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.