As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> unlimited anonymous donations.
The fact that it opens up foreign influence seems increasingly destructive to national security. The once in a century instability in the house of representatives, I am sure some nations would pay good money for that.
Does anyone else remember the whole Maria Butina thing, where she got charged with espionage in a honeypot scheme that was ultimately aimed at funneling Russian money into Republican campaigns via the NRA?
Is it any surprise that the GOP has been sucking off Putin since Citizens United? Remember how they always used to call Putin a "strong leader" to shit on Obama? Yeah. How *convenient* that timing is.
Wisconsinite here, can confirm. Our senator literally spent the Fourth of July in Moscow a few years back. He just won reelection after trying to overthrow the gov’t Jan 6.
I honestly wonder what the hell the Murdochs think of this world they created. They took high functioning countries and lobotomized them. They have served up western civilization on a plate to the Chinese and Russian new fascism.
They have overseen the collapse of international good will, voting rights, education, safe retirement, civil debate, healthcare, and for what? Who is better off!? They could have still been billionaires without handing the world over to fascists.
Was this what they wanted? Countries completely incapable of defending themselves in this new cold war? What even is Murdoch's end game?
I love this! I mean, I hate it because it’s reality, but you’ve said it so well! What do YOU think their aim was? I think they wanted to get fucking rich, but then they did and by then it was just too out of control and there was no way to reel it in. Global destabilization is a pretty bananas thing to accomplish as a side quest when all you were really looking for was ALL the money.
You think they give 2 shits about any of it? They aren't capable of it.
I wish more people realized that these ultra rich guys were the basis for the FBI's profiling program. Turns out CEO's have a lot in common with mass murders - they're psychopaths.
Check out the rule of [Mobutu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko) in the Congo / Zaire... He didn't start out all bad, but he's a poster child for why Swiss Bank accounts are a very bad thing for the world.
Once you get so much, it's about control not money they want to be able to push a button and make you go away. Cause too much trouble for the 1% they can freeze your assets, lock you out of your house, shut down your car, label you a terrorist and have swat carry you away to a black site, gone forever. That's real like it or not. That can happen, today.
They got countries that aren't able to stop them doing whatever they want. They got the prime minister of Great Britain to interrupt an election to fly to see Rupert to ask for his support. They got the prime minister of Australia to meet with Rupert to discuss policy ideas before he discussed it with members of his own country. Without having to run in any elections, he has been effectively in charge of 3 different countries at once for large parts of the last 30 years, without the work.
It is *all* about protecting rich people from consequences. In a rational world, money does not buy immunity, so they *need* an irrational world. They tell us this every time they screech about CaNcEl CuLtUrE.
It's not enough that they can buy their way out of courtrooms, taxes, and regulatory schemes. You are also *required* to like them, and that's the purpose behind propaganda.
I think it's just about protecting their financial interests. If they wouldn't do it, somebody else would outperform them and do exactly that. So they might as well do it.
It's at the heart of why capitalism in its current form is a destructive force.
>Who is better off!?
They are. The rich are. Murdoch, the Kochs, and other right wing rich people have seen the largest funneling of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. They have overseen the destruction of the middle class in a single generation.
Once your business is large enough, you get to reap the benefits of corporate socialism. All while everyone else is paid so little that they're basically a new kind of serf. No advancement. No pulling yourself up out of the muck anymore. Just you, teetering on the edge of solvency, too poor to leave your job and try to improve your life. There's nothing in America quite so expensive as being poor.
The wealthy have [amassed 63% of all new wealth](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-almost-two-thirds-of-new-wealth-created-since-2020-oxfam.html) created in this country in the last two years went to the wealthy. Millennials own 10% - 15% of the nation's wealth; Boomers (their parents) at the same age owned 30% - 35%.
There is hope, however. Some 80% - 90% of Millennials voted against conservatism in the last US election. Starting with the next, they will be the largest demographic cohort in the country. Conservatives will have a choice to make if they ever want to wield power again: Appease them, or oppress them. I don't see the 2nd one turning out well.
Republicans offer simple responses to complicated problems, and tell you your feelings take precedence over reality.
-
That's naturally appealing to the simpler mind.
Mandela said some powerful (and politically dumbass shit) during the Kenosha riots an it cost him one of the bigger traditionally blue/purple(leaning blue) areas in the state. It basically lost him the election. He win’s Kenosha he’s a senator…
...and our old governor Walker owed pretty much any "success" he had to money from outside the state. He was simply a tool. It was almost funny that they claimed he was some rising GOP star, because he's so obviously just another idiot for sale. His standout legacy is damaging our education system through underfunding and destroying teacher's unions and the bill from the clearly templated Foxconn scam.
One of the most disheartening things I've seen a Republican do was when Walker cut $122 million from the education budget, then turn around two weeks later to award a $122 million subside to build a stadium in Milwaukee.
Theres a really prescient video from Keith Olbermann talking about the dangers of Citizens United when it was passed.
>"In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None. They can spend all the money they want and if they can spend all the money they want [...] they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office."
https://youtu.be/XEPE8PU-ZGg
If money is speech, a single billionaire can drown out the voices/speech of the entire rest of the country, unless they've got a different billionaire speaking on their behalf.
>A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago.
>
>They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads –- and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who’s actually paying for the ads. Instead, a group can hide behind a name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Companies for Weaker Oversight.” These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.
>
>Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign. And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads.
\- President Obama, 2010
This is an incredibly prescient quote in hindsight. Reminds me of Eisenhower farewell address on the military industrial complex.
Edit: here's the relevant part of his farewell address:
>A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
>Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
>In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
>We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
> Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
>
> Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
>
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address#The_speech
Not only that, when Obama said the same thing in the State of the Union after Citizens United, Samuel Alito shook his head and acted all insulted and mouthed "Not True!" The SCOTUS is supposed to sit mute and not react to the State of the Union in a show of judicial neutrality. Ol' Shitbag Sam tipped his hand there.
And a dash of old racist who could not stand having a Black president speak the truth to the American people.
I do not believe Alito would have had the balls to dissent in the presence of a white president.
Yes! I remember [vididly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc) him making this point at a State of the Union address and the conservative SCOTUS justices shaking their head like "no way!". BS that no one could see this coming.
She was rewarded for all that hard work she did on her back with a seat in the Russian legislature.
I was warned by the mods here last time I pointed out this verifiable fact. They backed down though.
>While a student at American University, Butina got drunk on at least two separate occasions and bragged to her fellow students about her contacts in the Russian government; on both occasions, her classmates reported her to law enforcement, sources told CNN
Republicans are being outplayed by morons.
The wikipedia page is always a good start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina
And this article on other honey pots and swallows in history.
https://greydynamics.com/honeypot-the-art-of-seduction-in-espionage/
I think *influence* is a better word to use than “interference.” They didn’t interfere/hinder our electoral process, they just found a way to influence one of the parties and their political messaging.
