▲ 1388 ▼ 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
[–] 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