Proposing An Amendment To The Hawaii State Constitution Regarding The Freedom Of Speech.
If passed, this amendment would express Hawaii's disapproval of the Citizens United decision and reinforce the idea that campaign financing should be subject to regulation, not regarded as a form of speech. The amendment explicitly states that financial contributions to political campaigns should not be afforded the same protections as free speech under state law. However, because Citizens United remains the law of the land, the immediate legal effect of this amendment would be limited. Nevertheless, it could provide a foundation for future challenges to corporate influence in politics and underscore the ongoing public demand for campaign finance reform.
Senate Bill 917 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Hawaii aimed at addressing the implications of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 2010 ruling effectively equated monetary expenditures on political campaigns with protected free speech under the First Amendment, resulting in unrestricted corporate spending in elections. This bill seeks to amend Article I, Section 4 of the Hawaii State Constitution to clarify that the expenditure of money to influence elections does not constitute protected speech under state law. The intent is to mitigate the influence of corporate money in politics, which the legislature cites as a threat to democracy due to the disproportionate power large corporations wield over electoral outcomes and policy decisions.
The sentiment surrounding SB 917 appears largely supportive, particularly among legislators and constituents who believe that excess corporate spending undermines democratic principles. Supporters argue that the Citizens United ruling has led to an erosion of public trust in government and electoral processes. They contend the amendment is a necessary step in re-establishing a fairer political ecosystem. However, there may also be dissenting opinions regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of such measures, raising questions about possible unintended consequences or legal challenges that could arise if this amendment is enacted.
Notably, opposition arguments may center on concerns regarding state overreach into the realm of political speech and the potential chilling effects on free expression within political discourse. Critics could argue that restricting monetary expenditures violates broader principles of free speech and could have adverse effects on individuals trying to express their political views. Additionally, some opponents may question the efficacy of state-level amendments in the face of a Supreme Court decision that currently upholds corporate spending as protected speech, highlighting the tension between local governance and overarching federal legal principles.