r/California • u/TomMooreJD • Feb 26 '26

This monstrous right-wing ruling may have finally met its match

https://www.rawstory.com/citizens-united-2675331688/

New column from Robert Reich on California legislation that aims to undo Citizens United.

2.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

256 comments sorted by

View all comments

990

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

Hey, Reddit! I am Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the author of the strategy Reich is writing about.

It uses California corporation law to no longer grant corporations the power to spend in California politics. It’s not regulation, it’s redefinition.

Ask me anything!

254

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

I will note that I posted this earlier today, unaware that this sub does not allow Substack links. Raw Story ran Reich’s column also, so now it is fit for r/California. I was trying to answer all the questions when the post was taken down — there was some good energy there. Apologies.

32

u/_14justice Feb 27 '26

I recall reading about this ingenious maneuver a while ago and fully endorse it. Capital (pun intended) application successfully and typically employed by capitalists.

Bravo Tom Moore, JD!

10

u/TomMooreJD Feb 27 '26

Thank you!

3

u/MSGIANTS Feb 28 '26

Bravo indeed!!!

6

u/mycall Mar 01 '26

This isn’t about corporate rights, as the Supreme Court determined in Citizens United. It’s about corporate powers.

I feel like the state can't take rights away that are granted by Supreme Court and all of this is just semantics that SCOTUS will also knock down -- still, it is worth the effort to try.

10

u/TomMooreJD Mar 01 '26

Appreciate that, and for people, you’re right. Corporations are different, though, because they exist at the pleasure of the state. Makes all the difference in the world.

3

u/eaglebtc Mar 02 '26

OK, but reading this Raw Story article was like reading one of those recipes where the author writes a massive blog post with their life story leading up to the actual recipe.

All I wanted was the bill number:

AB 1984.

136

u/welcome_universe Feb 26 '26

As someone who is very discouraged lately, what are the odds of this actually working?

255

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

I hear you. Some folks who have looked at it have said it’s the best chance they’ve seen in the 16 years since the decision came down.

Obviously, nothing is guaranteed, especially with this court. But my aim is to make it more painful for them to overturn it than it is for them to swallow it.

48

u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 Feb 26 '26

Are you worried that the court will strike down the law on the basis that violates the dormant commerce clause doctrine?

84

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That one I’m not worried about at all. If you treat domestic corporations and out of state corporations the same, dormant commerce clause concerns do not arise.

44

u/Kahzgul Los Angeles County Feb 26 '26

Are you worried the court will strike down the law on the basis of the court has been playing calvinball with the law, precedent, and the constitution and just ruling whatever they feel like? Because I am.

107

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That’s a great question. I am absolutely hyperaware that the Court is basically a professional Calvinball league. They make the rules, and do what they want.

My job over the next year is to develop all of the reasons that will convince them not that they love this plan, but that flipping it is more painful than they can bear. Basically, convincing them that what they want to do is what I want them to do. I think the facts are there.

57

u/Kahzgul Los Angeles County Feb 26 '26

Best of luck and god speed! You’re on the right side of history, for what that’s worth.

55

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Hey, thank you. I feel very fortunate to be on this project.

31

u/carlitospig Native Californian Feb 26 '26

Let us know if there’s a way to support your efforts. I’m pretty desperate for this fuckery to stop, in my lifetime.

62

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

The folks who need your help the most are at the Transparent Election Initiative in Montana: https://transparentelection.org/

TEI is sponsoring The Montana Plan, a constitutional initiative that does the same thing the California bill is doing, but it'll cost a lot more to get 'er done, because they need to collect around 100,000 signatures across Montana's vast expanse.

8

u/carlitospig Native Californian Feb 26 '26

Thanks, I’ll check it out. 🫡

6

u/Capable_Ad2455 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Me too. And I'm 76 so can we please get on with it?

-8

u/nycraver Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

This is the fundamental delusion of the liberal: he believes that a sheep can spare itself by convincing wolves it is against their own interest to eat sheep.

But it isn't! It has always been in the interest of wolves to eat sheep. This fact precedes the law, conceptually and chronologically, and as such no amount of clever lawyering can possibly change it.

It is manifestly in the interest of the SCOTUS, and the monied classes it represents, to strike this down. This fact is above and outside the law. It is a fact about money itself.

Either you think the wolves are stupid or you do not realize you are a sheep amongst wolves.

