Hawaii passes law bypassing Citizens United, governor signs it

First state in the nation to do it (a few others are trying), a few days ago the Hawaii legislature passed, and today the Governor signed, a bill saying that CORPORATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO BUY POLITICAL ADS

This takes PAC and SuperPAC money out of politics (at least in Hawaii) and gets around the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United vs FEC.

Aside from the change in the economic landscape, there's also the fact that they wrote it with the elite in mind (white male property owners), so they already had complete control.

Does this extend to the GOP and DNC? They are both corporations, and politics may be a lot better if they were not able to advertise.

But now we know better

Pretty much, yes.

A shareholder (i.e. part owner of the corporation) has chosen to "peaceably assemble" with other like minded individuals by buying stock. They have elected representatives (directors on the board of directors) to further the interests of the group.

Sometimes the group's interests include political issues. For example directors of Widget Corp may well want to promote a candidate running against the candidate running on a "Ban Widgets because they are 'addictive'" platform.

This is no different than people joining together to support candidates who are pro-choice or pro-"life". They pay dues and make donations to an organization (such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund) which supports the individual's interests. The organization then decides who to support and makes donations or otherwise advance those those candidates' campaigns through a PAC. In some cases some of those individuals also make "in kind" contributions under the direct organized umbrella of the political entity (such as spending hours "door knocking" or "phone banking") that, combined with their cash donations to the candidate, exceed the $3,500 individual contribution limit.

Just because one assembled with others to further their financial interests doesn't suddenly mute them or take away their First Amendment rights. For example, some donate to the DSA because they think they or their family will benefit financially if the DSA candidates get elected and can push through certain legislation. Surely that their interest is, at least in part, financial does not mute them.