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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

deleted by creator

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.