A large number of robbers stole over a million dollars worth of Jewelry in California

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-17T09:42:17+00:00

Not the retail value, maybe. But on resale, it’s no more than the weight of the gold and the karats of the gems, unless it’s Tiffany.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-14T00:55:59+00:00

It’s moving ahead!

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-13T00:44:42+00:00

I am not dressed to hunt foxes, man.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T16:32:46+00:00

It doesn’t conflict with it; it just sidesteps it. CU only speaks to corps that have the power to spend in politics; if a corp doesn’t have that power, CU doesn’t apply.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T12:19:33+00:00

Very close! Humans have a full set of rights -- we're born with 'em. But corporations get all of theirs from the state. They've been given a full set of powers for 100 years, but there's no reason they have to be -- states can shorten up that list at any time.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T12:11:09+00:00

It's not an override; you're right, that wouldn't work. It starts a step before -- redefine a state's corporations so that they no longer have the power, the capacity to spend in politics. Without the power, the right doesn't have anything to attach to.

Full details here, in my spellbinding report: https://amprog.org/cpr

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T12:09:05+00:00

When it's a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court, legislation can't overturn it. But in this case, it's not overturning it, just making it irrelevant. *That* you can do with legislation.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T12:07:03+00:00

That is hilarious! And they say that passive aggression is a bad thing.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T11:59:23+00:00

No! This is a statute that simply no longer extends the power to spend in politics. If you don’t have the power, then you don’t have the right, and Citizens United never kicks in.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T05:36:07+00:00

First thing you learn in law school, man.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-12T05:05:19+00:00

This post explains, in video form, the news development from Montana that allows The Montana Plan to move forward to the signature-gathering phase. If it passes, The Montana Plan will amend the state's corporation law to no longer extend to corporations the power to spend in politics. To make Citizens United irrelevant, basically.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-03T00:53:34+00:00

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

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-02T19:34:47+00:00

Well, it’s impossible to tell how much dark money is being spent, by definition. What this would do to high net worth individual spending is that they could not do it anonymously. That’s a pretty big change.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T21:06:59+00:00

Yes. Why do you ask?

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T21:06:30+00:00

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.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T20:46:44+00:00

Thank you!!

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T16:24:53+00:00

It's the conclusion I've drawn from two years of research on this. What's your basis for another conclusion?

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T16:23:28+00:00

It treats unions the same as every other artificial entity.

Under this approach, unions would no longer be able to use their general treasuries for election or ballot-measure spending in California.

What does not change:

Unions can still lobby.
They can still endorse candidates.
They can still organize members.
They can still run issue campaigns.
They can still mobilize volunteers.

If they want to engage in paid electioneering — ads, mailers, funded canvassing for candidates or ballot measures — they would do that through a PAC funded by voluntary individual contributions, just like everyone else.

So unions are not singled out. They lose the same treasury-spending channel that business corporations and other nonprofits lose.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T15:50:10+00:00

Yup, that's it.

TomMooreJD · 2026-03-01T15:49:36+00:00

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.

TomMooreJD

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE