Hawai'i SO close to removing dark and coporate money from its politics

[ironyak]

The Bill was written to go into effect July 1 2027 to give it time to go through the inevitable legal challenges. IMO the clearest demonstration of this approach of a state limiting corporate rights is how Delaware restricts family foundation corporations from spending on elections (they also have campaign finance transparency laws which the Koch brothers are challenging, because of course they are. Those conservatives and their dark money slush funds...)

Meanwhile, Montana is looking at a law similar to Hawaii's so there is some momentum in other states as well.

BlackAkita - Does anyone know if AIPAC has contributed to our U.S. congressmen or senators?
Yes - see Open Secrets and Track AIPAC.

[HiloJulie]

Chase and Bank of America opened branch offices but legislators made it so difficult for them that they both closed the offices and gave up. Hawaii residents pay the price with lower interest rates, fewer products and poor customer service as a result of no real competition.

Nice try. 

Bank of America and Chase have not maintained a retail presence in Hawaii because the isolated market is small, commercial real estate is prohibitively expensive, and the islands feature deeply entrenched loyalty to local banks.

Bank of America previously had a consumer presence but officially pulled out of the Hawaiian retail market in 1997 when it sold its branch network to American Savings Bank. The decision was driven by lagging profitability compared to the mainland and a desire to redirect investments.

While Chase never established a widespread brick-and-mortar retail footprint in Hawaii, it was because of the high costs of operations versus the relatively small population, they, along with other major national banks, determined that expanding a retail branch network across the islands didn't make business sense.

The bill denying Citizens United the same standing as residents of HI is not going into effect for another year according to Ali Velshi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBGpEcPrbso

The US Supreme Court could decide that the bill is an example of restraint of trade. This opens up the legality of many laws on the books, including restrictions against mainland banks operating in HI. Republicans will argue that large insurance companies can offer policies in the state, so why can't banks operate offices here? The question has always been, how deep can a corporation sink their teeth into our necks? I will defer to the legal expertise of our resident attorney, Julie.

Does anyone know if AIPAC has contributed to our U.S. congressmen or senators?

The Ali Velshi piece is good. I recommend watching it.

I'd say a Restraint of Trade argument is nearly impossible to muster against this new law.

If there are legal challenges, I see two primary ways of that being done.

Most likely, under First Amendment & Unconstitutional Conditions as The Attorney General warned that stripping a corporation of its political speech rights in exchange for the public benefit of operating as a corporate entity could be deemed an unconstitutional condition.

Secondly, under the Dormant Commerce Clause, as the law applies to political spending restrictions of out-of-state corporations that conduct business in Hawaii, any opponents would most likely argue it could place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

But to argue Restraint of Trade over this new law would be a fool's errand. 

Having said that, I think this new law may have some real teeth in it. I wonder how much dark corporate money will be spent fighting it.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

the islands feature deeply entrenched loyalty to local banks.

Even other businesses.  Think Long’s Drug Stores.  CVS bought them out but the signs still say Longs, while everything inside is branded CVS.  Because we’re loyal to a nonexistent Long’s.