Montana was the first place I heard of doing it. And Montana has now affirmed trans health being provided, I’m actually shocked that Montana is being so forward. But it’s great!
Wow Hawaii is awesome. It bothers me that it so long for someone, or in this case a state, to come up with a way to control the power of “Citizen United”. Is that because the Oligarchs were and are running the power structure in the US? Great work Hawaii, you gave us Obama and now a way around”Citizens United”
(I actually went to undergrad at UofH in 1969. And I loved it so much that I lived there for many years. Primarily on the north shore, Haleiwa! Loved the diversity and the lifestyle. And in many ways, I still consider it my “home”.)
Yeah this is MUSIC TO MY EARS! I have been wondering about this exact rationale for years, but I’m not a lawyer and have just been mystified about the logic that a corporation could possibly have more power than a human. As a human it is insulting, and as any even small business knows their existence is at the mercy of the state where it is incorporated I’ve always been very confused by the supposed logic of this SCOTUS dictate.
Every state in this union should follow Hawaii's lead and pass laws that rip the corporate leash off their politicians. When lawmakers fear the voter more than the donor, democracy actually works. Right now it doesn't. Pass the laws, force the accountability, and watch how fast "public servant" stops being a punchline.
This is so great. Because if they are not stopped, the SCOTUS will decide in the not-too-distant future that AIs are also persons under the law and unleash the digitariot as agents to cast their ballots in support of their techno-state dreams. [And as a side note for sci-fi fans, why aren't we invoking Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics every day now. A quick refresher: the Three Laws of Robotics are a foundational set of ethical rules designed to govern the behavior of intelligent machines.]
Yes, it does. Getting to my advanced age, even though I didn't agree with ALL of the Scotus decisions, until Trump. I didn't doubt their ethics. I guess I've been like the frog in the pan of water!
Exactly. How absurd, bewildering and sad that we now actually need to establish a “code of conduct” for what should be OBVIOUS, particularly for the very people who are entrusted with and (presumably) responsible for safeguarding, determining and administering equal rights and justice for EVERY AMERICAN. It makes my blood boil.
How absurd, bewildering and sad that we now need to establish a “code of conduct” for what should be OBVIOUS, particularly for the the very people who are (presumably) responsible for safeguarding, determining and administering equal rights and justice for EVERY AMERICAN. It makes my blood boil.
Asking the highest court in the land to self-police is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Worse, the justices are not term-limited. They're in there for life.
Every lower court already has a code they must follow, so why not the Supremes? We the people could be the guardians of ethical conduct. But oh, then we might take away the president's power to appoint (whoever is in office--Thomas has been in there since George H.W. Bush, a.k.a., Bush père appointed him) and the Senate's power to confirm.
This article shows how local governments can take bold steps even when federal system is slow to change. As a former Afghan commando officer I believe real change often start from small places and then spread wider. If this law survive legal challenges, it may influence other states and create more pressure for campaign finance reform across country.
Yay, Hawaii, but I'd love to see some laws that go even further because what's to stop individuals like Peter Theil buying elections for people like Vance? I think there should be a law that any contributions from individuals over a certain amount, let's say, $50,000, can't go to a specific candidate. Some would say, why not just limit the amount one person can contribute to a candidate? because what's to stop some rich AH from having his wife donate $50m, lending $50m to each of his kids, his nieces and nephews, his in-laws, his golf buddies. Pretty soon the Peter Thiel guy has bought a candidate, just sneakily.
instead any contribution over $50,000 gets put into a general fund that gets split evenly between ALL the candidates. Now, instead of a campaign that is based on who can raise the most money, everyone has an equal amount of money, (more or less, because small individual contributions from people like you and me, remain in the specific candidate's possession). Now it becomes a campaign based on policy and real values. there's also the fact that, if the money goes to both republicans and democrats, it would discourage the rich from trying to cheat the system.
A friend of mine said this was unamerican but i say this is very American. our elections shouldn't shut out the majority in favor of one or two rich guys.
That sort of effort probably has to come from the US Congress. Corporations are created by states. That is why they can overturn a SCOTUS ruling - simply by changing how the individual state empowers corporations upon their creation.
