What to know about states’ efforts to limit corporate donations in politics

Hawaii lawmakers approved a bill redefining corporations to prevent them from spending on elections, aiming to curb the influence of corporate and dark money groups. The measure, signed off by the state legislature, now awaits Governor Josh Green’s decision by June 30. If enacted, it would mark a novel legal approach to reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 *Citizens United v. FEC* ruling, which allowed unlimited corporate election spending. Supporters argue the bill reflects voter frustration over corporate political spending, with over $4 billion in outside funds reported in the 2024 federal elections. The Brennan Center for Justice recorded a record $1.9 billion in dark money spending alone, much of it undisclosed. However, critics, including Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, warn the law could be costly and unenforceable in court. Montana is pursuing a similar path through a ballot initiative called *The Montana Plan*, with volunteers collecting signatures to put the measure before voters in November. Montana’s Supreme Court allowed the effort to proceed despite objections from Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who argued it violated single-subject ballot rules. Supporters say the plan resonates with citizens who see firsthand the impact of corporate spending on elections. Legal experts remain divided. Justin Levitt, a campaign finance law professor, doubts the measure will significantly alter political spending, noting wealthy individuals like Elon Musk already dominate funding. Meanwhile, Tom Moore, a former FEC lawyer, calls it a ‘genuinely new approach’ to reversing *Citizens United*, though he acknowledges it could face court challenges if adopted by a single state. Hawaii’s Democratic Senator Karl Rhoads framed the bill as an opportunity for a small state to influence national politics. The measure would also target nonprofit dark money groups, though its legal viability remains uncertain. If either state’s effort succeeds, it could set a precedent for other jurisdictions seeking to limit corporate political influence.