“If the SAVE act passed, every single state would flip to red when we stop illegals from voting!”
This statement is really, really believed to be true by a certain group of people. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many people still believe that non-citizen voting is swaying our elections.
They ignore, however, things that legitimately may influence our elections: corporate spending the dark money paid to politicians. Organizations like Citizens United have sought to make sure corporations and unions can spend without limitations, effectively fusing private wealth and political power.
Today, I will look into an effort to quell this unending spending: The Transparent Election Initiative (TEI), also called the Montana Plan. Inspiration for this post came from a reader and friend, Joe B. Thanks, Joe!
I’ll start by examining what Citizens United is and how it’s impacting our political system.
Citizens United is NOT for Citizens
You’d think with a name like Citizens United, the group would be promoting something that is for the Citizens. You would be incorrect.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Citizens United arose in 2007 when a conservative nonprofit organization challenged campaign finance rules that stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton”.
The Supreme Court decided in 2010 that Citizens United was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film. Which honestly, I agree with. Not that groups deserve first amendment rights, but that people can criticize a presidential candidate. The problem is, “…rather than opining solely on the case before it as it had been asked to do, the Court took the opportunity to entirely strike down century-old prohibitions on corporate “independent” spending — money that doesn’t go directly to a candidate or party. This applied to labor unions as well. Lower courts applying the ruling extended it to invalidate almost all fundraising and spending restrictions for groups that purport to be separate from candidates, many of which are today known as ‘super PACs’”.
The justification for this is essentially that “spending” is the same as “speech”, and held two incorrect assumptions that would protect against corruption via PACs:
The justices who decided Citizens United held that independent spending could not pose a substantial risk of corruption on the erroneous assumption that the money wouldn’t be under the control of any single candidate or party. They also assumed that existing transparency rules would require all the new spending they were permitting to be fully transparent, allowing voters to appropriately evaluate the messages targeting them.
Both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.
While super PACs and other outside spenders are supposed to be separate from candidates and parties, they usually work in tandem with them — to the point where affiliated super PACs that can raise unlimited money are now integral to most major campaigns. Legal loopholes also mean that many of these groups can keep their sources of funding secret.
The impact of this ruling has been, expectedly, a massive raise in spending from ultra-wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups. Using non-profits
Traditionally, PACs are legally allowed to contribute $5000 per candidate per campaign. After the CU ruling, federal courts ruled that outside groups could accept unlimited contributions from both individual donors and corporations, as long as the groups didn’t give directly to the candidate. This gave rise to the concept of a Super-PAC; a group with essentially limitless funding to support the campaign of a candidate.
The rise of dark money followed the CU ruling as well. Dark money rose from under $5M in 2006 to over $1B in 2024. If you’ve thought ahead, yes: this does allow foreign nations to invest in American campaigns without their donation being known.
So now that we are aware of Citizens United, the concept of Super-PACs, and Dark Money, we can get into what TEI wants to do.
The TEI’s Goals
TEI started when Montana pushed for Article XIII, an amendment to the Constitution of Montana. The Article is short and sweet:
The State extends to artificial persons only those powers defined as artificial person powers, and no others, as a condition of state-conferred legal status and charter privileges. Any action taken outside those powers with respect to political spending power is ultra vires and void; any such ultra vires exercise results, as a matter of law, in the withdrawal of all charter privileges, subject only to reinstatement pursuant to procedures enacted by the legislature during its first regular session following January 1, 2027, upon full disgorgement of amounts expended in such activity and certification of future compliance, together with such additional conditions as the legislature considers appropriate.
Here are the definitions:
- “Artificial person” means an entity whose existence or limited liability shield is conferred by Montana law, including an entity organized or existing under the laws of another jurisdiction that is authorized to transact business, is otherwise transacting business, or holds property in Montana. An entity organized or existing under the laws of another jurisdiction that directly or indirectly undertakes, finances, or directs the exercise of political spending power in the state of Montana is conclusively considered to be transacting business in this state for purposes of this section.
- “Artificial person powers” means powers necessary or convenient to carry out lawful business or charitable purposes as provided by statute, excluding political spending power.
- “Charter privilege” means any legal benefit to an artificial person that exists only because the state of Montana confers it.
- “Political spending power” means the legal capacity to expend money or anything of value to influence the outcome of a vote of the electorate.
