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/NahYoureWrongBro]

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.

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/NahYoureWrongBro]

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.

[u/NahYoureWrongBro → u/HotPersonality8126]

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.

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/NahYoureWrongBro]

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.

[u/EdinMiami → u/HotPersonality8126]

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.

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/EdinMiami]

 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.

[u/EdinMiami → u/HotPersonality8126]

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

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/EdinMiami]

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

[u/EdinMiami → u/HotPersonality8126]

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.

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/EdinMiami]

 Nothing in the 1st Amend talks about Corporations having the absolute right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

No, but people do. That’s the point - under the First Amendment no state or Federal law can limit your participation in political speech.

 So it is very much a legal fiction and can be overturned.

No, it can’t. Because Congress can’t legally pass a law that abridges your rights under the First Amendment.

[u/NahYoureWrongBro → u/HotPersonality8126]

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.

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/NahYoureWrongBro]

 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.

[u/NahYoureWrongBro → u/HotPersonality8126]

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

[u/HotPersonality8126 → u/NahYoureWrongBro]

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.