By Sasha Alex Lessin, Ph.D. (Anthropology, UCLA)

Corporations, originally created under state law for specified purposes, accidentally acquired constitutional protections that eventually included the right to spend unlimited amounts to advocate independently for political candidates.

Prelude: The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

1886: A RECORDER’S HEADNOTE, NOT A COURT DECISION, GAVE  CORPORATE “PERSONHOOD” THAT DOMINATES AMERICAN ELECTIONS

The Supreme Court’s reporter’s note–not a court decision– gave corporations control of American election financing personhood unless forbidden by the state laws of incorporation

In 1886, the Supreme Court considered Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a dispute involving railroad property taxes in California. 
The Court’s official reporter, J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS, included a headnote asserting that the justices did not wish to hear arguments about whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations because they agreed that it did. “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that THE STATE TAX ASSESSOR–not the county assessor–had the right to determine the taxable value of fence posts along the railroad’s right of way. IN WRITING UP THE CASES HEADNOTE–A COMMENTARY THAT HAS NO LEGAL STATUS, J.C. Bancroft Davis-–the Court Reporter, a former railroad president, opened the headnote with the sentence, “The defendant corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. THE COURT HAD RULED NO SUCH THING; NOWHERE IN THE DECISION ITSELF DOES THE COURT SAY CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS.”

The Court’s written opinion did NOT decide that constitutional question. Davis’s headnote was not itself a judicial ruling. “Nevertheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis’s headnote and quoted it like a mantra. The Supreme Court, rewriting the Constitution without issuing an opinion quoting Davis’s headnote in subsequent cases. Once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions, its new doctrine of corporate personhood became quoted as though it were court-revied law — which it never was.

Nevertheless, later legal arguments and court decisions let corporate elites spend unlimited funds to gain votes for their candidates and causes. [Hartmann, 2006:101]

2010: CITIZENS UNITED EXPANDED CORPORATE POLITICAL SPENDING

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the government could not prohibit independent political expenditures by corporations and unions merely because of their corporate or organizational identity.

The majority relied on First Amendment protections for political expression.

The dissenters warned that corporate wealth could distort democratic politics and undermine public confidence in government.

The decision did not itself establish corporate personhood, nor did it legalize unlimited direct corporate contributions to candidates.
Instead, it removed major restrictions on independent expenditures. Subsequent decisions helped create the modern super PAC system.

HAWAII — THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE BREAKTHROUGH

In May 2026, Governor Josh Green signed SB 2471, legislation defining the powers of corporations and other artificial entities under Hawaii law.

It excludes election spending from those powers, with implementation scheduled for July 1, 2027.

MONTANA — THE BALLOT INITIATIVE

Montana organizers advanced Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, to restrict election spending by corporations and other artificial legal entities.

NOVEMBER 3, 2026: MONTANA VOTERS REBELLED AGAINST CORPORATE MONEY — NEARLY TWO-THIRDS APPROVED THE MONTANA PLAN

Montana’s voters approved a challenge to corporate political spending, but the courts will determine whether the new approach survives constitutional scrutiny.

The key legal distinction is between corporate rights and corporate powers. Robert Reich argues that states can withdraw the statutory power to engage in election spending without directly overturning Citizens United.

KEYWORDS

Citizens United, corporate personhood, Bancroft Davis, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment, corporate political spending, super PACs, dark money, Robert Reich, Thom Hartmann, Hawaii SB 2471, Montana Initiative 194, Josh Green, Karl Rhoads, corporate charters, state sovereignty, democracy, campaign finance reform, Anunnaki, Yahweh, Marduk, Ninmah, domination versus partnership

HASHTAGS

#CitizensUnited #CorporatePersonhood #CorporateMoney #MoneyInPolitics #Democracy #CampaignFinanceReform #DarkMoney #RobertReich #ThomHartmann #Hawaii #Montana #MontanaPlan #BancroftDavis #FourteenthAmendment #PartnershipNotDomination #Anunnaki #Ninmah #SashaAlexLessinPhD #EnkiSpeaks

REFERENCES

Davis, J. C. Bancroft, Reporter. 1886. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394. United States Reports.

Hartmann, T., 2006,
Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class, Berrett-Koehler

Reich, Robert.
November 24, 2025. How to Get Rid of “Citizens United”. Robert Reich’s Substack; republished November 29 by Films for Action.
February 25, 2026. How California Can Neuter “Citizens United” and Improve Democracy for Us All. Robert Reich’s Substack.
April 1, 2026. How We Get Rid of “Citizens United”. Robert Reich’s Substack; republished April 3 by Eurasia Review.

Mizuo, Ashley. April 20, 2026. Legislation to Curb Corporate Influence in Elections Awaits Final Negotiation by Lawmakers. Hawaiʻi Public Radio.