To End Citizens United, We Look to Hawaii and Montana

Super PACs spend millions and millions on our elections. Ballot Measures in Hawaii and Montana lay the groundwork to end this state by state.

HISTORY

In January 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in a five to four decision. The case began when a conservative nonprofit, Citizens United, wished to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries. Then existing law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prevented corporations from funding electioneering communications close to elections.

The Supreme Court ruled that 1.) political spending counts as protected speech under the First Amendment, and, 2.) the government cannot restrict spending based on whether the speaker is a corporation, union, or nonprofit. The decision overturned parts of two prior rulings, opening the door to super Political Action Committees (PACs). Today, these groups raise and spend unlimited sums to influence elections. The only restriction: don't coordinate directly with candidates.

Opposition to the ruling has been consistent and bipartisan. A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken shortly after the decision found that 80% of Americans opposed the Citizens United, including 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of independents. Fifteen years later, polling from Issue One shows 63% still disagree with it.

PURSUING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

In the meantime, billionaire election spending has risen roughly 160-fold since 2010. In 2018, the top 1% of donors supplied 96% of all super PAC funds. Twenty-two states and hundreds of municipalities have formally backed a federal constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, but that path has stalled in Congress, where a two-thirds vote in both chambers and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures are necessary.

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

With a federal amendment unlikely in the short-run, some states have looked elsewhere. In 2025, Hawaii passed Senate Bill 2471, taking a different approach than most reform efforts. The bill passed with bipartisan support, nearly unanimously in both chambers. Montana is considering a similar ballot measure for 2026, and groups like Issue One and End Citizens United urge other state legislatures to follow suit.

Most attempts to limit campaign spending fail in federal court because the attempt to regulate spending runs into the same First Amendment problem originally created by Citizens United. Hawaii's law works around this by redefining the powers granted to corporations versus restricting what corporations can say or spend. Hawaii, with the view that corporations are artificial entities that exist only because state law creates them, will decide which powers it confers on a corporation. With the passage of this bill, political spending will no longer be among them. Political committees will remain governed by existing campaign finance rules, but corporations will be restricted in their spending. Penalties for corporate violations will include suspension of operations, loss of state contracts, revocation of tax status, or dissolution.

Whether this framing survives a court challenge is uncertain. If it stands, the measure serves as a template for other states looking to pursue similar restrictions.

MOVING FORWARD

Since its passage in 2010, reigning-in Citizens United has been a failure of federal policy. Given the public's anger over corporations and billionaires buying elections, a push for a federal solution must be prioritized to maintain the public's trust in free and fair elections.

CARIN’S STANCE | Carin commits to advance short-term practical solutions that curb the worst effects of Citizens United, such as donor transparency, while working to move forward the federal amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision in the long run.

Since Carin's campaign is entirely grassroots with a focus on reaching voters versus dialing for dollars, she's competing with campaigns that have a war chest of $2M or more. These candidates hire consultants, flood the airwaves with commercials, and stuff mailboxes with mailers. Are they listening to the voters' concerns? Or, their donors? Will they represent these ideas in Washington? It doesn't seem possible that large donations don't come with strings attached. Making such commitments to donors and organizations doesn't allow for an independent Representative.

__________

Alexander Wyss, UC Berkeley, Policy Research,Carin for Congress, and Carin Elam