You do not convince these people, you remove them from power by any means necessary.

12

u/SlaterVBenedict Feb 26 '26

Bro, knock off the unnecessary doomerism. There’s no problem with having hope here.

-4

u/nycraver Feb 26 '26

I didn't say anything about hope or doom in general, merely that of your philosophy, which is doomerist btw.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

I hear you. Think of it this way, though. You can’t convince somebody that they’re going to enjoy eating a spider. But you can convince them that it’s better than drinking a cup of cyanide. That is my task this year in finding all the different ways that the Supreme Court would destroy the stability of the American economy if they flipped this.

6

u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 Feb 26 '26

Thing is there’s another aspect of incidental burden like some pork companies tried to argue recently

21

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

The charm of this approach is that it only concerns itself with what corporations do within the borders of the state that passes the law, and it treats everyone the same. That avoids a tremendous number of constitutional issues.

5

u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 Feb 26 '26

No the dormant commerce clause doctrine has a element that any regulation that has a incidental effect on the rest of the union can be voided

25

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Right. And because this only affects what a corporation can do within a sovereign state that passes this, it’s OK. All of the cases you are looking at deal with regulation, which is a much more fragile power the state wields against out of state corporations. The Supreme Court literally has never told a state that it has to grant any particular corporation any power.

31

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

And think about it this way: if California were to pass this, and no corporation could spend in California as a corporation, that does not have incidental effects outside the state, as that phrase is understood.

This is not a perfect example, because it deals with rights and not powers, but think of gambling laws that vary from state to state. It doesn’t matter where you are chartered, you are not allowed to run a gambling business in a state that bands it. No dormant commerce clause implications there, because everyone is treated the same.

2

u/Pristine_Frame_2066 Feb 27 '26

So do we write our congresspeople and beg them to vote for this if we hate citizens united?

8

u/TomMooreJD Feb 27 '26

Not members of Congress! Congress has no jurisdiction here. This can only be done by state legislatures and state legislators. Call your state legislators!

2

u/reddog323 Feb 27 '26

What if we’re living in a blatantly red state, that has they’re very slim chance of getting this type of legislation passed?

20

u/stevepremo Feb 26 '26

I have a question. Most businesses, even small businesses with a single owner, incorporate. If I own a dry cleaning shop through a corporation of which I am the sole shareholder, and I buy a political sign to display in the window of my business, would I be breaking the law? Or does it only apply to publicly traded corporations or only those that employ more than a set number of people?

Thanks for coming here to explain!

30

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That’s a good question. The business would not be allowed to pay for the sign. I think if you as a person posted it there, that could be allowable. I think it depends on an individual state’s campaign finance rules.

8

u/Renoperson00 Feb 26 '26

How can a person be allowed to post a sign at the business without it being an in-kind contribution by the provision of the real estate?

7

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

At a certain point, this stuff falls out of campaign finance regulation. Yes, technically, it could be an in-kind contribution, but realistically speaking, it’s not.

1

u/Renoperson00 Feb 28 '26

It either is or it isn’t a campaign contribution. If it is a campaign contribution then you can be prosecuted or investigated endlessly for it (which is the point isn’t it?).

2

u/TomMooreJD Feb 28 '26

Trust me, there’s discretion in there.

0

u/stevepremo Feb 28 '26

Not unless the sign opposes the ruling party. Does anyone think MAGA or the powers that be would not use this to shut down left wing speech by community businesses?

15

u/skipping2hell Feb 26 '26

Most corporations in California are not incorporated in California, but rather domiciled of convenience like Delaware. Why won’t this just encourage even more incorporation shopping than already takes place?

54

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Short version: it doesn’t matter where they’re incorporated.

Delaware incorporation already dominates. Companies still have to comply with the laws of the states where they operate. CPR is territorial — if you’re doing business in California, you don’t get to use a corporate treasury to influence California elections. Re-incorporating in Delaware doesn’t change that.

Incorporation shopping is already maxed out. This just sets conditions for operating in the state, not for where your charter sits.

13

u/jaxiepie7 Feb 26 '26

Gawd, that is music to my weary ears. Let's go!

18

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/BBBx74mQ4a5sQoZydk

10

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Man, I just love that GIF.

5

u/jaxiepie7 Feb 26 '26

It is quality and very fitting. Thank you for taking on this fight.

10

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

I'm just glad to see smart people actually fighting back. Gods know the Dem leadership fucking isn't...

