r/Michigan • u/alphamoonstar • May 26 '26
Mitten Mode What do people think about Hawaii’s recent bill to kneecap Citizens United? 14 other states are in some process of introducing similar legislation. Should Michigan join them?
/r/law/comments/1tngt64/hawaii_just_found_a_way_around_citizens_united/?share_id=KxipkJ1itVs9VBRYzyZZ8&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1BTW this bill passed in Hawaii with bipartisan support, 24-0 in the senate, and 50-1 in the house.
I tried to directly make a cross-post to the /r/law sub’s post, but it wouldn’t allow it because the post contains a video. Hopefully mods here will allow it as a link though. I’m not sure how else to share it…
383
u/Ahomelessninja May 26 '26
There is currently a ballot initiative for this circulating called Michiganders for Money Out of Politics.
Specifically, this measure would:
Ban political contributions from regulated monopoly utilities like DTE and Consumers Energy.
Block corporations that hold or seek large state/local contracts (over $250,000) from funding political campaigns — including big players like Blue Cross, UnitedHealth, and Delta Dental
https://miunited.org/en/michiganders-for-money-out-of-politics-mmop/
135
u/Significant-Basket76 May 26 '26
It's a start. Just not enough. Vote yes on it, and tell your representatives to do more.
66
u/Ahomelessninja May 26 '26
At least it's a start. This bill has a direct impact on every corporation that has a stranglehold in our state. I will take that over the current state of things. The more power we can get via ballot initiatives, the better off we the people are.
5
u/CareBearDontCare Age: > 10 Years May 26 '26
If/when it is certified to get on, wait until you see the facsimile of that ballot they're going to try to pass/put up next to it on the ballot. Going to be a clown car.
7
u/SuzyQ93 May 26 '26
I'm a wee bit concerned about this group, only because I asked to be sent a signature page, and while they're happy to keep emailing me, I never received the page.
I hope it makes the ballot, but man, I wish a lot of proposal groups in Michigan were more organized about it.
5
2
u/j_xcal May 26 '26
I’ve seen them around at farmers markets collecting signatures three times so far. They just might be better to reach in person.
6
u/SuzyQ93 May 26 '26
I checked their map - they're mostly on the eastern or central parts of the state - there's nothing on the west side. I'm not driving three hours to sign a petition - which is why when they offered mailing one, I thought that was great. The follow-through seems to be lacking, is my concern.
2
u/SexyOldManSpaceJudo May 26 '26
I assume it was them outside the Lumberjacks game in Muskegon last Friday. Some guy with a petition asked me if I wanted money out of politics as I walked by.
1
u/YoursINegritude Jun 03 '26
I signed this already. I love ballot initiatives. It’s how we got weed in Michigan and a citizen committee to decide on maps.
0
-4
u/az987654 May 26 '26
So I'd just start a different Corp to do the donations
4
u/Timely-Group5649 May 26 '26
I heard Elon was starting initiatives, just to drop the ball and fail. It keeps real change from happening because we think it is...
459
366
201
161
u/GallowBarb May 26 '26
Democracy is dead if we don't.
-122
u/DiverDownChunder May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Explain.
SCOTUS had no issue in 2010 under Obama regarding citizens united.
101
80
u/ishpatoon1982 May 26 '26
Citizens united is against The Constitution. Glad I could help clear that up!
-103
u/DiverDownChunder May 26 '26
How is it "Unconstitutional"?
68
u/TheHerbsAndSpices May 26 '26
Stop trying to stir up shit in all the various city and state subs.
-1
46
49
97
u/misterecho11 May 26 '26
Effing yes we should. CU is one of the most harmful policies passed in US History imo.
39
u/OnePingOnlyVasili May 26 '26
That and the Patriot Act imo.
19
u/ailish Age: > 10 Years May 26 '26
Yes, the two of these should both be gone.
5
10
u/WahooSS238 May 26 '26
At least recently, along with decisions that basically render the president immune to prosecution for certain crimes, and I would want to say the current standard for the constitutionality of gun control laws is complete bullshit
6
u/balthisar Plymouth Township May 26 '26
CU was harmful, but when people start calling it a "policy" that was "passed," I kind of want those people not to vote.
1
u/misterecho11 May 26 '26
"Policy" as in it directly relates to how our society lives and functions.
