The problems Citizens United created support Hawaii’s innovative solution

The problems created by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision, which unleashed corporate spending on our elections, support Hawaii’s innovative attempt to address them, according to an amicus brief CREW submitted in Grassroot Institute of Hawaii v. Lopez.

On May 14, 2026, Hawaii Governor Josh Green signed a first-of-its-kind reform that takes an innovative approach to curb the influence that corporations have on elections. This new law, called Act 11, seeks a way around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. FEC decision by utilizing states’ traditional corporate authority to define the powers corporations may exercise.

CREW’s amicus, filed jointly with the Campaign Legal Center, shows the safeguards that Citizens United assumed would check corporate election spending—independence of expenditures, disclosure of expenditures and mechanisms of corporate democracy—have failed.

Rather, Citizens United wrought a world of influence peddling for multi-million dollar contributions to super PACs that are “independent” in name only, dark money corporations that hid the sources of almost $2 billion in the 2024 election cycle, and for-profit corporations spending $1.58 billion in treasury funds to reward industry allies. Hawaii’s choice to enact Act 11, in light of these failures, is a rational and reasonable response utilizing states’ long established powers to create corporations and define the activities in which those corporations may participate.

Given the Court’s track record on attempts at using regulatory powers to combat corruption, it’s unsurprising that states have begun to look at alternatives like their corporate codes. Hawaii is the first state to implement a law of this nature that redefines the legal status and powers of corporations and dark money groups. Montana will be considering a similar initiative this November. If the Court once again acts to subject elections to corporate influence, states may follow Hawaii in attempting to take even more creative legal actions to push back.