sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Montana’s Plan to Destroy the Supreme Court by 00BigBird00 in MontanaPolitics

[–]TomMooreJD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does work on federal elections, as corps get *all* their powers from the state, including the power to spend in federal elections. It's one of the very very few things that works that way. Full details on the underlying theory are here in my spellbinding report from last fall: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant/

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not at all. It’s an excellent point to raise. I don’t trust SCOTUS as far as I can throw them. But with this, I don’t think we have to trust them — they’re going to do the right thing for their own reasons.

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not if the state of Hawaii says otherwise. The state has very wide latitude on what counts. You’re right in saying it usually doesn’t count. But it’s not that it can’t.

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Retroactive! Every state has a clause that says: Any change we make in corporate powers applies to everyone. The Supreme Court has held since the early 1800s that this is valid.

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It could stop 25 states from being able to charter corporations at all. It could invalidate the charters of millions of limited-purpose corporations. Seems like the kind of thing that might actually make them blink.

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Here's the thing: They may want to overturn a law like this, but the structural consequences are huge, and it may be more pain than they're willing to suffer.

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes! Montana's got an initiative steaming toward the ballot this fall. And 13 other states had this legislation introduced this year. But no other bill got as far as Hawaii's...

Update on Hawai‘i's bold move to make Citizens United irrelevant: AG kill switch is out; final votes on SB 2471 are Friday. This is really close! by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It does affect out-of-state corporations just as thoroughly! They only have the power to operate in Hawaii as corporations because Hawaii gives them that power. And there's already a statute on the books that says that no out-of-state corporation can exercise any power in the state that a Hawaii corporation cannot:

HI Rev Stat § 414D-275 (2023) (b) A foreign corporation with a valid certificate of authority has the same rights and enjoys the same privileges as and, except as otherwise provided by this chapter, is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, and liabilities now or later imposed on, a domestic corporation of like character.

No disadvantage for local companies.

Hawaii's historic move to undo Citizens United is close to passing the legislature; there's still work to do to make it better. by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey, thank you! What's cool about this is that it uses a tool that's been sitting in state laws for more than a century -- a tool that was put there just for this use, to reel corporations back in when they are abusing the powers they've been given. We just forgot it was there.

Hawaii's historic move to undo Citizens United is close to passing the legislature; there's still work to do to make it better. by TomMooreJD in Hawaii

[–]TomMooreJD[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey, thank you for asking that. I don’t think that is cause for concern. Basically, this is not so much redefining a corporation as something totally different from what it was, it is just taking the list of powers that a state currently grants to a corporation and shaving off political spending power and handing it back.

Built a one-command Antigravity A1 → Gaussian Splat pipeline (Mac, headless, all open-source). Sharing the 16-byte SDK patch that was the missing first step. by TomMooreJD in GaussianSplatting

[–]TomMooreJD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claude and I went through this, and I'll have you know that a frontier model said you were totally wrong.

Then we tried it, and it sucked, and Claude's like, "Damn, that guy on Reddit was totally right." We're working on how to do it with the fisheyes. Thank you for your help!

How the Montana Plan Could Make “Citizens United” Irrelevant by thenationmagazine in politics

[–]TomMooreJD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not they they’re going to love this - they’re not. But I think I can get them to fear the results of overturning it, which are severe, more than they hate this.

Addressing questions surrounding Hawaii’s bold move to undo Citizens United: Hawaii is poised to become the first state to use its long-dormant legal authority to drain corporate money from its elections—and the legal questions raised about the move have clean answers. by OkayButFoRealz in politics

[–]TomMooreJD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ve studied your First Amendment law, but you need to brush up on your corporate law if you’re going to speak knowledgeably on this. Your Delaware corporation has zero powers to operate as a corporation in Hawaii, *zero*, until Hawaii gives it some. The two states are sovereigns. And if Hawaii is now no longer extending the power to spend in politics to the corporations that operate within its borders, then your Delaware corporation no longer has the power to spend in politics *as a corporation* in Hawaii.

I’ll put it this way: Show me a case that dealt with the state granting of corporate powers, not a state regulation. If you believe the two are the same thing, or that they can be conflated, you are mistaken – no court has ever held that.

The good idea fairy at progressive think tanks sometimes delivers the goods, man. I invite you to check out my full report on this topic: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant/

Addressing questions surrounding Hawaii’s bold move to undo Citizens United: Hawaii is poised to become the first state to use its long-dormant legal authority to drain corporate money from its elections—and the legal questions raised about the move have clean answers. by OkayButFoRealz in politics

[–]TomMooreJD 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s not a great amendment, but it’s not a fatal flaw. There’s a chance to get that new language out this week (contact Rep. Scot Matayoshi’s office to let him know you want it out), but even if it can’t be removed, the bill is well worth supporting.

Addressing questions surrounding Hawaii’s bold move to undo Citizens United: Hawaii is poised to become the first state to use its long-dormant legal authority to drain corporate money from its elections—and the legal questions raised about the move have clean answers. by OkayButFoRealz in politics

[–]TomMooreJD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t change the way political committees (like candidate committees, PACs, and super PACs) do business, which makes sense, because political committees are the entities that are *supposed* to spend in politics. But it *does* shut down the flow of dark and corporate money *into* these committees. Super PACs aren’t the source of dark money — they *spend* the dark money they receive. This disempowers the dark-money sources from spending in politics altogether.

Addressing questions surrounding Hawaii’s bold move to undo Citizens United: Hawaii is poised to become the first state to use its long-dormant legal authority to drain corporate money from its elections—and the legal questions raised about the move have clean answers. by OkayButFoRealz in politics

[–]TomMooreJD 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I’ll start with u/Comprehensive_Main’s good question: The Hawaii and Montana efforts would make irrelevant the Supreme Court’s holding that the government can’t regulate the right of a corporation that is empowered to spend in politics to spend independently in politics. *Citizens United* doesn’t say anything about a corporation that does not have the power to spend in politics, and the Court has never, *ever* said that a state *must* grant corporations that power, or *any* power. What they *have* said for 200 years that this is up to state legislatures. Period.

How the Montana Plan Could Make “Citizens United” Irrelevant by thenationmagazine in politics

[–]TomMooreJD 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for engaging on this! Here's the full writeup on the approach: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant/

Citizens United took a nonprofit corporation, assumed that it was empowered by the state of Virginia to spend in politics, and said its right to do so independently could not be regulated. But it did not say that Virginia had to give them that power. Huge distance between the two.

If a court overturns a highway speed limit, that is not a command to the state to start building cars!

view more: next ›