[ProllyInfamous]

>This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii.

Understood, but state-control of corporate charters (in both cases) is the underlying enabler.

>In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.

My original claim is that states ought'a have Tenth Amendment Rights – no? – what they do with it also ought'a be up to their homerulings.

----

Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.

[cco]

> Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.

Couldn't agree more!

My point is that it is the same underlying power, but one is using the power to maintain and grow powers over corps, the other using the same power to cede it.

[ProllyInfamous]

This was my original point, as well; but I fumbled on the communicative part – in my more-balkanized fantasies: it is my hope that the Federal System successfully tears itself apart, in its many differences.

That such a Constitution allows such jurisdictional diversity is kind of the entire point of Its governing, I'guess. #neat