- The term does not include the distribution of bona fide news, commentary, or editorial content unless the publishing entity is owned or controlled by a political party, a political committee, or a candidate
TL;DR: Montana wants to stop non-human entities, like corporations and unions, from spending willy-nilly. They can still publish news, commentary and editorial content that supports their candidate, but only if the candidate does not own the news source. This was yet to pass, but is a very interesting initiative when it comes to representing the needs of the American people, not American Corporations and Foreign Interests.
Let’s hope it passes and becomes the precedent.
Why Super PAC Spending is Harmful
Imagine you’re part of a run-of-the-mill PAC, with $5,000 to legally spend to support your candidate. If you run an ad campaign on a popular site, you’ll probably be able to afford to get your message on 5000 or so screens.
If you’re a Super-PAC? You can reach unlimited people. You can run print, digital, mail, and other ad campaigns in support of your candidate. You can willfully spread misinformation about the opposition, and when misinformation is spread enough, it essentially becomes a fact.
If I were a foreign government who knows a candidate is impartial to my goals, I would happily donate to a super-PAC that would hide my identity and help spread misinformation about the candidate I dislike.
You can see how that can quickly become a problem. Especially considering most people in the U.S. follow a single source of news. One well-placed ad on Fox News or CNN could drastically impact voter’s opinions.
Conclusion
I fully believe that initiatives like TEI will bring more integrity to our elections than SAVE will. We have a right to know where our information comes from, and no single entity should be allowed to spend the GDP of a small country to ensure their chosen candidate sits in the White House.
Couple of thoughts:
On the first thought, I’m okay with SAVE…IF a year or two is given as a lead way, and getting copies of marriage licenses, birth certificates and passports are all free services. I was getting ready for a group trip to MX and one person going remarked at how expensive it was to get a passport, and how it was almost enough to make her reconsider the trip. Assuming that there are a LOT of people out there on tight budgets who have no other reason to get a passport other than to vote, I think concessions need to be made there.
You’re probably right on big business finding a way around the new laws. Maybe we should hire the Nextdoor moderators to make the final call on what qualifies as news? They decided me talking about local politics didn’t qualify as local politics…lol
Yes, I fear you are a victim of the arbitrary nature of the “bone fide” variety!
As for the I.D. issue, I’m going to disagree with your position. I could be wrong on this, and please correct me it I am, but I don’t believe anyone who would be trying to get a voter I.D. hasn’t already been issued the proper documentation to do so. What we are talking about are copies. If I lose my drivers license at a bar, I expect to pay a fee to replace it. The same is true of marriage certificates, divorce decrees, birth certificates, passports, etc….
Very true! However, I need that ID to drive. For someone who doesn’t want to drive or travel outside the country, what use do they to have a RealID or Passport? Maybe a fair shake would be making basic ID w/ enhancements that show citizenship free but still charging for Driver’s Licenses? That way those who wish to travel wouldn’t need to spring for a passport, but can get an acceptable document for voter registration for free?
I don’t want to weigh in at this point, though I do have an opinion. My belief is that election law should NOT provide loopholes that would allow improper voting, and MN is rife with them, in law and practice. Start with the idea that we give drivers licenses to illegal aliens and then do NOT, as was the case not long ago, of noting on them “not valid for voting.” What’s wrong with that? Simple, the DFL wants illegal aliens to vote, and makes it possible, whether they do or not. Seems to me that if they are correct, that “voter fraud doesn’t happen” then they should not object to passing laws that make sure it does not, to shut up us skeptics.
My feeling is that the pushback is not necessarily the voter ID requirements themselves, but the additional overhead for voters. Requiring a passport or Real ID to vote could be seen as a poll tax. Make them free and I have no objections 🙂
interesting that legislation for free IDs has just been introduced, taking all the legs from under the Democrats argument. Even if it WERE a problem, which it’s not.
“ID is required to register to vote.” Yes and no. In Minnesota, we issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and 19 other states do the same, ANY of which is valid for same day voter registration. AND MN is the only state in the Union without provisional ballots, which aren’t counted until the registrant is verified.
The Dems keep offering the racist notion that blacks are too stupid to get an ID. They have no shame.
I’d absolutely push my rep to vote yes, considering that. However I couldn’t find evidence of this being introduced in legislation (even checking with AI 😉 ). If it were universally free to get all the documents AND the ID, I’d be happy to support it. That’s my only reservation, apart from the tackling the edge case where people legitimately can’t get copies of an acceptable document (they were adopted, courthouse fires and the like).
