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 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
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
Representative Jayapal introduced the We the People Amendment, a constitutional amendment aiming to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood. The amendment seeks to curtail the undue influence of money in politics by explicitly stating that constitutional rights belong to human beings, not corporations. This would reverse the Citizens United ruling, which drastically increased corporate spending in elections, and mandate the public disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures. The amendment is supported by numerous co-sponsors and aims to restore democratic balance.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood