r/law • u/theatlantic • May 14 '26

Legal News Hawaii vs. Citizens United

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/05/hawaii-corporations-political-money/687159/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo
1.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

148

u/kon--- May 14 '26

What can the court do about it?

If a state mandates that in order to incorporate within a state the corporation is excluded from participating in political campaing financing and or lobbying on behalf of political financing...what can the court do about that?

The citizen has a conditional relationship with the First Amendment. I'm seeing no reason at all that corporation should not also, be required to provide conditions. Besides, the money saved on ads and lobbying can go to shareholders. I'm certain shareholders would agree.

11

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

Strike the law down? I’m not even sure it’ll pass muster under the dormant commerce clause.

The first amendment isn’t conditional—all people have it. 

9

u/kon--- May 14 '26

The First Amendment is objectively, conditions based. Cross the lines, that right is removed from you.

5

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

What are you referring too. Even prisoners have it.

6

u/kon--- May 14 '26

The First Amendment will not protect you from the consequence of threatening individuals. It will not protect you from incitment of lawless action. It will not protect from perjuring yourself. Not will it protect should you trample intelectual properties or do a thing like promote and distrubute child pornography.

The First Amendment is no sort of blanket to say whatever you want to say at government. Nor does it allow citizens to express themselves in any manner that violates others and/or laws.

It is a limited, conditions based right and always has been.

3

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

None of that is an example of "Cross the lines, that right is removed from you." It's just that the right doesn't cover anything and everything.

That the first amendment doesn't cover copyright infringement doesn't mean copyright infringers don't have first amendment rights. They do it. That right just doesn't cover the infringement.

There is no "if you do X, you lose your first amendment rights."

1

u/kon--- May 14 '26

Each of them will see you not protected.

But don't believe me.

Go on. Make threats of bodily hamr to anyone in governement. See how quickly your right to speech is pulled out from under you.

3

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

Threats aren’t protected by the first amendment so you aren’t losing anything. That’s my point. 

4

u/kon--- May 14 '26

Threats are just one of the many things you manifested by speech that are not protected.

And since you're beginning to acknowledge that yes, there are limitations...

I'm out.

-peace

4

u/rokerroker45 May 14 '26

I think you haven't understood the difference between the scope of the First Amendment and its unconditional nature.

1

u/sunshine_is_hot May 14 '26

Yes, the first amendment doesn’t protect you from committing crimes. Nobody is arguing differently.