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.
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.
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 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?
10 comments
[ 0.31 ms ] story [ 28.3 ms ] threadhttps://www.betteramericanmedia.org/post/former-officials-se...
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.
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.
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...
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.
It was already considered unconstitutional to legislate based on the content of speech. Citizens United added the identity of the speaker.
I can see applying some interpretation to get at more abstract principles when conditions change, but in this case where are the changed conditions?