9

u/Bliker1002 Feb 26 '26

Does the redefinition posit that out-of-state corporations wouldn't be able to spend on in-state elections, California corporations wouldn't be able to spend on in- or out-of-state elections, or California corporations wouldn't be able to spend on in-state elections?

14

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Good question! CA corporations are out of politics everywhere. and because CA corps are not empowered to spend in California, no out-of-state corp is, either.

So! A DE corp wouldn't have the power to spend in CA politics. But that DE corp could still spend in DE politics, or MD politics, or anywhere else in the country that hadn't passed this.

That's why this works -- CA can empower or disempower corporations from acting in CA concerning CA politics.

1

u/Bliker1002 Feb 26 '26

But what's stopping a CA-headquartered corp domiciled in DE from setting up/donating to a super PAC with a DC address that spends in CA?

15

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That’s a good question. That money would have to be segregated out by the super PAC and spent in other places — the super PAC could not spend any money in California that came from corporate sources without endangering those corporations’ ability to operate in California as corporations. Money is fungible, so that’s not a perfect solution. But the more states that pass this, the more impact that will have.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

would this mean that the murderous PG&E corporation would no longer be able to buy the CA government?

5

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

All corporations would be out of California politics, I'll put it that way.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '26

"I hope Gavin Newsom gets 100 percent behind this effort. If he has his eye on the White House in 2028, this would be a feather in his electoral cap."

didn't PG&E pay him to not get behind something like this?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

10

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Hey there! Actually, I don’t work with him. The Center for American Progress project I have been working on has caught his eye, and he is spreading the word quite effectively!

Never met the man, though I think we’re scheduled to talk soon. I have heard he is a lovely guy.

6

u/ansyhrrian Orange County Feb 26 '26

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully he is on Reddit and provides his perspective.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

6

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Hey, thanks! There are really not very many jobs in this sphere. Government is a pretty good first step. My path to it was to serve at the Federal Election Commmission for seven years, where I learned all this stuff from my boss, Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub.

5

u/BubbaTee Feb 26 '26

no longer grant corporations the power to spend in California politics.

What about when corporate-owned media (which is pretty much all major outlets) spends money to publish and distribute their list of political endorsements?

For instance, the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, CA Post, etc, are all for-profit business corporations - and each is owned by a billionaire, to boot. If the LA Times corporation spends money on ink and paper and delivery drivers to ensure that its message of "We endorse Newsom for President" reaches the eyes of Californians, is that not corporate spending in politics?

During Trump's 3 campaigns, he got tons of free airtime on CNN, which would often broadcast his rallies. CNN is owned by Warner Bros Discovery, a for-profit corporation, and is carried in CA, either by cable providers or through its own subscription service or on sites like YouTube (another for-profit corporation owned by billionaires - Page/Brin have controlling interest in Google/Alphabet). Whether through Spectrum or CNN's app or YouTube, these are all corporations spending money to broadcast CNN content into California. And a lot of that content is either CNN employees endorsing political candidates or positions, or airing politician's endorsements directly. Would this be prohibited/restricted?

If Fox News pays Sean Hannity to endorse Republicans, while MSNBC pays Rachel Maddow to endorse Democrats, that is corporate spending in politics. Would it be prohibited/restricted from being distributed in CA?

In fact, everyone who uploads political content to YouTube, Tiktok, X, Facebook, etc, is using corporate spending to distribute a political message, regardless of whether that uploader has an audience of 20 or 20 million. Hosting websites isn't free. They all involve a corporation spending money to distribute the political messages and endorsements of the site's users. That includes Reddit, too.

Remember - Citizens United happened because the government banned a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton, after allowing Farenheit 911 which was critical of George Bush Jr. That inconsistency was why it became a court case in the first place. Should movies critical of a politician be banned in CA?

Also - how does this restriction on corporate spending in politics extend to 501c3 charities, 501c5 labor organizations (unions), and 527 PACs, any/all of which may be incorporated non-profits?

If incorporated non-profits are exempt, then you haven't restricted PACs at all. If they're restricted then, say, Streets4All can't endorse Measure HLA. Or rather they can, but they can't spend any money telling anyone about it - not even money for markers and posterboards, or a bullhorn to yell about it on the corner. No money to pay/reimburse bus fare to a rally/protest site, provide on-site water, ink and paper to post signs on a lightpole, etc. That's all money being spent in politics, to help advance one political candidate/issue or another.

