Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#11

Post by delichon »

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/

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#12

Post by 8note »

delichon wrote: post #11

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…

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

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#13

Post by pfannkuchen »

delichon wrote: post #11

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…

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?

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#14

Post by delichon »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #13
delichon wrote: post #11

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…

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?

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.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#15

Post by delichon »

8note wrote: post #12
delichon wrote: post #11

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…

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

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.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#16

Post by pfannkuchen »

delichon wrote: post #14
pfannkuchen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#17

Post by johnea »

jmclnx wrote: post #2

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...

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.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#18

Post by DANmode »

johnea wrote: post #17
jmclnx wrote: post #2

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...

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.

Who is the closest person to someone you would vote for, for President?

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#19

Post by johnea »

DANmode wrote: post #18
johnea wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who is the closest person to someone you would vote for, for President?

I'm not sure about "closest", but I can name several people currently serving in the legislature off the top of my head:

Elizabeth Warren

Barbara Lee (actually from California, no longer in congress)

AOC

Bernie

Cory Booker

maybe Graham Platner (running for senate in Maine)

Basically anyone with a platform based on logical progressivism, which is to say (sadly), no one that either party would nominate.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#20

Post by DANmode »

johnea wrote: post #19
DANmode wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the closest person to someone you would vote for, for President?

I'm not sure about "closest", but I can name several people currently serving in the legislature off the top of my head: Elizabeth Warren Barbara Lee (actually from California, no longer in congress) AOC Bernie Cory Booker maybe Graham Platner (running for senate in Maine) Basically anyone with a platform based on logical progressivism, which is to say (sadly), no one that either party would nominate.

> which is to say (sadly), no one that either party would nominate.

You’re missing the last step!

Post reply on HN