Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

63 pointsposted 2 days ago
by le-mark
(youtube.com)

16 Comments

delichon

2 days ago

This referendum is based on the idea that all corporate power is granted by the state, and thus the state can withdraw it. But 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/

8note

a day ago

i dont imagine any of the cases have ruled that the government can not legislate against child porn, so there's always going to be some amount of both speaker and content speech limits.

they could also just ignore any scotus rulings they dont like, and assert states rights over the topic

delichon

a day ago

Speech rights have never been considered absolute. At most they require strict scrutiny for a government interest to be overcome. Obscenity is in the category that gets the least deference. Political speech gets the most, as "the highest wrung". If all speech got the same deference as the least scrutinized (e.g. child porn) then 1A would be neutered.

pfannkuchen

a day ago

I mean the real mindfuck is how we ended up with money == speech. Like, I think if the founders meant that they would have said that, no? Money existed back then. English wasn’t that different back then.

I can see applying some interpretation to get at more abstract principles when conditions change, but in this case where are the changed conditions?

delichon

a day ago

Do we have freedom of press if congress can prevent us from buying a printing press (or spending money to make a movie about a politician as in Citizens United)? If so 1A becomes a weak constraint on government.

pfannkuchen

18 hours ago

Interesting, I'm going to have to look into that case more, I realize that I have a surface level take informed by mass media here

Clearly campaign material influences voters in a way that is manipulative, and some citizens having more ability than others to manipulate voters is functionally against basic democratic principles, and the current legal setup enables this to happen in a way that obviously (to me) affects election outcomes.

But I don't currently have a clear line to draw in this area, I'll have to think about it more.

zdragnar

2 days ago

So, does this ban all news related to politicians?

Newspapers and television programs sell time and space via advertisements, and there is more in the world than could conceivably fit.

Therefore, every inclusion is an editorial decision. Any positive or negative opinion, any review of a biography or book about a politician, every interview is now a contribution in kind- after all, the time and space have value, which are included in this law as "anything of value".

Basically, this is literally what the Citizens United decision boiled down to- a blatant infringement on free speech. People HATE citizens United because it lets companies donate money, but this is the flip side to the equation.

hlieberman

2 days ago

"(b) The term does not include the distribution of bona fide news, commentary, or editorial content unless the publishing entity is owned or controlled by a political party, a political committee, or a candidate".

dcrazy

2 days ago

What’s “bona fide news?” Does it include the World Socialist Web Site? MS NOW? Newsmax? Russia Today?

Generally it’s not advisable for the government to have the power to ban political communication and decide on a case-by-case basis what communication falls into the banned classes.

twoodfin

2 days ago

Just like it says in the First Amendment! Congress shall make no law except…

If this thing passes it’s a dead letter to at least the current SCOTUS.

jmclnx

2 days ago

I do not want to go to Youtube, but what about PACs, will they be they banned also ? Seems it will, nice. A link without youtube below. Next step needed, publish all donors who gave more that 100 USD.

https://www.betteramericanmedia.org/post/former-officials-se...

johnea

18 hours ago

Thanks for the link!

I don't use youtube either.

This is a great thing from Montana.

Now if we could get California, with 1/8 of the US population, to enact such a law, we'd really be getting somewhere.

I often point out that none of "the squad", are from California.

The current Gavin state government is extremely corporate friendly, and like Kamala, I'll never vote for him for president.

user

2 days ago

[deleted]