So I guess Trump feels the only people who deserve “assistance” are his wealthy bro-ligarch besties & donors - not Americans who work for a living, living paycheck to paycheck.
He’s cut WIC, SNAP & the ACA “assistance” to regular Americans because - wait for it - that will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter 😡
Any measure that serves to take a bite out of the CItizens United idiocy is welcome but this seems a circuitous route that will be easily circumvented by the most committed corruption beneficiaries. Constitutional amendment seems a more direct and compelling approach, as PA Rep Scanlon proposed a few months ago - to deafening silence. Indeed, it seems such an obvious and infuriating disaster by now that failing to support a constitional amendment to undo Citizens United and all that led to it certainly could make for some epic primarying, on both sides of the aisle, for any politico daring not to support it.
“That means the answer to Citizens United may be staring everyone straight in the face. After all, the states—and this Supreme Court majority is for ‘states’ rights’ after all.” Uh, no. This SCOTUS is for oligarch rights and Christian nationalism. Originalism is just a flimsy rationalization, not a deeply held conviction. They don’t have those. They’re perfectly willing to commit blatant hypocrisy. After all, they are immune from consequences.
How many other states have a constitution that limits out-of-state corporations to exercise only the rights granted to their own in-state corporations, as Montana evidently does? If the number is few, I see a windfall for South Dakota, or any other deep red state that cares to play.
Presumably, changing the charter would only apply to corporations that are incorporated in Montana (or any other state that passes a similar law). Kind of like the National Popular Vote Compact, it is a sound idea that might have a harder time than you imagine getting uptake around the country. (NPVC still does not have enough uptake to cover 50% of the popular votes.)
This is a good idea,but if we could implement publicly financed campaigns that would really level the playing field.
At this stage the vast majority of people in the United States are either poorly represented,if at all.Only the corporate stiffs and billionaires have all the representation,and the rest of us get crumbs at best.This very much definitely needs to change.This is why there are so many corrupt people running our nation into the ground,with pretty much zero consequences.Getting rid of all this dark money and also taxing hell and guts out of all this unlimited wealth would help everyone.We also need to hold every one of these corrupt politicians,from the top to the bottom,fully accountable.And all their unelected minions as well.Making examples of them would help everyone understand that what they did is wrong,and our country and people deserve better than this.
But then also outlawing gerrymandering,with independently drawn fair districting,term limits for Congress and all courts,and giving us the vote for Supreme court Justices(like they just did down in Mexico,for instance!)would go a very long way towards getting this badly damaged and sinking ship righted.It is definitely past time for We The People to wrench our country back from the morbidly wealthy and the corrupt career politicians so we can have what the founders of our country intended.Our kids and grandkids deserve so much better than this mess we have in place now,so much better.It's up to us to give them that much.
my question is why, if corporations are people for purposes of the First Amendment, do they no pay taxes the same as individuals. That is, why are their deductions for state taxes paid, not limited to the same 10k that individuals are left with. Likewise, why are they entitled to much lower tax rates than those imposed upon actual people.
Lovely to even read about ways to control wild overreach. However: in this case, what's to stop people from forming corporations in pliable states, collect money there for 'general purposes' and then deliver it to whichever candidates it likes? Further: does the federal government not also have to power to approve corporations? Or could it not delegate such powers to itself? I'm not a lawyer, but this administration seems quite willing to make the law serve its purposes.
“ —and this Supreme Court majority is for “states’ rights” after all”
wrong. the majority has no interest in theories, principles, reasoning, or “rule of law”. see Trump v. Anderson for an example of their fidelity (or lack thereof) to states’ rights…
One thing I can't get my mind around is on the one hand, you have the SCOTUS in a ruling decades(?) ago essentially giving the definition of personhood to a corporation, and on the other, States have the right to define corporate charters. That seems like an inherent conflict. If, per the SCOTUS, a corporation is a person, then it must have all the capabilities of a person (cf your reasoning about being able to fly vs having the right to fly), such as engaging in political speech. Wouldn't a State that seeks to limit such the capacity of political speech via how its corporate charters are written be violating the rights of a corporation since they are in fact people?
Then you start thinking, well if they're people, then they should cease to exist after a certain amount of time, maybe providing an inheritance of some kind. Or, if they are people, they should contract a disease or receive an injury at random moments during its lifetime, irrespective of its actions, or performance in the market. And corporations should be sent to jail when they are convicted of crimes...
And how would this affect other entities that try to affect politics- like unions, or 501(c)3s, which I believe can support causes but not candidates, and 501(c)4s, which can spend on both? Could unions be affected by these, one way or the other?
Corporations don’t eat the food, breathe the air or drink the water that actual living people do. They are chartered to make money for their shareholders. Many corporations have little real concern for the human consequences, including the environmental devastation, of their products, especially when it affects their return on investment.
I've seen some think pieces that show if a person acted the way a corporation is required to act under current laws, i.e., demonstrating fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, they'd be a sociopath.
CA should copy https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/11/27/california-needs-a-pension-to-politics-transparency-initiative-montana-model-and-apollo-shows-why/
https://substack.com/@jesscraven101/note/c-173306616?r=irawk&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
So I guess Trump feels the only people who deserve “assistance” are his wealthy bro-ligarch besties & donors - not Americans who work for a living, living paycheck to paycheck.
