In a novel ruling, a Delaware judge determined that certain artificial entities, including corporations and trusts, can possess voting rights in local elections under specific circumstances. This decision dismissed an ACLU challenge against Fenwick Island’s charter, which allows property-owning entities to vote, citing the principle of “one person/entity/one vote.” The judge acknowledged concerns about corporate influence but emphasized that Delaware law expressly recognizes these entities as “persons.” This case highlights ongoing debates surrounding corporate speech rights and electoral influence, particularly in a state heavily reliant on its corporate charters for revenue.
Read More
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 More
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 More
It’s really no surprise that a staggering 72 percent of Americans believe there’s too much money in politics. This sentiment seems to permeate conversations and reflects a deep-seated frustration with how our political system operates. It feels like the very idea of democracy is being undermined when financial power appears to trump the collective will of the people.
The core of this issue often circles back to how money has become inextricably linked with political influence. The perception is that if you’re not wealthy or don’t have deep pockets to contribute, your voice gets drowned out. This creates a stark contrast between those who can afford to have their messages amplified and those who struggle to be heard, raising serious questions about equal representation and fairness.… Continue reading
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 More
Hawaii is taking a potentially groundbreaking step, aiming to be the first state to leverage dormant legal authority to significantly reduce corporate influence in its elections. This bold move seeks to undo the effects of the *Citizens United* decision, and while it raises legal questions, the underlying legal framework suggests these challenges may have clean answers. The core of Hawaii’s strategy lies in redefining the powers granted to corporations within the state. Unlike the previous understanding that corporations inherently possess certain rights, including the ability to spend money in politics, Hawaii is asserting that corporate existence and powers are granted by the state itself, and therefore, the state can place limitations on those granted powers.… Continue reading
Hawaii is making waves, quite literally, with a groundbreaking bill that challenges the influence of big money in politics. This legislative effort, which has advanced, stands as the first of its kind in the nation, aiming to curb the power of corporate spending in elections. The core of this movement centers on a fundamental belief: that corporations are not individuals and should not be afforded the same rights when it comes to political influence. There’s a palpable sense across many that this is a positive step forward, a necessary recalibration of the system.
The sentiment is that the damage wrought by the *Citizens United* Supreme Court decision has been profound, and its eventual reversal or circumvention is crucial for the health of democracy.… Continue reading
A state Senate bill, SB 2471, proposes to make the controversial Citizens United campaign finance law irrelevant in Hawaiʻi by redefining corporations as “artificial persons” created by state law. This redefinition would clarify that their granted powers do not include spending money to influence elections, thereby challenging super PACs and their opaque funding. While the bill has advanced through the Senate and one House committee, the Attorney General’s office opposes it, citing potential constitutional concerns and litigation risks. Supporters, however, believe the bill aligns with the state’s authority to define corporate powers and could lead to greater transparency in political donations.
Read More
A new investigation published by the Washington Post reveals that a small group of billionaires has significantly influenced the American political system by contributing billions of dollars to elections. Over the past decade, the top 20 billionaire donors spent nearly $5 billion, primarily supporting Republican candidates who often enact policies benefiting their benefactors, such as tax cuts. This trend is exacerbated by Supreme Court decisions like *Citizens United*, which removed campaign finance restrictions. A public survey found that a majority of Americans view this level of spending negatively and believe billionaires have a detrimental impact on society.
Read More
The article details how Dashiell Hammett’s experiences in Montana, where he witnessed corporations influencing state government, shaped his views and later his writing. Now, Montanans are proposing the Transparent Election Initiative, aiming to limit corporate involvement in elections. This initiative utilizes the argument that states grant corporations their powers and, therefore, can restrict their influence, as detailed in a paper by Tom Moore. This approach, rooted in historical Supreme Court decisions, could potentially negate the effects of Citizens United by changing state laws governing corporate charters, ultimately pushing public discourse towards more egalitarian politics.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood