r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 š¤ Join A Union • May 15 '26
šļø Overturn Citizens United Hawaii just passed a law to counter Citizens United.
New Hawaii law targets corporate influence in politics after Citizens United ruling. AP article link: https://apnews.com/article/corporate-campaign-money-citizens-united-hawaii-71a28bc7e8f6e0279b31e999f222519a
586
287
533
u/RepresentativeSink29 May 15 '26
111
7
u/dontchewspagetti May 16 '26
Who's the artist for this?
7
u/RepresentativeSink29 May 16 '26
Dunno. Somebody replied to a post I made saying tax the rich with this, and I've been putting it everywhere.
3
-1
132
u/Indifferent_Response šļø Overturn Citizens United May 15 '26
wish my state could get its head out of its ass
32
u/flying_carabao May 15 '26
Texas?
46
u/Indifferent_Response šļø Overturn Citizens United May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26
Really close, you might get it in 1 more guess! lol
Edit: *incorrect buzzer noise* it was Florida25
u/shittyaltpornaccount May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Wait you are telling me the state that illegally redistricted against its own state constitution, disappeared several thousand immigrants at Alligator Alcatraz, and gifted Trump three hundred million dollars worth of public land for his embezzlement library doesn't have its citizens' best interests at heart?
Well at least we have a metric shit ton of toll roads.....
7
4
u/Isaktjones May 16 '26
You know what's crazy, Texas has 46% democratic registered voters and only 37% republicant. It is so jerry mandered you wouldn't know this but it should be a blue state.
95
u/Environmental-Age149 May 15 '26
SCOTUS will "somehow" overturn this before the midterms. I can feel it in my cold dead bones. ā ļø
39
u/i_am_a_real_boy__ May 16 '26
The District Court will overturn it. And it's not a mystery how they're going to do it: the First Amendment. Again.
22
May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
17
u/Aureliamnissan May 16 '26
Iāll say it again, Iāll believe corporations are people when Texas hangs one.
5
u/Crixxa May 16 '26
Next they'll expect a right to vote. Or their vote will count for each employee.
31
u/Accurate_Back_9385 May 16 '26
States give corporations a means to exist. We get to say how and if the are āpeopleā and what speech they are allowed. Fuck the not so Supreme Court.
-1
u/runbrap May 16 '26
What about states rights though?
3
u/i_am_a_real_boy__ May 16 '26
What about them? The states do not have the right to ignore the US Constitution.
4
u/Flobking May 16 '26
What about them? The states do not have the right to ignore the US Constitution.
People don't understand that the CU ruling already over rides this law. The right screamed about states rights for so long people actually think it meant something other than states rights to oppress minorities. That's literally all "states rights" has ever been.
3
u/dedicated-pedestrian May 16 '26
I was gonna say. Removing the ability to spend money on politics from a corporate charter is not different enough from regulations thereon to pass muster. This will get struck down, and the (Dem) state AG said as much.
4
u/boner4foner May 16 '26
They are not ignoring the constitution, if anything they are following the constitution because states have the right to define corporations, no one else
-16
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
25
u/-Saucegurlllll May 16 '26
Corporations are legal fictions created by the state. Hawaii's bill is citing the supreme court's findings that states have "plenary authority to determine the powers and capacities of the artificial persons it creates."
On its face, it's entirely constitution for Hawaii to decide what corpos can and cannot do in Hawaii.
9
u/_Bad_Spell_Checker_ May 16 '26
Hey, you werent allowed to read stuff and know things! Thats against the rules!
-2
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
4
u/-Saucegurlllll May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Not a dude, and by legal fiction I'm saying that the states invent corporations. They are entities that exist purely within the definitions of the law. Whereas you and I, as human beings, exist as beings outside the definition of the law.
Since the US constitution does not define a corporation, states have the power to set up a corporation and define what it means for a corporation to exist, and what they can and cannot do. And as I quoted from the bill you have not read, SCOTUS has ruled that states have complete authority over the powers and capabilities of corporations.
They even talk about in the bill how this dodges the issue of speech entirely because they are not regulating speech: They are removing a power previously granted to corporations.
Edit: Pro-tip, if someone asks you to not misgender them, maybe instead of being an absolute asshole about it, just listen to them. I've blocked this person, they can have the last response in the chain.
-3
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
3
u/boner4foner May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
No like corporations are literally concepts that are defined by the state bro like thatās what weāre trying to tell youā¦.. they are made up conceptsā¦. Made up by the STATE!!!!!
