This article was originally published on Red, Blue & Real, the author’s Substack publication. The version below includes sources and further reading.
Two Doors for Money Into Politics
Money in politics is a classically American conflict. In 2010, business interests gained an entirely new level of legal power. The change was not simply more money. It was a different kind of money, operating under different rules, in quantities that made the previous system look small by comparison.
Two federal court rulings that year dismantled major parts of a century of campaign finance law. One allowed corporations to spend directly on elections. The other created the super PAC system — unlimited independent spending, unlimited contributions, no effective ceiling.
The results reshaped American politics. Outside groups spent roughly $4.5 billion in the 2024 election cycle.5 Super PACs alone raised more than $5 billion.5 Dark money — political spending that does not disclose its original source — reached record levels approaching $1.9 billion.8
Fifteen states have now developed a legal theory intended to close the corporate spending door. The super PAC door is another matter entirely.
Contents
Citizens United, Precisely
Citizens United did not create all unlimited political money. It did open the corporate spending door.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that corporations and unions could spend unlimited money independently to influence elections.1 They still could not donate directly to candidates. They could, however, spend as much as they wanted on advertising, messaging, and political activity operating outside the candidate structure itself.
That decision overturned restrictions that had existed in federal law for more than a century.4
The second ruling that year mattered at least as much. SpeechNow created the legal structure for super PACs — organizations allowed to raise and spend unlimited money from individuals, corporations, billionaires, and other groups, as long as they operated independently from campaigns.2
Together, the two decisions built the modern unlimited-money system.
The Architecture of Money Control
Super PACs are the direct product of SpeechNow, a 2010 federal appeals court case. The court ruled that if independent spending does not pose a risk of corruption (per Citizens United), then contributions to groups that only engage in independent spending also cannot be limited under the First Amendment.3 Before that ruling, independent political groups faced strict limits on what they could accept from any single donor. SpeechNow eliminated those limits. Any individual, corporation, or organization could now contribute unlimited sums to a super PAC, as long as the super PAC spent independently and not in direct coordination with a candidate.
The practical result was a new kind of political vehicle with no real precedent. A billionaire could write a nine-figure check to a super PAC supporting a presidential candidate. A corporation could route treasury money through a dark money nonprofit into a super PAC, with the original source never publicly identified.9
This produces and amplifies division of the American public. Super PACs dominate political outcomes most effectively in a polarized electorate — divided Americans are easier to target, easier to motivate through fear, and harder to unite around shared interests. That division serves concentrated corporate power directly. While Americans are sorting themselves into opposing camps, the underlying questions — who controls the economy, who sets the rules, who benefits — go largely undiscussed.
Citizens United got the headlines in 2010; SpeechNow was decided three months later. It has attracted a fraction of the attention, and arguably did more to build the system Americans live with today. The super PAC pipeline it created now moves billions of dollars per election cycle — money that flows from individuals and corporations alike, much of it through intermediaries designed to prevent the original source from ever being traceable.8
The fifteen-state reform movement addresses corporate account spending. It does not touch this pipeline at all.
States Are Standing Up
For fifteen years after Citizens United, campaign finance reform kept running into the same constitutional wall. Courts treated corporate political spending as protected speech under the First Amendment. Limiting that spending, in the court’s view, meant limiting speech.4
In 2026, reformers changed strategy. Fifteen states introduced laws based on a different idea entirely. Instead of trying to regulate how corporations spend money, the laws redefine what corporations are legally allowed to do.10
Corporations are not natural persons. States create them through corporate charters and grant them specific powers: the power to own property, sign contracts, sue, and operate as legal entities. Those powers exist because states authorize them.
States can also refuse to authorize certain powers.
Hawaii’s Senate Bill 2471 — the furthest along of the fifteen efforts — passed both legislative chambers in May 2026 and now awaits the governor’s signature.11 The bill removes election spending from the powers granted to corporations operating under state law.
That creates a new legal argument. If corporations were never granted the power to spend money on elections, then there is no corporate political “speech” for the First Amendment to protect. Citizens United assumed that power already existed.11
The theory is new and untested — which cuts both ways. It has never been tried, but it has also never been defeated. Minnesota’s experience offers a preview of what comes next: the state passed a narrower version of corporate election spending limits in 2023, faced an immediate legal challenge from the business community, and has been in federal court ever since.13 Hawaii and the fourteen states behind it are walking into the same gauntlet.
Real Progress, Real Challenges
The fifteen-state corporate powers movement is real progress. If the legal theory holds, corporations will lose the ability to spend directly from their treasuries on elections in willing states. That is not nothing. It is the first genuinely new legal tool in the campaign finance reform arsenal in a generation.10
It is also half the problem — and arguably less than that.
Direct corporate spending represents a fraction of total outside money — possibly as little as 10% of the $2.7 billion super PACs spent in 2024 alone.5 And even that fraction is unlikely to disappear. Corporations blocked from spending directly will route the same money through dark money nonprofits and super PACs instead — into the less visible, less traceable part of the system.8
The super PAC pipeline — built by SpeechNow, fueled by billionaire wealth and dark money — operates entirely outside the reach of the corporate powers reset. No state law addresses it. No federal legislation is moving. The only paths to closing that door are a Supreme Court willing to revisit its own precedent, or a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds of Congress and ratification by 38 states. Neither is on the horizon.10
If the theory survives federal court challenge, it becomes a template. Other states follow. The corporate door closes incrementally, state by state. The fifteen-state movement can establish that states have sovereign authority over the powers they grant to corporations — and put that argument before federal courts for the first time.12
The system that produces and amplifies division, that keeps Americans sorted into opposing camps while concentrated wealth determines which politicians survive — that system runs through the super PAC pipeline. Corporate funds spending was always one part of a larger architecture. Citizens United was always one ruling in a longer story.
Every little bit helps. The corporate powers movement is one of the more creative examples of a larger movement the states are leading. Despite appearances, the Constitution still has legs. States retain sovereign powers, and we are learning how to use them.
Sources and Further Reading
On the rulings
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Supreme Court majority opinion. supremecourt.gov
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (March 26, 2010). Federal Election Commission case summary. fec.gov
- Campaign Legal Center. SpeechNow.org v. FEC — case summary and significance. campaignlegal.org
- Brennan Center for Justice. Citizens United, Explained. brennancenter.org
On the money
- OpenSecrets. Super PACs — 2024 cycle. Total receipts and independent expenditures. opensecrets.org
- OpenSecrets. Total Outside Spending by Election Cycle. opensecrets.org
- OpenSecrets. Dark Money Basics. opensecrets.org
- Brennan Center for Justice. Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024 Federal Races. May 7, 2025. brennancenter.org
- Campaign Legal Center. Dark Money Groups Are Pumping Millions Into the 2024 Election. campaignlegal.org
On the state reform movement
- Center for American Progress. Tom Moore. Undoing Citizens United and Reining In Super PACs. September 15, 2025. americanprogress.org
- Civil Beat. Can Hawaii Deliver All of America From Citizens United? civilbeat.org
- Hawaii Public Radio. Last-Minute Proposal Would Make Significant Changes to Hawaii’s Dark Money Bill. May 1, 2026. hawaiipublicradio.org
On Minnesota
- Campaign Legal Center. Defending the Foreign Corporate Election Spending Ban in Minnesota. campaignlegal.org