Fuck Citizens United.
Just gonna leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
The current president, David Bossie… served in executive positions for President Donald Trump's and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reelection campaigns.
As I always say;
The rivers of ruin run deep.
More swampy than a river imo
The swamps of stupidity run derp
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
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.
Imagine this money put into public healthcare...
Every drop helps, but the US spends around $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare. If we changed to single-payer, cut out the middle-man multi-pipeline network of private insurers thereby also lowering administrative overhead that last I checked was around 30%... We would likely achieve what most other nations are achieving at half the per-capita cost we pay now.
Citizens United.
But just a few, incredibly rich ones. So it’s like the opposite of what the name seems to imply.
"We The People" never included the peasants.
They always give these draconian laws positive sounding names. Also, all that disposable money could've be used for social programs through taxation
What law are you referring to?
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.
The ministry of Truth would never lie! It's right there in the name!
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.
Typically, the collection of judicial opinions are referred to as "case law" if one wanted to be generous.
democracy :)
If we don't turn over the institutions of government to the highest bidder, all the ads on TV say we'll get something way worse
Like healthcare for everyone 👻
that is a lot of school lunches
So many out of work hookers and piles of cocaine disappearimg in the morning dew.
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
Not really. Most actually have very strict rules about who can donate
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
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”?
After a certain point, they're just going to cut out the middle-man and say Money = Votes and allow you to bid or hold shares in the office of the President.
Citizens United and SpeechNow fucked us. Until these are overturned, along with the Electoral College and FPTP abolished, dark days are ahead for our Democracy.
At which point we the people would be morally and legally obligated to make that office uninhabitable.
There is always an answer. Just not always a civilized one.
”Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest…”
~hysterical laughter with a backing track of Ominous Latin Chanting~
They're all begging for the guillotine. Why keep them waiting?
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.
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?
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.
SCOTUS does not need a case to reverse itself or review a law. In fact there're startlingly few rules around SCOTUS.
add more justices
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?
Yeah, I keep reading that as "Megaboners"
Is one of them Israel and other foreign governments? Also Pfizer?
So let's see Kamala's plan to end this bullshit... Obviously Trump wouldn't, but Kamala might if we push enough
Lmao this take that Kamala is somehow immune to the realities of our political financing structures makes no sense to me
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.
Pretty sure I might be on this list. Gave $20 not too long ago, so I'm about to buy some laws.
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!)!
It is their country after all we are just guest/the help at this point.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News