I think so. There’s just one significant change that I don’t think affects the main goal.
The law said that corporations had artificial-person rights, “the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs”, including (but not limited to) those in a list. _Citizens United _ basically tacked electoral spending onto that list. The original bill would make the law say “[corporations will only have these rights that we say and nothing else]” followed by the original list. The version that was signed is much more like the original law; it said corporations had artificial-person rights other than electoral spending including (but not limited to) those in the original list.
There was also a later amendment that changed the effective date from 1 January to 1 July.
…being honest I didn’t really understand what the change entails but thanks anyway, I’m sure someone else with more knowledge in US law will find the answer useful!
I think so. There’s just one significant change that I don’t think affects the main goal.
The law said that corporations had artificial-person rights, “the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs”, including (but not limited to) those in a list. _Citizens United _ basically tacked electoral spending onto that list. The original bill would make the law say “[corporations will only have these rights that we say and nothing else]” followed by the original list. The version that was signed is much more like the original law; it said corporations had artificial-person rights other than electoral spending including (but not limited to) those in the original list.
There was also a later amendment that changed the effective date from 1 January to 1 July.
…being honest I didn’t really understand what the change entails but thanks anyway, I’m sure someone else with more knowledge in US law will find the answer useful!