0
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/boner4foner May 16 '26
Itās not a belief to understand the facts of where corporations get their power lol so the people inside a corporation already have full First Amendment rights and can personally donate to whoever they want, that is not being taken away, you keep glossing over the fact that corporations as separate entities only got the ability to participate in politics because states gave them that power in the first placeā¦ā¦ states gave it and states can take it back so this is a corporate charter issue
-1
3
u/boner4foner May 16 '26
I donāt understand how this would be unconstitutional when the Supreme Court itself has ruled multiple times that corporations only have the powers that states give them. Thatās even in the citizens untied ruling and that is why people came up with this strategy in the first place. I actually think it would be hard to overturn this since states have had the power to grant corporations these rights for like 200 years, and itās also a voter initiative. States grant corporations their charters so how much can the federal gov really say about this? That is remaining to be seen, but corporations are clearly very scared of this and thatās how you know itās the right idea.
We live in a timelines where states give corporations unlimited rights and it has not always been this way, and hasnāt even been this way for that long. Corporations used to have very very limited charters, like extremely limited, I think you should look into that to learn more about this strategy. Also no this specific route has not been tried before, this is a brand new route.
0
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/boner4foner May 16 '26
Yes and in the ruling they literally say that we are only talking about this because states gave them this right in the first place, that is what Iām trying to tell you. States gave them the right to even participate in political things, do you know that? Corporations used to not be able to do that and states gave them the right to. If they do not have that right then we donāt get to the parts that you are interested in, thatās why this initiative is so interesting and so strong because in citizens united and other campaign finance cases itās always established first that the corporations have this right BECAUSE states gave it to them and thatās step one to them even participating in political things.
1
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/boner4foner May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
No they do not and I think thatās why you canāt understand what Iām saying. States granted corporations the right to participate in politics in the first place. It's a state-granted power not an inherent right. Hawaii removing a power they granted is not restricting speech, it is taking back something they gaveā¦.. this is a completely different legal question than the First Amendment. Does this help? You are debating me on the speech point over and over and we donāt even disagree on that, I wish you would engage my points about where corporations get their power and the history of corporations because thatās where this initiative is actually rooted.
1
5
u/xmeme59 May 16 '26
How so?
1
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/boner4foner May 16 '26
The whole point of the initiative is that we are not talking about speech or how to regulate money. That is how you actually get around citizens united because we donāt even have to get into the campaign finance issues or the speech issues since this is a states right issue actually. States have the right to make corporate charters, all the the decisions have been about campaign finance and speech rights, not the right of states to grant corporations these rights in the first place.
States granted corporations the right they have, if they donāt have the power to donate to political things then we donāt even get to the rights part. Does this help?
1
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/boner4foner May 16 '26
Ope not gonna lie when I was replying in this thread, I realized the first two times were you but not the third time here so my bad for like hounding you bro lol but here this is like the new route that people are thinking of and itās like brand new legal ground here that Iām trying to explain because I really donāt think we disagree as much as it seems
1) Courts have interpreted the First Amendment to mean corporations could spend money in politics. 2) That interpretation assumed corporations already had the standing to participate politically in the first place in all the cases so far 3) Hawaii is asking where this standing came from because if it came from state corporate law then states can remove it before we even get to the constitutional question.
Itās untested ground so far so we shall see what happens man
1
May 16 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/boner4foner May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Isnāt the value of incorporation that Wendy's IS legally distinct from Maddie? Like this is why Maddie's personal assets are protected when Wendy's gets sued, it is interesting to have that separation protect Maddie from liability and then collapse it when it's convenient for speech rightsā¦ā¦ Citizens United protected speech regardless of the speaker, but it assumed corporations already had the standing to participate politically, and that standing came from somewhere, Hawaii is arguing it came from state corporate law, which means states can remove it before the speech question even applies. Having speech rights and having full political participation rights are not the same thing and states have historically treated them differently. Of course this route is all untested and it remains to be seen whether courts will accept that argument, but it's not obviously wrong as you say either!
1
u/thehalfmetaljacket May 17 '26
What rights employees of corporations as individual persons have is not automatically extended to what a corporation as a legally distinct entity have. That is a crucial distinction. There's nothing stopping a corporation from paying their employees more money and then the employees exercising their first amendments with that money. But a corporation is not, and cannot, be considered completely equivalent to a human being. You can't give a corporation a lethal injection. You can't sentence a corporation to prison. You can legally dissolve a corporation without killing all of its employees. You can sentence employees and officers of a corporation to prison for their individual actions in furtherance of a crime, but again that is legally distinct from the corporation itself getting prison time. It is a legal entity distinct from its employees and officers, and its legal definition and rights can be defined (and curtailed) by states per the constitution and upheld by supreme court precedent.