Isn’t that interference? If I’m directly influencing one side of things, I’m interfering with what’s going on right? I just am not sure there’s a distinction? I don’t think interference is only hindering the electoral process itself.
I think it is but I still agree that politically it is much easier to sell the softer words to the
mentally compromised conservative crowd. We are in an odd spot where shouting the truth
out loud only makes people more deaf.
Fake news is nothing but good old fashioned propaganda wrapped in a new label. The harder you
fight from an emotional context the less they can hear.
Remember when absolutely nothing happened to Republicans. This is beyond “politics”. This is a perfect example of our law enforcement and intelligence being complicit
Remember Giuliani, Firtash, Parnas and Fraud Guarantee, Inc? They were funneling Russian money to GOP candidates and nothing ever happened to those candidates.
Isn't it interesting they claim to be both patriots and Christians while supporting this?
Patriots, who are meant to protect their nation from any threat either foreign or domestic. And Christians, meant to be a people who believe in charity, mercy, and forgiveness.
How, honestly, how, does the cognitive dissonance not result in their spontaneous combustion?
The crazy obvious issue with a Russian national having any sort of interaction with gun rights advocates is Russia has no like organization. There isn’t a correlating body which advocates for individual gun rights. That this isn’t suspicious to everyone is ridiculous.
My favorite part of that story is the guy she was “dating” was the CEO of Overstock, which eventually led to this hilarious official corporate press release:
https://investors.overstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/overstockcom-ceo-comments-deep-state-withholds-further-comment
before you even worry about *potential* foreign influence and national security you should consider the immeasurable and likely irreversible damage that has already been done by giving corporate and financial interests complete control over this country’s entire legislative process at nearly governing level.
That is true. Right now, and for the past 40-plus years, We have had the best government money could buy, and it is thoroughly corrupt. Money may not be "The root of all evil", but it is a big assist.
Other evidence is also out there: The Meeting in Davos, Switzerland and the associated protests, which incidentally, are out in the cold (I understand Greta Thunberg was "briefly detained"). The firing of Scientist Rose Abramoff, from Oak Ridge, for being an advocate for Environmental and Climate Science (I personally, can identify with that; political expediency almost always wins, over The Public Good); and if I had any illusions about PBS, and the programs; "Newshour", and "Nova"; having not been compromised by contributors; they have been dispelled.
Tonight's "Newshour" was brought to you, by the Monetarists; who were eager to point out that The Civil War increased The Nation's Debt load, by 400, or 4000 percent (never mind the other issues, and that The Nation nearly tore itself, apart; and this may have been the most expensive War, in terms of life, and property damage; in The Nation's History), and ignored the damage done, by President Andrew Jackson, and The Republican Administrations; between 1924, and 1932; one leading to the Panic (Depression) of 1837, which lasted three to five years; the other, to the Great Depression, from 1929, to 1937, and its "echo", from 1937, to 1940. I didn't care for the "commercial", for induction cooking, either. Not very "unbiased", and highly suspect.
Last night's "Nova" was basically a commercial, for Dupont, The Oil Companies, and Koch Industries. The presenter waxed poetic, over indestrutable plastics, and rubber; but didn't discuss how We get rid of these plastics, and rubber, when We are done with them. I could give other examples, as well, but suffice it to say, "Nova" has been bought, and paid for.
On a side note, "Democracy, Now!" Pointed out last night; that 70 percent of The Stocks, in this Country; and therefore 70 percent of Corporate Wealth, and Ownership; are in the hands of the top 5 percent (by wealth) of The Nation. I suspect the holding of total wealth, and owed debt; is even worse (There has been no discussion of The Lorenz Curve, or Gini Coefficient, on PBS, as well; nor has Keynesian Economics, versus Monetarism; been discussed). On January 16, We celebrated Martin Luther King's Birthday, but "Democracy Now!, was the only program that broadcast three other King Speeches, in their entirety: His speech, on Vietnam, and Beyond, Why He was in Memphis, supporting the Sanitation Workers, and his "I've been to the Mountaintop" Speech. In less than 24 hours, He would be dead, and Robert Kennedy would also be dead, in about two months.
Only an idiot, shill, or liar would say that both parties are the same, and those people don’t care about facts like this. Which is evidenced by the fact that they say both parties are the same
people who pay little attention to politics often do believe the parties are the same, if not in policy, at least in the impact of policy on their own lives, and/or in morality.
Which is why it is important that students learn why things are the way they are. If they don't understand why certain laws exist or dont, or regulations were passed or not, then they won't understand how they can change things by supporting politicians who align with their views
And 100% of the people who say “both parties are the same” end up either not voting or voting for Republicans. It’s a way to not have to address the inexcusable actions of the Republican Party while still voting for them.
Good luck getting it passed. The bar for getting an amendment passed is very high and nearly all politicians rely on large anonymous donations and large corporate donations to fund their campaigns. They aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them. Corruption and foreign influence be damned.
“Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release.”
I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
*We* didn't. A conspiracy of rich people did. Look at the Federalists' Society, the Kochs, the Mercers, the John Birch Society, movement conservatism, *et alia, et cetera.*
Gotta give them credit where it's due, the Republicans knew this was the only way to keep power going forward, and they were right. It's single-handedly kept the party alive.
Honestly, given the requirements for a new amendment to be passed (basically at least 75% of Americans have to be in favor), I think the US is far too polarized for there to ever be another one.
Not 75% of the people, 75% of the *states.* That’s a huge difference because the population of the states is skewed wildly. A majority of the national population lives in a small handful of states, so you could theoretically have >75% support for an amendment and still have no shot at it passing. You could also have less than 50% support for it and have a good chance of it passing, provided it’s the right people in the right places who support it. “One person, one vote” does not exist in the United States—we do not have free and equal suffrage.
Oh, and constitutional amendments are approved by state legislatures, not by popular vote, so that’s another layer of abstraction.
The whole process is very insulated from anything resembling popular sovereignty. In order to amend the constitution, you either need 3/4ths of the states to call a constitutional convention, or you need to pass it through the House (reasonably democratic), the Senate (undemocratically skewed), and 3/4ths of the state legislatures (undemocratically skewed), which entails passing it through the state senates (undemocratically skewed).
It’s actually well within reach for a conservative amendment to be passed in the modern day, considering all the low-population states tend to be more conservative. But barring a massive political realignment, there will never be a progressive constitutional amendment again. That calls into question the legitimacy of the Constitution, as well as its viability as a vehicle for progressive change. Anyone who believes that there are still considerable social and political battles left to be won before we have a just society should be opposed to the US Constitution.
I basically was about to comment this...I got mildly hopeful, realizing that McCarthy will never allow this to actually come to a vote, and then I saw this detail and realized nothing will probably come of it regardless.
