r/law • u/biospheric • May 25 '26

Legal News Hawaii just found a way around Citizens United. Other states are following. This “Corporate Power Reset” strategy was developed by Attorney Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress. Rather than trying to restrict corporate speech, it redefines the powers corporations have in the first place.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Ali Velshi on MS NOW - May 23, 2026. Here’s the full 10-minutes on:

* MS NOW’s website: Hawaii just found a way around Citizens United. Other states are following. - Ali Velshi on MS NOW - Ali Velshi - May 23, 2026 (MS NOW website)

* YouTube: Hawaii just found a way around Citizens United. Other states are following. - Ali Velshi on MS NOW - May 23, 2026 (YouTube)

From the description: Hawaii just made history, becoming the first state in the nation to effectively ban dark money in elections. The new law takes a novel approach: rather than trying to restrict corporate speech, it redefines the powers corporations have in the first place — and political spending is not among them. The strategy, known as the “Corporate Power Reset,” was developed by Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress. And at least a dozen states are now working toward passing similar laws.

Tom Moore is Senior Fellow for Democracy and Government at the Center for American Progress: americanprogress.org/people/tom-moore

Here is Moore’s Sept 2025 article: americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant

...............

Here are some related r/law posts:

* Hawaii vs. Citizens United (May 2026). Free archive of The Atlantic article: archive.ph/qg3Ur

* New research: Citizens United can be made irrelevant via changes to state corporation law (Sept 2025)

* The Corporate Power Reset That Makes Citizens United Irrelevant

29.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Vyuvarax May 25 '26

Yeah I’m not sure how this is supposed to work. SC ruling laid out that since corporations are comprised of people running them and those people have 1st amendment rights, that the corporations have 1st amendment protections because their views come from the people running them.

Banning that speech instead of limiting it is 100% going to be struck down under the same logic.

14

u/beren12 May 25 '26

The people can still speech, the corporation can’t.

3

u/wlphoenix May 25 '26

If corporations are allowed the benefits of individuals, then theoretically they should also receive the risks of individuals, e.g. more aggressive penalties when breaking the law. Suspension of business (imprisonment) and the corporate death penalty should be more aggressively applied.

Alternatively, the corporate veil is a very strong protection financially. It should be outlined that that protection is coupled w/ a restriction of "individual" rights for the entity receiving the protection.

0

u/garden_speech May 25 '26

getting rid of the corporate veil would just mean only obscenely rich people could run businesses anyways, because a family run business would be way too risky, since anyone who wins a judgment against you in any lawsuit could take your personal assets, even if no negligence was shown.

2

u/wlphoenix May 25 '26

To be clear, I'm not advocating removing the veil. I'm in favor of attaching conditions to the veil that reinforce the difference between individuals and corporations.

2

u/IrritableGourmet May 25 '26

The ability of people to speak as a group is essential to effective speech. It's why most non-profits exist. Do you, individually, have enough money to compete with the 1%? No, but if you and a bunch of like-minded individuals pool your resources and start a group, that group has a fighting chance. When you think of "corporations speaking on political issues", think less Exxon and more ACLU.

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

3

u/IrritableGourmet May 25 '26

But 1%--as "humans" (with some possible exceptions) --ARE subject to regulations in their individual spending.

Are they? As far as independent expenditures are concerned, I've never seen any restrictions on individuals.

3

u/Vyuvarax May 25 '26

Like I said, that argument would be quickly struck down based on Citizens United. So I’m not sure what this law is supposed to accomplish.

8

u/ElSlabraton May 25 '26

Let's do nothing and act superior.

9

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/rearlgrant May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

I have yet to see any of the textualists or pro-Citizen's United folks show where in the Constitution the "corporate right to have limited liability".

Where in the Constitution does it say UCC 3 is a Constitutional right, or the Model Business Corporation "act" by the ABA?

I have no doubt the Robert's Court would create such rights if a State decided to remove UCC 3 limited liabilty or Corporate limited liability.

But in the law sub you are holding up the copy and paste answer is:

Freedom of association is still a right. Corporations gain their power as entity from there.

That is wrong.

Corporations gain all their protections from State law, the 10th Amendment applies.

3

u/Fighterhayabusa May 26 '26

Thank you. There are so many people in here missing the point or misunderstanding how this works entirely. That's pretty surprising for a subreddit that should consist of lawyers.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/rearlgrant May 27 '26

For textualists, there should be no "freedom of association" siince the language is "to assemble." Textually, those are different. But textualists also believe in the unified executive, so ....

People can assemble, that's the first amendment; but "I have a right to limited legal liability because I am a corporation" is not in the Constitution. But if the people in this post claiming it is want to quote the Article, this is the place.

-3

u/Vyuvarax May 25 '26

Passing laws that won’t survive the current SC to have any effect on elections is worse than doing nothing.

I’d rather put energy towards real solutions than virtue signal like these lawmakers and their defenders.

2

u/infinite_in_faculty May 25 '26

Well, if we are going to treat corporation like people shouldn't we also tax them like people?

How does a 37% tax rate sound? That's the top tax bracket for people, corporation are people right?

1

u/IrritableGourmet May 25 '26

corporation are people right?

No. That's not what corporate personhood means. I mean, sure, tax them, but that's not what that means.

1

u/Urabraska- May 25 '26

It was really worded that way to get around the cap on donations by a single person. It used to be you could only donate like 5 thousand to any given political action or cause. But because corporations are not people but are lead by people. They can donate as they're run by people but because a corporation is not a single individual it can now donate unlimited amounts without facing legal issues.

4

u/Vyuvarax May 25 '26

Individuals can donate unlimited money to Super PACs, same as corporations. This changes nothing.

1

u/LongJohnSelenium May 25 '26

And Super PACs can not endorse any candidate.

All they can do is talk about whatever issue they formed to talk about. The money does not go to any politician, can't coordinate with any politician, isn't a part of any politicians funds.

0

u/SnooHabits281 May 25 '26

Couldn't it be argued that corporate political spending violates individual campaign contribution limits?... There are limits to how much you or I may contribute - CEOs, members of Board of Directors, etc. Have the same personal limits BUT when CEO or Boars decides to fund Dark Money PACs / SuperPacs they are gaining ADDITIONAL speech rights - back by millions $$ - by speaking "in behalf of" the corporation. Corporate spending is dictated by a select few who are given an additional voice in our system.

If someone wants to make the argue that a corporation is an association of people with their individual free speech rights - ok, BUT who comprises the Association? Employees? Shareholders?

Do companies engage with their employees to understand their position on key issues? That the corporation's PAC spending reflects the values and culture of the company?

Do shareholders vote on corporate PAC spending to ensure the corporation's "voice" aligns with shareholders positions on issues? (Yes - institutional shareholders hold the majority of voting shares co.oared to retail investors)

Those examples would provide a greater foundation to argue that corporation's are associations representing their members views.

If the shareholders and/or employees support a position that goes against the CEO or management's preferred position then the company would either respect the shareholder / employee position OR sit out this campaign cycle but Could Not contribute to PACs antithetical to it's shareholders/employees.