this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
31 points (97.0% liked)
news
389 readers
1381 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always think about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010. That decision effectively removed restrictions on corporate donations to politicians, finding that those donations counted as speech, and (oddly) affirming the concept of corporate personhood in the US.
But obviously, corporations will always have resources that are orders of magnitude greater than a person, which makes equating them absurd. In effect, it allows corporations to own whatever politicians they want, and because it's the rich who also own the corporations, they just end up with vastly more representation.
It's barely been 16 years, and here we are.
Also Harlow V Fitzgerald. That case laid the groundwork for all of this illegally, and no one involved could be charged with anything, as the illegal amendment of section 1981 of the federal code happened in 1884. At that time a single unnamed secretary took it upon themselves to amend a law, by removing a crucial 16 word clause, while copying the 1881 Congressional Record into the Federal Register. Because of that Qualified Immunity became a thing in 1982.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
there is a reason its one of the most common thing for bernie to talk about.