Citizens United Bought American Democracy. Hawaii Wants a Refund.

by Lucy Peltz

In 2011, Mitt Romney proudly proclaimed at the Iowa State Fair that “Corporations are people, my friend.” After his proclamation, pundits proceeded to mock and late-night hosts had a field day. What was seen as a ludicrous slip-up at the time, turned out to foreshadow the next decade of American politics under Citizens United. Romney was predicting the future, he just wasn’t ready to admit the truth that has become our reality.

Citizens United, shorthand for Citizens United v. FEC, is a 2010 landmark Supreme Court case that ruled corporations, unions, and nonprofits have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts of money on “independent” political broadcasts and advertisements. Since its ruling, Citizens United has opened the door for massive spending in elections from outside groups further powering the influence of billionaires, corporations, and special interest groups.

An attempt to give corporations “free speech” has morphed into something much more sinister. The outcome of Citizens United has led to the creation of super PACs, which have further empowered wealthy donors and have allowed for the expansion of dark money.

Since its ruling, from 2010 to 2022, Super PACs have spent nearly $6.4 billion on federal elections, and they spent a record amount of $2.7 billion for the 2024 election alone.

But what’s a Super PAC? And how does dark money fall into the mix?

A Super PAC (Political Action Committee) can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money and are barred from coordinating directly with candidates. Additionally, Super PACs must also disclose their donors.

However, dark money is the loophole that billionaires and corporations alike utilize to avoid having to publicly disclose campaign donations. Dark money seeps into our elections through the use of secretive donations from proxy social welfare groups or trade associations. By utilizing these proxies, wealthy special interests can hide political spending from the public and avoid accountability to manipulate elections and sway voters to causes that benefit their wallet. 

In essence, the ultra rich have manipulated the law in a way that serves them. Because all PACs must disclose who contributes to them, when these deceptive nonprofit groups donate, only the name of the organization is disclosed, never the true source of where that money originated from. American voters have the right to know who is infiltrating elections that will ultimately affect their communities, and Hawaii agrees.

Hawaii recently has become a frontrunner in leading the charge against Citizens United. In June, Hawaii passed the first bill in the nation, S.B. 2471, now known as Act 11, to reduce the power corporations have to spend money in state elections. Act 11 re-structures the power Hawaii gives to corporations that operate within the island, specifically so that corporations would no longer have the power to make financial contributions in Hawaii’s elections.

But doesn’t this new law violate the Citizens United ruling? Not exactly.

Citizens United removed federal regulation that barred multi-billion corporations from spending money in elections. Citizens United nor any other case thereafter has ever addressed whether a state must grant political spending. Every Supreme Court case on corporate political speech has assumed that corporations already have the power to spend on elections. Act 11 is unique in that it redefines the power corporations have instead of regulating its free speech. 

The argument Hawaii makes is that corporations, LLCs, and similar organizations only exist because the state creates them, therefore a state can define what powers they do or don’t possess. One of these powers being “political spending on elections.” However, whether Act 11 will hold up in court is contested within the legal community. Opponents argue that Act 11 violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, is too vague, and gives the state power to selectively silence those who it may disagree with.

But the fact of the matter is that the Citizens United ruling has severely altered the faith Americans have in elections. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 73% of U.S. adults think that lobbyists and special interest groups have too much influence in elections. And this isn’t sentiment that’s isolated to one party in particular, a large majority of both Republicans and Democrats say special interest groups have too much power in our political system.

Act 11 isn’t just retaliation against Citizens United, it is an endeavor to fix the system it broke: protecting American democracy from corruption and revitalizing faith in our political system.