TL;DR
Hawaii’s nearly unanimous legislature approved a bill to restrict corporate political spending, challenging the legal basis established by Citizens United. The governor’s signature is pending, raising questions about future legal battles.
Hawaii’s legislature has passed a bill that would restrict corporations from spending on most political causes, marking a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that granted corporations free speech rights in elections.
The bill, sponsored by State Senator Jarrett Keohokalole, received near-unanimous support in the state Senate and only one dissent in the House. It aims to limit the political spending of for-profit corporations, dark-money nonprofits, unions, and chambers of commerce, while making exceptions for journalistic activities and company-organized PACs. Hawaii Governor Josh Green, a Democrat, has not yet signed the bill into law, but lawmakers expect him to do so soon.
Legal experts warn that the bill may face legal challenges. Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez indicated that the legislation could be struck down in court because it attempts to remove corporations’ rights to political speech, rights established by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. The bill is based on the argument that corporate personhood is a creation of state law, not a constitutional right, and thus can be altered at the state level.
Why It Matters
This development matters because it represents a potential shift in how states can regulate corporate political spending, challenging the precedent set by Citizens United. If upheld, it could significantly reduce the influence of corporate money in Hawaii’s elections and inspire similar efforts in other states, possibly prompting legal battles over the scope of state authority versus federal constitutional protections.
corporate political spending regulation book
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Background
The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC established that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on political campaigns, equating corporate speech with individual speech. Since then, corporate political spending has surged, with dark-money groups spending over $1.4 billion in recent elections. Hawaii’s move is part of a broader effort by some states to reassert control over political funding, citing the legal distinction between corporate law and constitutional rights.
“How can a creation of the state have inalienable rights? It doesn’t make any sense.”
— State Senator Jarrett Keohokalole
“If a state tries to remove a corporation’s power to engage in election activity under Citizens United, it would be attempting to take away a corporation’s right to speak, which is protected by the Supreme Court.”
— Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez
campaign finance reform guide
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Remains Unclear
It is not yet clear whether Governor Green will sign the bill into law or if it will withstand potential legal challenges. The courts’ response remains uncertain, and the broader impact on federal constitutional law is still to be determined.
dark money nonprofit transparency tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What’s Next
The next step is for Governor Josh Green to decide whether to sign the legislation. If signed, legal challenges are expected, potentially reaching federal courts. Other states may consider similar legislation, influencing future legal and political debates on corporate speech rights.
political campaign donation tracking software
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Could Hawaii’s law be struck down by the courts?
Yes, legal experts, including Hawaii’s Attorney General, suggest that courts may find the law unconstitutional because it attempts to restrict rights established by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.
Will this legislation affect all types of corporate political spending?
The bill primarily targets for-profit corporations, dark-money nonprofits, unions, and chambers of commerce, with exceptions for journalistic activities and company PACs.
Could other states follow Hawaii’s example?
Yes, efforts are underway in other states, such as Montana, where activists are gathering signatures to pursue ballot initiatives, aiming to limit corporate influence in elections.
What legal arguments support or oppose the bill?
Supporters argue that corporate personhood is a state-created legal fiction that can be modified, while opponents contend that the First Amendment protections established by Citizens United prevent states from restricting corporate speech.
