74 to 1 The vote in Hawaii’s House to ban corporate election spending. The legal strategy is different from anything tried before.
What Hawaii Did
Governor Josh Green signed SB 2471 into law. Starting in 2027, corporations in Hawaii cannot spend money on elections. The law does not try to overturn Citizens United directly. It goes around it.
The strategy: states create corporations. States grant them their legal powers. Hawaii’s law asserts that the power to spend on elections is not inherent to corporate existence and can be withheld by the state that issued the charter.
This is corporate law, not campaign finance law. That distinction matters in court.
Why Other States Failed
Over a dozen states have introduced similar bills. Almost all died in committee. California’s AB 1984 was introduced in February 2026 and went nowhere. Montana is gathering signatures for a ballot initiative but is still short of the 30,000 needed.
Hawaii passed it 74-1 in the House with supermajority support in the Senate. The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Jarrett Keohokalole and Karl Rhoads.
The Legal Fight Ahead
Hawaii’s Attorney General warned of “serious constitutional concerns” and expected litigation. The Institute for Free Speech has signaled it may challenge the law. Bradley Smith, the institute’s founder, dismissed the approach: “Does anybody really think that they’re going to listen now and go, ‘you guys are so clever.’”
The case will likely reach the Supreme Court. The question: can a state limit the powers it grants to corporations, including the power to spend on elections? The answer has never been tested at the federal level because no state has tried this approach until now.
Why It Matters
Citizens United v. FEC was decided in 2010. Since then, corporate and dark money spending on elections has exceeded $4.5 billion. A supermajority of Americans oppose the ruling. But every legislative attempt to reverse it through campaign finance law has hit the same constitutional wall.
Hawaii’s approach is different because it reframes the question. It does not argue that corporations lack free speech rights. It argues that states never granted them the specific power to spend on elections in the first place. Whether courts agree will determine if other states follow.
Read more on the Ethics and Corruption hub.