# Hawaii Seeks to Overturn Citizens United **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 5, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603 "2026-10-05T18:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/41 "2026-10-11T17:46:51Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > Natural persons have strict limits as to how much we can donate; why don’t corporations? As a technical point, this is not accurate. Donations directly to an individual candidate are still capped. _Citizens_ gave corporations the same rights as natural persons to provide unlimited “independent” funding that is presumed to be not controlled by the candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/42 "2026-10-11T17:55:46Z")
Along with a procedure for that “independent” funding that makes it impossible to verify that it’s actually independent. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/43 "2026-10-12T00:17:16Z")
Why did SCOTUS deem the spending considered in CU as free speech that couldn’t be unduly restricted, but leave the individual restrictions in place? Why did one offend the first amendment, but not the other? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/44 "2026-10-12T00:55:34Z")
Could you explain what individual restrictions you’re referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/45 "2026-10-12T03:21:53Z")
The limits on what I, an individual citizen, may donate to a candidate-controlled fund. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/46 "2026-10-12T04:29:19Z")
I think the Mod note post 17, may preclude this discussion. Maybe another thread? ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/47 "2026-10-12T04:41:19Z")
**Barely Moderating** Since @Stratocaster was asking for a direct comparison between a corporation’s limits as protected by Citizens United (the challenge of being the topic of the thread) vs. a “natural” person is on topic if only to elucidate what differences there may/may not be. If the thread again wants to discuss what the rights of _corporations_ should be outside the frame of CU and the challenges to it, you can take it to the thread I mentioned upthread. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/48 "2026-10-12T05:04:22Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The limits on what I, an individual citizen, may donate to a candidate-controlled fund. There are federal campaign direct contribution limits set for natural persons. BUT there are Independent Expenditures- The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot restrict \*independent\*\*political spending (such as ads, billboards, or mailers) by corporations, nonprofits, and labor union Still, it left the Ban on Direct Contributions: The decision did _not_ overturn the long-standing ban on corporations and unions making _direct_ financial contributions to federal candidate campaigns. Here are your limits as a natural person- [https://ballotpedia.org/Federal\_campaign\_finance\_laws\_and\_regulations](https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_campaign_finance_laws_and_regulations) and it went on to say- > The terms “[satellite spending](https://ballotpedia.org/Satellite_spending "Satellite spending")” or “independent spending” refer broadly to any political expenditures made by groups or individuals that are not directly affiliated with or controlled by a candidate or candidate campaign. This includes spending by political party committees, [super PACs](https://ballotpedia.org/Super_PAC "Super PAC"), trade associations, and [501(c)(4)](https://ballotpedia.org/501(c)(4) "501(c)(4)") nonprofit groups. Under federal campaign finance law, these groups can spend unlimited sums of money on political activities, sometimes without disclosing their donors.[[30]](https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_campaign_finance_laws_and_regulations#cite_note-definition-30)[[31]](https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_campaign_finance_laws_and_regulations#cite_note-stats-31) > In 2010, the [United States Supreme Court]([Supreme Court of the United States - Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Supreme_Court) > “United States Supreme Court”) ruled in _[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission](https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission")_ that for-profit and nonprofit corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from making [independent expenditures](https://ballotpedia.org/Independent_expenditure "Independent expenditure") in an election. > **[Citizens United, Explained](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained)** > > The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations. > The Supreme Court eventually [decided](https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf?inline=1) 5–4 that Citizens United was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film. But rather than opining solely on the case before it as it had been asked to do, the Court took the opportunity to entirely strike down century-old prohibitions on corporate “independent” spending — money that doesn’t go directly to a candidate or party. This applied to labor unions as well. Lower courts applying the ruling extended it to invalidate almost all fundraising and spending restrictions for groups that purport to be separate from candidates, many of which are today known as “super PACs.”