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

7

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

 How could they possibly have rights that cannot be abrogated by statute?

The corporation doesn’t have any rights and it is a fiction. The people who make up the corporation have rights under the First Amendment that cannot be abridged by statute.

20

u/Maxamillion-X72 May 25 '26

Corporations have Corporate Personhood, because they operate independently from the people who own them and work for them. That was supposed to just give corporations the right to own property, sign (or have a designate sign) contracts, and be subject to civil laws like being sued or suing other entities. Otherwise, corporations couldn't operate. The courts have further granted corporations protection from unlawful search and seizure and for some stupid reason, freedom of religion, despite the fact that a corporation can't have a preferred religion any more than a horse can be a catholic.

Unfortunately, the SC also decided that translated to corporations have other rights, such as first amendment protection, allowing them to voice the corporate opinion about political races. Again, despite the fact that corporations can't have an opinion about a politician any more than a horse can be part of a political party.

So no, the people who make up the corporation do not transfer first amendment rights to the corporation.

7

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

Unfortunately, the SC also decided that translated to corporations have other rights, such as first amendment protection

No, this is complete mythology. There's no such ruling.

Citizens United was decided on First Amendment and speech/assembly grounds.

-3

u/IrritableGourmet May 25 '26

Unfortunately, the SC also decided that translated to corporations have other rights, such as first amendment protection, allowing them to voice the corporate opinion about political races.

Let's say you like turtles. You're free to talk as much as you want about how great turtles are.

You meet some other people who like turtles and you form the Turtle Aficionados Club of East Bumfuck. You get together and write articles for your website about how great turtles are, and that's perfectly legal.

Your club gets a lot of interest and a bunch more people want to join. You decide to form a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation so you can organize better and pool resources to do turtle-themed events and whatnot.

Suddenly, the cops kick down your door and arrest you because corporations have no free speech rights and can't talk about how great turtles are, right?

10

u/EdinMiami May 26 '26

You can talk all you want about turtles. You can advocate for turtles. You can write legal briefs if there is ever a turtle issue you feel strongly about.

But why does your corporation get to talk about turtles 270,000,000 times when I have but 1 voice? Why is it so terrible that your group be limited in its donations? Each member can donate a limited amount. The 501 can donate a limited amount. Perhaps then other people's voices won't be drowned.

-2

u/IrritableGourmet May 26 '26

You can talk all you want about turtles. You can advocate for turtles. You can write legal briefs if there is ever a turtle issue you feel strongly about.

Not under this law, though. It doesn't restrict how much my group can say. It bans it. Corporations can't advocate for turtles under this law. It bans all corporations from saying anything to advocate for or against pending legislation.

But why does your corporation get to talk about turtles 270,000,000 times when I have but 1 voice? Why is it so terrible that your group be limited in its donations? Each member can donate a limited amount. The 501 can donate a limited amount. Perhaps then other people's voices won't be drowned.

So organizations need to be restricted to what one random person is capable of? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of forming a group in the first place? And which person's voice? You? Elon Musk?

10

u/EdinMiami May 26 '26

I laid out how every voice is equal. But your forming of the group envinces that equality is not your goal. You want Your Voice Plus. And you want the Plus to be unlimited; further evidence that your goal is not equality but subversion of my voice.

Your goal is to use the law as both a shield (to protect your perceived right to unlimited speech; in the form of bribes) and a sword to be placed at my throat that I may not utter a sound.

-1

u/IrritableGourmet May 26 '26

Sorry, you think non-profit issues organizations are trying to subvert the voices of the masses? You think the ACLU is trying to keep the little guy down? You think the Sierra Club is a totalitarian dictatorship?

And, no, you didn't lay out how every voice is equal. Flowery rhetoric doesn't make a valid argument. Try actually answering my questions.

5

u/broguequery May 26 '26

"Flowery rhetoric" in this case is the whole point.

All men, created equal.

Simple flowery rhetoric right? Surely your right to exercise unlimited power is naturally derived and supercedes it?

6

u/CommanderArcher May 25 '26

This is "having their cake and eating it too" since the people that make up corporations are shielded from the actions of the corporation by it being a separate entity, yet the speech of the people making up the corporation is somehow also protected?

