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/
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.
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.
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.
"(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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I couldn't find a link to the ballot initiative itself anywhere on the campaign's website, but this appears to be it:
https://sosmt.gov/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?juwpfisadmin=false...
Linked from here if the above URL stops working: https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/proposed-2026-ball...
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.
"(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".
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.
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.
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.
[dead]
[dead]