Hawaii Act – A nonprofit free-speech legal group filed a federal lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s Act 11, a law that bars corporations and other “artificial persons” from spending on elections starting July 1, 2027—aimed at curbing corporate money in politics. The plaintiffs a
A new Hawaii law designed to limit political spending by corporations is already facing a direct challenge in federal court.
On June 5, the Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit free speech legal group, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii against Hawaii’s Act 11. The filing was made on behalf of the Grassroot Institute, a Hawaiian nonprofit public policy think tank.
Act 11, passed by Hawaii’s legislature on May 14, is intended as a first-of-its-kind state effort to deny corporations and similar entities the power to spend in political campaigning. The suit argues the law is a “substantial threat” to the First Amendment.
The legal fight targets a core feature of the law: it attempts to “neuter” corporate political influence tied to the landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. which allowed corporations and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on elections as part of First Amendment protected speech.
Owen Yeates, a senior attorney with the Institute for Free Speech and lead litigator for the Hawaii nonprofit, framed the measure as an unusually broad restriction on political speech.
“Act 11 is one of the most sweeping attacks on political speech we’ve seen in years,” Yeates said in a news release.
Yeates argued that Americans have constitutional rights to advocate through organizations and to decide which voices they want to hear. He said, “Moreover, Americans have a right to decide for themselves which voices they want to hear. Act 11 strips those rights from the residents of Hawaii.”
When the law passed, Hawaii’s Democratic Gov. Josh Green defended it in a statement. saying the bill is “intended to strengthen transparency. reduce the influence of corporate money in elections and help restore public trust in Hawaii’s democratic process.” Green’s office declined to comment on the lawsuit. directing questions to the Department of the Attorney General.
A spokesperson for the department said the attorney general is “aware of the lawsuit and is reviewing the complaint. ” and added that the office would not comment on pending litigation. The spokesperson said. “Act 11 was enacted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.” The spokesperson also said questions about the law’s policy rationale are best directed to the Legislature. and that the state will review the allegations and respond through the judicial process.
The dispute turns on what Act 11 actually does and who it covers. Beginning on July 1. 2027. the law bars “corporations. limited liability companies. partnerships. associations. and other artificial persons” in Hawaii from spending money on or participating in any “election activity or ballot-issue activity. ” according to the bill’s text.
Act 11 places special emphasis on the legal concept that corporations are “artificial person[s].” It says the Hawaii government believes powers given to an “artificial person” are “separate and distinct from the rights retained by natural persons.” The law also states: “This Act therefore does not regulate any natural person’s rights to speech. petition. or association.” Instead. it says. “This act simply defines and limits the powers that the state confers upon the artificial persons that the state charters or authorizes to do business.”.
The bill includes its own reasoning tied to federal litigation. It argues that the state supports repeated federal court decisions that limit the political influence of nonprofits because those nonprofits receive tax benefits, and it says corporations should be treated the same way.
Yeates said the law will “silence” groups that residents “most typically use to make their voices heard,” naming advocacy organizations, unions, charitable nonprofits, and trade associations.
Beyond the constitutional dispute over speech limits, the lawsuit also challenges the law’s clarity. An Institute for Free Speech news release said Act 11 is unconstitutionally vague, “leaving organizations unsure of where the line between lawful advocacy and prohibited activity lies.”
Keliʻi Akina. the president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute. said the law’s impact would extend beyond the specific organizations involved in the suit. “This law doesn’t affect just the Grassroot Institute,” Akina said. “It affects every Hawaii resident who wants to join with others to speak out on issues that impact their community. It doesn’t matter what the issue is or which side of it the organization is on. This law prevents citizens from organizing and pooling resources, time, and effort to speak on topics of public concern.”.
The lawsuit lands at a moment when Americans’ ability to pool resources for political advocacy remains one of the most tightly contested First Amendment battlegrounds—especially after Citizens United.
For Hawaii, the question now is whether Act 11’s approach—restricting “artificial persons” from election-related spending—can survive constitutional scrutiny. For plaintiffs, the answer is already clear: the law threatens the ability of groups and residents to speak together and be heard.
Hawaii Act 11 federal lawsuit First Amendment Citizens United political spending corporate money in politics Institute for Free Speech Grassroot Institute Josh Green Owen Yeates Keliʻi Akina elections ballot-issue activity