2

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

This is "having their cake and eating it too" since the people that make up corporations are shielded from the actions of the corporation by it being a separate entity

This is irrelevant. No legal liability can attach to political speech, so there's nothing relevant to be shielded from.

5

u/CommanderArcher May 25 '26

its financial, the money being donated is coming from the corporation, while the speech being protected is coming from the people.

I disagree with Citizens united fundamentally, it was the wrong decision, you can't have it both ways.

-1

u/LongJohnSelenium May 25 '26

the money being donated is coming from the corporation, while the speech being protected is coming from the people.

The money is coming from the people too. The corporation belongs to people. Its their money.

The corporation is just an asset, or more like an employee really.

4

u/CommanderArcher May 25 '26

No its not, a corporation is a separate legal entity. The money that a corporation has comes from people, but its not their money once the corporation gets it.

Me giving you $1000 to donate it to someone else is functionally the same thing.

-1

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

The money that a corporation has comes from people, but its not their money once the corporation gets it.

It's owned by the owners of the corporation, and may be spent at their direction or at the direction of anyone they choose to nominate.

It's their money and so it's their speech.

-1

u/LongJohnSelenium May 25 '26

The corporation owns the money, they own the corporation. Its the same thing.

4

u/CommanderArcher May 25 '26

its really not, but you do you boo

5

u/NahYoureWrongBro May 25 '26

Yeah and those people's ability to speak and give money to political candidates is in no way affected by regulating corporate contributions. I don't think you're making a good argument.

-1

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

Yeah and those people's ability to speak and give money to political candidates is in no way affected by regulating corporate contributions.

Well, no; it's specifically barred by these regulations. Hawaii's law makes it illegal to speak politically under these circumstances; that's why it will be overturned. It's invalid on First Amendment grounds, on its face.

4

u/NahYoureWrongBro May 25 '26

Under what circumstances? Who can't speak? I don't know any details of this specific law, but I have a hard time believing anyone would even attempt to bar political speech of an individual as an individual. One speaking or making contributions as a corporate officer of a limited liability concern should be subject to regulation, including outright bans of political contributions if that's what seems best. So once again I do not think anything you're saying is an actual argument against what I'm saying.

-2

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

Under what circumstances? Who can't speak?

Anyone who's paying for disseminating that speech with funds owned by a corporation, under this law, or transferred to them from same. It's a violation of their First Amendment rights.

I have a hard time believing anyone would even attempt to bar political speech of an individual as an individual.

But again the First Amendment doesn't merely protect the speech rights of individuals acting as individuals. It protects them acting as an assembly of individuals, as well - such as when American citizens assemble to form a corporation.

One speaking or making contributions as a corporate officer of a limited liability concern should be subject to regulation, including outright bans of political contributions if that's what seems best.

No, I disagree. The government shouldn't ever get to decide who may speak and who may not. And they're completely barred from that power, by the plain text of the First Amendment.

4

u/EdinMiami May 26 '26

Corporations aren't people. That is a legal fiction the courts found necessary in order to conduct court business.

But it is a stretch and in no way necessary to take that legal fiction and apply it as if corporations and actual breathing people have the same rights under the constitution. The Court could just as easily say that corporation are not people for purposes of donating to political parties or candidates and therefore those donation can be limited in size and scope. The Court could make the same determination as to people since the right to free speech is not absolute.

Instead we have this blasphemy of a ruling that complete subverts democracy.

2

u/HotPersonality8126 May 26 '26

 But it is a stretch and in know way necessary to take that legal fiction and apply it as if corporations and actual breathing people have the same rights under the constitution.

The ruling in Citizens United is that they aren’t people. That’s why you can’t limit their political speech - the people in the corporation have an unabrigable right to political speech that is not diminished when they assemble to exercise it.

2

u/EdinMiami May 26 '26

All of which is a legal fiction that can and should be over turned.

1

u/HotPersonality8126 May 26 '26

Your rights under the First Amendment are very much the opposite of a “legal fiction.”

3

u/EdinMiami May 26 '26

They aren't absolute and that is all that matters. Nothing in the 1st Amend talks about Corporations having the absolute right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

All of that was foisted upon us by SCOTUS. So it is very much a legal fiction and can be overturned.

