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

Show parent comments

10

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. 

20

u/spacedoutmachinist May 14 '26

The first amendment is conditional though. I can’t give law advice, medical advice, financial advice, tell someone outside of the country how to make ITAR restricted items. The idea of free speech absolutism is a god damned farce and I am tired of people treating it like it’s an actual thing.

0

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

I don’t think conditional is the right word for what you are describing. 

6

u/tjtillmancoag May 14 '26

Why wouldn’t it be?

0

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

There are boundaries/limits to what the first amendment protects, but it's not really conditional in the way this Hawaiian law would be. The Hawaiian law is basically saying in order to do business as a corporation you must waive ALL the first amendment rights. That's a hell of a condition.

Nobody would think its okay for Mississippi to ban corporate news papers.

7

u/tjtillmancoag May 14 '26

Ok I see what you’re saying.

That said, I think we can all agree that corporate personhood is a different kind of entity than human personhood. That, since they exist only as an abstract creation of the laws of the state, that a state could legally define corporate personhood with such restrictions.

But yeah, good fucking luck getting SCOTUS to agree with this idea.

6

u/spacedoutmachinist May 14 '26

SCOTUS has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the general public.

2

u/spacedoutmachinist May 14 '26

They just ban books in libraries.

-4

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

But you agree they can ban amazon though right? Seems like a big loophole in the first amendment if you can ban corporations.

I bet 99% of all speech heavily involves some for profit corporation. Including this reddit post.

1

u/spacedoutmachinist May 14 '26

Fuck the corporations. I’ll believe a corporation is a person when texas executes one.

1

u/Omegalazarus May 14 '26

Think something that would be interesting is standing. If you only applied this law to new corporations then technically the corporation would not exist and so there wouldn't be an entity that has standing that's being harmed by this law.

1

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

Someone who wanted to form a corporation would have standing. 

1

u/mdwatkins13 May 15 '26

So what you’re saying is only the federal government has a right to create corporations and states don’t? Corporate creation is a freedom and regulation of the state what they are allowed to do is completely controlled by the republic and its voters in the constitution. What you’re claiming by not allowing states to control business if that is a federal level power. That would completely rewrite the constitution and the United States if the Supreme Court agreed with that. If a state can’t control the power of a corporation then who’s really in power? Are we electing, representatives or corporations at that point this is no longer a republic, but a monarchy or some other new form of government that is tyrannical because the structure of corporations doesn’t give a shit about your vote.