When Hawaii drafted its constitution for eventual statehood in 1950, the delegates made very explicit the principle that runs through the laws of the 49 states that preceded it into the Union. “The power of the State to act in the general welfare shall never be impaired by the making of any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities,” reads Article I, Section 21 of the Hawaii Constitution.

Sixteen years after Citizens United started laying waste to America’s elections, the Hawaii legislature is poised to put that tool to unusually good use. S.B. 2471—a bill under which Hawaii would no longer grant artificial entities, including corporations, the power to spend in Hawaii’s politics—has passed both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is in conference committee now, one step away from Gov. Josh Green’s (D) desk.

Gov. Green has said he will sign a good bill that meets constitutional muster. That is the right test. S.B. 2471 meets it.

The bill, which is based upon the Center for American Progress’ “Corporate Power Reset,” is not a regulation of speech. It is a redefinition of corporate power. Aviam Soifer, former dean of the University of Hawaii’s law school, has studied the measure closely and concluded that it is squarely constitutional.

1. What does S.B. 2471 do?

The bill redefines the powers Hawaii grants to the corporations that operate within the state. It does not regulate what corporations say. It does not regulate what they spend. It defines what powers they have in the first place—and the powers Hawaii grants would no longer include the power to spend in Hawaii’s  politics.

Natural persons like you and me keep every political right they have today.

Political committees remain governed by existing campaign finance law. This bill applies to corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and similar artificial persons—entities that operate in Hawaii only because Hawaii law creates them or empowers them to do so.

2. Doesn’t this violate Citizens United?

Every Supreme Court case on corporate political speech has assumed the corporation already had the underlying power to spend. S.B. 2471 does not regulate that power—rather, it no longer grants it. Citizens United does not reach the question because the question is upstream of where Citizens United operates.

Last week, the Montana Supreme Court recognized the same powers-versus-rights distinction in a related ballot-initiative case. Reviewing a Montana initiative built on the same architecture as S.B. 2471, the court rejected the attorney general’s claim that the measure revoked constitutional rights. The initiative, the court held, “speaks only to powers, not rights, and it does not expressly revoke any constitutional rights.” A state supreme court has now recognized the core distinction on which this approach rests.