This is an example of what "Soft Secession" can mean for states with the legislative power to "check" federal power and bad Supreme Court decisions. Every state has powers that belong to it through its state constitutions. They can "checkmate" and prosecute, if necessary, unlawful or harmful actions by federal government agencies or individuals within those agencies. State constitutions, courts, and legislatures are the people's last refuge. Use them.
Exactly, Annie. The problem started when Michael Moore was allowed to distribute anti-republican movies in an election year under the guise of being "documentaries", but the group Citizens United" was not allowed to distribute their anti Clinton "documentary" at the same time because they were not considered "documentarians". That argument was ridiculous on its face, so CU filed suit. Had it stopped there it would be OK, but SCOTUS blew open the doors into the current situation. Alito's denial to Obama's statement was a lie, and he knew it. That was the beginning of the slow motion MAGA coup that we find ourselves in.
Go Hawaii! I read that Montana is also considering such a law.
It's a statutory initiative in Montana. We're gathering signatures to get it on the ballot in November.
https://sign.montanaplan.org/
Montana was the first place I heard of doing it. And Montana has now affirmed trans health being provided, I’m actually shocked that Montana is being so forward. But it’s great!
The very reason we went from purple to red. This needs to stop! Dark money out!
https://sign.montanaplan.org/
unbelievable!
Me, too, Pam! Maybe other red states will follow? (I'm sure all the blue states will do the same thing.)
It is on the ballot here. We defeated the Copper Kings and the dark money from corporations is next
Getting signatures for a ballot initiative as we speak! The Montana Plan!
https://sign.montanaplan.org/
https://sign.montanaplan.org/
Every State needs to do this. Come on Michigan!
And California!
CA has a bill in the works AB1984
Thank you for letting us know about it. I shall follow it now!
And Illinois!! Citizens United has largely handed us the mess we're in.
absolutely...so shameful
Shoot, if every state did this, it’s worth asking why Democrats (or, hey, Republicans?) wouldn’t aim to amend the Constitution.
And Washington!
Yes! Warshington too!!
And North Carolina as well!! Well done, Hawaii!!
and Washington state!!
I think this is a strategy suggested by Robert Reich a few months ago on his Substack. You go, Hawaii!
Yes, Robert Reich had a great video on Inequality Media.
Wow Hawaii is awesome. It bothers me that it so long for someone, or in this case a state, to come up with a way to control the power of “Citizen United”. Is that because the Oligarchs were and are running the power structure in the US? Great work Hawaii, you gave us Obama and now a way around”Citizens United”
I live in Hawaii and am so proud of my state !
Excellent news.
(I actually went to undergrad at UofH in 1969. And I loved it so much that I lived there for many years. Primarily on the north shore, Haleiwa! Loved the diversity and the lifestyle. And in many ways, I still consider it my “home”.)
Me too...
Excellent, Hawaiians! Thank you for this great news, Katie Phang.
Yeah this is MUSIC TO MY EARS! I have been wondering about this exact rationale for years, but I’m not a lawyer and have just been mystified about the logic that a corporation could possibly have more power than a human. As a human it is insulting, and as any even small business knows their existence is at the mercy of the state where it is incorporated I’ve always been very confused by the supposed logic of this SCOTUS dictate.
Thank you Hawaii and Montana!
These two states also have some of the best constitutions in the county. “A right to a clean and healthful environment”!
Every state in this union should follow Hawaii's lead and pass laws that rip the corporate leash off their politicians. When lawmakers fear the voter more than the donor, democracy actually works. Right now it doesn't. Pass the laws, force the accountability, and watch how fast "public servant" stops being a punchline.
THIS! Exactly. "When lawmakers fear the voter more than the donor, democracy actually works."
This is so great. Because if they are not stopped, the SCOTUS will decide in the not-too-distant future that AIs are also persons under the law and unleash the digitariot as agents to cast their ballots in support of their techno-state dreams. [And as a side note for sci-fi fans, why aren't we invoking Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics every day now. A quick refresher: the Three Laws of Robotics are a foundational set of ethical rules designed to govern the behavior of intelligent machines.]
I like it, Robin! But I think FIRST. we need a foundational set of ethical rules for SCOTUS
And, Dan's statement that I seconded and some fear of the voters is instilled in the power-grabbers, this will work!
