Alex Jones, who unapologetically caused Sandy Hook victims' families untold pain with the vilest of lies, has just been welcomed back to this platform with Elon Musk’s open arms.
So I'm done here. I thank my dear friend @dtofig for his lead on this. Find me on Threads @thmoore.
Neera Tanden: "What could possibly be protected speech if not facts developed from evidence and crime statistics about governmental policies? It's hard to imagine what the First Amendment would protect if it doesn't protect speech like that."
For decades, the influence of corporate money in politics has distorted American democracy and undermined public trust in government.
CAP's Corporate Power Reset offers a new path forward: Rather than continuing to fight the legal legacy of Citizens United on its own terms, states can redefine the powers they grant corporations in the first place, making unlimited corporate political spending functionally irrelevant. https://t.co/kjxgnr53Ab
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 It’s a state law. How far the state law goes in handing out privileges matters a great deal. Courts hold erasers, not pens. If the state withholds a privilege, there’s not much a court can do to make it hand out. That’s the difference between regulation and redefinition.
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 Well, the Montana Supreme Court has already held that the theory involves powers and not rights, so that’s a good start. But thank you.
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 Everyone. This one is covered by existing Montana law. Title 35-14-102 states: "The legislature has power to amend or repeal all or part of this chapter at any time, and all domestic and foreign corporations subject to this chapter are governed by the amendment or repeal."
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 They could not be more different. The corporate charter creates the corporation; the law license does not conjure up a lawyer from thin air.
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 Those are different fact patterns. If someone buys stock in a corp that has not been granted the power to spend in politics, how are they worse off than when they started? If someone incorporates a corp that has not been granted that power, how are they worse off?
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 Thank you for asking! They will continue to enjoy their First Amendment rights to speak collectively through every entity the state has created that bears that capacity.
You’re not under the impression that SCOTUS has ever required any state to create such an entity, are you?
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 The Montana Plan doesn’t require the Supreme Court to overrule anything. This is not a regulation of rights. It’s a redefinition of corporate entities. Makes a difference. All the difference.
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 I’ll bite. Which Supreme Court case commands the states to issue any particular power to the entities they create? That’s what’s at issue here.
@gusmccrae1975@jmullen2 Well, right now it’s billionaires laundering their spending through dark-money groups. Wouldn’t it be better if we knew who they were?
There’s no finessing on that point. There’s never been any claim that any of these laws affect anything outside the borders of the states that pass them. One by one, states will clean up their own politics of all dark and corporate money.
“Completely” is an exaggeration. CAP consistently finesses the point that Montana cannot regulate what Delaware corporations do outside of Montana. (Or Hawaii as the case may be.) Even if the company is based in Montana. As for what Montana does within its own borders, who cares?
@PrawfBainbridge And that's one of the many reasons why this approach will work.
I've thanked you privately for your help with this, and now I'll thank you publicly — the thumbs-up you gave me early on regarding CPR's corp-law issues made all the difference.