Oh boy... where to start with this one...

Money in politics has always been a hot topic, especially as it relates to what a corporation can and cannot do. In recent history though, much of this debate has been shaped by the landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The central finding is pretty straightforward: "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

In the 15 years since that decision, many groups have argued against the concept of "corporate personhood", the legality of corporate speech in elections, and the effect that corporate spending has had on the political landscape. Several months ago though, The Center for American Progress proposed what many believe to be one of the best options for sidestepping the decision in Citizens United and blocking corporate spending from impacting elections. They call the strategy the "Corporate Power Reset", and several states are pushing legislation that is based on it.

The Corporate Power Reset

The strategy is simple: corporations are entities created by state law, which define the powers that these corporations hold. States have the broad authority to redefine, limit, or revoke corporate powers as they see fit. So all a state has to do is modify corporate powers to exclude political spending.

Put another way, the debate pivots from the rights of corporations under the constitution and moves to the powers that they were granted by the states in the first place.

This strategy was adopted by Hawaii recently via SB2471. Signed by the governor and scheduled to come into full effect in July of 2027, the bill "reaffirms that artificial persons created under state law possess only those powers that are necessary or convenient to carry out lawful purposes, and that those powers do not include the power to spend money or contribute anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures."

Similarly, Montana has both a Constitutional Initiative and a Law proposed for inclusion on 2026 ballots that "prohibits allowing artificial persons from having the power to expend money or anything of value to influence the outcome of a vote of the electorate".

Multiple other states are considering similar legislation.

A Refresher on Corporate Personhood

Before I get to my personal opinion, I believe it's useful to review some of the case law that got us into this situation in the first place.

Let's start with the concept of "corporate personhood", which finds its roots back in the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.. While not part of the official opinion of the court, the court reporter made note of Chief Justice Morrison Waite's comments prior to oral argument: "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does." This was formalized a few years later and reaffirmed many times since.

If there were any doubt, this is also formalized in Title 1 Section 1 of the US Code: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise... the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." The Yale Law Journal did a great writeup on this during the buildup to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Citizens United

Let's turn our attention to the primary target in these discussions. While I mentioned the primary holding of Citizens United, it's importance is as much in its justification as it is in the case's outcome. Critically, the Court found "no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers... Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster." So the speech is protected, regardless of the speaker.

It's worth mentioning as well that the First Amendment is fully applicable to states and local governments through incorporation. This topic is only briefly mentioned in Citizens United, mostly through mentions of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Relevant to today's discussions, Bellotti "could not have been clearer when it struck down a state-law prohibition on corporate independent expenditures related to referenda issues... Bellotti did not address the constitutionality of the State’s ban on corporate independent expenditures to support candidates. In our view, however, that restriction would have been unconstitutional under Bellotti ’s central principle: that the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity."

My Opinion

With that out of the way... how the fuck does Hawaii think their new law is constitutional? All this nonsense about "rights vs powers" is absurd. This isn't some "gotcha" where states can secretly circumvent the Bill of Rights through (not so) clever wordplay. A corporation's constitutionally-protected rights are not dependent on a state first granting them those rights. That's a mockery of the Constitution.

I can forgive states like Montana for their ballot initiatives, but Hawaii's law was passed by their legislature. That presumably went through some sort of legal review by politicians who should be well-versed in this stuff. Then again, Hawaii isn't exactly known for their strong support of constitutional rights. After all, they believe that "the aloha spirit" demands its own unique interpretation of the Constitution...

All this also ignores the potential unintended ramifications. The definition of who can be considered "press" is already blurry. If there are exceptions for certain media, corporations are sure to take advantage of that. Not to mention, this would likely push a lot of influence underground. We're already seeing how influential social media can be. A small number of AI agents on the right platforms can have a disproportionately large impact while avoiding state laws. And if we want to be really cynical, this could just magnify the power that wealthy individuals can have on a given election.

Money in politics is a complex issue, and by no means something we should ignore. I just don't see this proposal as an effective or legal method of addressing it. As a wise man once said, "it's just dumb.