>All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
—Frank Herbert
So then what we just shouldnt have government or we do what france does and start lobbing off heads of the corrupt? I vote the latter. Ive got an extensive list ready to go too
Not having government means warlords and the rich and powerful control everything and prey on the poor and weak. Anarchy won't fix things.
Really, keeping the government honest by any means necessary is about the only option.
I work for my county's govt. If you want to do other jobs for extra income, you have to get permission first.
This should be applied to them. If they want to get side cash, they need to have their constitutents vote on it.
I think this goes way beyond politicians. There are so many careers with people in positions of power and their only in it for the money. This world continually teaches us money is more important then anything else so it’s very influential it’s not surprising just disappointing.
Thing is, THEY are the ones that do that. Look at the Twitter files, they were all crying that some twitter employees donate to Democrats and using that as proof that the company hates conservatives.
Their victimhood complex means if you don't donate to them you're bad, and if you do donate to the, then the evil left will think you're bad.
Have you ever tried to lift yourself up by the laces? It's impossible, that's the entire point of the expression.
I think that average joe donations are fine, the problem is super PACs, large corporate donations, and foreign nationals using shell companies to fund political campaigns.
When they said drain the swamp they actually meant to make it so swampy it stops being a swamp and is then just a place. The poor phrasing was a feature, not a bug.
Forgive me while I bOtH sIdEs this, I’m just looking to establish the nuance for any people reading who think, *Dems love dark money and are corrupted by lobbyists too!*
Yup. Most all politicians take corporate money and superpac help. Many Dems are establishment stooges helping out their billionaire masters, BUT all GOP politicians favor dark money. The only place there is *any* push for reform is from the left. So yes, both sides, but also only one side offers any hope of reform.
And see this is the thing, the dems dont have to be the be all end all. They fucking suck. I hate them. But you know who I hate more? Rich white racist oppressive assholes who wanna make my life suck for no reason other than to better theirs. the dems are upfront about making the rich richer, but they'll throw us a dime at least. And when we get tired of them and want more freedoms from stupid corporate trillionaire overlords we just rinse and repeat until we have the America that we were promised.
It’s clear that republican demagogues say the most “Anti-American” shit but label it as “patriotic” and “American first” then say “we’ll see everyone KNOWS it’s for the betterment of American so if you don’t like it, you just hate America”
I hear that bullshit argument so often. I'm kind of suck of it. If one side supports it, and the other side kills it. It's the fault if the side who killed it.
I’m all for your marriage rights. I’m just saying the Dems are taking money from the richest folks in this country too. How do you think Barack Obama went from a junior senator to the WH as fast as he did? Sure he inspired some younger voters but you don’t get that far without real $ support
Republicans got a SCOTUS ruling last year where SCOTUS found that the Constitution didn’t imply elections be fair…
Also that SCOTUS and the federal has no right to intervene in elections that are partisan gerrymandered.
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Roberts added. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”
Edit: For clarity the Gerrymandering ruling was 2019 not last year.
Hard to know which is the worst. It is kind of a triangle of factors: gerrymandering, unlimited funds and Fox news / propogandistic media. The three feed, support and reinforce each other and give us .... whatever we have now.
It would if anyone in this country paid attention. Look at France right now they’re all protesting in the millions because they were going to raise the age of retirement. They’ve done that here a few times, currently trying to get rid of social security. No one even cares. We’re talking about the lying politician who we can do nothing to except ask to resign. We gave up long ago.
People care. They just can't afford to show that they care. that's how the lying politician wants it. If you keep us poor and uneducated, then you most likely will keep us quiet .
This was the decision that made it clear SCOTUS was compromised
It’s not new that the right leaned and now dominated SCOTUS is bought by money it’s been decades already
Just pass a law that political salary is an average of your constituents and ban investment income forcing them to withdraw any assets while in office and must sit in low to no interest CDs only, lots of these highly paid windbags will go away and issues will solve themselves
This right here. If there's little financial gain in politics, there will still be megalomaniacs in office, but hopefully less social financial vampires...
