Stories like this one, though rare, often remind me that there is hope, and that society is not static. That even though there is corruption, and setbacks, by continuously pursuing a goal we can slowly claw our way towards a better tomorrow.
Fascinating!
But does this only apply if the company is incorporated in that particular state?
If there is any state that doesn’t adopt the new law structure, then companies will just re-incorporate to that other state.
Of course, not every company may find it worthwhile to do that. So on the whole, it will probably mean companies that aren’t that involved in political spending will become even less involved. But, the largest spenders may find it worthwhile to re-incorporate so they can continue to do it.
Hawaii can only make laws for Hawaii. So I don't even think it could stop a Hawaiian corporation from spending political dollars in another state. But it can probably stop corporations from spending money in Hawaii even if they are not incorporated there. This law will make its way to the supreme Court relatively quickly I expect.
Corporations/LLCs generally have to explicitly register with every state they do business in. Presumably at this juncture they can be subject to the same restrictions. No idea how this concretely plays out with this law though.
You can (and others surely will) make that argument. But it doesn't apply because an LLC isnt a protected group. Gov'ts are fully allowed to discriminate outside of the relatively constrained race, religion, gender stuff. If the individuals in an LLC want to politic, then they are using the wrong venue. The state has created other venues and can force citizens to use them (you surely approve of this power when it forces your doctor to be board certified).
Corporations inherit their rights and privileges from the people in them. Because a corp is in fact just a series of individuals in a trenchcoat. (This would make immediate sense if we had not let grammar decay and you implicitly knew corp = plural)
people are corporations. I hardly exist as an individual in america. I do not own anything, my company does (my company employs only me and soon my daughter when she is of age), I do not buy anything, my company does. I don’t have phone service or internet service or practically anything under my name. and my company (me) has about the same rights as you, an individual, except of course a lot more cause capitalism be capilizing :)
Repeat after me: Corporations and LLCs are not individuals. Corporations and LLCs are government creations. Corporations and LLCs do not have natural rights.
Corporations, just like a group of concerned mothers pooling money for a billboard, are a grouping of people. And shareholders have rights to spend their own pooled money on speech, just like the mothers have that same right.
This is disingenuous - a group of concerned mothers does not have a government-created liability shield, for starters.
In general, shareholders are always able to pool their money directly in the manner you are stating. This being uncommon shows that the situations are not equivalent.
I know that's part of the Supreme Council's current justification for why corpos deserve natural rights, but I don't really see what it actually has to do with anything. Regardless of how corpos might be regulated, the individuals associated with a corpo are all still capable of exercising their free speech rights in their own individual capacity. Declaring that the government-created legal entity should not be able to direct individuals to speak a certain way fundamentally preserves those individuals' rights. The corpo's owners are also still able to freely speak on the corpo's interests using their own individual rights.
Stories like this one, though rare, often remind me that there is hope, and that society is not static. That even though there is corruption, and setbacks, by continuously pursuing a goal we can slowly claw our way towards a better tomorrow.
Fascinating! But does this only apply if the company is incorporated in that particular state? If there is any state that doesn’t adopt the new law structure, then companies will just re-incorporate to that other state.
Of course, not every company may find it worthwhile to do that. So on the whole, it will probably mean companies that aren’t that involved in political spending will become even less involved. But, the largest spenders may find it worthwhile to re-incorporate so they can continue to do it.
Hawaii can only make laws for Hawaii. So I don't even think it could stop a Hawaiian corporation from spending political dollars in another state. But it can probably stop corporations from spending money in Hawaii even if they are not incorporated there. This law will make its way to the supreme Court relatively quickly I expect.
Corporations/LLCs generally have to explicitly register with every state they do business in. Presumably at this juncture they can be subject to the same restrictions. No idea how this concretely plays out with this law though.
[dead]
Corporations, as an entity, deserve no Constitutional rights. Only the individuals that make them up, and as individuals, not as a group.
Citizens United might be cooked, finally.
More info
https://afj.org/article/corporate-power-reset-movement-updat...
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/addressing-question...
Unconstitutional on 14th amendment grounds and first amendment grounds.
They are privileging speech rights from some groups over other groups (unions v corps).
You can (and others surely will) make that argument. But it doesn't apply because an LLC isnt a protected group. Gov'ts are fully allowed to discriminate outside of the relatively constrained race, religion, gender stuff. If the individuals in an LLC want to politic, then they are using the wrong venue. The state has created other venues and can force citizens to use them (you surely approve of this power when it forces your doctor to be board certified).
Where in the constitution does it say that corporate entities have any rights at all?
Corporations inherit their rights and privileges from the people in them. Because a corp is in fact just a series of individuals in a trenchcoat. (This would make immediate sense if we had not let grammar decay and you implicitly knew corp = plural)
people are corporations. I hardly exist as an individual in america. I do not own anything, my company does (my company employs only me and soon my daughter when she is of age), I do not buy anything, my company does. I don’t have phone service or internet service or practically anything under my name. and my company (me) has about the same rights as you, an individual, except of course a lot more cause capitalism be capilizing :)
Not necessarily. Unions are typically organized as a not-for-profit. The legislation acts on all entities including unions.
Repeat after me: Corporations and LLCs are not individuals. Corporations and LLCs are government creations. Corporations and LLCs do not have natural rights.
Corporations, just like a group of concerned mothers pooling money for a billboard, are a grouping of people. And shareholders have rights to spend their own pooled money on speech, just like the mothers have that same right.
This is disingenuous - a group of concerned mothers does not have a government-created liability shield, for starters.
In general, shareholders are always able to pool their money directly in the manner you are stating. This being uncommon shows that the situations are not equivalent.
>Repeat after me: Corporations and LLCs are not individuals. Corporations and LLCs are government creations.
They are however, groups of individuals.
I know that's part of the Supreme Council's current justification for why corpos deserve natural rights, but I don't really see what it actually has to do with anything. Regardless of how corpos might be regulated, the individuals associated with a corpo are all still capable of exercising their free speech rights in their own individual capacity. Declaring that the government-created legal entity should not be able to direct individuals to speak a certain way fundamentally preserves those individuals' rights. The corpo's owners are also still able to freely speak on the corpo's interests using their own individual rights.