I think you’re interpreting the dems words with your own opinion. Democrats are saying that the requirements will unequally target minorities and women who have changed their name since marriage. Not that they’re too stupid, they just may not have access to the resources.
Read: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-voting-rights-groups-warn-the-save-act-may-make-it-harder-for-married-women-to-vote?utm_source=chatgpt.com
OK, interesting approach. Clicking the link from my email brings me here, and I have to trust that somehow my reply gets attached to your comment. Seems as if that were true before, but I then had to go look upstream to find it, or to look at the original post. Same here. The good thing is it may tend to keep responses short and “on topic,” at least with the previous comment. “Topic drift” is a well-known phenomenon from back when I moderated.
Today, you are correct. I /do/ form an opinion of what Dems say, based on what they say. Here, it’s another simple variant of the common Democrat/media narrative sometimes referred to as “World Ends Tomorrow: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit.” Everybody that hears this nonsense should recognize (a recent public poll in Harlem found it 95+% false) that it does NOT pertain to them, minority or not, so it is really an insult to suggest such. Democrats have no compunctions about demeaning any segment of society that they think shows how superior they are for “taking care of [whomever].” And it is a short step from there to assume that they WANT as much electoral cheating as possible. Witness our own Secretary of State claiming “there is no voter fraud in Minnesota.” He is hiding behind not only the very strict legal definition, but by the knowledge that you can’t find what you do not seek. I uncovered about 100,000 suspicious voters in a previous election, and I know nobody else checked it. So I prefer a more general term like “voting shenanigans” or “improper voting.” We KNOW it happens; we need to /prevent/ it (you cannot inspect quality into a product after the fact), and this is one small step in that process.
Excitingly, I can respond directly to your last comment in the thread. Hopefully this is an improvement that sticks!
Can you share your methodology for finding and the criteria for marking a suspicious vote? If you had hard evidence and factual data I would be amazed if no one was willing to take a look. Who did you reach out to?
You may be correct that democrats use minority disparity as a weapon, but I see it from the side of the actual voters. If there’s evidence that low-income people, minorities, and women will suffer from a policy, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s being politicized a weapon or as a genuinely empathic approach: the end result is the same if no one suffers unduly under a policy.
Ah, yes, this is good, an inline reply that wasn’t available before. When I click on the “reply” button in my email, though, it brings me to a general comment page which, though apparently linked to your comment does not appear to be so. Scrolling down to where I find your comment, I see a reply button right there, so that is what I will use. Just takes a bit of looking (I suppose I could even use ctrl-F).
OK, to the conversation. What I did was to simply sort every voter (back when the SOS would sell you the publicly available information, something he will not do for the US GOVT or anybody known to be associated with the Republican Party or any Election Integrity group), by name and precinct. I found well over 100,000 duplicate names. And of course, there can be more than one John A. Smith, but names of 14 or more letters first and last also occurred frequently, highly unlikely, and appeared in adjacent precincts. As I’ve indicated, MN election law and procedure ALLOWS double voting like this, so whether I have found actual evidence doesn’t matter; we can say it is not /prevented/ and therefore is wrong.
Be amazed. This was mostly for my own edification, shared with a few others in the EI cause. But as for “reaching out,” I was one of two dozen people who brought solid proof and sworn affidavits to court, only to have it tossed out by 4 high-priced Democrat attorneys from DC. ANY complaint falls on the deaf ears of our hyperpartisan SOS. We have a group going through the voter rolls and requesting individual corrections– for example people over the age of 110 still voting– but even that seems to get short shrift. Am I wrong to simply believe that Democrats WANT to cheat? Surely removing dead people from the rolls is not “suppressing” anybody?
We shouldn’t want any legitimate vote “suppressed” but if an illegitimate vote is cast does that not do the same thing?
And I hate to re-broaden the discussion, but isn’t there a general rule that SHOULD be followed which is that just because the government doesn’t do something does not mean it does not get done, and usually done better? I don’t need Democrats running every part of my life, just because they are morally and intellectually superior in every way. Just ask them. [I know, I’m cross-threading.]
I can absolute understand why this would raise some flags for you, as it does for me. I can see no reason why they wouldn’t at least want to look at the numbers. My question is, did you look at voter registration, or actual votes? Because if it’s voter registration, I can see how someone could easily not be removed from the roll after death and they just kind of hang out there forever. If they’re actually casting a vote, that’s totally different. For a true de-duplication to take place, you’d need to match voter with SSN, which I would expect isn’t available in the database.