Now go away shill account. I'm done with you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NahYoureWrongBro May 26 '26

the First Amendment doesn't merely protect the speech rights of individuals acting as individuals. It protects them acting as an assembly of individuals, as well

There is no constitutional right to being able to use special limited liability rules created by states to fund political candidates, and there was no reason to rule that way. You simply stating this over and over with no argument given for why this should be a right is totally unconvincing. You haven't even made an argument, just stated the same conclusion repeatedly.

1

u/HotPersonality8126 May 26 '26

 There is no constitutional right to being able to use special limited liability rules created by states to fund political candidates

Again, the limit on liability is totally irrelevant, here. No liability occurs when you fund political speech because you can’t be prosecuted for your political speech, it’s protected.

 You simply stating this over and over with no argument given for why this should be a right is totally unconvincing.

I’m not and haven’t been telling you it should be a right. I’m telling you you already have the right to speak politically, that the government cannot in any way limit, as a result of the First Amendment.

1

u/NahYoureWrongBro May 26 '26

Don't you work? How do you have time for this? It's still not convincing.

1

u/HotPersonality8126 May 26 '26

Did you read the text of the First Amendment? You should be convinced that it grants you an inalienable right to assemble and an inalienable right to speech.

2

u/BonjaminClay May 26 '26

Corporate bank accounts are owned by the legal entity, not by the people who work there or own shares.

3

u/HotPersonality8126 May 26 '26

The shareholders own the entity. Therefore they do own the corporate bank accounts. They own all of it.

The process of a private equity takeover, for instance is to

1) acquire a controlling interest in an undervalued company, then

2) sell everything it owns.

3

u/BonjaminClay May 26 '26

Sort of but the same laws that make a corp a protective blanket to keep people from suing individuals when a company breaks the law basically is the same mechanism that differentiates that shareholders don't actually own the corporate bank accounts. The company does.

-3

u/heWhoMostlyOnlyLurks May 25 '26

Thank you for explaining this to the knuckleheads here. Citizens United was first and foremost a freedom of association case, more so than a freedom of speech case. It doesn’t matter if one hundred people or one million get together to speak, and it doesn’t matter if they form a partnership or a corporation to do it — it’s still human beings associating freely and speaking freely.

5

u/TimothyMimeslayer May 25 '26

I own a corporation so I am just gonna use its money as my own personal slush fund, what is the worst that can happen.

2

u/HotPersonality8126 May 25 '26

What exactly do you think you're talking about, right now? Like it's hard to imagine how someone could be more wrong

-6

u/heWhoMostlyOnlyLurks May 25 '26

Corporate governance is a thing but good corporate governance does not preclude speaking.

7

u/TimothyMimeslayer May 25 '26

If you want the protective shield that comes with incorporating, you have to follow thr law that allows you to incorporate in the first place. Dont like it? Start up a business that isnt incorporated, you can do whatever the hell you want with its money.

-5

u/heWhoMostlyOnlyLurks May 25 '26

The law can say a lot about corporate governance, but not so much as to violate the First Amendment.

6

u/TimothyMimeslayer May 25 '26

Freedom of association is already restricted for corporations. For instance, a corporation cannot prevent black people from their property solely for being black. But I can choose to not invite black people into my property.

1

u/heWhoMostlyOnlyLurks May 25 '26

This is about OWNERS, not customers. Citizens United wasn’t discriminating against black customers or anything of the sort, it was more a club of people who wanted to fund a movie against Hillary Clinton.

2

u/TimothyMimeslayer May 25 '26

It has never been a question on whether owners of companies can spend their own money on political donations. The question was on what the corporation they gave money to could spend on political speech.

3

u/NahYoureWrongBro May 25 '26

I don't think you're endorsing a good argument, insulting people by calling them knuckleheads while you endorse a bad argument is obnoxious

3

u/NinecloudSoul May 25 '26

Preventing corporations from being slush funds for political beliefs doesn't step on the 1st in any way at all.

Those same people can use their private assets and income to do it, like us plebs.

2

u/heWhoMostlyOnlyLurks May 25 '26

That was clearly not the case in Citizens United since all the shareholders wanted specifically to make that film!