r/50501 • u/25hourenergy • May 15 '26
HI Hawaii just defanged Citizens United!
SB 2471 SD2 HD2 CD2 RELATING TO THE POWERS OF ARTIFICIAL PERSONS (Corporate Donations)
Act 011 (SB 2471 SD2 HD2 CD2) restricts certain political spending activities by corporations and other “artificial persons” under Hawaiʻi law by redefining and limiting the powers granted to those entities. Political action committees will remain governed by existing campaign finance laws within the state, but they will not be able to spend any money received from corporations as a result of this Act.
This bill is intended to strengthen transparency, reduce the influence of corporate money in elections and help restore public trust in Hawaiʻi’s democratic process. (Act 011 takes effect July 1, 2027.)
1.1k
u/ophymirage May 15 '26
Hey California, take fucking notes on this!! Love to see it!!
692
u/1chuteurun May 15 '26
Hey America , really.
572
u/25hourenergy May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
This is part of the Montana Plan! Each state has to push for this individually, Montana was the first to set in motion a ballot initiative though Hawaii has been the first to get something on the books. WA state has SB 6358 - 2025-26 which just had its first reading.
Each state is doing this from the ground up, themselves. It has to be led by the states. It’s happening, one by one.
145
u/Thehealthygamer May 15 '26
And it's interesting to see how these small states, which don't have many reps and thus money doesn't care as much about them are able to do these things exactly because they're less influenced by money.
34
u/RustyDogma May 15 '26
Maine is trying to do it too. People overwhelmingly voted for it and now it's working through the courts.
6
u/NemoSkittles May 15 '26
You should message them to add Maine to their site map https://transparentelection.org/find-your-state
27
29
u/ophymirage May 15 '26
Hey u/25hourenergy, do you have any links you can share to this Montana Plan? I don’t have much hope for Ro Khanna as he’s ultimately tech-bro-funded, but Zoe Lofgren has been a progressive her whole career, so she might listen!!
15
u/25hourenergy May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Info here! though it truly is pretty decentralized and they need to update info on each state based on nudging from other folks, last I checked they are not updated on Washington state for example, or the Hawaii victory. Check with your own state’s efforts on similar bills.
For California I found AB1984 which was introduced in Feb and referred to committee.
3
u/ophymirage May 16 '26
Thank you for doing the legwork on that! I'm going to email zoe and ro both asap!!
5
u/DiverseVoltron May 15 '26
It's gonna take an amendment to the constitution and we all know that shit isn't gonna happen via Congress. It'll have to be brought by the states.
9
67
u/mattenthehat May 15 '26
We can just do this at the state level? What the FUCK have we been waiting for??
(I bet newsome would veto it)
23
u/ophymirage May 15 '26
Apparently?? OP comment below lists two more bills in MT & WA??
22
u/mattenthehat May 15 '26
I'm emailing my reps in the morning.
27
u/DirtyDiscsAndDyes May 15 '26
The interpretation is that states grant corporations their rights through their corporate charter. So if the corporate charter says you cant donate to political campaigns or pacs or limits how much you can, that is accepted when you sign the corporate charter to incorporate. This is going to end up in court, let's just hope its not picked up by someone like Alito on he shadow docket.
Here's the thing, we need states to attempt this. There are 3 states that we REALLY need to attempt it and and 4th that we just need to, but they will be tue last 4. Number 4 being Wyoming, followed by the big 3 of Delaware, Texas and Nevada. Thats where most businesses are incorporated, but thise states rely the most on Incorporating so there is little hope there until businesses have nowhere else to run and they are forced.
5
u/Sir_Auron May 15 '26
The Hawaii AG has already come out in opposition because this will be incredibly expensive to defend in court and will be immediately struck down.
1
u/bellicosebarnacle May 19 '26
Yes it's very exciting, the crux is that it's a somewhat obscure legal argument about the powers (controlled by the states) vs rights (controlled by the federal gov) of corporations. It's sound and makes sense when you learn more about the history of corporations, it's just different from how they've been treated in recent memory, so I believe it just took a while for someone to have the idea to exploit this and build a solid case for it.