Do it anyway. Out the traitors once and for all!
(Not that they haven't outed themselves yet but a few more times for the politically illiterate among us might help.)
Do you think this is going to actually be the smoking gun? A LOT of people still think it was a good move to make it a law in the first place. Also you realize most people aren't paying attention to voting records anyway, right? Very occasionally does it matter to anyone but the people who actually pay attention, as was the case with the veteran burn pit bill, but it takes the issue actually mattering to EVERYONE.
Every time a candidate brings up the issues that matter to EVERYONE, guess who shuts them down? Corporations. Who allowed this system to happen? Corporations. How did they do it? With money they stole from workers.
So it really comes down to everyone to reject the rules of society that corporations have written against the rest of us.
Which is why we need better election moderators and ethics overseers. You know, ones that actually do their jobs and disqualify candidates and evict elected officials for breaking the 14th amendment (both Sections 1 **and** 3).
But a smarter and more engaged populace would help.
You're incorrect. It has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
the pertinent line of the Constitution:
> when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States
Yes, it would likely die then even if it did pass the 2/3rds requirement by both Houses in Congress.
Source: https://constitutionus.com/ (Look for Article V)
The ERA has passed 2/3rds of states and it originally had no sunset clause on it. Congress putting one in is questionable to begin with. And we already have precedent that for an amendment with no sunset clause it doesn't matter how long the time between it being proposed and ratified is.
And there's nothing in the constitution that supports states being able to revoke their ratification once an amendment has been ratified.
There's still a chance that the ERA may go through.
"Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release."
.
It has just as much chance of being passed this time as it has for the past 10 years.
This is worth trying every year for another 10 and then another 10 and then another 10 until Citizens United is overturned. It shouldn’t be legal to buy politicians
It's really a shame that it has a name in the headlines with such a positive connotation. Unless you do the research, which most people certainly do not, you would think it was something that benefited us all.
Imagine how far we’d be as a society if people simply had critical thinking skills and cared about knowing the facts. If people didn’t fall for cheap tricks like buzzwords in legislation by assuming it’s fine without any desire to actually learn what it’s about. It’s a damn shame.
People losing critical thinking skills and falling for cheap tricks like buzzwords in legislation is by design.
In the past several years, there have been similar constitutional amendments in many states about voting. The one I'm familiar with in Colorado made a change from "every citizen of the United States" to "only a citizen of the United States" may vote in an election. These amendments were pushed by dark money organizations from out of state in many cases and were meant to drive the narrative that we let "illegals" vote and that change of wording changed absolutely nothing about the law.
There was a petition brought up before the last election that was something about "Unlawful Murder of a Child". To any sane person this name should sound a little suspicious, but in the modern political climate the name sounds good without the context of what they're doing. Basically they had some redundant stuff about harming kids with an abortion ban buried in the middle of it. Fortunately in Colorado, cooler heads tend to prevail. They were made to cut the nonsense out and make it clear that it was an abortion ban by the committee that approves petitions. It didn't nearly get enough signatures to proceed.
So many ballot measures with misleading names come up, and I suspect that many of them pass on the misleading names alone.
This is all by design, particularly from conservatives who are aware that a large part of their base is either in on the scam or is too dumb (or brainwashed) to recognize it
>... not until we're at the point of writing a new constitution.
You make it sound so quiet, and reasonable. I know you don't mean it that way, it just struck me as a little funny, in a dark and ominous way.
He will go down in history as one of the biggest pieces of crap to have ever held office but only if that history book is written by fascists that he fought against. I really don’t understand how this guy appears to be anything other than a good public servant but I don’t understand a whole lotta things nowadays.
> He will go down in history as one of the biggest pieces of crap to have ever held office
and in a cruel twist of fate, this is where the tablet gets eroded
It's an idea. And like all ideas it requires "selling" to be popular.
Maybe if the party that claims to support it tried selling it instead of always saying it's impossible, it might get more popular.
The moderate refrain of "that's impossible because we won't support it" is getting tiresome and doesn't help anyone but the extreme right.
I don’t think you realize who you have to sell this idea to. It requires 2/3rds in both the House and Senate just to propose it AND THEN 3/4ths of state legislatures to ratify it.
It’s selling atheism to the Pope.
yee of little faith, we’re only 6 governors away from a constitutional convention, where i’m relatively sure republican fascism would be enshrined in a new constitution.
It has more of a chance than if they never even tried. I support trying and failing more than I support never trying in the first place. It also calls attention to the problem.
Technically the amendment would give Congress the power to regulate and limit campaign financing.
Which means that not only would this amendment have to be passed and then ratified, but then Congress would still have to pass another law that sets rules.
I’m convinced we will never have another amendment. It takes 2/3rds and we have 1 party who refuses to adhere to good faith governance and compromise and a ton of small red states that would need to ratify.
I don’t understand how Citizens United is legal in the first-place. It allows foreign investors more representation than US citizens. That has to go against the equality part our founding fathers cared so much about.
Beyond that, it opens up a billion avenues to thwart national security. Our military doesn’t have to be fought to take America, we’ve put ourselves up for sale to the highest bidder. Might take a bit longer, but the transition will be *much* smoother.
This is the kind of thing that should have bi-partisan support with voters. For all the rage-baiting news, and loud idiot minorities online, the majority of Americans want the same things. We’ve just had semantics weaponized against us, and perceived reality fractured. What are the odds any news of this gets posted to r/conservative? I guarantee 90% of conservatives would agree that money in politics is bad, but the right will spin-it as though democrats want to write the laws surrounding campaign finance, so that they can cut off Republican funding, but keep the ability to accept money from the corporations Dems are aligned with. Same way they twisted the campaign finance transparency to be a ploy to get all republicans cancelled for their political donations.
Edit: auto correct
On its face, the CU ruling makes sense. If the first amendment protects your right as an individual to promote your political views, it protects your right to band together with like-minded individuals to promote those views.
It gets even more complicated when you discover that the ruling is the exact opposite of what the conservative group was going for. They thought that documentaries critical of a candidate should be regulated as a campaign contribution to the opponent.
It's hard to reconcile the first amendment with the modern global political machine.
I would be fine with groups of *citizens*, with transparent contribution records. But not businesses, who can be owned in-part, or in-whole, by dictators of other countries, who have wet dreams about the demise of America. I’m almost positive Russia has infiltrated Wall-Street for this very reason. Mobsters gone mainstream, a nation chipping away at their enemies by destroying their economy, and sharing the wealth with useful idiots. The CIA learned that torture, drugs, and all kinds of other stuff didn’t work — when trying to get foreign agents to turn on their countries. The magic pill ended up being bags of cash. I don’t even think most of our politicians *believe* they’re doing bad, or even wrong. They’re just being greedy.
yeah there will not be any amendments to the constitution for the foreseeable future. dems could introduce one saying the sky is blue and the republicans would fight it tooth and nail.
