In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson established that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Jefferson was concerned with protecting the everyday people of America, not wealthy corporations. As a daughter of the Hawaiian nation, I am deeply disturbed with the state of government today. Wealth inequality and the power of corporations are at an all-time high in America. Every day the need grows greater for citizens to have a bigger voice in government.

Businesses already have so much power in our economy. They funnel so much money into the government with the goal of influencing policy. We need a government that is truly by and for the people, not by and for wealthy corporations. Big corporations have used their money to influence Hawaii’s political system as they have elsewhere. But there is hope for change.

Senate Bill 1543 offers an alternative — a system of publicly funded elections, like those already run in Connecticut and Maine. Clean and transparent elections in Hawaii and throughout America are necessary to restore faith in democracy and address the issues that matter to our future. Here in Hawaii, Native Hawaiian rights, affordable housing, climate change, health disparities and many more are among the challenges we face.

In January 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court case established that corporations have the right to free speech and can use their money to influence elections. Today, polls show that as many as 94% of Americans blame wealthy political donors for political dysfunction.

America’s youth are especially concerned. According to a 2021 Harvard youth poll, 52% of young people aged 18-29 believe that our democracy is “in trouble” or is “a failed democracy.” The American Academy of Pediatrics recently identified firearm injuries as the leading cause of death for American children and, according to an October 2022 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans (57%) want stricter gun laws. Yet the government has done very little in response. One has to ask: Is money keeping our political leaders from taking action to protect the public good?

An overwhelming 77% of Americans believe there should be limits to the amount of money individuals and groups can spend on political campaigns. So how did the Citizens United case even come to be?

In January 2008, the conservative non-profit Citizens United was blocked by federal election rules from airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibition on corporate independent spending and electioneering is a ban on speech, and “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.” The court said that “the rule that political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth is a necessary consequence of the premise that the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”

According to Daniel I. Weiner of the Brennan Center for Justice, “this decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.”

Passage of SB 1543 won’t reverse all of the damage caused by Citizens United, but it could open the door to my generation rising to serve the public, unbeholden to wealthy donors for their seat. As a student of history and aspiring educator, my hope is that this act can begin to restore America’s commitment to democracy.

Catherine Wiecking is a sophomore at Iolani School. She hopes to major in history and secondary education when she goes to college and become a high school history teacher.