… In other words, super PACs are not bound by spending limits on what they can collect or spend. Additionally, super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear. And while super PACs are technically prohibited from working directly with candidates, weak rules that are supposed to enforce this separation have often proven [ineffective](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/fixing-fec-agenda-reform). > > Super PAC money, which largely comes from a small group of the very wealthiest donors, started influencing elections almost immediately after _Citizens United_. From 2010 to 2022, super PACs spent approximately [$6.4 billion](https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/super_pacs/) on federal elections. In the 2024 election, they set a record of at least [$2.7 billion](https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/super_pacs/2024?chrt=2020&disp=O&type=S). Super PAC money has largely eclipsed donations by small donors (people giving $200 or less), despite funds from small donors [growing](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/small-donors-campaigns-are-not-problem). In other words- you- as a “natural” person _or_ ACME inc may buy a bill board or donate to a super PAC. But you can donate directly, while ACME can not. The 'unlimited contributions" talked about are not direct contributions, which are limited- in fact ACME can not do any such. But they are the _Indirect spending_- buying a billboard was one of the examples. Remember- when you- or ACME buys that billboard for _John Doe for Dogcatcher_- in theory John Doe has nothing to do with it. A SuperPac does not give money directly to a candidate or his campaign- it buys Billboards or TV time or whatever, on _behalf of John Doe._ ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/49 "2026-10-12T09:44:55Z")
Yes, those are the restrictions I’m questioning. As I understand it, the unlimited donations permitted by CU are fine, because to restrict them would run afoul of the first amendment. Why, then, are the restrictions on a person’s donation to a candidate-controlled fund okay re: the first amendment? Why doesn’t SCOTUS see this as an unwarranted infringement? And does this distinction, whatever it may be, play into Hawaii’s legislation? Is there a loophole that would close the CU non-limits if applied properly and narrowly? ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/50 "2026-10-12T13:37:18Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > [Meet the megadonors pouring more than $1.7 billion into the 2026 elections](https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2026/06/25/these-are-biggest-individual-donors-2026-election-cycle/) @Exapno_Mapcase 's link has a great visualization. It’s well worth a look. Both links are. Every household would have to pony up $13 to match a handful of donors. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/51 "2026-10-12T13:55:42Z")
> [@CaveMike](#): > > Every household would have to pony up $13 to match a handful of donors. I mistyped. Every person would have to donate $13. Every household would have to donate $33. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/52 "2026-10-12T18:42:46Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, those are the restrictions I’m questioning. As I understand it, the unlimited donations permitted by CU are fine, because to restrict them would run afoul of the first amendment. > > Why, then, are the restrictions on a person’s donation to a candidate-controlled fund okay re: the first amendment? Why doesn’t SCOTUS see this as an unwarranted infringement? Okay, let me explain again. Corps may not make ANY _direct_ **Federal** contributions, none, Zero, nada. Individuals may make direct contributions, but there are limits. Corps _and_ individuals may spend as much as they want on indirect spending, such as buying a billboard. Before CU, Corps could not. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/53 "2026-10-12T18:49:17Z")
Once again, I don’t need that pointed out. I am asking why CU unleashed the donations it did because the first amendment required it, but the restrictions on direct donations is apparently not a first amendment issue. Please, please, I beg you, do not DrDethsplain again that different categories of donations have different guardrails. My question would make no sense if I didn’t already understand that. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/54 "2026-10-12T18:51:56Z")
The 1976 Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo determined that a cap was within the known limits of free speech. > The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo held that contribution limits are subject to a more lenient standard of review than expenditure limits because they impose only a marginal restriction on speech and will be upheld if the government can demonstrate that they are a “closely drawn” means of achieving a “sufficiently important” governmental interest.[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/campaign-finance-contribution-limits-and-source-restrictions#fn1amd1) Unlike expenditure limits, which reduce the amount of expression, the Court opined that contribution limits involve “little direct restraint” on the speech of a contributor.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/campaign-finance-contribution-limits-and-source-restrictions#fn2amd1) While acknowledging that a contribution limit restricts an aspect of a contributor’s freedom of association by affecting a contributor’s ability to support a candidate, the Court determined that a contribution limit still permits symbolic expressions of support and does not infringe on a contributor’s freedom to speak about candidates and issues.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/campaign-finance-contribution-limits-and-source-restrictions#fn3amd1) If this sounds like splitting hairs, you’re correct. Remember that 1976 was the next election year after Nixon’s reign of corruption and the public mood was wildly favorable for such limits. The parties that brought the suit were a coalition unimaginable today: The lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, on January 2, 1975, by U.S. Senator James L. Buckley (a member of the Conservative Party of New York State), former U.S. Senator and 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy (a Democrat from Minnesota), the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the Socialist Workers Party, the Libertarian Party, and others. The final decision was one of the oddest in Supreme Court history. Five of the eight justices (Douglas had retired) dissented in part, although the core was allowed through. Both the right and left argue for overturning the ruling, for different reasons. Those are probably outside of the limits on this thread, though. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603/55 "2026-10-12T18:53:56Z")
Very helpful, thanks. And, yes, I’d say that’s splitting hairs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaii-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/1033603.md?page=2)