▲ 1387 ▼ Hawaii just entirely removed corporations' power to spend money in politics. This could be a game changer for US democracy. (www.youtube.com) submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Canconda@lemmy.ca to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world 180 comments fedilink hide all child comments 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
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 3 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) As someone who doesn’t speak legalese, are the changes significative? Does everything written in the article still apply? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago …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! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) As someone who doesn’t speak legalese, are the changes significative? Does everything written in the article still apply? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago …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! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago …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! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago …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! permalink fedilink source parent