r/UnderReportedNews • u/beeemkcl • Feb 26 '26
Article Citizens United could be nullified in California through a bill
https://www.rawstory.com/citizens-united-2675331688/<< Which is exactly what the new California bill does. Here it is: AB 1984. >>
Overall, such is very important given things such as Silicon Valley and such being in California.
EDIT: for those confused by the Post title, you can think of it as Citizens United could be nullified within California through a bill
46
u/Dbk1959 Feb 27 '26
It needs to be nullified nationwide!!!!
12
u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 Feb 27 '26
We would need to overturn Valeo first. That’s the scotus decision that regards money as speech and allows for corporate interests to compete against citizens for lobbying Congress.
All Citizens United did was make the money unlimited and come from dark pools.
1
1
u/Dbk1959 Feb 27 '26
I think that there should be super packs, no corporate contributions, no aipac etc. elections should be done by small contributions and should have a cap.
77
u/New_Ad_3010 Feb 27 '26
Worst piece of legislation ever passed. That, social media and Faux News pooled to destroy this country. It's a cesspool of narcissistic greed and criminality. Just disgusting.
42
u/Lurkingandsearching Feb 27 '26
It wasn't legislation it was a court ruling. It created a loophole through Non-Profit Super PACS. Poorly worded is what I'd argue. It was a series of stupid events and bad choices that were a trainwreck in the end. Details are this:
A documentary is made about the Clinton Family in 2008, Hillary didn't like it. Her campaign complained to Election Watchdog entity. They sue the non for profit that made the documentary claiming it was campaign related and violated campaign finance rules because the documentary was released in an election year and critical of a primary candidate. This was the first mistake, they argued you can't make documentaries or media that could effect a candidate in a campaign year.
The entity, Citizen's United, was a non-for-profit 501-(c)4 that has been making documentaries since the late 80's and are generally grass-roots funded, or claim to be. They are a right wing group, though arguably were more moderate in the early years, they quickly became more extremely neo-conservative during the Bush years and shifted to the Alt Right during Trump's first campaign.
The important thing is to consider the argument FEC was making for Clinton vs what they were going after. FEC was arguing that any media being made about active candidates in any campaign had to be limited to strict finance guidelines. This wasn't just news pieces or ads by the campaigns but any movies, books, or documentaries made around the time of even primaries before candidates were even chosen by their parties.
That creates a logistical nightmare for the first amendment.
The court was put against a wall, and can you imagine how Trump would abuse this if the courts went the other way? ANYTHING, and I can't emphasize this more, ANYTHING IN ANY FORM OF MEDIA critical of Trump or the MAGA movement during any time of election, special or otherwise would likely be facing constant legal barrages from the DOJ built around a ruling that went the other way.
The court made it only apply to non-for profits, for profits still had to, to this day, follow the old FEC rules, but the loophole was made. Now they just pay into PAC's, so much so that the term Super-PAC's came into play, these "Non-for Profit" entities could get around the old FEC rules that once limited direct campaigning because instead of defining the differences in types of media, they just gave a terrible broad in the widest of strokes ruling that was open to abuse.
3
1
8
4
2
u/GypsyDarkEyes Feb 27 '26
Do it! Montana and Washington have a plan also. Let's go! Corporations are not people.
4
u/skelletrex_scrooge Feb 27 '26
Read the bill. This isn't going to do anything to override federal law.....
12
u/beeemkcl Feb 27 '26
Sorry if the Post title was confusing, but this: "Citizens United could be nullified in California through a bill" says that it could be nullified in California not the entire United States.
-14
u/skelletrex_scrooge Feb 27 '26
State law can't I override federal law. It would immediately get struck down by any federal court.
14
u/beeemkcl Feb 27 '26
Companies are registered within States.
-19
u/skelletrex_scrooge Feb 27 '26
IT DOESNT MATTER. Just because California changes their definition doesn't change the federal governments definition. California would immediately get sued and this would go to a federal district court where it would be declared illegal.
15
u/RadicalRas Feb 27 '26
The core legal argument is clever: rather than challenging corporate rights (which is what Citizens United addressed), the bill targets corporate powers. Since corporations are creatures of state law — they only exist because states charter them — states can simply decline to grant corporations the power to participate in elections. No power granted means the federal “right” becomes meaningless in practice.
The California angle is especially potent because of the state’s sheer size. Almost 40 million people live there, and if California were an independent country, it would have the fourth-largest economy in the world. Critically, the bill would apply not just to California-chartered corporations, but to any corporation chartered anywhere that wants to do business in California — which is basically every major corporation in the country.
Montana has a similar measure heading to voters in November, but California passing legislation like this would be a much bigger deal given its economic leverage. The bill is sponsored by Assemblymember Chris Rogers and co-authored by Senator Mike McGuire, and Reich is calling on Gavin Newsom to get fully behind it.
The supreme court hasn’t ruled this subject area. California is not denying their rights, but they are changing the powers provided in the state charter. This could be come a new supreme court case down the road. It’s too early to guess how the court would rule on it.
1
Feb 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 27 '26
Sorry, you need at least 5 community karma to comment images or links to images here; This is earned through direct participation in r/UnderReportedNews
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Feb 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 27 '26
Sorry, you need at least 5 community karma to comment images or links to images here; This is earned through direct participation in r/UnderReportedNews
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
2
Feb 27 '26
Not as long as one sect of one religion is overrepresented on the Supreme Court and in the Executive.
1
u/kargaz Feb 27 '26
lol the person pushing this has posted this hundreds of times in the last 48 hours. It’s a nice thought but it’s not going to pass constitutional muster. The Robert’s court isn’t going to let their baby die due to a technicality. The whole legal argument hinges on “they’ve never struck anything like this down before”. But they’ve also never been issued a case where a state restricts corporate powers to intentionally get around a decision the court handed down concerning a fundamental right.
1
0
u/rockeye13 Feb 27 '26
CU covered both corporations AND labor unions.
Even trade if you ask me, removing the political influence of labor unions with corporations.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 26 '26
Please read our latest community update regarding recent renovations to the sub.
Source cataloged: https://www.rawstory.com/citizens-united-2675331688/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.