By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details how Dashiell Hammett’s experiences in Montana, where he witnessed corporations influencing state government, shaped his views and later his writing. Now, Montanans are proposing the Transparent Election Initiative, aiming to limit corporate involvement in elections. This initiative utilizes the argument that states grant corporations their powers and, therefore, can restrict their influence, as detailed in a paper by Tom Moore. This approach, rooted in historical Supreme Court decisions, could potentially negate the effects of Citizens United by changing state laws governing corporate charters, ultimately pushing public discourse towards more egalitarian politics.
Read the original article here
Montanans Go After ‘Citizens United’
So, it seems like Montana is stepping up to the plate, taking aim at the *Citizens United* Supreme Court decision. It’s got everyone talking, and for good reason. This landmark ruling, remember, essentially opened the floodgates, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. The sentiment here is that this decision was a turning point, one that many believe has deeply corrupted our political landscape, making it easier to “buy” elections and influence politicians.
Now, the really interesting part is how Montana’s going about this. They’re aiming to amend their state’s constitution, specifically to limit the power of corporations within their borders to spend money in politics. And here’s the clever bit: because corporations operating in Montana, regardless of where they’re chartered, have to abide by Montana law, this could potentially limit the political spending of even out-of-state corporations doing business in the state. It’s a bold move, designed to reclaim some control over the influence of big money in politics.
This approach is particularly intriguing given that Montana is a citizen initiative state. This means the people of Montana, through a ballot measure, can directly propose constitutional amendments. Given the widespread sentiment against *Citizens United*, this offers a direct path for the people to express their will. If Montana succeeds, it could set a powerful precedent, potentially inspiring similar actions in other states. The hope is that a ripple effect could begin, with more and more states passing similar laws, creating a groundswell of opposition to *Citizens United*.
There’s a general sense of optimism, tinged with a healthy dose of realism. The folks involved are clearly passionate about the issue, eager to challenge the status quo. The fact that the proposed changes are expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court is acknowledged. There’s a feeling that this is a battle worth fighting, even if the road ahead is long and uncertain.
Of course, the whole idea of corporate personhood is being re-litigated in this conversation. If corporations are considered people under the law, shouldn’t they be held to the same standards and consequences as individual citizens? The consensus is that the absurd extension of corporate personhood and money as speech are at the core of our problem. This is exactly what *Citizens United* codified.
Many believe that the core issue is the influence of money in politics. The original intent of corporate personhood was to allow lawsuits, not to give corporations free reign over political spending. The decision didn’t just affect campaign finance, it opened the door to corruption. As one commenter put it, “It made bribing and owning politicians legal.”
One of the key arguments here is that while this is a First Amendment issue, it’s also a diversion. True change, the sentiment goes, will require fixing the underlying problem: the role of money in politics. Public campaign financing is seen as a potential solution, but it’s something that powerful interests, the “1%” as they’re referred to, are actively working against.
The goal is to fix America, and the issue of campaign finance has to be addressed. It is agreed that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. People are looking for actionable steps and wondering how they can contribute. It’s definitely a case of “about time we saw some real action,” as someone put it.