this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
181 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30062 readers
2311 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago

This sounds good, hope it's effective and can be copied by other states.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Already being challenged in court, let's see if it holds up

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 7 points 3 days ago

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

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Reading through this I'm reminded of Reclaim Democracy!'s Our Hidden History of Corporations in the U.S.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 3 days ago

I wonder if this will take precedence over the supremacy clause?

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How long until corporations find a novel way to bribe politicians in Hawaii?

[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

The companies rooting for the destruction of net neutrality are far larger and numerous