this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
329 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2767 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

Elon Musk’s threats to fund primary challengers to Democrats in safe districts, following his role in nearly forcing a government shutdown, have reignited calls for campaign finance reform.

Musk, who spent $277 million backing Republicans, criticized a bipartisan spending bill and used his platform to sway GOP opposition, influencing legislative outcomes.

His intervention has sparked outrage among Democrats, with leaders like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warning of rising oligarchy and calling for reforms to limit super PAC and dark money influence.

The episode highlights growing concerns over Musk's political power and its impact on democracy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] makeshiftreaper 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Hey I know just made more money than the Roman empire was worth by manipulating politics but ummmmm... could you please make rules that stop you from beating everyone else?"

The time to stop this was in 2016. Democrats had every opportunity and continued to fellate their corporate overlords instead of even paying lip service to their base. We're in the "find out" phase. I'm sorry you're losing your job, but guess what, it only gets worse from here

[–] finitebanjo 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Citizens United decision was in 2010, and after 2011 they lost the votes needed ever since, so probably more like 2010/2011 was the only time they had enough power to do anything about it.

To be clear, a law banned PACs in 2002 but the courts decided that banning the pacs violated the first ammendment, meaning that simply passing a new law wouldn't cut it. You would need either a constitutional amendment, replacing the courts, or some other measure involving a supermajority.

[–] blazeknave 4 points 10 hours ago

I remember calling it the last free election back then and people said I was being dramatic.

15 years of examples later, Project 2025 is on our doorstep and I'm still being dramatic ..

[–] makeshiftreaper 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Great point. I'm sure like most things related to shitty American politics if you go back far enough there's Reagan bullshit in there too. We had a lot of opportunities to not be here, and yet here we are

[–] finitebanjo 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah I really wish I didn't have to think about Reagan's bullshit like all the time.

[–] makeshiftreaper 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] SmackemWittadic 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Just to add a little bit of humour to this situation:

Reading your comment without the periods becomes "a fucking men brother" which can be interpreted however you like

[–] CharlesDarwin 5 points 23 hours ago

Nixon was terrible, but the ball really, REALLY got rolling under Ronnie Raygun.