< formatted article >

Breaking the Corporate Grip: Two States Take a Stand Against Dark Money in Elections

A Bold New Strategy Emerges

In a move that could reshape the landscape of political spending, two states are pioneering a novel approach to curb corporate influence in elections. While frustration with the 2010 Citizens United ruling continues to simmer, lawmakers and activists are pushing back—one state through legislation, the other via direct democracy.

Hawaii’s Legislative Gambit

Hawaii’s legislature has just passed a groundbreaking bill that could sever the financial ties between corporations and elections. The strategy? Redefining what a corporation is legally allowed to do.

Under the proposed law, corporations would be stripped of their ability to spend directly on elections, treating them more like entities that can lobby but not bankroll campaigns. The idea is simple: if corporations can’t donate, they can’t buy influence.

But the road ahead is treacherous. Governor Josh Green now holds the power to sign the bill into law—or veto it. If enacted, the law would immediately face legal challenges, setting the stage for a high-stakes battle over corporate rights.

Montana’s Ballot Measure: Democracy in Action

While Hawaii moves through legislative channels, Montana is taking a different route—one that puts the power directly in voters’ hands. A grassroots effort led by volunteers has pushed The Montana Plan, a ballot measure that would let citizens decide whether corporations should be barred from election spending.

The campaign is fueled by growing public outrage over "dark money"—funds funneled through opaque groups that never disclose their donors. Since Citizens United, outside spending in federal elections has exploded from $350 million in 2008 to over $4 billion in 2024.

Even state races have been flooded with untraceable cash, leaving voters in the dark about who’s really pulling the strings. The Montana Plan aims to change that by giving the public a direct say.

Yet the path is far from smooth. Courts have already allowed the measure to proceed, but legal and political hurdles remain. If it survives, the real test may come before the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter of election rules.

---

The Legal Battle Ahead: Will It Work?

Supporters of these measures argue that voters are fed up with corporate dominance and crave a way to reclaim their democracy. Tom Moore, a former election lawyer, calls Hawaii’s approach a "genuine new approach"—one that rests on long-established corporate principles rather than partisan maneuvering.

Critics, however, dismiss it as a clever but doomed legal trick, predicting it will collapse under constitutional scrutiny.

One thing is certain: The Supreme Court will have the last word. And whichever side prevails, this fight isn’t just about money—it’s about who gets to shape the future of American elections.