3 ms·

Another, probably better method that avoids SCOTUS to overturn Citizen's United is going back to the source — the fact that states create corporations and speci

by toss1 6mo ago

Another, probably better method that avoids SCOTUS to overturn Citizen's United is going back to the source — the fact that states create corporations and specify their allowed activities — and amending state corporate-charter law to strip corporations of the enumerated power to spend on elections or ballot issues. AFAIK, bills are already in progress in Montana, Maine, and I just heard about one in Hawaii too. If anyone has more info, please post.

delichon 6mo ago
In Citizens United Kennedy held that government can't regulate speech by identity, not just individual or corporate, but by any form of organization. A state cannot evade that decision by revising the form. It was already considered unconstitutional to legislate based on the content of speech. Citizens United added the identity of the speaker. the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual” -- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
- toss1 6mo ago
  Yes, and it seems part of the work-around here is not that it is restricting the ability of the corporations to speak, they can say what they want, but by limiting the ability to spend money, especially money that is invisible. It seems to be more of a transparency act than a constraint [0]. Even this would be helpful as it would prevent corporations from saying one thing while they spend millions to elect candidates to do the opposite. At least now their activities would be public and they could be called out. From the article: >> The key, Mangan said, is about transparency. He said the current system allows private corporations to be established and collect money, but to keep those donors and the amounts hidden from public view. Those corporations, which can consist with as few as one donor, can give to candidates and causes under the corporation name, although the people supporting that corporation and the amount of money donated are unknown, leading to the term “dark money.” >> The change in Montana law would simply not grant the corporations the power to give to candidates or causes, but would allow individuals to give, but those donations would be tracked. [0] https://dailymontanan.com/2025/08/01/group-releases-text-of-proposed-montana-constitutional-amendment-to-curb-dark-money/ https://dailymontanan.com/2025/08/01/group-releases-text-of-...

by toss1 6mo ago

delichon 6mo ago

In Citizens United Kennedy held that government can't regulate speech by identity, not just individual or corporate, but by any form of organization. A state cannot evade that decision by revising the form. It was already considered unconstitutional to legislate based on the content of speech. Citizens United added the identity of the speaker. the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual” -- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

toss1 6mo ago
Yes, and it seems part of the work-around here is not that it is restricting the ability of the corporations to speak, they can say what they want, but by limiting the ability to spend money, especially money that is invisible. It seems to be more of a transparency act than a constraint [0]. Even this would be helpful as it would prevent corporations from saying one thing while they spend millions to elect candidates to do the opposite. At least now their activities would be public and they could be called out. From the article: >> The key, Mangan said, is about transparency. He said the current system allows private corporations to be established and collect money, but to keep those donors and the amounts hidden from public view. Those corporations, which can consist with as few as one donor, can give to candidates and causes under the corporation name, although the people supporting that corporation and the amount of money donated are unknown, leading to the term “dark money.” >> The change in Montana law would simply not grant the corporations the power to give to candidates or causes, but would allow individuals to give, but those donations would be tracked. [0] https://dailymontanan.com/2025/08/01/group-releases-text-of-proposed-montana-constitutional-amendment-to-curb-dark-money/ https://dailymontanan.com/2025/08/01/group-releases-text-of-...