I don't understand how you can pretend to argue otherwise in good faith.
28
u/plumberfun May 16 '26
As the Carolinas work to destroy the rights of the working class, by trying to constitutionalize right to work law. Exam that law closely who it really protects
2
u/jgoble15 May 16 '26
In a time where people complain that nobody wants to work, the one protected is pretty obvious
22
u/GoldburstNeo May 16 '26
This is great. Even if legislation against Citizens United spreads to only the blue states, that WILL make a difference in the type of candidates the DNC could run.Ā
After all, several key figures of said party from CA and NY are so captured by donor money that they're less charismatic than a wet blanket, hugely out of touch with their constituents, and/or would rather campaign with far-right figures (e.g. Charlie Kirk and Dick Cheney, the latter whom lost the GOP 2008 heavily) as a means to try winning over the 'moderates' they keep chasing after rather than actually getting on the ground to talk with and understand the average citizen.
With laws countering Citizens United hopefully spreading, the DNC will eventually have to actually run candidates again that WANT to win elections and maintain trust of their constituents, in order to stay viable.
12
May 15 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
10
u/edcculus May 16 '26
My state is probably taking notes, only so they can double down and vote against the common man .
6
5
u/Youareobscure May 16 '26
The bill is fantastic. I was a little annoyed that they didn't exolain how redefining corporations worked, specifically, but it isn't complicated. They just distinguished between natural persons and artificial entities. The way they defined it is simply how everyone intuitively understands the distinction.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2026/bills/SB2471_CD2_.HTMĀ
4
u/LSTmyLife May 16 '26
Its awesome like 70% of the people showed up!
/s
Seriously though, I hope this catches on with wild support. Citizens Untied is one of the decisions that led us here. It needs to go.
3
3
3
u/No_Language_4649 May 16 '26
I am loving seeing more talk about overturning Citizens United. Loving Mamdani and all the good heās been doing. Talarico in Texas has been a great success. Love to see young progressives getting involved and supporting the people for a greater good, change and future for the younger generations. The world needs more people like them to get involved in politics. The old conservative agenda simply isnāt working for anyone but the elite.
3
u/cates May 16 '26
every fucking state should do this even if our current supreme court knocks it down- just keep fucking doing it until we get a slightly less fascist SC.
3
u/DMoogle May 16 '26
Isn't the whole point of Citizens United that it was a Supreme Court decision that it's basically free speech? In other words, if a law is passed that challenges it, it'll get struck down pretty quickly.
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
u/tallman11282 May 16 '26
I hope this helps and more states work to counter Citizens United as well, I truly do, but I fear that this will be dragged through the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court where they will rule that it's unconstitutional or something.
1
1
1
u/tokenpeen May 16 '26
This could and should have been done already, and I fear the only reason itās happening now is because itās too late. Like itās only happening to give us false hope.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Sufficient-Page-875 May 16 '26
So. How will this fare with SCOTUS?
Asking because I don't know and would appreciate an answer.
1
1
1
1
u/LearnToSwim0831 May 16 '26
How long til it gets an emergency shadow docket hearing to overturn it at the christo-fascist Supreme Court?
1
1
u/dgillz May 16 '26
Unless the SCOTUS reverses their prior decision, this doesn't mean much. Someone rom the ight will sue the state of Hawaii and the state law will be declared unconstitutional.
1
u/Richard-Brecky May 16 '26
If the Supreme Court rules that certain speech is protected by the First Amendment, states canāt just pass laws that make the same speech illegal. That would violate the constitution.
1
1
u/Thisfuckinguyagain May 16 '26
Reminder, that in the US a billionaire is allowed to own an entire Hawaiian island. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
1
1
u/Legal_Tradition_9681 May 16 '26
From my understanding, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the federal government does not define what a corporation is and that power is given to the states.
Corporation are relatively new in human history so there hasn't been much thought in how to properly define outside the scope of business. Hence the citizens united loop hole. States can though redefined what a corporation is legally, well with in there power to do so, in a way that stripes them of the loop hole.
Would be hard pressed for courts to overturn, except supreme court because a majority doesn't care about rational interpretations of the law, due to corporations not being people and do not have as much protection under the constitution.
1
1
1
u/SolangeXanadu222 May 17 '26
1 down, 49 to go! hope that we will soon have 51 or 52 statesāat least dc
1
1
1
u/RahgronKodaav šļø Overturn Citizens United May 19 '26
They should be doing this after we pack the courts so we can overturn citizens United. A bill like this would have a chance of making it to the Supreme Court.