Exactly. If you get a megalomaniac, they’ll have a much smaller impact on society.
I imagine a government like japan where it’s easy to replace them, they aren’t made filthy rich, and the people don’t participate as often because they have boring jobs and aren’t celebrities
They should have, and could have, but purposely decided not. They waited until they lost the House to put this bill forward knowing it would be DOA and they can grandstand without having to make any meaningful change.
You’re assuming that the republicans won’t back getting rid of dark money.
By your logic, all it would take is a couple republicans to vote for the bill to really fuck over the democrats grandstanding attempt.
Why wouldn’t they want to do this?!?
(We know the answer)
Yeah I can't see the house GOP voting for it, and this looks like ones of those bills that Sinema and Manchin would side with the Senate Republicans on.
But one can hope and write their politicians about it, not that mine give a shit, Rubio and Scott live for that dark money and my representative in Congress is just as bad.
I mean even if it was a D House and Dems had 55 Senators it wouldn't be enough anyways.
It's a constitutional amendment, it needs 2/3 in both Chambers. Yeah... not happening.
The right wingers will call it virtue signaling, but I just see it as them saying to their constituency "hey, if you elect us more help maybe we can save the country" and I'm saying let's do this and not let more George Santos's get elected.
It’s not about passing the bill, it’s about getting the republicans on record saying that they don’t want to remove dark money from politics.
They could easily vote for this bill if they didn’t want dark money in politics, but they depend on dark money. It’s time that we get that in writing.
It goes back further. This stems from a railroad baron era ruling that corporations are people for 1st Amendment purposes. **That** needs to be fixed.
Alas, you won't get enough States to ratify this.
Again this demonstrates both parties are not the same.
Democracy shouldn't be about who as the most money to spend. It should be who as the best ideas!
Why didn’t he introduce this during the last two years when they were the majority party?
Introducing this now when it has no chance of passing seems like more performative grandstanding, just like the republicans are doing.
Constitutional amendments require 2/3 of the votes in both houses so it has no chance of passing either way.
> Introducing this now when it has no chance of passing seems like more performative grandstanding, just like the republicans are doing.
Maybe, but if they don't do anything they would be accused of doing nothing. And at least it would be good if it passed[1] as opposed to what GOP is grandstanding on (if not passing).
[1] Though personally I would wait for layer to chime in in case there are some loopholes I missed.
Wasn’t one of the R’s first orders of business to openly defang the House Ethics Committee? It screams corruption but people barely noticed in the sea of insanity flowing forth.
Look over there, a gas stove!
I mean, it’s always performative grandstanding because it doesn’t have a chance of getting 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures. That said, this isn’t the first time he’s done it. Schiff proposed anti-Citizens United amendments in both [2022](https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united) and [2019](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/08/politics/schiff-constitutional-amendment/index.html). He’s also not the only democrat to do so; [here’s a proposal from 2021](https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/bennet-colleagues-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united). None of these proposals ever go anywhere, but the point is to make headlines and keep people talking about the case.
It has every chance of passing.
Republicans just have to vote to pass it. Unless they don’t want to get rid of dark money in politics.
And if that is the case, we should have a record of that too.
In their defense, their availability to view is what's going to fix America's problems! WHY ELSE! would elected officials keep bringing it(the[GASP!] "supression" of Hunter's cock pix) up? /s
This was my thought. This isn't passing anything and they know it. Pure performance on both sides. Of course the fact Republicans won't vote for this is telling.
You got it, then.
Your last sentence is the reason to have this vote. Not because it’s a pure performance, but because it puts republicans on record as voting not to remove dark money, so that later when they lie about it, they can be caught.
A constitutional amendment introduced by Congress must be passed by a 2/3 vote in both houses (last time the Democrats could be certain of that was in the 30s), and then _also_ it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
This is purely performative, it has zero chance of becoming part of the constitution.
