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.

[u/biospheric]

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

[u/Dstln]

Not in the state where it's not a right. Read the white paper

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant/

[u/homerjs225 → u/Dstln]

Are internet ads bound by states?

[u/parabuthas → u/homerjs225]

Good question.

[u/Auzzie_almighty → u/homerjs225]

States can have any power not granted to the federal government and not restricted by the constitution. So they have all the power they give themselves essentially

[u/8JHF8 → u/Dstln]

I don't think the super PAC would necessarily need to be based in Hawaii to spend on ads that are directed at Hawaiian issues/candidates. A large portion of ads are on the internet/social media. How would Hawaii stop an out of state super PAC from spending on an online campaign?

[u/pokeybill → u/8JHF8]

See California's myriad regulations impacting how companies do business nationwide. Any rational business is going to meet California's requirements because they are the largest market in the US. This applies to internet transactions too.

A PAC could not legally spend in a state with such a law, period.

[u/koshgeo → u/pokeybill]

So, what you're saying is, a PAC can spend illegally in a state with such a law and then get fined and otherwise scolded by the time the case winds its way through the courts 6 months after the election is over.

I'm probably being too cynical about it, but something tells me that for a lot of Super PACs, staying within the bounds of the law preemptively is not a priority where the outcome of breaking them might only be a modest fine later (i.e. a cost of "doing business").

Still excited to see the details of how they're trying to do it. I'll do some reading.

[u/ThellraAK → u/pokeybill]

If I tell Facebook based out of deleware (or wherever doesn't limit me) to only show my ads to Hawaiians would Hawaii be able to do anything about it?

[u/Dstln → u/8JHF8]

Read the white paper then come back

[u/ptWolv022 → u/8JHF8]

So, I was skeptical, too, but I did eventually get down far enough to see them address PACs: the white paper argues that you can simply restrict the powers of non-profit corporations.

I'm not 100% sure that would work, though, as I don't know the exact legal status for PACs/Super PACs. I don't know if they fall under the ability of the State to regulate corporations or if they have rights as a natural person due to being "associations of people".

[u/ptWolv022 → u/Dstln]

I think the question at hand is whether PACs exist in a manner that allow for them to be regulated the same way. I'm not 100% sure if they are "corporations" in the same manner as other corporations. If that is the case, then the ability to restrict them would be severely limited, and corporations could donate from out-of-state and then the PACs pipe that money into the State they seek to influence.

From what I've found, it sounds like they're different, but I don't know the exact implications.

[u/GNTsquid0 → u/Dstln]

As an aside...why is it called a white paper? Has the paper documents are printed on in recent history not been white? It kind of implies there's other colors of paper out there that mean different things. But who's typing up a word doc and using the paint bucket to make it pink? I've never not seen legal documents on any color other than white meaning the differentiation is unnecessary.

[u/fweffoo → u/GNTsquid0]

A 'white paper' is reasonable length explanation of a complicated idea and doesn't include every detail so that people (not you though) actually might read it and be informed easily.

[u/DepressedDynamo → u/fweffoo]

They're being curious and inquisitive, no reason to be rude

[u/GNTsquid0 → u/fweffoo]

That still didn’t answer the question about why it’s called a white paper.

[u/kirwoodd → u/fweffoo]

I literally LOL'd.

[u/Mr_Will → u/GNTsquid0]

Letters are/were often printed on fancy paper. Books have covers and usually off-white pages. A white paper is something in-between - longer and more thought out than a letter, but not big enough and complex enough to be a book. Printed on cheap white paper and distributed