Addressing the Fallout from Citizens United: Hawaii Takes a Stand
Challenging the Controversial Citizens United Decision
The 2010 Citizens United ruling has been a subject of controversy since its inception. Hawaii’s recent constitutional amendment proposal is in direct opposition to the Supreme Court decision which lifted restrictions on campaign spending. This stark move, emanating straight from the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee, was achieved through the unanimous passing of Senate Bill 311.
Exploring the Proposed Constitutional Amendment
The amendment empowers the Hawaii State Constitution to specify that the freedom of speech protection does not embrace the spending of money to influence elections. In its essence, the proposed amendment is a loud critique against the Citizens United decision that upended long-standing campaign financing restrictions, equating corporate spending with free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Parsing the Effects of the Citizens United Decision
The decision on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission has mainly outraised the limits on the amount of money corporations, special interest groups, and political action committees (PACs) could spend on an election. The language of the new bill highlights this as a dangerous threat to democracy.
Understanding the Corporate Advantage in Political Influencing
The proposed Bill 311 pinpoints the corporate advantages such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable asset accumulation treatment which allow these entities to amass and use significant funds for political influencing. The bill further notes that the corporate messages often exercise far greater reach and influence than those from individual citizens.
Empowering States to Amend Their Constitutions
The uniting force behind the bill is the belief that people of each state have the power to amend their state constitutions. The Hawaiian Legislature sees it as critical that the state expresses its disapproval of the Citizens United decision. Yet, it is essential to note that modification to Hawaii’s Constitution would be more symbolic than immediately disrupting unlimited campaign financing.
The Refusal of Congress to Act
Despite urging from at least 20 states, including Hawaii to overturn the decision by a constitutional amendment, Congress has yet to take any significant action. The inaction of Congress has emboldened states to devise their ways of dealing with the fallout from the controversial ruling, as is the case with Hawaii’s recent move.
Public Opinions on the Proposed Bill
The majority of the written public testimonies submitted on the bill support its passage. Critics argue that the Citizens United ruling has shifted the focus of elected officials from their constituents to special interests, leading to a degradation in trust in our democracy and the advancement of legal bribery.
Concerns Over Restricting Free Speech
On the other end of the discourse, some critics believe that the bill might infringe on free speech protected by the US Constitution, viewing the proposed change as just a ceremonial gesture given the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue.
The Role of Money in Politics
The influence of money in politics has been a hot topic of debate for years, and Hawaii’s proposed amendment is just the latest move in this ongoing game. The belief is that the decision to equate corporations with individuals in terms of free speech rights
has promoted an oligarchy at the expense of democratic principles.
Conclusion
The initiative of the Hawaiian Legislature not only demonstrates its commitment to defending democratic principles but also signals that at the state level, measures can be taken to challenge established yet controversial federal decisions such as Citizens United. Yet, the Supreme Court ruling continues to cast a long shadow over any state-level initiatives, underscoring the profound and lasting influence of its decisions on the American polity.
Originally Post From https://kauainownews.com/2025/02/03/hawai%CA%BBi-constitution-amendment-proposed-as-protest-of-unlimited-campaign-spending/
