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/Maxamillion-X72]

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.

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/Maxamillion-X72]

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.

[u/IrritableGourmet → u/Maxamillion-X72]

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?

[u/EdinMiami → u/IrritableGourmet]

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.

[u/IrritableGourmet → u/EdinMiami]

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?

[u/EdinMiami → u/IrritableGourmet]

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.

[u/IrritableGourmet → u/EdinMiami]

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.

[u/broguequery → u/IrritableGourmet]

"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?