He’s cut WIC, SNAP & the ACA “assistance” to regular Americans because - wait for it - that will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter 😡
Any measure that serves to take a bite out of the CItizens United idiocy is welcome but this seems a circuitous route that will be easily circumvented by the most committed corruption beneficiaries. Constitutional amendment seems a more direct and compelling approach, as PA Rep Scanlon proposed a few months ago - to deafening silence. Indeed, it seems such an obvious and infuriating disaster by now that failing to support a constitional amendment to undo Citizens United and all that led to it certainly could make for some epic primarying, on both sides of the aisle, for any politico daring not to support it.
“That means the answer to Citizens United may be staring everyone straight in the face. After all, the states—and this Supreme Court majority is for ‘states’ rights’ after all.” Uh, no. This SCOTUS is for oligarch rights and Christian nationalism. Originalism is just a flimsy rationalization, not a deeply held conviction. They don’t have those. They’re perfectly willing to commit blatant hypocrisy. After all, they are immune from consequences.
How many other states have a constitution that limits out-of-state corporations to exercise only the rights granted to their own in-state corporations, as Montana evidently does? If the number is few, I see a windfall for South Dakota, or any other deep red state that cares to play.
Presumably, changing the charter would only apply to corporations that are incorporated in Montana (or any other state that passes a similar law). Kind of like the National Popular Vote Compact, it is a sound idea that might have a harder time than you imagine getting uptake around the country. (NPVC still does not have enough uptake to cover 50% of the popular votes.)
Great Article!
Thanks for sharing
Let’s hope we can get big money out of our elections
This is a good idea,but if we could implement publicly financed campaigns that would really level the playing field.
At this stage the vast majority of people in the United States are either poorly represented,if at all.Only the corporate stiffs and billionaires have all the representation,and the rest of us get crumbs at best.This very much definitely needs to change.This is why there are so many corrupt people running our nation into the ground,with pretty much zero consequences.Getting rid of all this dark money and also taxing hell and guts out of all this unlimited wealth would help everyone.We also need to hold every one of these corrupt politicians,from the top to the bottom,fully accountable.And all their unelected minions as well.Making examples of them would help everyone understand that what they did is wrong,and our country and people deserve better than this.
But then also outlawing gerrymandering,with independently drawn fair districting,term limits for Congress and all courts,and giving us the vote for Supreme court Justices(like they just did down in Mexico,for instance!)would go a very long way towards getting this badly damaged and sinking ship righted.It is definitely past time for We The People to wrench our country back from the morbidly wealthy and the corrupt career politicians so we can have what the founders of our country intended.Our kids and grandkids deserve so much better than this mess we have in place now,so much better.It's up to us to give them that much.
Corporations are not people as they are not given a death sentence when their actions or products kill real people.
Thank you.
my question is why, if corporations are people for purposes of the First Amendment, do they no pay taxes the same as individuals. That is, why are their deductions for state taxes paid, not limited to the same 10k that individuals are left with. Likewise, why are they entitled to much lower tax rates than those imposed upon actual people.
Lovely to even read about ways to control wild overreach. However: in this case, what's to stop people from forming corporations in pliable states, collect money there for 'general purposes' and then deliver it to whichever candidates it likes? Further: does the federal government not also have to power to approve corporations? Or could it not delegate such powers to itself? I'm not a lawyer, but this administration seems quite willing to make the law serve its purposes.
According to the article Montana law says that corporations from other states cannot exercise rights denied Montana corporations.
“ —and this Supreme Court majority is for “states’ rights” after all”
wrong. the majority has no interest in theories, principles, reasoning, or “rule of law”. see Trump v. Anderson for an example of their fidelity (or lack thereof) to states’ rights…
One thing I can't get my mind around is on the one hand, you have the SCOTUS in a ruling decades(?) ago essentially giving the definition of personhood to a corporation, and on the other, States have the right to define corporate charters. That seems like an inherent conflict. If, per the SCOTUS, a corporation is a person, then it must have all the capabilities of a person (cf your reasoning about being able to fly vs having the right to fly), such as engaging in political speech. Wouldn't a State that seeks to limit such the capacity of political speech via how its corporate charters are written be violating the rights of a corporation since they are in fact people?
Then you start thinking, well if they're people, then they should cease to exist after a certain amount of time, maybe providing an inheritance of some kind. Or, if they are people, they should contract a disease or receive an injury at random moments during its lifetime, irrespective of its actions, or performance in the market. And corporations should be sent to jail when they are convicted of crimes...
And how would this affect other entities that try to affect politics- like unions, or 501(c)3s, which I believe can support causes but not candidates, and 501(c)4s, which can spend on both? Could unions be affected by these, one way or the other?
Corporations don’t eat the food, breathe the air or drink the water that actual living people do. They are chartered to make money for their shareholders. Many corporations have little real concern for the human consequences, including the environmental devastation, of their products, especially when it affects their return on investment.
I've seen some think pieces that show if a person acted the way a corporation is required to act under current laws, i.e., demonstrating fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, they'd be a sociopath.
Corporations give us the best government money can buy.”
And buy it they do!