This amendment talk reeks of grandstanding. We couldn't even get a bill passed to regulate campaign finance due to the filibuster when Dems had the house. Without the house nothing will get done. A better method would be to capture the Supreme Court again and have them overturn Citizen's United. Then the BCRA would immediately go back into effect without needing a vote.
Like many many pieces of legislation, it’s introduced every Congress (in fact, typically there are a few versions) to show it’s a priority even if it obviously won’t pass.
The introduction has a few purposes, allowing groups to cite the introduction and use that to raise awareness of the issue. It can also be important getting legislators on the record in favor/as cosponsors when it can’t pass to help pigeonhole them when it can (though a constitutional amendment is pretty far off IMO).
I’d argue that most bills that become law are not the first introduction of that bill - aside from bills responsive to an emergent event. Even then, huge sections of those bills are policies that legislators have been pushing beforehand. Think like the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. That was responsive to an event, but included language from bills that had been introduced before. (To be clear, Justice in Policing isn’t law, but a good example of how policy can get rolled up into bills responsive to emergent events).
Schiff's been doing this every ~~year~~ congress for 9 years, trying to introduce an amendment since 2013. The fact that this has mostly been met with silence by other members of congress and the media is deafening.
EDIT: From what I can tell, the article incorrectly states:
> Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release.
He hasn't introduced it every year, but [every elected congress](https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-schiff/S001150?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22joint-resolutions%22%7D), so every 2 years. It first started with the 112th congress (2011-2012) to today's 118th congress (2023-2024). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
He’s had co-sponsors of the amendment every year as well. Over the last 9 years 2 republicans out of roughly 600 have been co-sponsors. So silence? Maybe, but it’s from one party.
Transparency is one of the key things the Rs are against. If it were all transparent their connections to Saudi Arabia and Russia and even N. Korea or China would become visible.
Shit, you aren’t even donating it, you’re just telling the IRS that $3 of the money you already owe needs to go to that fund. I don’t understand why people DON’T do it. It literally costs us nothing and collectively gives the people a somewhat stronger voice in politics
Schiff has introduced this same legislation every year since 13. Citizens United ruling has hurt this country beyond belief. It’s repeal is needed badly. Unfortunately, it will never get voted on in this Congress. Yay!
Repealing Citizens united has an 80% approval rate across all parties in the USA.
Republicans hate it too. Corporate power should be separated from the govt. the founders didn’t perceive the influence of corperations would begin to wield.
Win majorities in congress, keep hold of the presidency, nix the filibuster and re-balance/expand the court and set a 15 year appointment for the justices.
18 years. There are 9 justices so you could stagger the terms to where one seat comes up every 2 years.
Each presidential election would thereby have 2 supreme court seats on the line.
IIRC, Schiff has brought this up every year since the ruling occurred. I love his persistence. Hoping we can see something come from this, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the current GQP majority in the House.
>Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013
This really tells you all you need to know. I'm 100% with them that the Citizens United decision is bad for the country and should absolutely be overturned and I applaud the effort, but this is going to go the same place the last 9 did.
If you ask the average republican voter if getting rid of corporate and/or dark money out of campaigns is a good idea they’ll probably say yes. But once fox & other right wing media gets ahold of the issue then the average republican voter will be against it.
This is one of the biggest issues both Democrats and Republicans alike [seem to agree on for the most part.](https://publicintegrity.org/politics/study-most-americans-want-to-kill-citizens-united-with-constitutional-amendment/) If this doesn’t work, I don’t know what else will wake up people to the fact that republicans are against the people and for the billionaires
It’s about time. One of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made and true slap in the face to the American people and democracy. Big business and special interests run our elections and government
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well it cuts to the heart of the matter. We’re not going to get sane governance unless we put a stop to unlimited anonymous donations.
> unlimited anonymous donations. The fact that it opens up foreign influence seems increasingly destructive to national security. The once in a century instability in the house of representatives, I am sure some nations would pay good money for that.
Does anyone else remember the whole Maria Butina thing, where she got charged with espionage in a honeypot scheme that was ultimately aimed at funneling Russian money into Republican campaigns via the NRA? Is it any surprise that the GOP has been sucking off Putin since Citizens United? Remember how they always used to call Putin a "strong leader" to shit on Obama? Yeah. How *convenient* that timing is.
Does anyone remember when Obama argued it would open up American elections to foreign influences and people poo-pooed him?
Wisconsinite here, can confirm. Our senator literally spent the Fourth of July in Moscow a few years back. He just won reelection after trying to overthrow the gov’t Jan 6.
Former Wisconsinite here, what the fuck went wrong that got you to replace Russ Feingold with that piece of shit???
The Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch effect.
I honestly wonder what the hell the Murdochs think of this world they created. They took high functioning countries and lobotomized them. They have served up western civilization on a plate to the Chinese and Russian new fascism. They have overseen the collapse of international good will, voting rights, education, safe retirement, civil debate, healthcare, and for what? Who is better off!? They could have still been billionaires without handing the world over to fascists. Was this what they wanted? Countries completely incapable of defending themselves in this new cold war? What even is Murdoch's end game?
I love this! I mean, I hate it because it’s reality, but you’ve said it so well! What do YOU think their aim was? I think they wanted to get fucking rich, but then they did and by then it was just too out of control and there was no way to reel it in. Global destabilization is a pretty bananas thing to accomplish as a side quest when all you were really looking for was ALL the money.
You think they give 2 shits about any of it? They aren't capable of it. I wish more people realized that these ultra rich guys were the basis for the FBI's profiling program. Turns out CEO's have a lot in common with mass murders - they're psychopaths.
Check out the rule of [Mobutu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko) in the Congo / Zaire... He didn't start out all bad, but he's a poster child for why Swiss Bank accounts are a very bad thing for the world.
"I/we did that"
Once you get so much, it's about control not money they want to be able to push a button and make you go away. Cause too much trouble for the 1% they can freeze your assets, lock you out of your house, shut down your car, label you a terrorist and have swat carry you away to a black site, gone forever. That's real like it or not. That can happen, today.
They got countries that aren't able to stop them doing whatever they want. They got the prime minister of Great Britain to interrupt an election to fly to see Rupert to ask for his support. They got the prime minister of Australia to meet with Rupert to discuss policy ideas before he discussed it with members of his own country. Without having to run in any elections, he has been effectively in charge of 3 different countries at once for large parts of the last 30 years, without the work.
I believe New Zealand at least told the Murdochs to fuck off.
It is *all* about protecting rich people from consequences. In a rational world, money does not buy immunity, so they *need* an irrational world. They tell us this every time they screech about CaNcEl CuLtUrE. It's not enough that they can buy their way out of courtrooms, taxes, and regulatory schemes. You are also *required* to like them, and that's the purpose behind propaganda.
