903
To hand power 'back to the people,' House Dems propose amendment to reverse Citizens United
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
903 points (99.1% liked)
politics
20341 readers
4156 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dipshits: Dems are just as bad! They don't want to change the system!
Dems: *prove again they want to change the system*
Dipshits: Oh yeah? Well . . . why didn't they do it already then?!?!
Genuinely, why didn't they? Why didnt they do it when they had both the house and Senate? Are you somehow deluded into thinking this will actually go anywhere with the Republicans holding as much power as they currently are? This is just virtue signaling.
Have you heard of the filibuster or the fact that it's been used by default on almost every piece of legislation for decades?
Democrats could have changed the senate rules and killed the filibuster for good.
Stop using the filibuster as an excuse.
See, this is actually a good point.
When did they have the house and the senate? Literally - how many Congressional working days did they have a majority in the House and Senate?
Did you say Zero days? Because that's the right answer. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate
Your link contradicts your point. A 50/50 split with a Democrat tie breaker is a Democrat majority.
Citizen United was decided January 21, 2010. Democrats controlled both House and Senate 2009-2010 and 2021-2022.
A constitutional ammendment takes 2/3s of both chambers and 3/4 of the states. It also takes years. How' the hell were they going to do that in those brief windows with slim majorities?
Finally, someone in this thread remembers high school gov class.
It scares me how many people here don't know the absolute basics of how the government works.
How the hell are they going to do it now?
The house and Senate were literally both controlled by the Dems when Citizens United became a law lmfao
2/3rds of both houses and 38 states to ratify. Don't remember that being the case. Rofl, lol, jajaja
Citizens United became law?
Really? When was that? What was the bill number? Who sponsored Citizens United law?
lmfao what a joke
Law, policy, a lifting of prohibitions, call it whatever you want dude, you haven't proved your point, you're just being pedantic.
Jesus christ, why not comment on sports where your feelings about something are the whole of the matter.
Call it what you want? FFS.
Lol devolving into insults instead of making any kind of worthwhile point huh? I could call it a judgement or decision if that makes your panties untwist.
Point is, Dems had the house and Senate when it went into effect. They've had many opportunities over the years to do something about it, even if that something is just akin to what they are doing now. But it took a billionaire shadow president for them to even make noise about it. It's just virtue signaling.
well, as you so intuitively apprehend, the issue is that it was not a law, it was never passed, and has absolutely zero to do with Democrats having a majority, and passing whatever they want, as your original premise held. Since you've been so kind as to acknowledge that these matters of national legislation can indeed be "called what you want", let's refer to it as a Supreme Court decision.
(Note for those outside the United States: The Supreme Court is a separate branch of the US government, and has only retroactive bearing on the activities of the Congress.)
Now that our collective panties are untwisted, what the fuck do you think a Democratic majority has to do with an individual Supreme Court decision? Is that a worthwhile fucking point? I would say so, yes.
Again - what the fuck do you think that means? It means nothing.
Oh have they? Congressional historian are you? Big into following the vagaries of the House and Senate? No. No you're not. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. "Many opportunities". Give me one. One opportunity when they could do something about it and specifically chose not to. (In other words, whatever they did during that "many opportunity" was much less important than campaign reform.)
Bullshit. You're making up bullshit because you don't know why you're wrong.
Here's a brilliant insight for everyone who's convinced this is a simple situation: it is not. If you've never been involved in anything more complicated than a project rollout or a school play you might not appreciate this, but passing a Constitutional amendments is not just complicated but it's ridiculously difficult to do - because it was set up to be difficult to do. Passing a law only marginally less so.
Should the Democrats have been railing about campaign reform at every speech from the moment the SCOTUS inflicted it on us? Yes. Yes they should. But as it happens there are other things going on in the government, and they may have been limited somewhat by the fact that less than five fucking percent of registered voters can see clear to getting them enough leeway to get it done.
Partially because of this idiot logic that "they could have done it and didn't want to".
Alright man, so you are making crap arguments while cherry picking the parts of my comment you are responding to.
You don't need to be a congressional historian to understand why the Democrats haven't ended Citizens United. The real answer comes down to money and lobbying influencing their politics, as well as the filibuster stopping them the few times they have tried, such as when Bernie did in 2014. That would have been an actually valuable point that we could have discussions about.
Instead, you're too focused on belittling and insulting me to actually make a valid argument.
I could break down and respond to every convenient point in your comment and act like a petty little cunt too, but really it comes down to this
This is pretty much my whole point.
If you'd said that, we'd have no argument. I agree! It's the part about "because they're all corrupt and they could change anything whenever they wanted" that I disagree with. It's not just convenient it 's wrong.
Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to sit back and complain. And it's true, Democrats are bad at a lot of things - messaging, candidate selection, retiring. But they're glorious superheroes from heaven compared to the abhorrent chaos monkeys people have let run the show.
And in part they voted to let them run the show because "both sides bad". Which is true at only the highest, most generalized levels. It's essentially classic propaganda. Those high-level generalized views very quickly get clouded by realities as soon as anyone starts to look into it.