
Companies all leave once they get big anyway, so they don’t care. King’s Hawaiian left Hilo for Honolulu, then left Honolulu for California. I’m sure it’s cheaper and easier to run the company that way, but no economic benefit to Hilo, which could fucking use it.
Eh, I don't like this.
Companies like lavabit should be able to lobby the government to fight against laws that harm net neutrality or privacy of their users.
Companies making open hardware should be able to lobby for right to repair
Politicians are dumb, and they need input from experts in the Industry. The law shouldnt ban lobbiests from meeting with reps. It should just ban companies from giving them money and gifts.
The companies rooting for the destruction of net neutrality are far larger and numerous