I’m also in the camp of less government, because no one knows how to run your life better than you do. Anyone stating they are “holier than thou, smarter than thou, and that’s why you should trust me to do everything for you” is scamming you. This illustrates the importance of a two-party system: without Republicans, we might need to register to use the bathroom and pay a pee tax. Without Democrats, would end up in a purely dog-eat-dog society where no one qualifies for a hand up.When one party goes too far one way, the other party needs to reel it back in. We see if over and over where a Republican president comes in, makes a bunch of changes, and then a Democrat comes in and reverts some and adds more changes on top.
You can see no reason why they would not look at the numbers? I can think of one: Democrats WANT to cheat in elections. (BTW, I looked at VOTERS, it is what I said.) It’s the only possible conclusion from where I sit. If not, they wouldn’t pass so many laws that knowingly ALLOW cheating to occur. As for 110-year olds, the SOS is required by LAW to remove them, but does not, and since these dead people keep voting, we can only assume it is some kind of cheating. [Interesting story: We had a long-time chair of the local Party who, at age 95, decided he would retire from the role. At his long-applauded farewell speech at the Convention, he said, “Now I don’t want you to become concerned. I intend to remain active in the Party. I have left strict instructions that I am to be buried in Chicago so I can continue to vote.”] Now it can be done in Minnesota, apparently.
BTW, State Voter ID IS in the database, and keyed back to SSN, so de-duplication is possible but nobody looks, except me.
I think you are buying into the same over- and erroneous generalization of the two parties. If I must make a distinction, it is based on motivations. Republicans run to fix problems and Democrats run to gain POWER.
Nobody states their superiority, but it is obviously the attitude of liberals, and they need political power to achieve that “if only everybody would do it my way..” And, “there is no limit to the amount of good that can be done with somebody else’s money” so please “don’t put my money where your mouth is.” What we really need is to go back to a time, IIRC, when legislators got together, defined a problem (you know like engineers), proposed solutions and then said “let’s do the best one.” Wouldn’t that be grand?
No good reason, I should say.
On this, from the other side of the line, it looks the same in reverse. It seems that all politicians run for power. It takes a specific type of person to want to enter into politics, and like CEOs, politicians seem to have a much higher likelihood to display sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies. I don’t think that’s a political party problem. That’s actually something I’d like to research!
I’m all for your proposed solution:
As a Cyber Engineer, this sounds like an amazing solution. As long as not just the engineers are deciding how to build the machine..kind of like how auto manufacturers make a beautiful vehicle and then mechanics need to drop the engine to replace the spark plugs. We need the perspectives of not only the designers, but the people who will be using the system.
So, only BAD reasons for the DFL to tinker with election law and practice? I’ll buy that.
I’m not concerned about personalities of those in power, since it takes one heck of an ego to even consider running for office. I AM concerned if that personality includes the notion that “I’m smarter and better and should lead everybody’s life” rather than “Let me be of service.”
And let me disagree with the Apostle Paul:
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil:
I disagree. I think it is the pursuit of POWER, nowhere more obvious than the recent “trifecta” governance in MN. Spending increased 40%, including all the surplus AND $9B in new taxes, radical changes to social policy, and everything passed on strict party-line votes. At least on the rare occasion when Republicans do it, what comes out is more common-sense and less ideological. But I suppose that is different depending on “where you sit in the theater.” I’ve seen charts of how the American Left, Right, and Center were, and are.
Used to Be L…..C…..R
Now it is L………………..C…..R
You are gonna hate tomorrow’s post if you’re not interested in personality types! Indeed you seem to be correct in the rampant narcissism present in some of our leaders.
On how far apart left and right are, it’s my perspective that the Trump administration has moved right WAY farther right than it has previously been. Do you have an opinion on that?
It tells me how far left you sit “in the theater” that you see a return to simple common sense governance as being “far right.” Not to be insulting or trite, but I really like one Senator’s take on the situation, saying “the election is no longer about left or right, but between common sense and looney tunes.”
And you are probably right. Any attempt to assign personal or personality-based motivations to political actors is projection at best, and propaganda or gaslighting more likely. Use your powerful logic and reasoning to consider the actions on their own merits. Or as somebody once said, “suppose I am everything you say I am (Nazi, criminal, whatever) does that make me wrong?”
