Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
finally something actually based, this would be such a good amendment.
To late, but DO IT!!
Way too little, way too late.
Nice idea, but you're a decade late and billions of dollars short.
OTOH, it has always been important to keep introducing bills showing what you stand for even when they have no chance of passing, which (theoretically) builds public support over time (by getting press coverage and talking about it in interviews and on the campaign trail). For example Repubs have introduced bills to kill all or parts of the ACA over 50 times since it was passed, and they do that with lots of other issues--they just push and push and push their agenda regardless of whether it can pass.
But Dems don't. It's hard to take this effort by Dems seriously when the first time they've attempted to do this is only after the effects of the Citizens United ruling have come to full fruition. I know the only time they've had the majority again since the ACA was passed was the first half of Biden's term and they did get some good things done during that time. But the idea is to relentlessly try to do what you're sent there by your voters to do. So I guess it's a ... start?
Instead of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, immediately get rid of the gerontocracy (Schumer, Pelosi), regroup, find a leader with some balls and declare open warfare on Republicans. It's not like there isn't any ammunition.
immediately get rid of the gerontocracy (Schumer, Pelosi), regroup, find a leader with some balls and declare open warfare on Republicans.
to be fair, this is probably exactly what republicans want to be able to pull the entire curtain down.
Exactly, the conservatives have spent the last 40 years gradually doing exactly this and the Democrats have spent the last 40 years denying that reality and laughing off the right wing, talk show type populists while they slowly took control of the GOP and the court system.
Oh gee, another Dem exercise in futility. What a bunch of feckless losers.
"Guys the system isn't broken, just one more big tweak and it'll be fine again, pinky promise."
That would have been useful and a great idea over a decade ago.
Now it's just "let's do this" and nothing will happen. Its too late.
Yeah even if they did actually repeal it, which they won't, it's really closing the stable door after the horse has bolted at this point IMO.
Because with the current administration, you can say it's illegal to accept money from so-and-so, and they'll just go "fuck you" and do it anyway and nobody will will stop them or bring consequences, so ... yeah. This is kind of doing time, not talking time.
I mean... that was literally one of the things that Hillary ran on. So... your timeline checks out.
Only at the end to try and court Bernie supporters. Before that she was mostly silent and won the primary with corporate money.
Y'know what, I'll bite. It's been long enough I can't definitively say whether it came up before or not.
But that's a point though, she did move her policy to that of the ones that the Bernie supporters and they still snubbed her and we got Trump.
So in that we made sure the Left didn't have a seat at the table because they didn't bother to show up right after showing they had the numbers and ability to do so, and we got a billionaire man-baby who sucks up to other billionaires and fascist regimes. Good trade.
I say this as a Bernie voter, but my national vote was still for Hillary. Citizens United and the Supreme Court were on the line, I told other leftists it was on the line, I was told I was overreacting... so call me fucking Cassandra.
I was a Bernie and Hillary voter as well. I also failed to convince a number of other Bernie voters that they had to support Hillary.
She held too far center for too long and a lot of Bernie voters didn't trust her or the party. Hell, even when she announced a push for an amendment in her first 30 days I didn't buy it would happen but I also knew we needed to keep Trump out.
Really I still didn't trust the party. I still don't think we have enough progressives and will still do what we need to keep corporate donors happy above the voting public.
Money is speech and it has the loudest platform.
As we've seen though, a woman cannot win against a racist sexist nazi shitbag in the united states.
Don't at me (as the young people say), I voted for the woman.
Pretty much. I just always like to point these things out as there's a nice bit of revisionism amongst the left on "We want this, why didn't the dems give it to us" while people don't show up and vote for them, then cry they didn't show up because "Dems are as bad as republicans." Which frankly is as bad as the right on their revisionism.
The 16 election was an attempt to take down Citizens United as well as bring up the Trans Pacific Partnership. The TPP was specifically trying to get the other Asian countries to lock out China in trade to reduce its power. But the right wingers thought "No we want to be hard on China" pulled out of it, and basically left China to look at all the other Asian countries who didn't have a partnership with the US and bring them to heel.
