By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hawaii’s Democratic governor has signed a bill into law that redefines corporations to limit their election spending, aiming to curb the influence of corporate and “dark money” in politics. This innovative approach, taking effect in July 2027, seeks to counteract the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. While some, like the Center for American Progress, hail it as a bold move to reduce outside political spending, the state’s Attorney General’s office has expressed concerns about potential legal challenges and defense costs.
Read the original article here
It’s quite remarkable, isn’t it, how a state like Hawaii is now taking such a bold step to push back against the seemingly endless tide of corporate and “dark money” flooding into our political arena. After the landmark *Citizens United* decision, which really opened the floodgates, the idea of a state actively trying to curb this influence feels less like a radical notion and more like a desperate, common-sense measure to restore some semblance of fairness. The absurdity of the current landscape, where billionaires and anonymous corporate donors wield disproportionate power, has eroded public trust in our political system, and it’s no wonder. Most everyday people can plainly see that their voices are drowned out by these deep pockets.
Hawaii, recognizing this pervasive issue, has enacted a pioneering law, specifically Senate Bill 2471, designed to tackle this very problem and effectively neutralize the impact of *Citizens United* at the state level. This new legislation fundamentally redefines corporations not as entities with inherent rights to political speech, but rather as “artificial persons” created by the state itself. Consequently, the law explicitly prohibits these state-created entities from spending money or contributing in ways that are intended to influence state elections. This reclassification is a cornerstone of the new law, asserting that because corporations are constructs of the state, their capacity for spending to sway local elections is therefore limited by the state that created them.
A crucial aspect of SB 2471 is its direct targeting of “dark money.” This refers to the often-unlimited spending by corporations and certain non-profits that deliberately obscure their donors, a trend that saw a significant surge following the *Citizens United* ruling. By seeking to curb this type of opaque financial influence, Hawaii is making a significant move to increase transparency and accountability in its electoral processes. Supporters of the law are hailing it as a national precedent, arguing that Hawaii is the first state to adopt this particular approach, aiming to render *Citizens United* effectively irrelevant within its own borders and at the local level of governance.
However, this groundbreaking legislation isn’t without its anticipated hurdles. The Hawaii Attorney General’s office, for instance, has voiced caution, acknowledging that the law is likely to face significant legal challenges. There’s a recognized difficulty in defending such measures against claims that political spending by corporations is a protected form of free speech. This opposition highlights the ongoing national debate and the legal complexities surrounding corporate personhood and political spending, but it doesn’t diminish the significance of Hawaii’s attempt to navigate these challenges. The legislation is scheduled to take effect in 2027, allowing time for these legal battles to unfold and for the law to be fully implemented.
Adding another layer to Hawaii’s efforts, a separate bill, SB 2982, has also been passed. This complementary legislation specifically addresses the influence of foreign-controlled corporations, aiming to prevent them from spending any funds on local and state elections in Hawaii. This dual approach underscores a comprehensive strategy to safeguard the integrity of Hawaii’s political discourse from both domestic and international corporate interference. The intention behind explicitly spelling out that corporations are not people and should not possess the right to participate in elections through financial means is a clear rejection of the principles underpinning *Citizens United*.
While the details of *how* the law redefines corporations to preclude election spending are central to its effectiveness, the core principle is that these redefined entities are no longer seen as possessing the rights to engage in unlimited political expenditure. The signing of this bill into law by Governor Josh Green is a significant development, signaling a commitment to this new approach. The passage of SB 2471 is not happening in a vacuum, either. Across the country, there’s a growing movement for similar reforms, with volunteer groups actively gathering signatures in states like Montana in hopes of bringing comparable measures before voters. This suggests that Hawaii’s actions could inspire a broader wave of state-level efforts to curb corporate influence.
The desire to broaden the scope of such legislation, perhaps to apply to any corporation with an office in Hawaii regardless of its headquarters, is understandable, especially given the increasing sophistication of financial mechanisms like Bitcoin and the growing influence of individuals who’ve profited from them. The worry about “greasy people on the planet” getting rich and politically influential during this era is a valid concern that this legislation seeks to address. While the legal arguments presented by the Attorney General are noted, the sentiment that making a strong case and defending these laws is precisely the job of elected officials, rather than an excuse for inaction, resonates with many. This is a fight for the very essence of democratic representation, and Hawaii is taking a pioneering stand.