I could also say it’s between common sense any looney tunes, but I think the Looney Tunes are more with RFK Jr. doing shirtless but denim pants on Pelaton biking in a sauna while Kid Rock does pushups in the background.
The reasons I think Trump has moved us farther right, or at least toward extremism, are reasons like the ones written in this article: https://www.baronpa.com/library/understanding-trumpism-nationalism-populism-and-industrialism
Fascinating. I appreciate your wide sources of information, but when I read that article, all it does is prove my point, that Trump is above all about simple common sense. The author thinks he/she is raising a criticism by re-interpreting and “labelling” what is already plain for us “plain folks” to see. We can draw our own conclusions, thank you.
Can I ask you straight up, what is it that Trump is doing that you see as so beneficial? From my vantage point, which is really just my daily life, I see him ripping families apart with populist rhetoric vilifying minorities, trans folks and the “left”. I see him filling his cabinet with loyalists, rather than competent people. I see him blatantly, overtly lying about easily disproven facts, dismantling system built to protect worker’s rights, and engaging with Christian Nationalists as a way to disguise his goal of authoritarianism as benevolent because he cites the big guy upstairs. I see other countries looking at us like a joke, because our leader cannot conduct himself with any sense of decorum.
I know I’m going to be safe, because I’m a white Christian in a hetero marriage. I, however, can’t bear the thought of other people who had the misfortune of not being a white straight Christian suffering. This country was not built for one race, one religion. It was built for freedom for everyone. I have family that are Black and Native American, friends who are Asian and Hispanic, have great neighbors who are Muslims, and know people who represent almost all of the letters in LGBTQ. They’re people just like anyone else. They deserve the American Dream.
Sorry to get on my soapbox there.
Please, soapbox away. It’s honest (I assume) and at least isn’t insulting. I’m more like when your dog cocks his head to the side trying to figure out what the bejeebus is going on with you. You are asking what Trump is doing right, and then tell me the things you think he is doing wrong. And what I see is exactly the opposite of what you see. Not only that, but your complaints seem mostly about style, rather than substance. Are you opposed to promoting free trade, curbing the drug menace, advancing freedom around the world, fighting terrorism, supporting law and order, cutting waste and fraud from government to cut the deficit, building a strong economy, making us energy self-sufficient and creating jobs? I’ll take a few nasty remarks any day in exchange for those things. On that score, I will say it again, one of the things some of us like about him is that he “annoys all the right people.”
Ha yes it is honest! Insults don’t get us anywhere, it just makes the insulter look like they lack decorum and, as you accurately posited, style is important to me.
I feel that Trump’s style is his substance. Not to spoil tomorrow’s post, but his economy in his first run basically just continued the upward momentum created by Obama. Obama also deported undocumented people, built a strong economy and fought terrorism but never did it create a national divide that threatens the foundations of democracy.
The basis of the reasons I dislike Trump is because of HOW he does things. When he deports people, he sends 3000 masked ICE agents into a sanctuary city. When he negotiates on a world stage, he makes a rash decision and starts a war with no credible threat made by the target country. When he fights terror, he insights Islamophobia and refuses to condone people who claim all Muslims are a threat to this country and our democracy. How he has done things has alienated us from our allies, and made the world view us as basically Florida Man on Steroids. All while building an economy that was no better than Obama’s. I do support reducing crime, but not like he’s doing it. I do support fighting terrorism, but not by essentially starting a war the other side could claim was terrorism partnered with a country who’s leader is a war criminal.
To be sure, I dislike Trump as a person. There are probably 100,000 men and women like him in our country that are as off putting as I find him. My dislike for him personally is not nearly as powerful as my dislike him as a leader of a powerful, nuclear armed country.
We seem to have drifted off topic and into the subject of politicians and their personalities. How about if we move this discussion over there?
BTW, there was a rash of courthouse fires back in the ’30s, and as a result my Father could not get his birth certificate. Few today will have that excuse, if needed.
The SAVE Act is a solution in search of a problem, but it’s more than that. It’s also an attempt to suppress the votes of women and minorities, groups that typically vote predominantly for Democratic candidates. The Heritage Foundation, the same group that gave us Project 2025, conducted a 2018 study and found virtually no voter fraud. It should be noted that identification is required when we register to vote, so there’s already a check in place to prevent fraud.
I’m intrigued by the discussion of TEI. That sounds like something I could support.