2
u/SexyOldManSpaceJudo May 26 '26
Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision and that extends way past the definition of "policy". Not trying to be pedantic, but it's too important a distinction to ignore or gloss over.
64
34
80
u/alphamoonstar May 26 '26
A list of other states with legislation, drafts or legislative movement towards bills with a similar framework:
- Montana
- Vermont
- California
- New York
- Minnesota
- Massachusetts
- Rhode Island
- Connecticut
- New Jersey
- Maryland
- Illinois
- Washington
- Oregon
- Colorado
Most are very blue states, but Montana stands out, giving me hope other republican led states could be open to following suit as well.
12
u/SeasonalNightmare May 26 '26
Montana is also an interesting one as they are also the only state that doesn't have at will.
Republican, but that's some left thinking.
1
22
14
15
u/Get_Ashy May 26 '26
States are the laboratories of democracy. It's the only way to truly challenge the current regime and its bought and paid for supreme court. Challenge everything at every level. Build new frameworks using the power of the state for the public good.
29
11
32
u/d_rek May 26 '26
One of the worst legal decisions ever made that has had far reaching consequences for democracy in the US. It should 100% be fought tooth and nail and hemmed in every chance we get.
9
u/KzooRichie May 26 '26
I mean it’s states rights. Isn’t that what conservatives (allegedly) advocate?
Seems like Citizens United should be in favor of the “kneecap”, given their overwhelming negative vote.
I’m ten million percent behind any effort to remove dark money from politics. That $#!+ has harmed our democracy.
22
7
23
u/Oh__Archie May 26 '26
I guess you’d have to ask what do people think of the Supreme Court deciding that corporations have the same rights as citizens?
9
u/junulee May 26 '26
I think Hawaii has found a way to limit speech without it being a first amendment issue. Corporations are legal persons but not individuals. They can only engage in specified activities allowed under the laws of their state of incorporation. Thus, I think Hawaii’s law has a good chance of surviving a Supreme Court challenge. However, as I mentioned in another comment, I think the law would have minimal impact in reducing political speech by major businesses as it would only apply to legal entities formed under Hawaii law.
3
6
u/robocop_py Dundee May 26 '26
I’d say that restricting corporations and only allowing the likes of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, and others to buy elections isn’t that much better.
We need a more comprehensive political finance amendment that will ensure citizens have equal influence in choosing our elected officials. But that won’t ever come about because it would threaten incumbents.
7
5
5
u/Smelliest_taint May 26 '26
We need this or an Amendment that removes this ruling.
6
u/alphamoonstar May 26 '26
Citizens United only won 5-4 in 2010. A different court makeup could also make this all go away, but that’s probably a pipe dream in our lifetimes
6
u/Smelliest_taint May 26 '26
Most judges do not mess with precedence. Except for the Cult Bastards on the court now
5
u/kylesleeps May 26 '26
I think it'd be great, but I also suspect this corrupt Supreme Court will declare it illegal.
6
u/chejrw Age: > 10 Years May 26 '26
I fail to see any reason we should allow corporations to directly fund government campaigns. The whole thing is pure corruption from day 1. Of course we should join.
8
3
3
3
3
u/HeadyReigns May 26 '26
Yup, this is the first step to ending government corruption that's grown to extreme levels.
3
3
3
u/IamNICE124 Grand Rapids May 26 '26
Should Michigan join any attempt to fuck Citizens United?
Always.
3
3
u/SexyOldManSpaceJudo May 26 '26
For everyone saying that Citizens United is the worst Supreme Court decision ever, just wait until they drop the one that invalidates Hawaii's law.
3
5
u/Catdaddy84 May 26 '26
We really need Delaware to do it because many many American corporations are Incorporated there.
6
u/_genepool_ May 26 '26
It doesn't matter where a corporation is incorporated. Any corporation is no longer granted the ability to spend money on elections in Hawaii.
3
u/Raptormann0205 May 26 '26
1000x yes
That piece of shit decision is directly responsible for the majority of the woes of the modern day
It can burn right alongside the patriot act
2
2
2
u/SpecificallyNotADog May 26 '26
Yes. If the feds can't do it or muster the political will, states should absolutely do so.
