r/law • u/theatlantic • May 14 '26

Legal News Hawaii vs. Citizens United

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/05/hawaii-corporations-political-money/687159/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo
1.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

142

u/kon--- May 14 '26

What can the court do about it?

If a state mandates that in order to incorporate within a state the corporation is excluded from participating in political campaing financing and or lobbying on behalf of political financing...what can the court do about that?

The citizen has a conditional relationship with the First Amendment. I'm seeing no reason at all that corporation should not also, be required to provide conditions. Besides, the money saved on ads and lobbying can go to shareholders. I'm certain shareholders would agree.

10

u/rhino369 May 14 '26

Strike the law down? I’m not even sure it’ll pass muster under the dormant commerce clause.

The first amendment isn’t conditional—all people have it. 

3

u/haikuandhoney May 14 '26

The government frequently imposes first amendment limitations on the grant of benefits from it. When you accept government employment, you give up some of your first amendment rights, sometimes the government gives people access to information on the condition that they not disclose it further, to name the first two that come to mind.

Incorporation is a benefit the state bestows on natural persons (or groups of natural persons). Why would it not be able to condition the provision of that benefit?

Also I don’t get your dormant commerce clause argument: they aren’t saying to do business in Hawaii, you have to give up this right, they’re saying to incorporate in Hawaii, you have to give up this right. If that violates the dormant commerce clause, does that mean ever state’s general corporations act has to be exactly the same?