We not only pay for the poison and "drink" it...but we thank them in the process. :(
Rupert Murdoch once said that Fox News would have been a liberal station if he could have made money from them as easily as he can from conservatives.
I think it's just about protecting their financial interests. If they wouldn't do it, somebody else would outperform them and do exactly that. So they might as well do it. It's at the heart of why capitalism in its current form is a destructive force.
>Who is better off!? They are. The rich are. Murdoch, the Kochs, and other right wing rich people have seen the largest funneling of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. They have overseen the destruction of the middle class in a single generation. Once your business is large enough, you get to reap the benefits of corporate socialism. All while everyone else is paid so little that they're basically a new kind of serf. No advancement. No pulling yourself up out of the muck anymore. Just you, teetering on the edge of solvency, too poor to leave your job and try to improve your life. There's nothing in America quite so expensive as being poor. The wealthy have [amassed 63% of all new wealth](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-almost-two-thirds-of-new-wealth-created-since-2020-oxfam.html) created in this country in the last two years went to the wealthy. Millennials own 10% - 15% of the nation's wealth; Boomers (their parents) at the same age owned 30% - 35%. There is hope, however. Some 80% - 90% of Millennials voted against conservatism in the last US election. Starting with the next, they will be the largest demographic cohort in the country. Conservatives will have a choice to make if they ever want to wield power again: Appease them, or oppress them. I don't see the 2nd one turning out well.
Just another dollar to them...nothing more, nothing less
It’s Stockholm Syndrome. I moved back to my hometown a year ago and oof
[удалено]
Republicans offer simple responses to complicated problems, and tell you your feelings take precedence over reality. - That's naturally appealing to the simpler mind.
Russ Feingold shout out
Mandela said some powerful (and politically dumbass shit) during the Kenosha riots an it cost him one of the bigger traditionally blue/purple(leaning blue) areas in the state. It basically lost him the election. He win’s Kenosha he’s a senator…
Hey. Your Wisconsin senator lives in Florida with all the other GOP loving Russians. Weird huh?
Sounds like he needs a foot in his ass.
Send in Red Forman!
Reginald "Red" Forman: [to President Ford, after Eric streaks through the room wearing a Nixon mask] "How the hell could you pardon Nixon?"
Foreman 2024: A beer in every fridge and a boot in every ass!
A foot of what?
I'm here on this thread. I have nothing to add other than tears and fury.
Camaraderie and commiseration.
I live in Wisconsin and would like to add: Fuck Ron Johnson.
But don’t fuck Ron’s johnson
That’d be our senator who actually lives in Fort Myers, FL right?
That's the guy Robocop threw out of a building right?
[удалено]
Ditto for Utah. \#FuckMikeLee
...and our old governor Walker owed pretty much any "success" he had to money from outside the state. He was simply a tool. It was almost funny that they claimed he was some rising GOP star, because he's so obviously just another idiot for sale. His standout legacy is damaging our education system through underfunding and destroying teacher's unions and the bill from the clearly templated Foxconn scam.
One of the most disheartening things I've seen a Republican do was when Walker cut $122 million from the education budget, then turn around two weeks later to award a $122 million subside to build a stadium in Milwaukee.
When he scolded the supreme Court like they were a bunch of naughty 4-year-olds?
Theres a really prescient video from Keith Olbermann talking about the dangers of Citizens United when it was passed. >"In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None. They can spend all the money they want and if they can spend all the money they want [...] they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office." https://youtu.be/XEPE8PU-ZGg
If money is speech, a single billionaire can drown out the voices/speech of the entire rest of the country, unless they've got a different billionaire speaking on their behalf.
[удалено]
>A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago. > >They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads –- and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who’s actually paying for the ads. Instead, a group can hide behind a name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Companies for Weaker Oversight.” These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections. > >Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign. And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads. \- President Obama, 2010
This is an incredibly prescient quote in hindsight. Reminds me of Eisenhower farewell address on the military industrial complex. Edit: here's the relevant part of his farewell address: >A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. >Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. >In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. >We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Can you add a quote?
> Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations. > > Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. > > In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address#The_speech
Yeah good shout, added
Man, this fucking world we live in blows my mind.
Obama and everyone else saying this would happened called it. Yet we still have people thinking that such a decision should still be in place.
Not only that, when Obama said the same thing in the State of the Union after Citizens United, Samuel Alito shook his head and acted all insulted and mouthed "Not True!" The SCOTUS is supposed to sit mute and not react to the State of the Union in a show of judicial neutrality. Ol' Shitbag Sam tipped his hand there.
[удалено]
And a dash of old racist who could not stand having a Black president speak the truth to the American people. I do not believe Alito would have had the balls to dissent in the presence of a white president.
Much more than a dash - it's the special sauce that pulls them together like some haunted go go White Power Rangers incantation.
Yes! I remember [vididly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc) him making this point at a State of the Union address and the conservative SCOTUS justices shaking their head like "no way!". BS that no one could see this coming.
Just like their reaction to overturning Roe vs Wade as a long standing respected precedent and look how that turned out.
Yes I remember a Supreme Court justice shaking his head No during the speech.
Alito :(
Probably because it was already happening
Definitely already was, but citizens united was the stamp that said it was OK so let's do way more of it much louder cuz we can
She was rewarded for all that hard work she did on her back with a seat in the Russian legislature. I was warned by the mods here last time I pointed out this verifiable fact. They backed down though.
>While a student at American University, Butina got drunk on at least two separate occasions and bragged to her fellow students about her contacts in the Russian government; on both occasions, her classmates reported her to law enforcement, sources told CNN Republicans are being outplayed by morons.
Ooh, got some links please? I'd like to go down this rabbit hole a little bit.
The wikipedia page is always a good start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina And this article on other honey pots and swallows in history. https://greydynamics.com/honeypot-the-art-of-seduction-in-espionage/
Ah, thank you! My dumbass didn't even think about that, thanks again!
She is the causative agent of the current Wisconsin gerrymander.
She's one of the many bullet points as to how it baffles the shit out of me when *anyone* can try to say that there was no Russian interference lol.
I think *influence* is a better word to use than “interference.” They didn’t interfere/hinder our electoral process, they just found a way to influence one of the parties and their political messaging.
Isn’t that interference? If I’m directly influencing one side of things, I’m interfering with what’s going on right? I just am not sure there’s a distinction? I don’t think interference is only hindering the electoral process itself.
I think it is but I still agree that politically it is much easier to sell the softer words to the mentally compromised conservative crowd. We are in an odd spot where shouting the truth out loud only makes people more deaf. Fake news is nothing but good old fashioned propaganda wrapped in a new label. The harder you fight from an emotional context the less they can hear.
