Hawai’i just signed a law that the state’s own Attorney General said is probably unconstitutional. That’s not necessarily a problem — sometimes the point is the argument itself.
What Did Hawai’i Do?
On May 14, 2026, Governor Josh Green signed Senate Bill 2471 into law as Act 11. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and with only one dissenting vote in the House. The measure now restricts corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and other “artificial persons” incorporated under Hawaiʻi law from engaging in election spending or ballot measure activity in the state. It goes into effect 2027.
The legal theory behind SB 2471 is novel — and that’s putting it diplomatically. The argument, advanced by Tom Moore, a former Federal Election Commission counsel and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, works like this: corporations are creatures of state law. They exist because a state government chartered them and granted them certain powers. If a state never granted the power to spend money in elections, then the question of whether that spending is constitutionally protected never arises — because there is no power to restrict in the first place.
The Legal Backdrop
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) — the U.S. Supreme Court held that independent corporate expenditures on political speech are protected by the First Amendment, striking portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and opening the door to unlimited Super PAC funding.
SpeechNOW.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) — extended Citizens United to allow unlimited independent expenditures by political action committees.
If that logic sounds like it’s trying to get upstream of Citizens United rather than challenge it head-on, that’s exactly right. The law “does not regulate speech,” its supporters argue. It simply declines to grant the power to speak in elections to entities that only exist because the state said they could.
Hawaiʻi’s own Attorney General, Anne Lopez, was not persuaded. Her office reportedly issued warnings to legislators stating that SB 2471 is “likely impossible to defend” in federal court, noting that Citizens United did not create First Amendment rights for corporations from scratch — it recognized that corporations are associations of citizens, and that those citizens don’t forfeit their rights by incorporating. That distinction matters legally and indicates the law faces a serious First Amendment challenge.
“We have a long dark history in Hawaiʻi of corporations overruling the will of the people. The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 was done by U.S. businessmen who ran the sugar companies.”
— Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole, Co-Sponsor of SB 2471, to ABC News.
Governor Green signed it anyway. The law is expected to face immediate legal challenges before its 2027 effective date. Legislators in other states either discussed or introduced similar measures in 2026, though as of this writing none have advanced beyond committee.
What to watch:
The constitutional challenge will almost certainly land in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi and then, inevitably, back at the Ninth Circuit. If it reaches the Supreme Court, it becomes a vehicle for revisiting — or cementing — <em>Citizens United</em>. Either outcome would be nationally significant. The fact that both chambers of the Hawaiʻi Legislature voted nearly unanimously in favor gives the measure political weight that might matter in any lobbying for Supreme Court reconsideration, even if the law itself is struck down.
Hawaiʻi is, consciously or not, picking a fight it may not win in order to have a conversation the country has been unwilling to finish.
Sources
Act 11, SLH 2026 (SB 2471 SD2 HD2 CD2); effective July 1, 2027
Office of the Governor, State of Hawai’i — Press Release, May 14, 2026
Honolulu Civil Beat — “Legislators Advance Bill To Limit Corporate Money In Hawai’i Elections” (May 2026)
Hawai’i Public Radio — “Last-minute proposal threatens Hawaiʻi bill” (May 2026)
Center for American Progress — “Addressing Questions Surrounding Hawai’i’s Bold Move To Undo Citizens United” (May 2026)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U.S.C. § 441b
Want to learn more about Citizens United? Check out this article: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
Want more of Legally Strange? Subscribe and get notified of our posts! https://legallystrange.com/stay-in-the-loop/
Leave a Reply