Defending Hawaii’s Law Ending Corporate Spending in Elections (Grassroot Institute of Hawaii v. Lopez)

Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence their vote, and to elections where officeholders answer to the public rather than to wealthy special interests. Since Citizens United, secret spending and corporate treasury money have flooded our elections.  

In 2026, Hawaii enacted Act 11, becoming the first state to respond to Citizens United v. FEC through its corporate law rather than campaign finance law.  

Corporations, LLCs and similar entities only have  the powers states choose to give them. Act 11 clarifies that the powers Hawaii grants to corporations, LLCs and similar entities do not include spending money to support or oppose candidates, political parties, political committees or ballot measures. The law takes effect July 1, 2027.  

In June 2026, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a nonprofit corporation, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, claiming that Act 11 violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. Grassroot asked the court for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, and Hawaii moved to dismiss the case. The court will hear both motions on October 13, 2026.

On September 21, 2026, Campaign Legal Center and CREW filed an amicus brief supporting Hawaii. The brief makes two points:  

• First, Act 11 is a reasonable response, through Hawaii’s own corporate law, to the failure of every safeguard the Supreme Court relied on in Citizens United. The Court assumed the dangers of corporate election spending would be held in check by three things: outside spending would be truly independent of candidates, “effective disclosure” would tell voters who was paying for it and shareholders could police abuses through corporate democracy. Sixteen years later, none of that is happening. Candidates and super PACs coordinate in plain view and the Federal Election Commission has never voluntarily found a coordination violation. Dark money in federal elections grew from under $5 million in 2006 to a record $1.9 billion in 2024. Corporations have poured more than $1.5 billion from their treasuries into super PACs, with 2026 already setting a record at the time this brief was filed. Faced with that record, Hawaii acted through the one channel Citizens United left untouched — a state’s authority to define the powers of the entities it creates and;
•  Second, Act 11 is not impermissibly vague. Its “support or oppose” language mirrors wording upheld by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC, by the Ninth Circuit in a prior challenge to Hawaii’s campaign finance law, and by four other federal appeals courts. Its exemption for “bona fide” news stories, commentary and editorials tracks the federal press exemption that has been on the books, and applied without difficulty, since 1974.  

Hawaii’s Act 11 offers states a new path forward: using their longstanding authority over the entitles they create to decide whether those entities have the power to spend in elections at all. Montana voters will consider a similar measure this November, and other states are watching. If Act 11 is upheld, it could become a model for states looking to reduce the influence of secret and corporate money in their elections.