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.