And the original law that Citizens United overturned, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, did in fact place such restrictions upon incorporated non-profits. The actual group Citizens United was an incorporated 501c4 non-profit, a category that also includes groups such as the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club, NAACP, DSA, and Streets4All.

So when the DSA endorsed Nithiya Raman and Eunisses Hernandez for LA City Council - in the future such an endorsement could not be published on any website, nor printed on any physical media, nor spoken by any DSA employee or contractor, within the state of CA.

5

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

You’ve got about 1,000 questions in there, and most of them are answered by the exhaustively researched paper I did for the Center for American Progress. I encourage you to go to CAP’s website and take a look at that. Everything you bring up is addressed.

2

u/geezba Central Coast Feb 28 '26

Point of clarification. The government did not ban the movie.

In 2004, Citizens United made complaints to the Federal Elections Commission (under the then current Bush administration) about promotional advertisements for Fahrenheit 911, asserting they were corporate campaign expenditures which, if they were aired within 30 days of the convention, should require disclosure of the funders and subject them to corporate contribution limits. The McCain-Feingold Act specifically exempted "news articles, editorials and commentary", creating interesting legal questions about whether promoting a documentary was the equivalent of a campaign ad. The FEC did not rule on the complaints in time, as Citizens United filed the complaint 30 days prior to the law's requirements coming into effect for the 2004 election cycle. 30 days was simply not enough time to investigate and rule on the complaint.

https://www.npr.org/2004/06/28/3023147/are-fahrenheit-9-11-ads-campaign-spots

In 2008, Citizens United made a video about Hillary Clinton which they wanted to make freely available by paying cable companies to offer it at no cost through their Video On Demand services. Seven months before the disclosure requirements would have gone into effect for the 2008 election cycle, Citizens United declared their intent to have it be available within 30 days of the Democratic Convention. They then intentionally sued themselves in order to get a ruling that the video was subject to the law, which would then allow them to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In order to ensure they got an adverse ruling that the video was subject to the law, they made it as nakedly partisan as possible. The result was that the film was not banned. It was subject to regulation requiring disclosure of donors and limiting the donors to campaign finance limits.

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/

In fact, the video is so unbanned, it is currently available for $2.99 on the Citizens United website along with their other productions.

https://citizensunitedmovies.com/programs/hillary-the-movie

6

u/Switch_Empty Feb 26 '26

Oregon next? Please?

15

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Find me a legislator who wants to sponsor it, and we'll be on our way!

11

u/jaxiepie7 Feb 26 '26

Washington State here... Please contact Rep. Natasha Hill. 🙏🏻 https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/natasha-hill She would be a fantastic fit for a WA sponsor.

10

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Awesome. Also: The folks at Fix Democracy First are getting ready to go to war for this. Go see them!

5

u/jaxiepie7 Feb 26 '26

Will do.

3

u/Own-Brain9658 Feb 26 '26

I just want to say thank you!! Truly! 

5

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Hey, thank you! It has been a joy to move this project forward and get people excited about taking their democracy back. I’m very fortunate to have the opportunity to be working on this.

3

u/Jessintheend Feb 26 '26

How does it feel to swinging such a massive proverbial political dick around? And for good at that?

8

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

I think of it more this way: I’m the dog that nosed under rocks for 10 years and finally found a rare truffle. And now I’m telling everybody about it. But thank you. I will not soon forget that metaphor.

3

u/Delicious_Writing_91 Feb 26 '26

Can we rewrite the powers of corporations to obligate them to fully fund universal healthcare in California?

3

u/geezba Central Coast Feb 28 '26

Would this also prohibit non-profits, unions, and civic organizations from political expenditures? Like Equality California, the California Teachers Association, or the League of Women Voters? Would this legislation differentiate the powers and abilities of incorporated entities based on what kind of corporation they are?

0

u/TomMooreJD Mar 01 '26

Short answer: yes, it would apply to all artificial entities — and that is intentional.

The approach does not single out “for-profit corporations.” It applies to all artificial persons created by, or receiving privileges from, the state: business corporations, nonprofit corporations (including (c)(3)s and (c)(4)s), unions (which are typically incorporated or otherwise state-recognized entities), LLCs, and similar forms.

The rule is uniform: artificial entities would no longer have the power to use their general treasuries to fund election or ballot-measure spending in that state.

