this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
898 points (99.2% liked)

politics

20345 readers
2939 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Where was this a decade ago?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because there's no chance in hell that this will pass under a Republican majority.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Get them on the fucking record. Keep introducing it and have it dominate news cycles. The biggest sense of optimistism I had during the Harris campaign was her specifically calling for a reform of corporate personhood.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Long overdue, and probably too late.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week 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)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (9 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...

[–] explodicle 11 points 1 week 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)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can't quite decide if this is just virtue signalling or not from the Democrats. I know some of them would genuinely support it, but this feels very much like it is too little, too late - if they were actually serious about saving democracy in the US, they could have done this when it actually stood a chance of being useful.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Criticism against CU isn't new, Dems had every opportunity to propose this when they had control of the WH and Congress just 3 years ago. Only now are they making a scene of reeling back corporate influence because they know it'll never pass

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

It was proposed almost immediately after CU but then, just as now, they never had the support to get it done.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

John Roberts is a traitor to this country.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

A little too little, a little too late. They did jack shit when they had power.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes. Suture up that corpse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Citizens United has been fucked since jump

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›