# Federal Judge Signals Readiness to Hear Challenge to Hawaii's Anti-Citizens United Campaign Finance Law
A federal judge indicated she will likely reject Hawaii's motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge targeting Act 11, the state's law designed to counteract the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The ruling positions a free market think tank's lawsuit to advance toward the merits phase in federal court.
The case centers on Act 11, Hawaii legislation enacted to limit the political spending implications of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). That landmark Supreme Court ruling struck down federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, holding that campaign spending constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.
The federal judge's preliminary signals suggest the court will not dismiss the case on technical grounds, meaning the challenge to Act 11 will likely proceed to substantive litigation over whether the state law violates the First Amendment. This represents a significant development for both campaign finance advocates and opponents.
The free market think tank filing the suit seeks to establish that Hawaii's attempt to limit corporate and independent political spending violates constitutional protections. The plaintiff argues that Act 11 imposes unconstitutional restrictions on political expression and spending in the years following Citizens United.
Hawaii crafted Act 11 in response to Citizens United's holding, attempting to create a statutory framework that the state believed could withstand constitutional scrutiny while accomplishing policy goals around campaign finance limitation. The state's motion to dismiss argued the case should not proceed, likely asserting jurisdictional, standing, or other threshold defenses.
The judge's inclination to deny the state's motion means Hawaii must now prepare to defend Act 11 on the merits. This requires the state to articulate compelling government interests supporting the law and demonstrate that Act 11 is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. Under First Amendment jurisprudence, campaign finance restrictions receive strict scrutiny review, the highest level of constitutional scrutiny.
The decision carries practical implications. If the federal court ultimately strikes down Act 11, Hawaii loses its primary legislative tool for managing post-Citizens United campaign spending. This could reshape political spending patterns in state elections. Conversely, if the court upholds Act 11, it creates a potential model for other states seeking similar restrictions.
The case also reflects broader national litigation trends. Multiple states have attempted to enact campaign finance laws since Citizens United, and federal courts have addressed these challenges inconsistently. Some courts have upheld narrowly tailored restrictions focused on disclosure or contribution limits, while others have struck down spending caps.
For the think tank and its supporters, the judge's ruling signals a meaningful opportunity to challenge state campaign finance law in court. For Hawaii and states with similar legislation, the ruling confirms they must defend their laws against First Amendment challenges.
The case will now proceed through discovery and briefing on the merits, unless the parties reach settlement. The eventual decision will likely influence how Hawaii and potentially other jurisdictions approach campaign finance regulation in the post-Citizens United environment.