• @Sanctus
    link
    English
    1194 months ago

    Fuck Citizens United.

  • @Rapidcreek
    link
    484 months ago

    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

    • @Maggoty
      link
      94 months ago

      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.

    • @lennybird
      link
      English
      5
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Citizens United.

    But just a few, incredibly rich ones. So it’s like the opposite of what the name seems to imply.

  • @expatriado
    link
    334 months ago

    They always give these draconian laws positive sounding names. Also, all that disposable money could’ve be used for social programs through taxation

    • @jeffwOP
      link
      54 months ago

      What law are you referring to?

      • @GTKashi
        link
        234 months ago

        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.

        • KingJalopy
          link
          fedilink
          94 months ago

          The ministry of Truth would never lie! It’s right there in the name!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          74 months ago

          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.

        • Billiam
          link
          14 months ago

          Typically, the collection of judicial opinions are referred to as “case law” if one wanted to be generous.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil
      link
      English
      6
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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

    • @postmateDumbass
      link
      24 months ago

      So many out of work hookers and piles of cocaine disappearimg in the morning dew.

  • Aurelius
    link
    134 months ago

    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

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      English
      244 months ago

      Not really. Most actually have very strict rules about who can donate

      • Aurelius
        link
        6
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          English
          114 months ago

          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”?

  • @lennybird
    link
    English
    124 months ago

    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.

    • skulblaka
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      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.

    • @RangerJosie
      link
      24 months ago

      ~hysterical laughter with a backing track of Ominous Latin Chanting~

  • @800XL
    link
    104 months ago

    They’re all begging for the guillotine. Why keep them waiting?

  • Billegh
    link
    64 months ago

    Yeah, I keep reading that as “Megaboners”

  • @iAvicenna
    link
    6
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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?

  • @Ensign_Crab
    link
    English
    64 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      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?

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        14 months ago

        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.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          24 months ago

          SCOTUS does not need a case to reverse itself or review a law. In fact there’re startlingly few rules around SCOTUS.

  • @x0x7
    link
    3
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Is one of them Israel and other foreign governments? Also Pfizer?