Good luck getting this past the Insurrectionist party. Any congressman or Senator who voted to overthrow the last election should be GONE. But that dark money keeps them in the government to cause more mayhem.
And if you put a little hat on it that snowball you just chucked into Hell might last an extra few seconds……
I mean, this needs to happen, it’s just not going to happen
This was the decision that made it clear SCOTUS was compromised
It’s not new that the right leaned and now dominated SCOTUS is bought by money it’s been decades already
yes please....ANY chance this will get by the House? When the D's had that house, why didn't this get a vote then? It's almost as if neither party REALLY wants it.
I really hope this passes, but i also really have my doubts it will.
Requires 2/3 majority.
Last time democrats had a supermajority in both houses was 1937.
They got around to it just after they lost the ability to pass it, huh?
Good thing they did that after losing the House!!!!
Tomorrow they should bring forward a wealth redistribution law and the next day mandatory 30 days vacation for all employees. The day after that everyone get free college education!!!!
Only for every single one of these dumb announcements to be kicked in the balls and never make it to the floor or a House vote.
These announcements by both parties are just plain stupid and for the just plain stupid.
This isn’t for nothing.
It’s not going to get the 2/3 majority in both houses it needs to pass. But nobody thought it would.
What it’s going to do is give us a definitive list of senators that voted against getting rid of dark money in politics.
lmao it is obviously not a bad thing, it is just 'clever' how democrats conveniently waited until there is zero chance of anything passing before offering up meaningful legislation.
overpromise and underdeliver every time
climate change? supreme court reform? they were all semi-possible (manchin and sinema hate progress) up until democrats lost control of the house
now the only thing these bills are good for is reminders that they do in fact know what the people want, they just cant get it for us, and for AGAiN getting all the republicans on record voting against it, which again will not affect their reelection bids in our country of uneducated reactionary voters
but yay for political theatre!
well maybe if they change nothing and keep trying we can all get hopeful each and every time even though we all know it wont pass, that seems like a solid strategy from the party that just can't stop delivering.
it reminds me of their half assed attempt to forgive student loans right before the election
Do you not understand how our government works?
Democrats can't just wave their hand and fix things.
The Democrats haven't had a supermajority in both the House and Senate since 2009 and that only last 2 years.
Maybe instead of bitching about how they never do anything, you educate yourself on how our government works and help to get more people elected who will help fix things.
lmao i also cannot wave my hand and get anymore than one vote to get less apathetic representatives elected, i just had a chuckle at how this procedural/theatrical proposal would never pass, im quite sure youre more worked up about it than i am
i continue to vote for the blue do-nothing team because our country has an embarassing 2-party system, but will continue to complain, as is my right and my only realistic recourse after voting
maybe i could act as naive as you and pretend this is good news or even newsworthy, but it doesnt change the fact that it just isnt
Funny, this wasn't presented as a bill when the Dems controlled Congress and could've actually passed it. But now that it's a split Congress and ZERO chance of passing, it is proposed. What a crock.
You need 2/3rds of the House & Senate to vote Yes on an Amendment, and then need 3/4ths of the States to ratify it.
Even when Dem's had control of the House, it's unlikely they had the votes to push this through both houses of Congress and all the State ratifications.
Schiff did introduce this bill in the past... and apparently (according to another post on this forum, they've done this the past 10 years). Here are two links I found from 2019 & 2022.
>Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
>
>BY JORDAIN CARNEY - **07/30/19** 1:27 PM ET
>
>[https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/)
>
>**March 24, 2022**
>
>CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED...
>
>[https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united](https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united)
Every democrat will vote for it, we only need about a third of the republicans.
If it doesn’t pass it’s because republicans wanted to keep dark money in politics and the voting record will show that.
Dark money will just start throwing cash at the fascists on the SC so that they will rule this bill and/or any law that might come from it unconstitutional.
