By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hawaii lawmakers have passed a bill to prohibit corporations from spending money in state elections, aiming to return power to individual citizens. This landmark legislation challenges the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, arguing that as states create corporations, they can limit their political spending. Despite concerns about potential legal challenges and taxpayer costs, supporters believe it is crucial for states to take a stand against the influence of corporate money in democracy and to protect the voices of the people.
Read the original article here
Hawaii has made a significant move, passing what is being hailed as the first-in-the-nation bill aimed at directly challenging the foundational principles of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling. This legislative action by the Aloha State signifies a bold attempt to curb the influence of corporate money in politics, a practice that has become increasingly prevalent and, for many, deeply concerning. The bill’s passage is being met with a mix of enthusiastic support and pragmatic skepticism, with many hoping it will spark a domino effect across other states.
The excitement surrounding Hawaii’s bill is palpable, with many expressing a strong desire to see similar measures adopted nationwide. The sentiment is that this is a crucial step in the right direction, a tangible effort to reclaim the political landscape from the perceived overwhelming power of corporate interests. There’s a collective hope that this pioneering legislation will serve as a catalyst, encouraging other states to follow suit and take a stand against the unfettered flow of money in elections.
However, a notable point of contention is the bill’s effective date. Many observers have expressed disappointment that the legislation doesn’t come into effect immediately, but rather is slated for 2027. This delay raises questions about the urgency felt by lawmakers and the potential for it to be challenged and overturned before it even has a chance to be implemented. The desire for an immediate impact is strong, reflecting a sentiment that the current situation is dire and requires swift action.
The absence of similar bold moves from other so-called “democratic strongholds” has also been noted with a degree of frustration. California, in particular, is highlighted as a state with significant potential to influence national policy, yet it’s perceived as not taking comparable legislative steps. This comparison fuels the argument that more decisive action is needed from powerful states to truly drive change and offer a clear alternative path forward.
The core of the legislative effort lies in its attempt to circumvent or directly counter the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which famously equated money spent by corporations and unions in political campaigns with free speech. This particular ruling has been a lightning rod for criticism, with many believing it has fundamentally corrupted American politics by allowing corporations to exert undue influence. The hope is that Hawaii’s bill, by redefining what constitutes a legitimate business entity and regulating its political spending at the state level, can navigate the complexities of constitutional law.
There’s an underlying belief that states possess a certain degree of autonomy in defining business entities within their borders. The argument is that regulating the political expenditures of these entities, which are not considered people, is a legitimate function of state government and should not be overreached by federal interpretations of the First Amendment. This perspective suggests that by focusing on the regulation of business entities rather than individuals, the bill might find a path to constitutionality.
The potential for this bill to be challenged in court, particularly by the current Supreme Court, is a significant concern. The prevailing sentiment among many is that the court, given its past decisions, might be predisposed to strike down legislation that seeks to limit corporate political spending. This skepticism leads some to believe that the bill’s delayed implementation is a strategic move, anticipating a legal battle and perhaps a loss in court, rather than an indication of a robust and sustainable legal strategy.
Interestingly, some believe that if the bill proves effective at the state level, it might bypass the need for legislative action in larger states like California altogether. The idea is that the success of the Hawaii model could empower grassroots movements to push for ballot propositions, allowing voters to directly approve such measures. This approach, it is argued, could generate sufficient signatures quickly and secure overwhelming voter support, effectively circumventing legislative hurdles.
The notion that corporations “own” politicians, particularly those in the Republican party, is a frequently cited reason for the need for such legislation. However, the sentiment here extends to the idea that corporate influence is not solely a partisan issue, and that this bill is an attempt to address a broader problem of corporate entanglement in the political process across the spectrum.
The legal reasoning behind the potential failure of such bills often centers on the interpretation of the First Amendment as applied to corporate political donations. The argument is that since Citizens United essentially read political donations into free speech protections, any state law attempting to restrict them would likely face significant constitutional challenges, especially from a conservative-leaning judiciary. This leads to frustration that legislatures might be expending time and resources on “obvious DOA” (dead on arrival) policies.
However, a counter-argument emphasizes that states do have the power to define business entities and that regulating their behavior within the state is a legitimate governmental function. This perspective suggests that simply requiring business entities to adhere to certain rules to operate within a state is not inherently unconstitutional, even if those rules pertain to political spending. The hope is that the federal government would have limited control over state-level regulations concerning money spent within that state’s political sphere.
The discussion also touches upon the tactics historically employed by various political factions. It’s noted that for decades, policies and laws that might have been considered “dead on arrival” by some have been steadily enacted, gradually eroding rights and precedents. The erosion of Roe v. Wade and the Voting Rights Act, as well as the conditions leading to Citizens United, are cited as examples of how incrementalism, even when seemingly slow, can have profound and lasting impacts. This perspective suggests that starting somewhere, even with a potentially challenged bill, is better than inaction.
The question of immediate implementation versus delayed effectiveness is also framed within the broader context of how laws are enacted and when they take effect. It’s pointed out that legislators have the power to determine the effective date of a law, and there’s no inherent legal barrier preventing a bill from going into effect immediately, other than the lawmakers’ own willingness to do so. This fuels the suspicion that delays are often strategic, anticipating potential legal challenges or reflecting a lack of genuine commitment to immediate change.
The debate also highlights the supremacy of the Constitution over state law, acknowledging that any state legislation must ultimately stand up to federal constitutional scrutiny. The hope, however, is that by carefully crafting the legislation and focusing on state-specific regulatory powers, Hawaii might create a bill that is both effective and constitutionally sound, offering a blueprint for other states seeking to address the pervasive influence of corporate money in politics.