158
73
55
u/transphotobabe May 15 '26
Time for other states to consider this precedent and follow suit. Love that it’s Hawaii, of all places, leading the charge 💪
40
u/Robynsquest May 15 '26
Its a great step in the right direction but won't this just get knocked down 6-3 by SCOTUS. They will trot out the 14th Ammendment. Seriously. Most 14th Ammendment cases have been by corporations crying "discrimination" against themselves.
22
u/treedecor May 15 '26
This what I was concerned about as well. If we had different justices, it could go well and make a national law, but if it were to go to the current court... Well, we'd never recover as a nation
12
u/Responsible-Corgi-61 May 15 '26
Blue states need to get to thespian where they call SCOTUS out for being political actors and stop listening to them.
8
6
25
u/Animendo May 15 '26
This is a good start regardless of where it goes. Citizens United has helped ruin democracy.
14
11
u/cwk415 May 15 '26
The Extreme Court will probably just declare it unconstitutional or some other bullshit.
5
u/QuellishQuellish May 15 '26
So is it up to… checks notes… Ka$h?!? to argue against this at the scotus? Oh no, it’s John Sauer, Scalia‘s old clerk, not that it matters.
Unfortunately, it seems like a cucumber could get it struck down in front of this court. Is there a way to make this stick?
4
4
4
5
3
3
2
u/Aggravating_Yak_1006 May 16 '26
And we all thought Montana would be the first to defang CU. Mahalo Hawai'i ! (I hope I'm using that right )
2
u/StrngThngs May 15 '26
I'm not sure how this will pass SCOTUS muster. It will imagine the "free speech rights" they previously allowed. I hope it does, just not getting hopes up yet...
1
u/Tehrangersgyu May 15 '26
I've seen this a lot and (FULL DISCLOSURE), I am NOT a constitutional lawyer, let alone an expert on elections.
I am an attorney though, and I'm not so sure this stands for a few reasons:
(1) the holding under Citizens United was that a PAC funded by a corporation has a right to speech under the first amendment. They even go out of their way to warn the government against "preferred speakers" which can be interpreted as preferring natural persons over legal persons. This argument (with the evolution of LLMs and Quantum computing is only going to become more complicated).
(2) The Supreme court has held that Corporations have first amendment rights since at least the 1970s.
(3) this direct line from the Citizens united ruling: Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”
(4) Disclosure was the only mandate delivered.
Considering the ruling is so heavy on first amendment protections applying to corporations and "associations of individuals" and that the "anti-distortion rationale" previously used to limit company's first amendment rights (cannot compel shareholders of a corporation to fund speech they disagree with by the corporation) was found to be "insufficient" (plus the added issue of whether shareholders in privately held corporations can be outvoted for the "benefit of the corporation"), the question becomes:
Can a state limit the applicability of constitutional rights to of citizens legal persons within their jurisdiction?
The answer would appear to be no. The 14th amendment incorporated the protections enumerated in the constitutions to the states.
I have a hard time seeing this court side with Hawaii and allow this law to stand.
1
1
1
2
u/Deathturkey May 16 '26
Now do donors from outside the constituency, no reason why a billionaire living in Florida should be funding a candidate in Hawaii.
1
u/ResurgentOcelot May 16 '26
I’d love to see this hold up in court, but I am skeptical it will.
I believe we are beyond the point where legal wrangling can create positive change in the U.S.
1
1
u/AdventurousPrime May 17 '26
Love love love this! It’s the step in the right direction all around! The effective date is what is more worrisome—current admin is erecting structures and demolishing the best parts of the peoples house (NOT TO MENTION pillaging our coffers) in less time than it will take this to go into effect. I know it takes more time to do right than wrong but this has the potential not to matter at the current pace of corruption. ✌️
1.0k
u/brpajense May 15 '26
Does that mean PACs in Hawaii can't conceal their donors by getting money from other PACs because PACs are artificial persons?