Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending may not affect Hawaii as much - for now

News admin July 3, 2026 0 Comments

Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending may not affect Hawaii as much — for now

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – There’s an opportunity for more cash to flow into campaign chests during elections — thanks to a ruling this week from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Experts say the ruling doesn’t affect a new state law on campaign contributions — at least not yet.

Tuesday’s ruling does away with limits on the amount of money a political party can spend on its candidates. It doesn’t have as much impact for those running at the state level, such as the legislature. However, it could come into play for federal level races, such as those for Congress.

The high court ruled in a lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee against the Federal Elections Commission. The NRSC said the limits on political party spending on candidates was unconstitutional. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the justices agreed.

“We actually welcome the Supreme Court decision that affirms that political parties have the same First Amendment right to support their candidate as other organizations,” said Shirlene Ostrov of the Hawaii Republican Party.

“They’re knocking down all the barriers, making it so as much money can pour into the system as possible,” said state Sen. Karl Rhoads, who chairs the senate Judiciary Committee.

“Just a continuation of the previous trend of making it so that money is the most important thing in politics,” he added.

“I do think the ruling will matter because what it does is it just shows that the Supreme Court is right now very skeptical of any campaign finance restrictions,” said HNN Political Analyst Colin Moore.

Those restrictions may include Hawaii’s Act 11, which Gov. Josh Green signed into law in May. It bars corporations, non-profits and other legally-created entities from engaging in election activity.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has already filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Act 11, contending that it bars those groups from spending money for or against candidates or political parties.

The Institute said in a statement to HNN, “The Supreme Court’s decision in NRSC v. FEC addressed a specific question about coordinated spending between political parties and their own candidates. Act 11, by contrast, broadly restricts the political speech of incorporated organizations generally. Because the issues are fundamentally different, we don’t have any comment on the Supreme Court’s decision in NRSC.“

“If the Act 11 case makes it to the Supreme Court, which I think is quite likely, it all depends on how much weight they give to 200 years of precedent on the corporation side of the law,” said Rhoads.

“Hawaii’s going to argue of course that this is a different law, it’s not about campaign finance restrictions, it’s about defining more precisely what the powers of a corporation in Hawaii are,” Moore said.

For now, Republicans are celebrating what could be used as an opening for candidates in a deep blue state.

“We are mostly looking forward to working with our national partners to support Republican candidates who are committed to bringing accountability and opportunity and common sense leadership to our state,” said Ostrov.