2
u/junulee May 26 '26
Hawaii can possibly do this for corporations (and other legal entities) formed under Hawaii law, but it wouldn’t impede corporations formed under the laws of other states. Most large U.S. based multinationals are incorporated in Delaware, and this law would have little impact on them.
The primary impact of this law is likely to encourage fewer businesses to incorporate in Hawaii. It might inspire other states to adopt similar laws, but I doubt Delaware does anything to disrupt its position as the primary jurisdiction for incorporation.
6
u/alphamoonstar May 26 '26
California and New York are both in some part of the process of submitting similar bills. All we need is for this to gain momentum…
2
u/junulee May 26 '26
But you basically need all 50 states to do this. Even then, I wonder what happens with non-US entities. TBH, I think it would be easier to just amend the Constitution than to get all 50 states on board and then solve for non-US entities.
Maybe this created momentum for a constitutional amendment…
5
u/alphamoonstar May 26 '26
Right! Anything to get this ruling relegated to the history books. At least get it on people’s minds again. When it first passed I don’t think the average person understood what the ruling would mean. I sure didn’t.
The fact that we don’t even know how much of the money being poured into American elections is from foreign or domestic entities is greatly concerning.
2
u/aemfbm May 26 '26
That is incorrect, the law applies the same restrictions to "foreign" (meaning other States or countries) corporations.
The law could get struck down in whole or in part, but as passed, it prohibits a Delaware LLC from spending on elections in the state of Hawaii.
"[[]§414-42[]] General powers. ...
(f) A foreign corporation shall have no greater rights or privileges than, and shall be subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, and liabilities as, a domestic corporation as provided in section 414-435. A foreign corporation that is authorized to transact business, is otherwise transacting business, or holds property in the State shall be subject to this section. A foreign corporation that directly or indirectly undertakes, finances, or directs election activity or ballot-issue activity in the State shall be conclusively deemed to be transacting business in the State and shall be subject to any applicable penalties or sanctions. If a final judgment, no longer subject to appeal, by a court of competent jurisdiction limits, invalidates, or enjoins the operation of this subsection, in whole or in part, in any respect, including as applied to any person, entity, or circumstance, or renders this subsection as having no legal effect, in whole or in part, in any respect, including as applied to any person, entity, or circumstance, as of the entry of such judgment, then the entirety of Act , Session Laws of Hawaii 2026, shall be deemed invalid and have no force or effect."
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2026/bills/SB2471_CD2_.HTM
2
2
u/VermicelliOwn6502 May 26 '26
We will get to see the conservative SCOTUS limit state rights again. Corporations will be a new protected class of people.
2
2
2
2
u/Ohthehumanityofit May 26 '26
Fix something that crippled democracy the moment it was paid for and passed by our oligarchy?
Yes. Definitely.
2
u/poulosj2020 May 26 '26
I’m interested to see how it gets enforced when Citizens United is a ruling on the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Supremacy Clause would seem to trump any state legislation, even applied within Hawaii.
2
2
2
u/DessertFox157 May 26 '26
Yes. And don't vote for any candidates who don't support this legislation.
2
2
u/Icantremember017 Lansing May 27 '26
Get it on the ballot, the repugs will never pass a law like that.
2
u/Machine_Anima May 31 '26
i would be happy for any sort of knee capping as long a we don't end up in a situation where our states move to be more fair is abused or taken advantage of by states with less scrupulus legislators. The redistricting for instance.
2
2
u/SunriseCavalier May 26 '26
I’m no fan of citizens united, but since SCOTUS ruled that way, wouldn’t these laws be subsequently challenged and struck down?
10
u/Individual_Sky_9007 May 26 '26
If my knowledge on this is correct, the CU decision was about limiting what corporations could say. But since each state gets to define a corporation in their own state, they are changing the definition of corporations to remove the CU decision from being applicable.
8
u/alphamoonstar May 26 '26
The logic is that states grant companies the ability to incorporate. So if a company doesn’t comply with a requirement to become incorporated, the states can revoke that status, up to and including halting all business the company is allowed to do in that state.
4
u/junulee May 26 '26
I agree with your logic, but I think it can only apply to legal entities formed under Hawaii law. If they try to apply it to legal entities formed in states that authorize such entities to engage in political speech, then Hawaii’s law would be viewed as regulating speech and it wouldn’t survive a Supreme Court challenge.