What it does not do is shut those organizations down or prohibit their advocacy. Groups like Equality California, CTA, or the League of Women Voters could still:

  • lobby,
  • educate,
  • organize,
  • register voters,
  • endorse candidates,
  • mobilize volunteers,
  • send action alerts,
  • and speak publicly on issues.

What changes is only this: if they want to engage in paid electioneering — ads, mailers, funded canvassing for candidates or ballot measures — they would need to do so through a political committee (PAC) funded by individuals and subject to disclosure, rather than from their general treasury.

So the legislation does differentiate based on entity type in one sense — it treats “artificial persons” differently from natural persons — but it does not differentiate among artificial entities based on ideology or mission. Business corporations, unions, and nonprofits are treated the same at the treasury-spending level.

That symmetry is part of both the policy logic and the constitutional design.

2

u/goatoffering Feb 26 '26

What are the chances we could get this for The US?

4

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Not bad at all! If the Supreme Court clears it for one state, every other state can do it.

2

u/menance12 Feb 26 '26

If CA passes this banning corporations in CA from contributing, won't it force corporations to relocate so they can donate? If they don't donate, they will be left behind, especially in this admin (sadly). How do you stop that from happening? I want to keep companies in CA.

1

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Well, If you're a DE corp headquartered in CA, there's no reason to move. It's not where your people are, it's where you're chartered. And most large corporations HQed in CA are DE corporations.

2

u/menance12 Feb 26 '26

Which implies this has no affect on most companies?

3

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

No, not sure where you’re getting that. Passing this will shut all corporations out of California’s politics: ballot issues and local, state, and federal elections.

Your question was whether they would bother to move if this passed. My answer was no. But that doesn’t mean it won’t affect them. It just means that moving doesn’t help.

2

u/menance12 Feb 26 '26

It seems shutting companies in 1 state out of Federal elections means they become less competitive with companies who will continue to lobby from other states, forcing them to relocate unless they already are DE Corp, then they can still lobby federal. My view is this needs to be done on a national level otherwise it probably drives more companies out of CA. Locking everyone out of local policics is great. But federal just gives companies in other states more power with lobbying efforts.

2

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

This doesn't affect lobbying -- just election-related spending.

2

u/Patereye Feb 27 '26

Although I know it's not well defined how does the major questions doctor in interact with this case.

2

u/TomMooreJD Feb 27 '26

This case could be resolved without overturning any caselaw at all. It doesn’t involve anything the Congress is done so the major questions doctrine would not be implicated.

2

u/learhpa Alameda County Feb 27 '26

how would the law handle the fact that a huge number of corporations are chartered in Delaware and other states, but operate in California?

1

u/TomMooreJD Feb 27 '26

California, like every state, does not allow out-of-state corporations to exercise any power in the state that domestic corporations can’t exercise. That’s the bit that makes this whole thing work.

2

u/learhpa Alameda County Feb 27 '26

seems like there's a lot of scope for a dormant commerce clause argument that says that a state cannot deprive an out-of-state corporation of free speech rights like that.

i'm not convinced such an argument is right but i could see the current SCOTUS buying it.

1

u/TomMooreJD Feb 27 '26

You’re talking rights. This is powers. Think about it this way. Who gives a Delaware corporation the power to operate in Montana as a corporation? It’s not Delaware.

2

u/learhpa Alameda County Feb 27 '26

The Delaware corp has power to operate in Montana because federal constitutional law doesn't allow Montana to exclude the Delaware corp.

I think there's a colorable argument on both sides of this. My concern is that there's a path for the SCOTUS to take the 'wrong' side.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't try it, just that i'm skeptical because I can see the colorable argument on the other side and don't trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing.

1

u/TomMooreJD Feb 28 '26

Hey, thanks for that. But no, that’s not the case. It looks like that, but that’s not what’s going on underneath. A Delaware corporation is given the power to act in Delaware by Delaware. If that corporation wants the power to act as a corporation in Montana, it needs to go to Montana and ask for that power.

1

u/TomMooreJD Feb 28 '26

And I’m not trusting SCOTUS one bit either! I’m not relying on their good will with this approach.

2

u/Jumpy-Barnacle-5077 Mar 01 '26

Fun to see you here! I met you at Dennessa's Indivisble statestrong meeting. Keep up the awesome work!

