Hawaii Takes First Shot at Reining In Corporate Election Money Since Citizens United

Hawaii lawmakers passed legislation this week attempting to curtail corporate spending in state elections, marking the first direct legislative challenge to the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 Citizens United decision that unleashed unlimited political money.

The bill, which now heads to the governor’s desk, would impose strict disclosure requirements on corporate political spending and establish new guardrails around how businesses can participate in Hawaii elections. Supporters say the measure restores power to individual voters that corporations seized after the Supreme Court ruled that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Hawaii Legislature’s move tests whether states can work around Citizens United without violating it outright. The 2010 ruling struck down federal limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, fundamentally reshaping American campaign finance. Since then, billions in often-untraceable “dark money” has flooded into races at every level.

Hawaii’s bill requires corporations spending money on state elections to disclose their donors and obtain explicit approval from shareholders. It also prohibits government contractors and foreign-influenced corporations from making independent expenditures in state races. Proponents argue these provisions don’t ban corporate speech—they simply ensure transparency and accountability.

But legal experts expect swift court challenges. Critics say the bill directly conflicts with Citizens United’s core holding that the government cannot restrict political spending based on the speaker’s corporate identity. Any provisions treating corporate and individual spending differently could be struck down as unconstitutional.

The legislation reflects growing frustration across the political spectrum with how Citizens United changed elections. Conservatives complain about liberal tech billionaires buying influence. Liberals point to corporate PACs and dark money networks supporting Republican candidates. Polls consistently show overwhelming majorities—including most Republicans—want limits on campaign spending.

Hawaii’s Democratic-controlled legislature framed the bill as defending ordinary citizens against corporate domination of democracy. Republicans largely opposed it, arguing the measure would drive businesses out of civic engagement and chill political speech.

If the governor signs the bill and it survives legal challenges, Hawaii would become a test case for other states seeking to limit corporate political power within constitutional constraints. More than a dozen state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but none have succeeded in changing federal law.

The measure takes effect immediately upon signing, setting up a likely race to the courthouse.