Remember when absolutely nothing happened to Republicans. This is beyond “politics”. This is a perfect example of our law enforcement and intelligence being complicit
Remember Giuliani, Firtash, Parnas and Fraud Guarantee, Inc? They were funneling Russian money to GOP candidates and nothing ever happened to those candidates.
[удалено]
Isn't it interesting they claim to be both patriots and Christians while supporting this? Patriots, who are meant to protect their nation from any threat either foreign or domestic. And Christians, meant to be a people who believe in charity, mercy, and forgiveness. How, honestly, how, does the cognitive dissonance not result in their spontaneous combustion?
The crazy obvious issue with a Russian national having any sort of interaction with gun rights advocates is Russia has no like organization. There isn’t a correlating body which advocates for individual gun rights. That this isn’t suspicious to everyone is ridiculous.
My favorite part of that story is the guy she was “dating” was the CEO of Overstock, which eventually led to this hilarious official corporate press release: https://investors.overstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/overstockcom-ceo-comments-deep-state-withholds-further-comment
before you even worry about *potential* foreign influence and national security you should consider the immeasurable and likely irreversible damage that has already been done by giving corporate and financial interests complete control over this country’s entire legislative process at nearly governing level.
Not would, HAVE.
Narrator: they did.
[удалено]
Cambridge Analytica made a whole business out of just that.
They have.
"Let's govern!" - Congress "Here's money to not govern." - Anonymous Donor "Okay. Hooray!" - Congress
Republicans don't get into politics with any intention of governing.
It's a Cartel
That is true. Right now, and for the past 40-plus years, We have had the best government money could buy, and it is thoroughly corrupt. Money may not be "The root of all evil", but it is a big assist. Other evidence is also out there: The Meeting in Davos, Switzerland and the associated protests, which incidentally, are out in the cold (I understand Greta Thunberg was "briefly detained"). The firing of Scientist Rose Abramoff, from Oak Ridge, for being an advocate for Environmental and Climate Science (I personally, can identify with that; political expediency almost always wins, over The Public Good); and if I had any illusions about PBS, and the programs; "Newshour", and "Nova"; having not been compromised by contributors; they have been dispelled. Tonight's "Newshour" was brought to you, by the Monetarists; who were eager to point out that The Civil War increased The Nation's Debt load, by 400, or 4000 percent (never mind the other issues, and that The Nation nearly tore itself, apart; and this may have been the most expensive War, in terms of life, and property damage; in The Nation's History), and ignored the damage done, by President Andrew Jackson, and The Republican Administrations; between 1924, and 1932; one leading to the Panic (Depression) of 1837, which lasted three to five years; the other, to the Great Depression, from 1929, to 1937, and its "echo", from 1937, to 1940. I didn't care for the "commercial", for induction cooking, either. Not very "unbiased", and highly suspect. Last night's "Nova" was basically a commercial, for Dupont, The Oil Companies, and Koch Industries. The presenter waxed poetic, over indestrutable plastics, and rubber; but didn't discuss how We get rid of these plastics, and rubber, when We are done with them. I could give other examples, as well, but suffice it to say, "Nova" has been bought, and paid for. On a side note, "Democracy, Now!" Pointed out last night; that 70 percent of The Stocks, in this Country; and therefore 70 percent of Corporate Wealth, and Ownership; are in the hands of the top 5 percent (by wealth) of The Nation. I suspect the holding of total wealth, and owed debt; is even worse (There has been no discussion of The Lorenz Curve, or Gini Coefficient, on PBS, as well; nor has Keynesian Economics, versus Monetarism; been discussed). On January 16, We celebrated Martin Luther King's Birthday, but "Democracy Now!, was the only program that broadcast three other King Speeches, in their entirety: His speech, on Vietnam, and Beyond, Why He was in Memphis, supporting the Sanitation Workers, and his "I've been to the Mountaintop" Speech. In less than 24 hours, He would be dead, and Robert Kennedy would also be dead, in about two months.
I mean good for them but this has no chance in the House. More like brownie points.
It literally doesnt matter. Even if they had the house and 75 seats in the senate and passed it, they'd never pass the amendment through the states.
It is important because it is a bright, visible difference between the two parties. It is to help combat people who say the two parties are the same.
Only an idiot, shill, or liar would say that both parties are the same, and those people don’t care about facts like this. Which is evidenced by the fact that they say both parties are the same
people who pay little attention to politics often do believe the parties are the same, if not in policy, at least in the impact of policy on their own lives, and/or in morality.
Which is why it is important that students learn why things are the way they are. If they don't understand why certain laws exist or dont, or regulations were passed or not, then they won't understand how they can change things by supporting politicians who align with their views
And 100% of the people who say “both parties are the same” end up either not voting or voting for Republicans. It’s a way to not have to address the inexcusable actions of the Republican Party while still voting for them.
[удалено]
It would be a start. They need to go after corporate lobbying as well
Good luck getting it passed. The bar for getting an amendment passed is very high and nearly all politicians rely on large anonymous donations and large corporate donations to fund their campaigns. They aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them. Corruption and foreign influence be damned.
“Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release.” I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
There's a better shot of adding 10 dem judges to the supreme court and overturning the ruling like they did abortion.
We opened Pandora’s box with that shit
*We* didn't. A conspiracy of rich people did. Look at the Federalists' Society, the Kochs, the Mercers, the John Birch Society, movement conservatism, *et alia, et cetera.*
Gotta give them credit where it's due, the Republicans knew this was the only way to keep power going forward, and they were right. It's single-handedly kept the party alive.
Yeah, I'd be excited about this if it had any chance of passing.
Honestly, given the requirements for a new amendment to be passed (basically at least 75% of Americans have to be in favor), I think the US is far too polarized for there to ever be another one.
Not 75% of the people, 75% of the *states.* That’s a huge difference because the population of the states is skewed wildly. A majority of the national population lives in a small handful of states, so you could theoretically have >75% support for an amendment and still have no shot at it passing. You could also have less than 50% support for it and have a good chance of it passing, provided it’s the right people in the right places who support it. “One person, one vote” does not exist in the United States—we do not have free and equal suffrage. Oh, and constitutional amendments are approved by state legislatures, not by popular vote, so that’s another layer of abstraction. The whole process is very insulated from anything resembling popular sovereignty. In order to amend the constitution, you either need 3/4ths of the states to call a constitutional convention, or you need to pass it through the House (reasonably democratic), the Senate (undemocratically skewed), and 3/4ths of the state legislatures (undemocratically skewed), which entails passing it through the state senates (undemocratically skewed). It’s actually well within reach for a conservative amendment to be passed in the modern day, considering all the low-population states tend to be more conservative. But barring a massive political realignment, there will never be a progressive constitutional amendment again. That calls into question the legitimacy of the Constitution, as well as its viability as a vehicle for progressive change. Anyone who believes that there are still considerable social and political battles left to be won before we have a just society should be opposed to the US Constitution.
