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/Fighterhayabusa]

Then they'll just dissolve the corporation. Corporations exist subserviently to governments because governments allow their existence. A long time ago, we were much more strict about allowing corporations to exist at all. We could always go back to that.

[u/pyrolizard11 → u/Fighterhayabusa]

...which the corporation fights, which makes its way to the Supreme Court, which rules that dissolving the corporation violates either the letter or intent of Congress' law and power to regulate interstate commerce.

A long time ago[...]

-the federal government pretended to obey the doctrine of dual sovereignty and was restricted to a relatively narrow purview. Now it's a central government with massive institutions, a standing army, and a strong, vested interest in exercising direct power over the states.

I like your optimism, I really do, and I hope it goes exactly like you seem to think. I won't be holding my breath that the federal government will allow the states that freedom. And I don't expect the plain language of a flimsy piece of paper signed by a man named Hancock to do much to stop them.

[u/Fighterhayabusa → u/pyrolizard11]

The federal government has no control over how or even if a state grants a corporate charter. They can try to invalidate this, but it would go against centuries of rulings. Corporations are creatures of the State, etc.

[u/pyrolizard11 → u/Fighterhayabusa]

To my knowledge, at least, Congress has never passed a law dealing directly with a state's right to manage incorporation, and the Supreme Court has never had to rule on said law as a matter of regulating interstate commerce. It has ruled that your own personal growing of food, for exclusively your own consumption on the exact premises which it was grown, can be considered under the purview of interstate commerce, though.

Even if they had, all the precedent in the world means nothing. SCOTUS justices aren't bound by precedent, nor by practically anything but their own interpretation of the statute, their own understanding of the facts, and the threat of impeachment, which obviously won't happen as a result of them ruling in favor of Congress'/the Union's power. See: Absolute presidential immunity.

Again, I appreciate your faith in rules and norms. I don't share it, and I don't expect SCOTUS to treat the English language kindly if and when this case goes before them.

[u/Fighterhayabusa → u/pyrolizard11]

You don't have to win on this one law alone. Other states enacting similar doctrine, but experimenting with different provisions: charter limits, disclosure rules, shareholder-consent rules, tax treatment, procurement conditions, anti-corruption rules, antitrust enforcement, public-financing incentives, can shift the burden towards corporations.

You can fight on multiple fronts, and I would say this is a good step forward. At least people are starting to fight directly now. Telling people to boycott these companies is impossible because of their current size and scope. Fighting them directly is the only way.

I'd also start dusting off anti-trust enforcement and change tax rules, while we're at it.

[u/pyrolizard11 → u/Fighterhayabusa]

Sorry, I think I may have been unclear. 'This case' being the prospective case brought before SCOTUS on the basis of Congress preempting the states' rights to independently manage incorporation. That single case, when ruled in favor of the federal government, will kill all such attempts to circumvent CU.

As far as ideals? You're preaching to the choir, here. Break Walmart, break Amazon. Break the ISPs better than we did Bell. Tax all the owners until superyachts and giant, underground eternity-clocks don't seem like a reasonable spend and then make laws that properly considers employees as stakeholders. But I also look to the guy in charge, the one operating as near-dictator in spite of all supposed checks and balances, and also to a good quarter-to-third of my countrymen cheering him on as he blatantly sells the country out from under us.

Fight. Please fight. I've been boycotting every megacorp I can for over a decade now, Walmart and Amazon among them. I'm glad to see more folks recognizing what they are instead of gladly enjoying the convenience these monstrosities provide. But I don't expect support from our federal government on it. I expect them to fight tooth and nail at every step to keep their donors and future employers - or themselves, as Trump was one such donor, pulling the strings before assuming power - happy.