Yet an alarming campaign that threatens to turn collective speech into an organizational death sentence is rapidly spreading across the country. The group pushing this scheme calls it the “corporate power reset.” Under the guise of curbing “corporate political activity and dark money,” their strategy is to muzzle civic organizations from discussing elections and ballot measures — or strip them of their organizational charters entirely.

This nonsense is not theoretical: Hawaiʻi enacted Act 11 in May. Montana voters will decide on a similar ballot measure this November. Advocates in Oregon are laying the groundwork for a 2028 initiative, and at least 16 other states have considered similar bills this year.

Don’t let the “corporate influence” fearmongering fool you. Megacorporations serve as the convenient public boogeyman for these laws, but since the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, publicly traded corporations have accounted for only about 2% of political spending. And we shouldn’t forget that corporations, too, have a right to speak and provide information that the public may need to hear.

The corporate money moral panic may be aimed at Wall Street, but the real crosshairs fall squarely on Main Street — on the unions, grassroots charities, and advocacy groups that citizens use to share their voices. The scheme threatens high-profile powerhouses such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association just as easily as it endangers local neighborhood nonprofit groups no one outside their county has ever heard of.

And when those voices are pushed out of the debate, politicians and super-wealthy influencers wield more power. A popular mayor who supports a ballot measure raising taxes for a new stadium can talk to journalists, use her social media platforms, speak at rallies, and pay for ads to advocate it publicly. But a group of passionate residents who disagree are prohibited from financing ads against her because they are organized as a nonprofit group. Similarly, local unions that may oppose the ballot measure because the plan favors out-of-state workers aren’t allowed to publicly advocate their position, either.

Rebranding speech restrictions as adjustments to “corporate powers” does nothing to alter the fundamental reality: These laws stifle the collective voices of living, breathing people. Proponents can dress it up as a novel legal theory, but it is censorship by any other name.

At the Institute for Free Speech, we are fighting back. We represent the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in a federal constitutional challenge to Act 11. Grassroot is an independent nonprofit organization that analyzes public policy and educates islanders on state government. Under Act 11, spending its own funds to analyze a ballot initiative or candidate position could effectively shutter its doors. Our lawsuit asks the federal courts to strike down this unconstitutional ultimatum before it takes effect.

GUNS. VOTING. CLIMATE. THREE SUPREME COURT CASES WILL MAKE OR BREAK ORIGINALISM

Reasonable officials already recognize the danger. When activists pitched a comparable scheme in Massachusetts, the Institute for Free Speech submitted legal comments outlining its flaws. State Attorney General Andrea Campbell properly refused to certify the initiative, concluding that stripping organizational powers to restrict election-related speech unconstitutionally infringes on free speech and peaceable assembly. While not binding outside Massachusetts, her decision stands as a clear warning: Altering a state’s corporate laws is not a reason for violating the Constitution.

First Amendment Day celebrates our freedom to persuade our fellow citizens about the future of our communities. People have both the freedom to speak and the freedom to assemble. The government has no business forcing citizens to surrender one right in order to exercise the other.

Tiffany Donnelly is the director of external relations and counsel at the Institute for Free Speech.