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

[ironyak]

S.B. 2471, a bold bill that would make Citizens United irrelevant, is almost at the finish line! It works by recognizing that as all corporations are legal creations of the state, the state can define and limit their powers, including restricting the right to spend on elections.

If it can make it through conference committee and be signed into law, Hawai'i will be the first state in the country to end the use of corporate and dark money in its local, state, and federal elections.

But this bipartisan bill does need some helping getting over the finish line as the clock is ticking for conference committee members to be selected - if they are not selected in the next few days, the bill dies.

So what can someone do who is concerned about the millions of dollars of dark and corporate money being used to distort Hawai'i's politics?

Contact your Hawai'i legislators including:
Rep. Scot Matayoshi    repmatayoshi@capitol.hawaii.gov    808-586-8470 (the bill currently awaits his actions)
House Speaker Nadine Nakamura    repnakamura@capitol.hawaii.gov    808-586-6100
Vice Speaker Linda Ichiyama    repichiyama@capitol.hawaii.gov    808-586-6220
Majority Leader Sean Quinlan    repquinlan@capitol.hawaii.gov    808-586-6380

Senator Joy San Buenaventura was a sponsor for the bill, so you can reach out to her, Illigan, Chris Todd, and your specific Hawai'i reps as well.

More info:
CivilBeat: Hawai‘i Might Just Slay Citizens United — And You Can Help
CivilBeat: Can Hawaiʻi Deliver All Of America From Citizens United?

The state-by-state effort to make Citizens United irrelevant:
The Corporate Power Reset That Makes Citizens United Irrelevant

[Durian Fiend]

Of course this is a good idea. Would Hawaii would be one of the few states where this change actually benefits the Republican party more than the Dems?

[MyManao]

Would Hawaii would be one of the few states where this change actually benefits the Republican party more than the Dems?

Methinks leveling the playing field, ie making politics a commoner's sport rather than more one for the rich, is good no matter. Although, when we consider the demographics, I doubt the difference in the results are going be all that much here. We're a blue state because our population is. 

Thanks yak for the heads up on this one.

[Punatang]

Right on Ironyak!  Tangs have been following this and are glad someone else started the thread.

Durian Fiend, that is such a sad question.  The Bill "actually benefits" the people of Hawaii who in reality are neither of those things.  

The real concern is whether this bill, inadvertently, puts more power into the hands of The Billionaires. (actual humans with big money to swing around).  It's a chance we have to take and something that needs to be monitored and perhaps patched up with follow-on legislation.  It is not perfect, but it really does seem to be a massive step in the right direction.

Good questions to ask might be:  Who is against this bill?  What are their stated reasons?  Who do they ultimately serve when the doors are closed? What are their true motives for opposing this bill?

Hats off to the sponsors including Joy San Buenaventura who, by the way, was absolutely heroic in yesterday's Supreme Court nominee hearing.

Hats off to Ironyak for a concise post with useful contact information.


This is what democracy looks like.

Let the contracting begin.


https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=23875&pid=361337#pid361337

[Durian Fiend]

Right on Ironyak!  Tangs have been following this and are glad someone else started the thread.

Durian Fiend, that is such a sad question.  The Bill "actually benefits" the people of Hawaii who in reality are neither of those things...

You're the one consistently complaining about the Dems strangle hold on Hawaii politics.  The candidates available for you to vote for are mostly one or the other, not neither of those things.

[Punatang]

Right on Ironyak!  Tangs have been following this and are glad someone else started the thread.

Durian Fiend, that is such a sad question.  The Bill "actually benefits" the people of Hawaii who in reality are neither of those things...

You're the one consistently complaining about the Dems strangle hold on Hawaii politics. 

False.

[Rob Tucker]

Are unions corporations?

[HiloJulie]

Are unions corporations?

Excellent question Rob. 

The direct answer is YES. Under the SCOTUS ruling of Citizens United, the campaign finance laws now leave both Companies and Labor Unions equally unconstrained and free to use their general treasuries to finance political expenditures.

However, and of interesting note, Federal law prohibits a union from spending its general treasury funds on politics if individual employees object to it. Union employees enjoy a federally protected right to opt out of funding union political activity. 

However, corporations are free to spend their general treasuries on politics even if individual shareholders' object as they have no right to opt out of financing corporate political activity.

[MyManao]

Are unions corporations?

I'd go with no more than I would yes..

From.. https://www.americanprogress.org/article...tions-not/

Unions Are Democratically Organized, Corporations Are Not

Where it begins..

In establishing the rules that govern engagement with the democratic process—including laws related to elections, campaign finance, and lobbying—unions and corporations are often lumped together under the incorrect assumption that these two types of organizations are roughly equivalent and thus should be subject to similar rules. For example, prior to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, unions and corporations were subject to identical limits on their ability to spend general treasury funds on federal elections, and since the decision have been equally free to use their general funds on political expenditures.

Efforts to equate corporate and union political activity date back to at least the 1940s with the passage of the 1943 Smith-Connally Act, which barred unions from making contributions to federal candidates in the spirit of parity with the Tillman Act’s limitations on corporate contributions, and the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibited any independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions. As former professor of constitutional law at American University Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) explains, the false equivalence between unions and corporations “has sunk deeply into American legal, political, and social consciousness, weakening the sense of unions as organic democratic institutions in civil society … while aggrandizing the political power of CEOs of large companies who are increasingly, if bizarrely, treated as leaders of civic membership associations.”

The law, however, does not always treat unions and corporations equally. For example, unions are subject to more stringent disclosure requirements for political and other forms of spending. In addition, workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement are able to opt out of funding political activity while corporate shareholders cannot. As a result, unions are more limited in the manner in which they engage with the political process. At the same time, corporations have vastly greater financial resources to use for political engagement...

[Durian Fiend]

Union cash is a much bigger player in Hawaii politics than elsewhere in the US, that much we do know.