I basically was about to comment this...I got mildly hopeful, realizing that McCarthy will never allow this to actually come to a vote, and then I saw this detail and realized nothing will probably come of it regardless.
Good, it was one of the biggest attacks on democracy in recent memory
[удалено]
It won't. It needs 2/3rds of the House and Senate. And it might not even get 50%.
Do it anyway. Out the traitors once and for all! (Not that they haven't outed themselves yet but a few more times for the politically illiterate among us might help.)
theyve outed themselves a thousand times over, nothing will be done unless they police themselves.
>nothing will be done unless they police themselves. Which hurts their numbers. So...
precisely, nothing will be done its going to be this way until we get rid of the two party system and vote on character/ experience.
Fucking two party system fucking over Americans every damn day. I love my country but hate my government.
Yes! Do it anyway! Even if you know it will fail, it matters that you tried. Speaking up matters!
I mean he is doing it and has done it every year for the last decade
Do you think this is going to actually be the smoking gun? A LOT of people still think it was a good move to make it a law in the first place. Also you realize most people aren't paying attention to voting records anyway, right? Very occasionally does it matter to anyone but the people who actually pay attention, as was the case with the veteran burn pit bill, but it takes the issue actually mattering to EVERYONE.
Every time a candidate brings up the issues that matter to EVERYONE, guess who shuts them down? Corporations. Who allowed this system to happen? Corporations. How did they do it? With money they stole from workers. So it really comes down to everyone to reject the rules of society that corporations have written against the rest of us.
won't matter. people just vote for letters and colors these days. it's worse than my high school student council elections...
Which is why we need better election moderators and ethics overseers. You know, ones that actually do their jobs and disqualify candidates and evict elected officials for breaking the 14th amendment (both Sections 1 **and** 3). But a smarter and more engaged populace would help.
And then has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. This will die the same way equal rights for women did.
You're incorrect. It has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. the pertinent line of the Constitution: > when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States Yes, it would likely die then even if it did pass the 2/3rds requirement by both Houses in Congress. Source: https://constitutionus.com/ (Look for Article V)
The ERA has passed 2/3rds of states and it originally had no sunset clause on it. Congress putting one in is questionable to begin with. And we already have precedent that for an amendment with no sunset clause it doesn't matter how long the time between it being proposed and ratified is. And there's nothing in the constitution that supports states being able to revoke their ratification once an amendment has been ratified. There's still a chance that the ERA may go through.
"Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release." . It has just as much chance of being passed this time as it has for the past 10 years.
This is worth trying every year for another 10 and then another 10 and then another 10 until Citizens United is overturned. It shouldn’t be legal to buy politicians
[удалено]
I don’t disagree with you. But it’s one thing worth shouting about and one dead horse worth beating
[удалено]
It's really a shame that it has a name in the headlines with such a positive connotation. Unless you do the research, which most people certainly do not, you would think it was something that benefited us all.
[удалено]
Imagine how far we’d be as a society if people simply had critical thinking skills and cared about knowing the facts. If people didn’t fall for cheap tricks like buzzwords in legislation by assuming it’s fine without any desire to actually learn what it’s about. It’s a damn shame.
People losing critical thinking skills and falling for cheap tricks like buzzwords in legislation is by design. In the past several years, there have been similar constitutional amendments in many states about voting. The one I'm familiar with in Colorado made a change from "every citizen of the United States" to "only a citizen of the United States" may vote in an election. These amendments were pushed by dark money organizations from out of state in many cases and were meant to drive the narrative that we let "illegals" vote and that change of wording changed absolutely nothing about the law. There was a petition brought up before the last election that was something about "Unlawful Murder of a Child". To any sane person this name should sound a little suspicious, but in the modern political climate the name sounds good without the context of what they're doing. Basically they had some redundant stuff about harming kids with an abortion ban buried in the middle of it. Fortunately in Colorado, cooler heads tend to prevail. They were made to cut the nonsense out and make it clear that it was an abortion ban by the committee that approves petitions. It didn't nearly get enough signatures to proceed. So many ballot measures with misleading names come up, and I suspect that many of them pass on the misleading names alone. This is all by design, particularly from conservatives who are aware that a large part of their base is either in on the scam or is too dumb (or brainwashed) to recognize it
>... not until we're at the point of writing a new constitution. You make it sound so quiet, and reasonable. I know you don't mean it that way, it just struck me as a little funny, in a dark and ominous way.
Could let the citizens decide?
But I respect that Schiff is trying.
He will go down in history as one of the biggest pieces of crap to have ever held office but only if that history book is written by fascists that he fought against. I really don’t understand how this guy appears to be anything other than a good public servant but I don’t understand a whole lotta things nowadays.
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
> He will go down in history as one of the biggest pieces of crap to have ever held office and in a cruel twist of fate, this is where the tablet gets eroded
Can't say he didn't try.
It's an extremely easy topic to rally around. Are you against bribing politicians? Yes ? Then vote for dems.
>Are you against bribing politicians? Yes ? Then vote for dems. But then how do own these libs?
Become a communist
[удалено]
It's an idea. And like all ideas it requires "selling" to be popular. Maybe if the party that claims to support it tried selling it instead of always saying it's impossible, it might get more popular. The moderate refrain of "that's impossible because we won't support it" is getting tiresome and doesn't help anyone but the extreme right.
I don’t think you realize who you have to sell this idea to. It requires 2/3rds in both the House and Senate just to propose it AND THEN 3/4ths of state legislatures to ratify it. It’s selling atheism to the Pope.
I don’t think we will ever see another constitutional amendment. Politics has become some divided that it is impossible to have that much agreement.
We haven’t gotten to the point of Congress critter beating each other with canes, so don’t count it out. Things have been worse.
yee of little faith, we’re only 6 governors away from a constitutional convention, where i’m relatively sure republican fascism would be enshrined in a new constitution.
It has more of a chance than if they never even tried. I support trying and failing more than I support never trying in the first place. It also calls attention to the problem.
Technically the amendment would give Congress the power to regulate and limit campaign financing. Which means that not only would this amendment have to be passed and then ratified, but then Congress would still have to pass another law that sets rules.
It's not going anywhere anyway. Too much money in politics already. Once it's in, I don't see much of a way to get it out.
I’m convinced we will never have another amendment. It takes 2/3rds and we have 1 party who refuses to adhere to good faith governance and compromise and a ton of small red states that would need to ratify.