Ethical rules for this court sounds like an oxymoron, Anna. I understand they made some "rules" for themselves and they're supposed to self-administer. Not gonna cut it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx
Yes, it does. Getting to my advanced age, even though I didn't agree with ALL of the Scotus decisions, until Trump. I didn't doubt their ethics. I guess I've been like the frog in the pan of water!
Exactly. How absurd, bewildering and sad that we now actually need to establish a “code of conduct” for what should be OBVIOUS, particularly for the very people who are entrusted with and (presumably) responsible for safeguarding, determining and administering equal rights and justice for EVERY AMERICAN. It makes my blood boil.
How absurd, bewildering and sad that we now need to establish a “code of conduct” for what should be OBVIOUS, particularly for the the very people who are (presumably) responsible for safeguarding, determining and administering equal rights and justice for EVERY AMERICAN. It makes my blood boil.
Asking the highest court in the land to self-police is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Worse, the justices are not term-limited. They're in there for life.
Every lower court already has a code they must follow, so why not the Supremes? We the people could be the guardians of ethical conduct. But oh, then we might take away the president's power to appoint (whoever is in office--Thomas has been in there since George H.W. Bush, a.k.a., Bush père appointed him) and the Senate's power to confirm.
Great (and horrifying) point!
The only thing I don't like about this is that it doesn't go into effect until July, 2027!
This article shows how local governments can take bold steps even when federal system is slow to change. As a former Afghan commando officer I believe real change often start from small places and then spread wider. If this law survive legal challenges, it may influence other states and create more pressure for campaign finance reform across country.
Yay, Hawaii, but I'd love to see some laws that go even further because what's to stop individuals like Peter Theil buying elections for people like Vance? I think there should be a law that any contributions from individuals over a certain amount, let's say, $50,000, can't go to a specific candidate. Some would say, why not just limit the amount one person can contribute to a candidate? because what's to stop some rich AH from having his wife donate $50m, lending $50m to each of his kids, his nieces and nephews, his in-laws, his golf buddies. Pretty soon the Peter Thiel guy has bought a candidate, just sneakily.
instead any contribution over $50,000 gets put into a general fund that gets split evenly between ALL the candidates. Now, instead of a campaign that is based on who can raise the most money, everyone has an equal amount of money, (more or less, because small individual contributions from people like you and me, remain in the specific candidate's possession). Now it becomes a campaign based on policy and real values. there's also the fact that, if the money goes to both republicans and democrats, it would discourage the rich from trying to cheat the system.
A friend of mine said this was unamerican but i say this is very American. our elections shouldn't shut out the majority in favor of one or two rich guys.
There used to be laws like that, at least where they had to reveal what they were contributing. I don’t know what happened to those laws!
yes, i remember those days. I agree...what happened!
That sort of effort probably has to come from the US Congress. Corporations are created by states. That is why they can overturn a SCOTUS ruling - simply by changing how the individual state empowers corporations upon their creation.
Best news I have heard in weeks!
It is hopeful to see real actions taken toward ending Citizens United.
It can be done to any PAC or wealthy donor, limiting the size of donations, not just Citizen's United. No more buying of seats and legislation.
Right on Hawaii
All states copy and paste
Let's go!
This is an example of what "Soft Secession" can mean for states with the legislative power to "check" federal power and bad Supreme Court decisions. Every state has powers that belong to it through its state constitutions. They can "checkmate" and prosecute, if necessary, unlawful or harmful actions by federal government agencies or individuals within those agencies. State constitutions, courts, and legislatures are the people's last refuge. Use them.
I honestly think this is the silent message Carney was getting at in his Davos speech!
I LOVE this posting !! All states need to get on board !!
More than half of citizens United locations are bogus! They give the appearance of being much bigger than they are.
Citizens United is not the problem per se. They were the case that SCOTUS used to open the floodgates to big money to ruin our political system.
Exactly, Annie. The problem started when Michael Moore was allowed to distribute anti-republican movies in an election year under the guise of being "documentaries", but the group Citizens United" was not allowed to distribute their anti Clinton "documentary" at the same time because they were not considered "documentarians". That argument was ridiculous on its face, so CU filed suit. Had it stopped there it would be OK, but SCOTUS blew open the doors into the current situation. Alito's denial to Obama's statement was a lie, and he knew it. That was the beginning of the slow motion MAGA coup that we find ourselves in.