• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    28 months ago

    So let’s see Kamala’s plan to end this bullshit… Obviously Trump wouldn’t, but Kamala might if we push enough

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      Lmao this take that Kamala is somehow immune to the realities of our political financing structures makes no sense to me

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        28 months ago

        Not immune, and not calling for her to abstain… But she could easily say she wants to change the system and how. It’s not even controversial and would get her plenty of points from the left to the center.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    148 months ago

    Republicans don’t want to get rid of it because it helps them against Democrats. Democrats don’t want to get rid of it because it helps them lock out progressives. We’re stuck with it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      How would the Democrats “get rid of” a supreme court decision?

      Proponents of which party brought the case? Appointees of which party were in the deciding majority on the court?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        How would the Democrats “get rid of” a supreme court decision?

        Stacking the courts and bringing another case. Or an amendment.

        So like I said, we’re stuck with it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    38 months ago

    This is how we get rid of the Deep State! Thank you Trump’s Supreme Court (who has been doing the Same Things as Citizen United but for our OTHER Rights!)!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38 months ago

    Pretty sure I might be on this list. Gave $20 not too long ago, so I’m about to buy some laws.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    358 months ago

    They always give these draconian laws positive sounding names. Also, all that disposable money could’ve be used for social programs through taxation

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        248 months ago

        They appear to be mistaking the shorthand for the Supreme Court ruling to be the name of a law. In fairness, bills do often have overly patriotic names that hide their paradoxical purposes.

        • Billiam
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          Typically, the collection of judicial opinions are referred to as “case law” if one wanted to be generous.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          78 months ago

          Well the same principle is at play here, since Citizens United is a deceitful name for an astroturfed, billionaire-funded organization that had absolutely no involvement from ordinary citizens.

        • KingJalopy
          link
          fedilink
          98 months ago

          The ministry of Truth would never lie! It’s right there in the name!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    y’all come on now, just cause they donated a couple billion bucks does not mean their opinion matters more than an average citizen does it?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    488 months ago

    Thanks a lot John Roberts and Sam Alito for fucking up our politics. Citizens United may be the worst Supreme Court decision since the Civil War

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      108 months ago

      There’s a conservative group trying to use Dred Scott as a precedent to disqualify Kamala Harris. The civil war never ended, it just went cold.

  • Aurelius
    link
    fedilink
    138 months ago

    Are there other western countries that have a similar rule regarding money in politics? I’m not familiar with rules regarding political donations in other countries

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      248 months ago

      Not really. Most actually have very strict rules about who can donate

      • Aurelius
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Are the rules around who can donate or around how much they can donate? My understanding is that in the US, most people can donate directly to a candidate (within a limit) but you can donate unlimited amounts “indirectly” to the candidate

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          118 months ago

          Most have rules stipulating who can, and how much and where.

          In the US, that’s how it works. The caveat is that the people who fund it are supposed to be know. This is why we have PACs that act as a buffer between the actual donors and the public.

          Ken griffin (the idiot billionaire in the photograph… of Citadel Securities infamy,) recently dropped millions to defeat a measure that would have seen taxed “enough” that it was profitable to do that.

          Do you think it would have worked if the scare-ads said “this message brought to you by a rich fuck you all hate”?