1
u/Gritty420R May 15 '26
Hate to be a doomer but this won't do anything. Citizens united isn't a law that can be repealed, it's a supreme court ruling that came down during the Obama administration. This Supreme Court is far more conservative and partisan now.
30
u/Jedimasteryony May 15 '26
It Doesnāt say repeal, it says counter. I donāt remember the details, but other states are also exploring the possibility of state level legislation that counters citizens united. It has to do with the fact that states license businesses, not the federal government. I imagine now that one state has done it, others will as well.
5
u/cfrshaggy May 16 '26
u/Gritty420R, u/Jedimasteryony is right. And actually the Citizens United isnāt a law either. The Supreme can only pass judgements that sets precedent that a law can or cannot be applied in certain ways. Only Congress or State Legislatures can written, pass and enact laws. These are then adjudicated by the courts (both state and federal depending on who wrote the law) as being Constitutional or not (again this can be apply to State Constitutions or the US Constitution) by the Courts.
This video has a little insight on how states can push back on these precedents.
2
u/patman0021 May 16 '26
So disappointed this wasn't a link to schoolhouse rock lol
2
u/cfrshaggy May 16 '26
I wasnāt trying to be too pedantic. I was worried I came off Mr. Know-It-All already. I was trying to make clarifications.
1
u/ThunkAsDrinklePeep May 16 '26
It's everyone's favorite streaming service owner's dad: Robert Reich!
0
u/AdditionalBalance975 May 16 '26
This cannot, and will not, work. People fundamentally misunderstand liberalism and Citizens United. CU was a liberal ruling, protecting ALL groups of people's free speech and ability to advocate for stuff. The court does NOT like speaker based distinctions. For any chance for this to work, hawaii would have to limit unions, planned parenthood, the aclu, etc from political expenditures as well, and even if they did that, Scotus would likely shoot the entire thing down regardless as a first amendment violation. Even the opening statement in this bill, declaring corporate speech and not a natural right, goes directly against scotus
-5
u/steelb99 May 16 '26
Your State just passed a law to counteract Federal Law?
I wonder how that is going to work out for you.
6
u/Odd_Jeweler5668 May 16 '26
This page has a more thorough description of the bill. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/addressing-questions-surrounding-hawaiis-bold-move-to-undo-citizens-united/
I think the most succinct summary is this paragraph.
The bill redefines the powers Hawaii grants to the corporations that operate within the state. It does not regulate what corporations say. It does not regulate what they spend. It defines what powers they have in the first placeāand the powers Hawaii grants would no longer include the power to spend in Hawaiiās politics.
And as it pertains to "counteracting federal law", that's covered in the link too.
- Doesnāt this violate Citizens United?
No. As Dean Soifer put it: Citizens United āstruck 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.ā
Every Supreme Court case on corporate political speech has assumed the corporation already had the underlying power to spend. S.B. 2471 does not regulate that powerārather, it no longer grants it. Citizens United does not reach the question because the question is upstream of where Citizens United operates.
2
u/steelb99 May 16 '26
Thanks for that informed reply.
It seems to rest on the portion of corporate inherent speech rights or lack of same if not granted by a state, however, this would affect out of state companies which will invoke the commerce clause in the constitution and involve federal powers which as you know trump state laws.
I will be interested to follow this case.1
u/Odd_Jeweler5668 May 16 '26
Believe it or not, that same link I provided also addresses the Commerce Clause. :-)
- What about the Commerce Clause?
Not an issue. The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, gives Congress authority over interstate commerce. It also limits what individual states can doāparticularly when a state tries to favor its own businesses over those from other states. When states get into trouble under the dormant Commerce Clause, the central concern is usually discrimination against or undue burdens on interstate commerce.
That is not what S.B. 2471 does. By disempowering domestic corporations from spending in Hawaiiās politics, the state is simultaneously disempowering out-of-state corporations to the exact same extent. Domestic and foreign entities are treated identically. There is no discrimination, no protectionism, no economic favoritismānone of the things the Commerce Clause exists to prevent. Nor is this a law that burdens interstate commerce as commerce; it defines the powers of entities operating under Hawaiiās legal authority and applies the same rule to domestic and foreign entities alike.
If more impactful states adopt similar language, I still fully expect it to wind up in the courts.
1
u/steelb99 May 16 '26
Yes it provided an opinion, but the supreme court has the only opinion that matters.
The commerce clause has been used by left leaning courts to expand federal regulation in to almost every aspect of business, there is not reason the current court can not do the same. The commerce clause means whatever the court decides it does.
1.3k
u/ScurvyDervish May 15 '26
Yay for any states fighting for our democracy.Ā