HONOLULU — Two states could try a new way to limit the influence of corporations and hard-to-trace “dark money” groups that have been able to spend unlimited sums on politics since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010.
Hawaii lawmakers on Friday sent A invoice To the governor that would redefine corporations in a way that prevents election spending. A volunteer group in Montana is collecting signatures in hopes of putting a similar issue before voters in November.
Supporters say voters hate corporations and dark money in elections and that this effort fills a need. Critics say states can’t pass laws to get around Supreme Court decisions they don’t like.
Similar legislation has been introduced in at least 14 states besides Hawaii, but none of those bills have gone far enough.
Citizens United, a conservative group, wanted to run TV ads promoting its anti-Hillary Clinton film when she was running for president in 2008. The Supreme Court’s ruling in her case two years later effectively overturned a ban on corporations and unions spending on elections as long as they don’t donate directly to any campaigns.
The ruling has benefited Democrats and Republicans. Campaign finance watchdog group OpenSecrets tracked more than $4 billion in outside political spending in the 2024 federal election — nearly 12 times what it was in 2008.
Some of that came from dark money groups that aren’t required to disclose their donors, and the Brennan Center for Justice reported a record $1.9 billion in that type of spending in 2024. Dark money also played a role in some statewide races.
Barring corporations from spending on elections may not make much of a difference in how political spending works, said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who studies campaign finance law, noting that wealthy people like the wealthy spend a lot. Elon Musk.
Americans want the Citizens United ruling reversed, according to Tom Moore, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. The Washington, D.C., think tank seeks to redefine corporations to prohibit campaign spending while allowing them to lobby lawmakers.
The ban will also include non-profit organizations involved in dark money spending.
“This is a really new approach to getting Citizens United out of corporate law-based American politics altogether,” he said.
If just one state adopts it, it will be tested in court, Moore said.
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, has not said whether he will sign the bill. He must say by June 30 whether he intends to veto it.
“This is an example where a small state has an opportunity to make big waves on the national stage,” said state Sen. Carl Rhodes, a Democrat, who introduced the legislation. “I think we should take advantage of it.”
The office of Hawaii Attorney General Ann Lopez, a Democrat, opposed the bill, arguing that it would be difficult and expensive to defend in court.
Separately, volunteers are collecting signatures in hopes of putting the idea of redefining the company — branded as a Montana plan — before voters in that state in November.
The Montana Supreme Court ruled last April that the effort could continue even after the state’s Republican Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, said it violated a requirement that ballot initiatives stick to a single topic.
“This is really resonating with citizens,” said Jeff Mangan, a former Montana political practices commissioner who is leading the ballot effort. “Maybe they see it because they live in it.”
Bradley Smith, a former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, says Moore’s idea is unlikely to win in court.
“The mistake I think proponents of this are making is thinking you can ignore the substance of the Supreme Court ruling through semantic legal tricks,” he said.
Smith said lower courts would likely not approve a measure aimed at circumventing the Supreme Court’s ruling and might reject any law linking the delivery of public government services to the behaviors of recipients.
He said that if these measures take effect, companies may withdraw from the states rather than reduce their political spending.
Loyola’s Levitt says he’s not sure the effort will succeed, but he knows who will decide.
“The one thing I’m absolutely sure of is that if it gets the signatures and passes the Montana public and is approved by the Montana courts, the Supreme Court will want to act on it,” he said. “There are a lot of steps between here and there.”
___
Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.