Hawaii's Bold Legal Strategy to Combat Corporate Political Influence

Hawaii has taken a a pioneering legal step to reduce the influence of corporate and 'dark money' in its political landscape. By redefining the legal status of corporations in relation to election spending, the state is attempting to bypass the constraints of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Context: The Legacy of Citizens United

To understand the significance of this new law, one must first look at the Citizens United ruling. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down bans on corporate and union election spending, provided that the spending is not donated directly to a campaign. This ruling was sparked by a desire of a conservative group, Citizens United, to run television commercials promoting an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the 2008 presidential race.

Since then, the impact has been immense. According to data from OpenSecrets, outside political spending in federal elections has skyrocketed, with over $4 billion spent in the 2024 federal elections—nearly 12 times the amount spent in 2008. A significant portion of this is categorized as "dark money," which refers to funds from groups that are not required to disclose their donors. The Brennan Center for Justice reported a record $1.9 billion in such spending in 2024 alone.

Hawaii's Novel Approach

Rather than attempting to ban corporate spending directly—which would likely be a direct violation of the Citizens United precedent—Hawaii's new law employs a novel legal strategy. The law redefines corporations in a way that precludes them from spending on elections.

This strategy, crafted by the Center for American Progress, was designed to specifically target the influence of PACs and SuperPACs. By changing the definition of the legal entity, the state aims to create a legal framework where corporate political spending is no longer protected under the same interpretations of the the Supreme Court's ruling.

Legal Challenges and Concerns

Despite the legislative victory, the path forward is far from certain. The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2027, faces significant internal opposition. Hawaii's own Attorney General, Anne Lopez, has expressed opposition to the measure, arguing that it will be difficult and costly to defend in court.

This tension highlights the central conflict: the state is attempting to use a creative legal definition to redefine the a constitutional right as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Given the current composition of the court, the likelihood of a legal challenge leading to the case back and forth to the Supreme Court is inevitable.

National Implications

Hawaii is the first state to implement this approach, but it is not alone in its ambitions. A volunteer group in Montana is currently gathering signatures to bring a similar issue to voters, signaling that Hawaii's move could serve as a blueprint for other states seeking to limit the influence of corporate money in politics.

As Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, stated:

"Hawaii is taking a brave and bold step to get corporate and dark money out of America’s politics... It will send a powerful message that will be heard loud and clear across the Pacific and across the mainland."

Whether this law survives judicial review, it marks a significant shift in state-level efforts to combat the influence of large-scale political spending.