How California can neuter "Citizens United".

[onenote]

4. Citizens United is a 501(c ) ( 4) non-profit corporation. So is MoveOn.org.

Does that mean that if California passes the legislation described, MoveOn.Org wouldn't be able to engage in advocacy in California?

I think Citizens United was very wrongly decided. But I have my doubts about the distinction between rights and powers underlying this theory. Does it mean a state could modify its corporate law to bar a non-profit corporation from spending money in support of immigration reform or or Democratic candidates? So long as the First Amendment applies to corporations, I don't know that a state can circumvent it by barring corporations from speaking, whether its through buying ads or otherwise.