Hawaii Just Killed Corp PACs. Every State Can And Should.

Aloha and Good Morning!

Let’s hear it for our girl, Hawaii! Woo-hoo! She crushed it this past week by passing a ban on corporate PAC spending in her state. Nice work.

Subscribe

The action in Hawaii is a big step. And yes, while it is only one state and may have some legal challenges, it is also a sign of definitive momentum. Bonus: there are many other states in similar processes.

This is exactly how big changes start. It starts in state legislatures.

Hawaii has taken a groundbreaking step in campaign finance reform, becoming one of the first states to comprehensively ban corporate Political Action Committees (PACs) from contributing to state and local political campaigns.

Hawaii passed legislation ending corporate political and PAC spending on May 14, 2026, when Governor Josh Green signed Senate Bill 2471 (Act 11) into law. The law strips state-chartered corporations of "artificial-person" powers as they relate to election and ballot measure activities, with full enforcement taking effect on July 1, 2027.

According to the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, corporate PACs contributed approximately $3.2 million to state campaigns in the 2022 election cycle alone—this alone, demonstrates how big money distorts democratic representation in a small state.

“This is about returning power to people, not corporations,” said State Senator Karl Rhoads, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, in an interview with local media. Responding to arguments that corporations have constitutional speech rights, Rhoads succinctly told The Atlantic that "Corporations are just piles of papers."

A Growing Movement Across America

Hawaii isn’t alone in this fight. At least seven other states have introduced or are actively considering similar legislation, creating what experts are calling a “state-level rebellion” against unlimited corporate political spending.

States taking action include:

• Montana – Introduced HB 402 in March 2024, which would restrict corporate PAC contributions to $500 per candidate
• Connecticut – Considering legislation that would ban corporate PACs entirely while maintaining union PAC allowances
• Vermont – Advanced a bill through committee that mirrors Hawaii’s approach
• New Mexico – Lawmakers introduced a corporate PAC ban that awaits floor vote
• Maine – Building on its public financing system with additional corporate PAC restrictions
• Washington – State legislature exploring contribution limits specific to corporate entities

According to data from the National Institute on Money in Politics, corporate PAC spending in state elections increased by 340% between 2010 and 2022. This explosion of spending directly correlates with the Citizens United decision, which ruled that corporate spending on political communications couldn’t be limited under the First Amendment.

What Voters Are Saying

Public opinion data suggests these state-level efforts align with widespread voter sentiment. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 77% of Americans believe “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns.” Notably, this sentiment crosses party lines, with 65% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats supporting such restrictions.

More specifically, a University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation poll from October 2023 revealed that 82% of respondents support “prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns,” with only 15% opposing such measures.

The Path to Challenging Citizens United

Quick refresh on what Citizens United is:

Citizens United refers to a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case (Citizens United v. FEC) and the conservative political advocacy group behind it. The ruling fundamentally changed American campaign finance by declaring that corporations, labor unions, and other associations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech.

In other words, this ruling dramatically sped up the amounts of money put into campaigns by corporate PACs, foreign lobby groups like AIPAC and mega donors like Elon Musk.

Legal experts view these new state laws, starting with Hawaii’s as potential vehicles for eventually bringing Citizens United back before the Supreme Court. While the 2010 decision dealt with independent expenditures rather than direct contributions, the legal boundaries remain contested.

“Each state law that gets challenged creates a new opportunity to narrow or potentially overturn Citizens United,” explained Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and president of the Campaign Legal Center, in a recent legal symposium. “ The Court has evolved since 2010, and state experimentation with campaign finance laws provides valuable data about alternatives.”

The strategy is incremental: if enough states demonstrate they can effectively regulate corporate political spending without violating First Amendment protections, it builds a factual and legal record that future courts might find persuasive.

In the most predictable way possible, business organizations have already signaled their intent to challenge Hawaii’s law. The Pacific Business Coalition announced it would file suit, arguing the legislation violates corporate free speech rights established in Citizens United.

“This law discriminates against certain speakers and violates established constitutional precedent,” said coalition spokesperson James Kirkland in a press statement.

However, reform advocates argue that direct contributions—as opposed to independent expenditures—have historically been subject to greater regulation, providing firmer constitutional ground for these state laws.

What Comes Next

As Hawaii’s law approaches implementation and other states watch closely, this state-level movement represents the most significant coordinated challenge to corporate campaign spending since Citizens United. Whether these efforts ultimately succeed in court—or inspire federal reform—remains uncertain.

What’s clear is that after nearly 15 years of unlimited corporate political spending, states are no longer waiting for Washington DC to act.

Support your state’s efforts to end corporate PAC and foreign lobby spending on campaigns as it could be one of the best ways to put voters back in control and not corporations.