867

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Gointhefridge@lemm.ee 163 points 1 week ago

This is one of the single biggest changes we can make to our current electoral system.

Should’ve done this in 2021. This could’ve changed the 2024 election entirely.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

What did they do in 2021 instead?

Probably nothing else going on really. They're just lazy and fat off corporate cash piles, obviously.

[-] Gointhefridge@lemm.ee 42 points 1 week ago

Nothing. That’s the problem. Democrats are so afraid to play an opposition party cause it will negatively affect party leadership and top donors. They want the status quo and are more than likely benefiting from the Trump regime in many ways.

Make no bones about it: top Democrats have been complacent with a hostile takeover of the US government because it is benefiting them.

Progressive Democrats and party newcomers are seeing this reality. They tried to play the game for a bit but got burned like Bernie did. Some democrats are finally growing a backbone to stand up against geriatric party leadership.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Make no bones about it: top Democrats have been complacent with a hostile takeover of the US government because it is benefiting them.

I mean, I'd make a few bones about it. The best time to be an excellent Progressive party is 50 years ago. The next best time is now, though.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Democrats make an opposition move

This is because Dems won't make an opposition move

[-] resin85@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm surprised how quickly people forgot the very first bill the Democrats introduced in 2021 addressed this very topic. The Republicans in the senate killed it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1

Passed House (03/03/2021) For the People Act of 2021

"This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns."

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Biden could have arrested Trump on January 21st, and that would have been that

[-] edg@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

There was less than a 0٪ chance that they could have passed a constitutional ammendment in 2021.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I guess we'll never know because they didn't even try.

But I'm sure they'll have a chance now that they're making a good faith effort! lol.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Love your downvotes. "Nuh uh!! They just didn't want to!"

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

They didn't try. So yes. They didn't want to.

When you don't do something, you don't wanna do the task. When I delay doing the dishes, I'm not wanting to do them despite how much it's useful for the home.

If they didn't push for this in 2021, they didn't want it.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'd argue rank choice is more important.

If you give people actual elections, it shouldn't matter how much money is spent on campaigns

All someone needs is $1,000 for a good website. Lower the barrier to let them on the ballot and let people rank them, and you'll solve the problem.

[-] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

I would love ranked choice. It completely flopped on the state ballot in Colorado this past election because both parties are completely against it

[-] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

We have it in nyc, but it tyrna out a lot of people found it confusing and just rankes their first choice anyways.

[-] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The fact that both parties have been so active in opposing ranked choice voting is proof that it would break their monopolies on power.

[-] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It should have been done immediately, when the ruling came down in 2010, when the Democrats had a majority in the House and Senate, and Obama was the President.

I was one year away from graduating college at the time, getting simultaneous bachelor's degrees in Econ and Poli Sci, trying to explain to people how bad the situation was, and how this may be our only shot at fixing it.

But uh, nope, Obama had already won, the Dems had already swept the House and Senate to near, but not quite super majorities, and most Dem voters were too busy gloating over these victories and pretending that they meant Republicans would never have power over the Federal government again, and actually? you're an asshole for implying Obama and the Dems aren't perfect, in fact you sound racist, get away from me.

Instead, that was indeed the highwater mark for Dem control in the Federal government (in the last 20 years), and they squandered it, then lost some House and Senate seats, then doomed us all by ratfucking Bernie to run the perfect encapsulation of their sanctimonious and haughty elitism, Hillary, who lost to a rapist, racist, fraudlent fascist.

cue curb your enthusiasm theme

this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
867 points (100.0% liked)

politics

20345 readers
2722 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