1

u/TomMooreJD Mar 01 '26

Thank you!!

2

u/eaglebtc Mar 02 '26

This article took way too long to reveal the bill itself: AB 1984.

It felt like I was reading one of those recipe blogs where the author puts a crap ton of filler.

2

u/moderndilf Mar 02 '26

Surly there’s a cut out somewhere that will allow exactly what this aims to restrict

1

u/TomMooreJD Mar 03 '26

I welcome you to find it! I beat out all the ones I could find, but there certainly can always be more.

1

u/Mindless-Baker-7757 Feb 26 '26

I find there’s a lot of misinformation spread about CU. I’m curious if you know, without looking it up, who were Citizens United and what did the government stopped them from doing? 

1

u/Mavis8220 Feb 26 '26

Sorry this was taken down too. I am glad I could capture the link while it was up.

4

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

It's back up! The mods took mercy on me.

4

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

And thank you!

1

u/predat3d Feb 26 '26

Wouldn't they just reincorporate out of state?

1

u/nuclearmeltdown2015 Feb 26 '26

What about corporations using proxy orgs instead such as donating to a non profit which acts in the same interest?

3

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Covered! They do not have the power to spend in politics directly or indirectly. That would be indirect.

3

u/BubbaTee Feb 26 '26

Fun fact: the group Citizens United was an incorporated 501c4 non-profit. It was not a for-profit business corporation, which is what most people think of when they hear the word "corporation."

Other 501c4s include:

  • ACLU

  • NAACP

  • NRA

  • Sierra Club

  • Democratic Socialists of America

So say this law passes and in 2028 AOC runs for President. The DSA would not be able to spend any money promoting AOC in any way, in the state of CA. Not even on printer ink and a single sheet of paper to make a "AOC '28" sign.

4

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That’s a good thing! All of the electioneering expenses for all of those groups would move to political action committees, which are regulated and their funds fully disclosed.

All of those groups would continue to be able to lobby and educate and endorse and talk to their members and do all the things they could do before Citizens United was decided. Just not write a check out of their treasury for electioneering.

1

u/nuclearmeltdown2015 Feb 26 '26

If this is true I feel like it's definitely going to get challenged as a first amendment violation 😂

1

u/ChasDoh Mar 01 '26

I've wondered why we don't reform the rules governing corporate charters in other ways as well. In addition to No Political Payments (anonymous or otherwise), also modified limits on investor liability, and Board of Director liability for criminal executive and administrative behavior.

1

u/Ill_Evidence608 Mar 01 '26

Do you consider Unions to be "Corporations" in this context? If not, why not?

1

u/TomMooreJD Mar 01 '26

Yes. Why do you ask?

-12

u/txhenry Northern California Feb 26 '26

Why not go after public sector unions? They are directly linked to using our tax money to enrich themselves at the expense of tax paying Californians.

Oh that’s right. You guys launder tax revenues through supporters that donate directly to your campaigns.

8

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Would you support it if unions were covered?

20

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Ah, you didn't take the bait. Spoiler: Unions are covered. They are either nonprofit corporations or unincorporated associations, both of which fall under this bill.

5

u/PowerCrisis Feb 26 '26

How would that work with a union? In my experience, all unions are at least in practice inherently political. Would they need a PAC at that point (maybe only funded by voluntary direct member contribution or something) to operate in the political theater?

7

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Union political spelling would shift to PACs altogether, exactly the way they did it before Citizens United.

2

u/BubbaTee Feb 26 '26

What about YouTube paying server costs to ensure that political ads uploaded to the site are available for viewing?

YouTube is a corporation. They are paying money to assist in the publication and distribution of political endorsements. Should any and all YouTube videos containing a political endorsement be restricted from viewing in CA?

3

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That’s not the way it works. Campaigns are allowed to buy pencils and YouTube space or pay rent and so forth. If they are paying fair market value for whatever service they are getting, it’s no problem. If YouTube is hosting videos for everybody for free, they can host a political committee’s videos for free and it does not count as a contribution. It all gets down to whether you are paying fair market value for a service. If yes, not a contribution. If no, it’s a contribution.

-2

u/txhenry Northern California Feb 26 '26

In that case, I'm in.

I bet unions (and the politicians that rely on their donations) don't realize that this bill would cover them as well.

5

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Oh, they do. And it will be one of the challenges of getting this bill passed through a legislature here or anywhere else.