this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
902 points (99.1% liked)

politics

20340 readers
3628 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

House Democrats, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, introduced the We the People Amendment to overturn Citizens United, aiming to curb corporate influence in elections.

The constitutional amendment asserts that constitutional rights apply only to individuals, not corporations, and mandates full disclosure of political contributions.

Jayapal cited Elon Musk’s massive campaign spending and subsequent financial gains as proof of the ruling’s harm.

Advocacy groups praised the move, calling it necessary to combat corporate power and dark money in politics, but Republicans have not backed the proposal.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RufusFirefly@lemmy.world 39 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] andxz@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago

Way too little, way too late.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 44 points 6 days ago

Do this and keep doing it until it works. This isn't a moonshot. It's normal, sensible change. Everybody shut your fucking mouths with all this secondary "it isn't going to work now" bitch energy. Get behind the shit you want, loudly.

[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VeryVito@lemmy.ml 47 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Good, but why the hell didn’t they do this when they had control of Congress?

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Because they don't want it to pass obviously. When was the last time you went into your bosses office and demanded a pay cut??

This is just pandering. Maybe one or two of them actually want it but the rest will just pretend to care because they know the genie is never going back in the bottle

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 26 points 6 days ago (7 children)

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.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

To late, but DO IT!!

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago (5 children)

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...

[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 6 days ago

The biggest issue is that Dems get rich from this shit too. Even if they had a massive majority it wouldn't pass.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Now they ask for this? After having zero majority in either house? Acter letting a nazi waltz into the white house?

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Would have been a lot cooler if Biden did this as a executive action. But you know spinless Democrats and all that...

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

But that would have upset the capital class and Biden is a proud capitalist so he would never put democracy before profits. Liberal Democrats only ever do things when they know that they don't have to worry about it actually happening.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (3 children)

How would an executive action make this work? Can you explain that?

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago

It would not. And they can not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t it be nice if they did shit like this when they were actually in power?

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It would fail the vote either way, as a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority vote - and there has not been a supermajority in the Senate since 1979. Which was the last time the Democrats successfully put through an amendment, before anyone further complains they do nothing with power when they get it.

Depending on how jaded you are this is either a stunt, or the particular (left-leaning?) Democrats involved in tabling the legislation are trying to raise the issue their constituents have asked them to. Either way it'll force the Republicans to show their hand and all vote against it.

[–] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah it would have forced the republicans to show their hamd back when democrats did control most of the government too Maybe a bit more trying things that would 'force the republicans to show their hand' would have been useful when something actually could have been done about it. Everyone knows the republicans fucking hand now.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Everyone knew the Republicans 'hands' back before the federal election too - they haven't suddenly switched their platform or policies. Nothing has changed. You make it sound like there was vaguery in the leadup?

Just a whole lotta rubes who voted for Republicans after listening to people like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are finally having the penny drop that they've been conned.

Gosh, if only someone had told them once or twice in the last decade that Donald Trump is a multiple-convicted world famous conman and fraud. Damn Democrats!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Do the people in these comment sections not grasp how Constitutional amendments work?

It requires two thirds of the Senate. Which Democrats have not had in the past half century.

That is why Democrats didn't try it when they had a majority. Because it would not work.

People really just want an excuse to blame Democrats for everything.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

It's far more complicated than that to get an amendment passed including a route that doesn't require Congress.

Second, there is value in trying things that will fail. It sends a signal to the citizenry that this isn't acceptable. This can be a good just as much as it can damage their reputation. In my opinion, the Dems need to rebuild a reputation that is connected to the people in some meaningful way. I don't get the sense that Democratic leadership see that as the core issue

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Maybe if they actually tried to do shit people would give them more power?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shaggyb@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes. Suture up that corpse.

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Yep, now that it's far too late and the damage is done and they don't have a majority.

finally something actually based, this would be such a good amendment.

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh gee, another Dem exercise in futility. What a bunch of feckless losers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inbeesee@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Seems like they realize repubs are winning the 'get rich taking bribes' game so hard it's erasing America. Seems like it's bad enough to alienate donors? Edit: a word

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Pelosi also got rich taking bribes. Only socialists like Sanders and AOC actually fight for us

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Oh NOW Dems want to overturn Citizens United... When they have no more power! 💀🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Fucking useless.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] chemicalprophet@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 days ago

This is moving waaaaaaay too fast. They really should rethink this before they do anything rash! Fucking losers

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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?

load more comments
view more: next ›