By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article discusses a novel legal strategy emerging in Hawaii aimed at curbing corporate influence in elections by redefining corporate powers granted by the state, rather than directly challenging Citizens United on First Amendment grounds. This approach argues that state charters, which create corporations, precede any constitutional rights, allowing states to limit corporate political spending. While met with skepticism from some legal experts who believe it will ultimately be struck down by courts, the legislation has garnered significant bipartisan support in Hawaii and is being explored in other states as a potential avenue to address concerns about the influence of “dark money” in politics. The outcome in Hawaii, should the governor sign the bill, is expected to lead to legal battles that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, reigniting the debate over corporate speech rights.
Read the original article here
Hawaii is making a bold move, challenging the deeply entrenched concept of corporate personhood that has significantly shaped campaign finance and political influence in the United States. At its core, the new law, spearheaded by State Senator Jarrett Keohokalole, questions the very foundation of why a state-created entity should possess inalienable rights. The argument is straightforward: if a corporation is a creation of the state, how can it claim rights that are inherent to individuals? This philosophical hurdle is central to understanding Hawaii’s legislative effort.
Governor Josh Green’s signing of this bill into law is a significant development, representing a direct attempt to curb the flow of anonymous “dark money” that floods elections. The hope is that by redefining corporate powers, Hawaii can effectively cut off this source of funding, encouraging other states to follow suit. The move is seen as a powerful way to force the issue, even potentially compelling the Supreme Court to revisit its stance on corporate influence in politics. This sparks a classic debate about states’ rights versus federal interpretation, with proponents emphasizing that if states are champions of “states’ rights,” they should also have the autonomy to regulate corporate behavior within their borders.
The notion of corporations as “people” is a contentious one, and many argue that this legal fiction has far-reaching consequences. A common refrain is that if corporations are indeed people, then the executives in the C-suite should face the same legal repercussions for corporate wrongdoing as individuals would. This highlights the perceived unfairness of corporations enjoying the rights of persons without bearing the full weight of their responsibilities and penalties. The lack of equivalent accountability, such as corporate execution or jail time, underscores the argument that this legal definition is fundamentally flawed.
The historical roots of corporate personhood are also being questioned. The idea is that the legal concept first emerged not through clear legal precedent, but through a headnote in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. case. This headnote, added by a court reporter with a vested interest in expanding corporate power, is cited as a dubious foundation for a doctrine that has profoundly impacted American law and economics. The argument is that this potentially flawed historical basis was then used to justify decisions like Citizens United, creating a legal framework that benefits powerful entities at the expense of the general populace.
The impact of Citizens United is widely perceived as detrimental to the democratic process. When ordinary citizens feel powerless against the vast sums of money corporations pour into elections, democracy can begin to resemble an auction rather than a genuine expression of the public will. This feeling of disenfranchisement is amplified by the understanding that a small percentage of top executives, who often have strong partisan affiliations, control a disproportionate amount of financial influence. This concentration of power in the hands of a few, who may not truly represent the interests of most citizens or even their own investors, is seen as a fundamental threat to economic and cultural democracy.
Furthermore, the argument extends to the very definition of an economy. A truly healthy economy is one that is fair and balanced, supporting all its citizens. However, when corporations can effectively “bribe” government officials through campaign donations and lobbying, it leads to a system where tax burdens are shifted from the wealthy to average Americans, exacerbating economic inequality. This is particularly concerning when considering that many corporations can generate substantial profits while still treating their workers fairly, suggesting that the pursuit of profit is not inherently at odds with ethical business practices, but rather the pursuit of unchecked influence.
The historical parallels drawn to the “robber baron” era of the past are stark. The concern is that a powerful, self-serving elite is once again consolidating its influence, mirroring tactics used to maintain systems of exploitation. The notion that this powerful group, which has historically benefited from and perpetuated systems of oppression, now wields unchecked influence in politics is a deeply disturbing prospect. This historical context adds weight to the urgency of the current efforts to rebalance power.
The current situation is so dire that some express a desire for corporate malfeasance to be treated with the same gravity as individual crimes. The idea of a corporation being held accountable for deaths resulting from its actions, akin to murder, highlights the perceived moral and legal disconnect. When individuals face severe penalties for similar offenses, the leniency shown to corporate entities is seen as a profound injustice. This points to the core issue: either corporations are people and subject to all human laws and punishments, or they are not and should not possess human rights.
The fact that the Citizens United decision has been law for a relatively short period, less than some other landmark rulings like Roe v. Wade, suggests it’s not an unassailable tenet of American law. This gives hope that it can be challenged and potentially overturned. The sentiment is that if corporations are truly to be considered “persons,” they must be held to the same standards of accountability. This means facing the same legal consequences, including potential imprisonment or even the ultimate penalty in jurisdictions that permit it, for actions that result in harm or death.
The inspiration for Hawaii’s bill appears to stem from efforts in states like Montana, where activists are working to qualify ballot initiatives. This groundswell of state-level action suggests a growing national movement to address the perceived failures of Citizens United. The hope is that if enough states, particularly large and influential ones, enact similar legislation, it will create a powerful domino effect, fundamentally altering the landscape of campaign finance and political influence across the country. Resources are available for citizens to contact their state legislators and advocate for similar reforms, emphasizing that this change requires public demand.
The resistance to such measures is also anticipated, as powerful interests benefit from the current system. The argument that corporations, as organizations of people, should not lose their rights when they organize is a common counterpoint. However, the prevailing sentiment among many is that the current interpretation of corporate rights has gone too far, granting undue influence and shielding entities from the consequences of their actions. The ongoing efforts in Hawaii and elsewhere represent a crucial fight to reclaim a more equitable and representative democracy.