Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video] | Hacker News Reader

Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

youtube.com

64 pointsle-mark21 comments

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.

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...

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?

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!

I'm not sure what the last step is, but here's another nice list of people that would make a good president, cosigners of a Sen. Ron Wydon letter, copied from a recent post to HN:

> The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs.

"The letter" was regarding the counter-intuitive aspect of VPN use being used as an excuse to surveil internet traffic:

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/senators-ask-tulsi-gabba...

Ron Wyden is maybe the most technically astute, and citizen advocating, member of the US legislature.

His constant advocacy for the people, in opposition to the federal "intelligence" agencies, is well known. The upcoming FISA renewal is one example.

p.s. Alex Padilla is actually from California

> I'm not sure what the last step is

Changing the vote from First Past the Post,

so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage, corrupted parties have us in:

“choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.

As someone who can vote in both "first past the post" and "50%+1" elections, I have to say the latter still has me choosing the lesser evil most of the time (edit: in the second round, usually).

Turns out when you have pluralities of garbage parties, the results are still pretty garbage.

OK, now that I know what "the last step" is, I do agree.

First past the post voting is a major impediment to actual democracy, since it makes more than two powerful political parties a near impossibility..

All the other options available in the US, such as ranked choice etc, are really just stopgap measures.

True proportional parliamentary stye elections are the closest thing I'm aware of to offering true choice to voters, and representing a broad range of policy positions.

This involves eliminating any kind of "districts", and voting for parties instead of people. I think both of these aspects are hard for a lot of Americans to envision.

But I do feel that an elected official should have to be voted for across the entire geography for which they can make policy decisions. This is especially true given the power of committees in the US national legislature.

I also like the aspect of a clearly defined platform statement that is presented by a running party, and is largely absent from individual people as candidates.

But I don't there's any practical hope of big changes in the US system, given the total wrap on power by the existing two parties. Both of which are primarily focused on maintaining their power base.

As far as I know, New Zealand was the most recent largish country to convert from first past the post to a parliamentary system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealan...

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/road-mmp

It just means you folks had further to free-fall.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com