I guess my only question is how this changes the situation enough to be meaningful?
For example, it’s easy enough to say a corporation is not allowed to donate to candidates or campaigns. Great, that has been a law for a long, long time now.
But then they get around it by donating to PACs, which are not the campaign, but organizations that voluntarily promote whatever candidate they want.
A PAC is the equivalent of a small business putting a “Vote for Whoever” sign in their front window, times a billion. And that is what the court is going to be looking at when these sorts of acts are challenged.
I get that a state can decide what corporations can and cannot be and do, and they’re welcome to address that sort of regulation since no one else is trying. But even then, suppose I’m a company like Google, what stops me from putting a promotional banner for any given candidate on every search someone performs?
I guess my only question is how this changes the situation enough to be meaningful?
For example, it’s easy enough to say a corporation is not allowed to donate to candidates or campaigns. Great, that has been a law for a long, long time now.
But then they get around it by donating to PACs, which are not the campaign, but organizations that voluntarily promote whatever candidate they want.
A PAC is the equivalent of a small business putting a “Vote for Whoever” sign in their front window, times a billion. And that is what the court is going to be looking at when these sorts of acts are challenged.
I get that a state can decide what corporations can and cannot be and do, and they’re welcome to address that sort of regulation since no one else is trying. But even then, suppose I’m a company like Google, what stops me from putting a promotional banner for any given candidate on every search someone performs?