This referendum is based on the idea that all corporate power is granted by the state, and thus the state can withdraw it. But in Citizens United Kennedy held that government can't regulate speech by identity, not just individual or corporate, but by any form of organization. A state cannot evade that decision by revising the form.

It was already considered unconstitutional to legislate based on the content of speech. Citizens United added the identity of the speaker.

  the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”  -- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

▲ 8note 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

i dont imagine any of the cases have ruled that the government can not legislate against child porn, so there's always going to be some amount of both speaker and content speech limits.

they could also just ignore any scotus rulings they dont like, and assert states rights over the topic

	▲	delichon 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Speech rights have never been considered absolute. At most they require strict scrutiny for a government interest to be overcome. Obscenity is in the category that gets the least deference. Political speech gets the most, as "the highest wrung". If all speech got the same deference as the least scrutinized (e.g. child porn) then 1A would be neutered.

▲ pfannkuchen 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean the real mindfuck is how we ended up with money == speech. Like, I think if the founders meant that they would have said that, no? Money existed back then. English wasn’t that different back then.

I can see applying some interpretation to get at more abstract principles when conditions change, but in this case where are the changed conditions?

	▲	delichon 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do we have freedom of press if congress can prevent us from buying a printing press (or spending money to make a movie about a politician as in Citizens United)? If so 1A becomes a weak constraint on government.