they are beginning to see the light even over there

Toothless window dressing I’m betting.

But this seems like another opportunity for the deciding powers to slap them down and look the other way when the conservatives spend the dough.

Sorry, I’m too jaded to think any Republican led state can ever do the right thing.

Temporarily it was mostly republicans we were talking about.

No one likes Citizens United except corporations. On the ground, a lot of people distrust them.

Citizens United actually violates the State Constitution. There are hefty restrictions on money in elections, had them since the robber barons.

Montana? any others?

Their Constitution also allows for abortions so the legislature can't ban them there. Don't know about other states.

Supremacy clause.

It was not unusual for state constitutions to have provisions banning abortion -- prior to the decision in Dobbs, those provisions did not override the constitutional right recognized in Roe v. Wade.

And the Montana constitution didn't, and couldn't, override Citizens United.

Still, it would be a good thing if Montana passes this law, and forces the SCOTUS to strike it down. Citizens United is a wrongful decision, in the view of a hefty majority of America's voting public (including myself). Bringing it up will help that foolish 30% of the country who votes GOP no matter what to rethink their priorities.

Thanks, I was hoping someone would back me on this!

We do a lot that’s right…like this dark money issue. I think it’ll pass if we can short circuit the mining industry’s efforts to derail this. The state Supreme Court is holding for now. Abortion is still legal here too and the SC seems committed to it remaining so.

Montana gets its groove back soon. I hope the measure becomes law, money in politics got us here, that's one major thing that has to go.

...the GOP legislature would likely undo the will of the people, again.

What is the best way to respond to that?

billionaires and corporations because they have squeezed the middle class almost to extinction.

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2026, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

But if we elect a sane person to replace the outgoing excellent Governor Evers and flip our Legislature (which is looking more doable)…maybe we could get it passed as law.

….and the state lege is overwhelmingly GOP, even with a few recent Dem victories. Not even a peep about this in Texas.

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

There is only one GOP: The dreadful, Pedo-endorsed Tom Tiffany.

We have multiple Dems working on a primary. Mandela Barnes (former Lt Gov, unsuccessfully ran against Ron Johnson for Senator), Sarah Rodriguez current Lt Gov, Francesca Hong (progressive, AOC-type in the State Legislature now—my personal favorite), and at least 3-4 others.

ANY of them would be better than Tiffany. I will vote for the eventual Dem nominee. Primary in August and we have 4 voters in our house now…😁

not to have to spend their dollars competing for influence. They can just run their businesses.

Case in point....Jensen Huang of Nvidia fame isn't the least bit worried about the California wealth tax. Said so himself. Apparently he's not psychotically greedy and can do math, i.e., the leavy wouldn't really impact him all that much in the grand scheme. One less yacht to ski behind perhaps, but no worries, he has several. Plus, Cali is where the talent is. It sure as shit isn't in Gadsden freaking Alabama.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/07/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-perfectly-fine-with-proposed-billionaire-tax.html

Doesn't dint our everyday finances much at all.

As Robert Reich described it, "a state that no longer grants its corporations the power to spend in elections also denies that power to corporations chartered in the other 49 states, if they wish to do business in that state."

If this were to pass, even though they are not headquartered there, Amazon, Home Depot, AT&T, UPS etc. would have to abide by it, or stop servicing customers in Montana.

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-to-get-rid-of-citizens-united

And once it passes in one state, I expect something similar will pass in some others as well.

We need a CA or TX or NY to do that.

Could you imagine Amazon not selling to Montana residents, Home Depot closing all their locations in the state etc.? Especially having an explanation that is essentially: "Sorry, we cannot do business in Montana, because that would prevent us from making unlimited political contributions to help us shape the government the way we want."

But even if you think that could happen, I think that, once one state does it, there are other states that will follow... very possibly a big blue state like NY or CA. But it has to start somewhere. I hope this passes.

Even though its a great state. I could see trump wanting to build a few immigrant prisons on all that vacant land.

I have posted this on my social media, with the suggestion!

So one shouldn't be surprised at all. That law, which was enacted in 1912, was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court in 2011, but struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2012 on the grounds it was inconsistent with Citizens United.

And, as I've suggested elsewhere, I have trouble seeing how this new law, if enacted, would survive a constitutional challenge.

I hope other states follow!

it would effectively upend Citizens United. That state is the corporate capital of the United States with 66% of Fortune 500 companies formed there. There are one million actual citizens there and over two million registered companies.

Hmm. Sounds like a postcarding campaign should happen aimed at the DE legislature...

There are some secondary states that have a lot of companies' incorporations, but none has nearly as many as Delaware. Montana is one of the biggest secondary ones and this takes care of them.

Looking at you too...

Giddyup!

Is this only for in-state charters in in-state elections or does it block them from funnelling cash in national elections that include the state (POTUS)?

And is there any impact in-state or national to other corps not HQ there?

The implications are amazing - and if this holds up, lets hope to see larger states like CA and NY following suit.

I'm curious whether they'd be able to effectively enforce it against companies that simply qualify there to do business as a foreign corporation or LLC.

Do those states have citizen referendum?

Highly recommend.

I thought red states loved that dark money. But I guess it would be the guys and girls of the leave me the fuck alone state that hates all those fund raising tados.

Blocking corporations from pouring millions of dollars into political races would be such a breath of fresh air.

For 100 years prior to 2012, Montana had a law that banned corporations from making contributions or expenditures in “connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” In 2011, the Montana Supreme Court upheld that law. But a year later, the US Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court decision, holding that Montana's ban on corporations election-related spending was inconsistent with Citizens United.

To the extent that the new Montana initiative is a backdoor approach to achieving the same result -- barring Montana corporations from election related spending, I cannot envisage the current Supreme Court doing anything but striking it down.

to get what it wants. The vast majority of the uber-wealthy think very little of rules and laws. Those are for the "little people."

Their money will always hit its intended target, one way or another.

Sad, but unfortunately true.

…that donate vast sums not connected to a corporation? Anything in there about that?

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

please make it go away

I am cynical that this really accomplishes anywhere near enough

For one, it seems to me that the problem is coming from wealthy individuals more than the Companies.

Bezos, Musk and Ellison are 1000x the problem that Amazon, Tesla and Oracle are.

And one of the biggest problems with all of the funding is that it is dark so that we don't actually know who is donating.

The entire Dark-money, PAC system needs to go but I am not confident that it can be done. There is simply too much money in it. And many of the beneficiaries of that money would be needed for an honest conversation about how corrosive it is. I don't think we can expect the MSM, Social Media, internet, etc. to participate in the discussion fairly while that money funnels through them at an alarming pace.

most are already there.

Montana not just those incorporated in Montana. So a Delaware corporation doing business in Montana would be covered.

Multiple polls over time consistently show over time large majorities of Americans think special interests contain too much power. It's not just the hippies. I don't have any doubt that one thing that contributed to Trump winning is being a guy that's hated by most of the political class and branding himself as "anti-establishment". When have you ever heard any Democrat talk about "draining the swamp"?

If this is all up to voters it will go forward unless business interests come up with one hell of a marketing campaign in Montana.

We have to find common issues or the divide only gets larger.

I think there is a bipartisan view out there that corporations and the Epstein class billionaires have too much power and influence.

Maybe Bernie's messaging all these decades is finally starting to sink in