I do not want to go to Youtube, but what about PACs, will they be they banned also ? Seems it will, nice. A link without youtube below. Next step needed, publish all donors who gave more that 100 USD.

https://www.betteramericanmedia.org/post/former-officials-se...

I couldn't find a link to the ballot initiative itself anywhere on the campaign's website, but this appears to be it:

https://sosmt.gov/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?juwpfisadmin=false...

Linked from here if the above URL stops working: https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/proposed-2026-ball...

So, does this ban all news related to politicians?

Newspapers and television programs sell time and space via advertisements, and there is more in the world than could conceivably fit.

Therefore, every inclusion is an editorial decision. Any positive or negative opinion, any review of a biography or book about a politician, every interview is now a contribution in kind- after all, the time and space have value, which are included in this law as "anything of value".

Basically, this is literally what the Citizens United decision boiled down to- a blatant infringement on free speech. People HATE citizens United because it lets companies donate money, but this is the flip side to the equation.

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

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

  Political speech is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.”  -- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/