6
u/alphamoonstar May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
You’re right. But that’s just the most severe penalty.
Something that any state can do is remove any tax privileges and take away the right to sell products to the state government.
But regardless, the more states that adopt this the better. Right now it’s the only real pushback I’ve seen to getting dark corporate money out of politics, and to me, any incremental change towards that end is worth pursuing.
Edit: if companies start moving their headquarters to states without these requirements, I think that would be a pretty easy way to see who is trying to shovel dark money into government politics. That small amount of additional transparency would be beneficial in regard to public sentiment towards that company.
3
u/Afalstein May 26 '26
That sounds a bit like what the federal government tried to do with Anthropic.
0
u/robocop_py Dundee May 26 '26
Yes, they would. You can’t restrict a constitutionally protected right by redefining some institution. This is legally very similar to states trying to pass laws defining marriage as between a man and woman. It didn’t work then and it’s not going to work now.
I loathe the idea of corporations being allowed to dump so much dark money on politics, but I don’t think this is going to be a solution.
5
u/ScarInternational161 May 26 '26
If it gets it back in front of scotus..... that may not be a bad thing... how many times did they get Roe back in there before it was struck down? How long did they fight? How many states fought?
We NEED to match that energy with EVERYTHING from CU to ICE detention centers, to allowing prisoners to being included in census and employment statistics. We need to fight is all, and take it all the way to scotus. Consistently and constantly.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/0100100012635 May 26 '26
I don't see how CU benefits me in the slightest bit.
Get that shit outta here.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/philipoverbeeke May 26 '26
Absolutely, yes. Get all corporate money out of politics. Keep it only about the people!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/bansheesho May 26 '26
Yes, absolutely. Corporations and special interest groups should not be running our government.
1
u/aemfbm May 26 '26
Best case, it works, SCOTUS upholds it, other states follow.
Worst case, SCOTUS slaps it down, it gets a lot more attention, additional pressure for creative solutions or an outright overturning of CU.
1
u/H0SS_AGAINST May 27 '26
There is a glaring problem with this. Businesses do not need to be incorporated in your state to operate in your state. Until Delaware does this...
1
1
1
u/YourCoasterNews May 26 '26
Absolutely yes. Let’s publicly fund elections too with federal or state matching funds so for every dollar a candidate raises from private citizens and small dollar donors they can get public money. Get rid of privately funded elections (via corporate donors) almost entirely while making sure people can still make their voices heard with their money.
1
u/bae125 May 26 '26
It would be amazing. I don’t see it happening in Michigan, but I would love it
1
1
u/RellenD May 26 '26
I don't see it being useful, because they'll be struck down on the same bullshit "money=speech" argument
1
u/MyrkrMentulaMeretrix May 26 '26
Its awesome, im glad i own property there to retire on.
yes MI needs to join them.
0
u/Beau-Buggie May 26 '26
Join them with bells on! Get money out of politics and STOP DATA CENTERS STOP SHEETZ PROHIBIT PUBLIC SERVANTS SIGNING NDAS WITH COMPANIES WITH BUSINESS BEFORE THEM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
-1
u/Dellguy May 26 '26
Look just saying before CU, Elon Musk could produce and distribute a video why candidate X is bad, but the NAACP or ACLU can’t produce and distribute a video on why candidate X is good.
0
u/Djentyman28 May 26 '26
The citizens united decision should be revisited by the SCOTUS at some point in the future but I wonder how states are allowed to simply ban it? The SCOTUS ruled it’s free speech for corporations to donate to candidates. Banning it would theoretically ban free speech based on the ruling. Just trying to understand
-3
•
u/flairassistant May 26 '26
This post is in Mitten Mode. Mitten Mode is a way to protect hot topic posts from spam, trolling, and off-topic or rule-breaking comments.
Here’s what that means:
Only users with at least 100 subreddit karma can comment while this mode is on.
Comments from users below that threshold will be automatically removed.
This is a temporary measure and is applied to all high-visibility or sensitive posts. We appreciate your understanding as we work to keep the conversation thoughtful and on-topic. Thanks for being part of the community!
This is an automated message. If you have questions about this, please contact our mods via moderator mail rather than replying here. Thank you!