Ok I thought about this.... The only thing that makes sense to me is "who here benefits?"

America is such a litigious society already and the only beneficiaries of having more such litigation are lawyers.

As a lawyer, Karl Rhoads serves to benefit from this law being passed so in his legal practice, he can take away freedom of speech protection from non-natural persons and probably go around suing corporations and making money either way. Of course I am just conjecturing but doesn't he personally and professionally benefit from passing such a bill?

Hmm... Actually, wouldn't this rationale also explain why he introduced HB426, which is to repeal immunity for NRA instructors?

More developments on this...

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/01/28/18185-hawaii-ags-office-shoots-down-bill-that-would-limit-free-speech/?fb_comment_id=fbc_415125068565201_2918513_415566068521101#f8bc4d59bb42f8

Ok I thought about this.... The only thing that makes sense to me is "who here benefits?"

America is such a litigious society already and the only beneficiaries of having more such litigation are lawyers.

As a lawyer, Karl Rhoads serves to benefit from this law being passed so in his legal practice, he can take away freedom of speech protection from non-natural persons and probably go around suing corporations and making money either way. Of course I am just conjecturing but doesn't he personally and professionally benefit from passing such a bill?

Bruddah JI808, I not trying to say that Rep. Rhoads has anything to gain, directly, from this legislation.

I was just trying to say that I question the need to go to such extremes (propose amending the Hawaii Constitution to limit Freedom of Speech rights), just to "make a statement" about campaign advertising/endorsements.  If that was his intent, I think the issue could be more directly and appropriately addressed through another method.

The bigger (and more concerning) issue, at least to me, is that our legislators would so quickly and easily consider amending the Hawaii Constitution; and even worse, do so without really thinking about all of the possible ramifications of such an amendment.

Like bruddah hvybarrels said:

"hey if we can update the first amendment why not the second?"