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.

  • fbn@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    would have been more useful when you had any kind of power to get a bill passed, but thanks anyway i guess

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Stow that shit. This is exactly what they need to be doing. They need to make the argument to the American people that they have better ideas and a better plan for America, and then create a voting record for Congress so they can beat them in the next election. Of course it won’t pass, but if they give up without even trying, then the Nazis can act like they are the only option.

      • fbn@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree, but i aint gonna stow it. Why didnt they introduce it when they were able to maybe pass it? Im not going to refrain from criticizing them just because worse people are in power.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          when they were able to maybe pass it?

          Lmfao when was this? A constitutional amendment of any kind has zero chance of getting passed by anyone and hasn’t in the entire time the Citizens United ruling has existed.

          Democrats around that time could barely muster enough votes from the Republicans to pass the milquetoast, conservative ACA via simple majority. You’re deluded if you think Democrats ever could’ve plausibly reversed Citizens United via amendment.

          • fbn@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            you’re right, i didnt read closely enough, a constitutional amendment is and would have been hot air at any time since the descision.

            A law would be something that they might be able to get passed if they actually wanted to pass it, which they dont, because thats how they all got into power.

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              A law would be something that they might be able to get passed if they actually wanted to pass it

              I can understand someone continually misunderstanding how this works; what I can’t understand at all is why people keep upvoting it so heavily with so little pushback. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling on something, they’re making a ruling on whether something is permitted under the Constitution. In order to reverse Citizens United, you have to either a) amend that Constitution so it no longer says the words that the SCOTUS ruled on or b) wait for a new SCOTUS which will overturn that prior ruling.