Citizens United came about in 2010, during the Obama administration, and specifically that same year Republicans had gained majority in the House, creating a divided congress that meant no laws could get through, especially an anti-Citizens United bill. An executive order isn't going to fix this one.
The Left falls into the same fallacy as the Right, they want a strong leader who can "solve all the problems." Problem is the Right is really good at it because it's really their authoritarian style. The part that pisses me off is the Right is also really good at showing up at the polls when they matter even if they hate the candidate, as long as it moves the needle one step over to their side while the Left keeps having a lot of voters be all or nothing.
Why would SENATE REPUBLICANS be against an AMENDMENT named WE THE PEOPLE???
Yeah, the sole reason they're suggesting it now is because they know it's too little too late. It will go nowhere and we all know this, them Dems will be like 'oh but we tried!' Fucking useless.
Read the article.
Do not waste time talking about a non-starter.
You need 290 votes in the House, you have (at most) 215. You need 75 Republicans to flip.
If, miracle of miracle, that happens, it goes to the Senate where you need 60 votes to end a filibuster, you have (at best) 47. You need 13 Republicans breaking rank to end cloture + 7 more to pass it.
Then it goes to the states for ratification, you need 38. In 2024 19 states went to Harris which means you need all of them +19 Trump states.
Yeahhh...
this might actually work if this goes through the states in the midterms, might be a little bit too early for that to happen, but i guess we'll have to see. I would entirely expect this to be 100% possible to get passed, it just needs support.
The thing is, at the very least this forces the Republicans (and for that matter Democrats) to pick a side on the issue.
Citizens United is extremely unpopular with the Republican base, as it is with the Democrat base. If a Republican voter sees that their Congress person voted to maintain citizens United, they might be upset.
The GOP will just lie and blame everything on "radical leftists". Which don't really exist in the US.
Some will. But if 1% of the right see this and either become demotivated or change sides, that is enough to swing entire elections.
Check the comments, 75% of the people here don't believe the simple fact that the Democrats have not had a supermajority to pass such an amendment since 1979, 30 years before the infamous Citizens United win at the Supreme Court became the current interpretation of law.
They don't know that the legislation discussed in this post has been brought to vote multiple times by Democrats over the years under different names, and that this is just the latest instance.
They just want to complain that Democrats 'don't do anything good when they have power, and wont even try when they know they cant win' - handwaving away reality.
They just want to complain that Democrats ‘don’t do anything good when they have power, and wont even try when they know they cant win’ - handwaving away reality.
it's literally the meme of
lemmy: "you're not doing anything"
GOV: "i am literally doing everything"
lemmy: "you're not doing good enough"
GOV: "i'm literally the best in my field trying the best i can with good results"
lemmy: "well it's still not good enough"
GOV: "find me a better solution then."
So this will pass and we're all wrong?
Ron Paul used to introduce doomed bills like this all the time. It's not expected to pass. It's to reveal the owners of other legislators.
Even some Democrats will vote against this bill. Every one of those legislators work for the corporations - not for us - and need to be replaced.
Which, ultimately, does nothing as voters have the memory of a goldfish.
We do, but that still does something. I only look up their voting records once I've got the sample ballot in my hands.
The biggest issue is that Dems get rich from this shit too. Even if they had a massive majority it wouldn't pass.
Now they ask for this? After having zero majority in either house? Acter letting a nazi waltz into the white house?
The Democrats have a long history of waiting until Republicans hold a majority in both houses to propose milquetoast change.
Keeps their name in the papers without actually having to do anything.
The Democrats have a long history of waiting until Republicans hold a majority in both houses to propose milquetoast change.
Every time. Legalizing weed? Only when Republicans control. Making abortion federally protected? Only Republican control. Raising the minimum wage? Only when Republicans control.
When they are in office? Never one of those, but pushing for bills that get everyone in congress paid more by their handlers called lobbyists.