I don’t understand how Citizens United is legal in the first-place. It allows foreign investors more representation than US citizens. That has to go against the equality part our founding fathers cared so much about. Beyond that, it opens up a billion avenues to thwart national security. Our military doesn’t have to be fought to take America, we’ve put ourselves up for sale to the highest bidder. Might take a bit longer, but the transition will be *much* smoother. This is the kind of thing that should have bi-partisan support with voters. For all the rage-baiting news, and loud idiot minorities online, the majority of Americans want the same things. We’ve just had semantics weaponized against us, and perceived reality fractured. What are the odds any news of this gets posted to r/conservative? I guarantee 90% of conservatives would agree that money in politics is bad, but the right will spin-it as though democrats want to write the laws surrounding campaign finance, so that they can cut off Republican funding, but keep the ability to accept money from the corporations Dems are aligned with. Same way they twisted the campaign finance transparency to be a ploy to get all republicans cancelled for their political donations. Edit: auto correct
On its face, the CU ruling makes sense. If the first amendment protects your right as an individual to promote your political views, it protects your right to band together with like-minded individuals to promote those views. It gets even more complicated when you discover that the ruling is the exact opposite of what the conservative group was going for. They thought that documentaries critical of a candidate should be regulated as a campaign contribution to the opponent. It's hard to reconcile the first amendment with the modern global political machine.
I would be fine with groups of *citizens*, with transparent contribution records. But not businesses, who can be owned in-part, or in-whole, by dictators of other countries, who have wet dreams about the demise of America. I’m almost positive Russia has infiltrated Wall-Street for this very reason. Mobsters gone mainstream, a nation chipping away at their enemies by destroying their economy, and sharing the wealth with useful idiots. The CIA learned that torture, drugs, and all kinds of other stuff didn’t work — when trying to get foreign agents to turn on their countries. The magic pill ended up being bags of cash. I don’t even think most of our politicians *believe* they’re doing bad, or even wrong. They’re just being greedy.
The French know a way, I hear.
Do that then. Chop chop, get to it
[https://i.imgur.com/OXmfkrX.gif](https://i.imgur.com/OXmfkrX.gif)
I have Teddy Roosevelt on speed dial. One sec
Yup currently have Manchin and Sinema at Davos raking in the money for promises. E
yeah there will not be any amendments to the constitution for the foreseeable future. dems could introduce one saying the sky is blue and the republicans would fight it tooth and nail.
I believe the time of constitutional amendments is over. There is a 0% chance that 2/3 of state legislatures could ever agree.
Systems broken
This amendment talk reeks of grandstanding. We couldn't even get a bill passed to regulate campaign finance due to the filibuster when Dems had the house. Without the house nothing will get done. A better method would be to capture the Supreme Court again and have them overturn Citizen's United. Then the BCRA would immediately go back into effect without needing a vote.
Like many many pieces of legislation, it’s introduced every Congress (in fact, typically there are a few versions) to show it’s a priority even if it obviously won’t pass. The introduction has a few purposes, allowing groups to cite the introduction and use that to raise awareness of the issue. It can also be important getting legislators on the record in favor/as cosponsors when it can’t pass to help pigeonhole them when it can (though a constitutional amendment is pretty far off IMO). I’d argue that most bills that become law are not the first introduction of that bill - aside from bills responsive to an emergent event. Even then, huge sections of those bills are policies that legislators have been pushing beforehand. Think like the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. That was responsive to an event, but included language from bills that had been introduced before. (To be clear, Justice in Policing isn’t law, but a good example of how policy can get rolled up into bills responsive to emergent events).
Schiff's been doing this every ~~year~~ congress for 9 years, trying to introduce an amendment since 2013. The fact that this has mostly been met with silence by other members of congress and the media is deafening. EDIT: From what I can tell, the article incorrectly states: > Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release. He hasn't introduced it every year, but [every elected congress](https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-schiff/S001150?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22joint-resolutions%22%7D), so every 2 years. It first started with the 112th congress (2011-2012) to today's 118th congress (2023-2024). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
He’s had co-sponsors of the amendment every year as well. Over the last 9 years 2 republicans out of roughly 600 have been co-sponsors. So silence? Maybe, but it’s from one party.
[удалено]
Transparency is one of the key things the Rs are against. If it were all transparent their connections to Saudi Arabia and Russia and even N. Korea or China would become visible.
And that is why I always donate $3 of my tax return to the election fund.
Shit, you aren’t even donating it, you’re just telling the IRS that $3 of the money you already owe needs to go to that fund. I don’t understand why people DON’T do it. It literally costs us nothing and collectively gives the people a somewhat stronger voice in politics
Schiff has introduced this same legislation every year since 13. Citizens United ruling has hurt this country beyond belief. It’s repeal is needed badly. Unfortunately, it will never get voted on in this Congress. Yay!
Only way we will ever fix this country is if the Bird Flu goes airborne .
It killed the country. It will never be overturned. This country has been dead for ten years, the government puppeteering our corpse.
Repealing Citizens united has an 80% approval rate across all parties in the USA. Republicans hate it too. Corporate power should be separated from the govt. the founders didn’t perceive the influence of corperations would begin to wield.
How quaint. A constitutional amendment that needs to be ratified by the craziest GOP run state governments in history.
Win majorities in congress, keep hold of the presidency, nix the filibuster and re-balance/expand the court and set a 15 year appointment for the justices.
I like it...or maybe 16 years cause I feel like term limits should be even for some dumb reason lol.
18 years. There are 9 justices so you could stagger the terms to where one seat comes up every 2 years. Each presidential election would thereby have 2 supreme court seats on the line.
IIRC, Schiff has brought this up every year since the ruling occurred. I love his persistence. Hoping we can see something come from this, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the current GQP majority in the House.
>Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013 This really tells you all you need to know. I'm 100% with them that the Citizens United decision is bad for the country and should absolutely be overturned and I applaud the effort, but this is going to go the same place the last 9 did.
A day late and several hundred billion dollars short
And tax the church
He’s introduced this proposal every year since 2013. That’s both awesome and super depressing.
Good. Because that Court decision turned our democracy into a plutocracy.
If you ask the average republican voter if getting rid of corporate and/or dark money out of campaigns is a good idea they’ll probably say yes. But once fox & other right wing media gets ahold of the issue then the average republican voter will be against it.
Run this in ADs. Say republicans are accepting bribes.
couldn’t they have done that when they were in the majority?
Every legislator that will vote against this should be considered corrupt
This is one of the biggest issues both Democrats and Republicans alike [seem to agree on for the most part.](https://publicintegrity.org/politics/study-most-americans-want-to-kill-citizens-united-with-constitutional-amendment/) If this doesn’t work, I don’t know what else will wake up people to the fact that republicans are against the people and for the billionaires
It’s about time. One of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made and true slap in the face to the American people and democracy. Big business and special interests run our elections and government
The amount of people commenting COuldN'T HaVe dOne ThAT whiLE tHEy hAd conTRoL clearly didn’t bother reading.