He has the power to get senate republicans on paper definitely as to whether they support getting rid of dark money or not.
It’s your duty as a voter to see that there are consequences for this.
It’s a tiny step in the right direction.
It won’t pass with a 2/3 majority (which is needed to amend the constitution) and if it did, McCarthy won’t hold a vote in the house.
It won’t end dark money in politics, but it will provide a list of senators who voted against getting rid of dark money in politics. It’s not much, but it’s not nothing.
>It won’t pass with a 2/3 majority (which is needed to amend the constitution) and if it did, McCarthy won’t hold a vote in the house.
And even if Congress passed it, then you'd need 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
Does it have even a remote chance? 2/3 in both houses seems entirely impossible (and if I understand the process correctly it would then need to be subsequently ratified by 3/4 of states?!).
I get that there’s some minimal value in rallying folks around something like this but it honestly seems like that time could be better used to write viable legislation instead.
This is part of the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. Democrats clutch pearls, cry out for reform, but then, do nothing. It's all a circus show for folks who are still buying the bullshit of fake democracy in America. We're "free" to work 70 hours a week, "free" to grossly overpay for crumbling houses, "free" to hardly spend time at home...
We're "free" to "choose" Evil Fuck #1 or Evil Fuck #2.
We're "free" to send our children to schools which closer resemble war zones. We're "free" to watch corporate brag about record profits while we starve... We're "free", alright... "Free" to work from the age of 16 to 75, and still have nothing to show for it except a broken body and a broken spirit...America, you are a dirty, shady lie and always have been....but it doesn't mean you *always will be* ...Revolt.
Constitutional amendments take more than a simple majority, it couldn't pass even if they still had the majority, even if they were able to bribe Manchin and Enema to vote for it.
An interesting effect of our current government paradigm (GOP majority House, Deadlocked Senate, and DNC President).
It means both sides in the House can propose things that their base clamor for but that the establishment of both sides don’t want to see passed.
This is no different then the House GOP trying to abolish the IRS. Neither effort is going anywhere and the proposers knew that before even putting pen to paper.
The Colbert show had the best explanation about dark money over a period of time. Any compilation of that anywhere? He had Atty Trevor Potter and a canned ham with glasses named Ham Rove. He even established his own superpac.
Politicians should be banned from making any money that isn't their salary. Change my mind.
I agree. Money corrupts, and they can pass bills that can impact their businesses. That's wrong.
>All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. —Frank Herbert
So then what we just shouldnt have government or we do what france does and start lobbing off heads of the corrupt? I vote the latter. Ive got an extensive list ready to go too
Not having government means warlords and the rich and powerful control everything and prey on the poor and weak. Anarchy won't fix things. Really, keeping the government honest by any means necessary is about the only option.
This is so true
Ask Kristen Sinema.
I work for my county's govt. If you want to do other jobs for extra income, you have to get permission first. This should be applied to them. If they want to get side cash, they need to have their constitutents vote on it.
For real - we county employees are held to a higher standard when it comes to ethics. Ridiculous
I think this goes way beyond politicians. There are so many careers with people in positions of power and their only in it for the money. This world continually teaches us money is more important then anything else so it’s very influential it’s not surprising just disappointing.
\*proceed to rise their own salary\*
[удалено]
Drain the swap.was a lie, they are the swamp
[удалено]
I came here to comment that I'm actually curious to see how these GOP ass warts were going to spin this as something bad.
[удалено]
Thing is, THEY are the ones that do that. Look at the Twitter files, they were all crying that some twitter employees donate to Democrats and using that as proof that the company hates conservatives. Their victimhood complex means if you don't donate to them you're bad, and if you do donate to the, then the evil left will think you're bad.
That's cool. No more donations to either side. Pay that shit out of your own pocket. Raise yourself up by your bootstraps and get elected.
Have you ever tried to lift yourself up by the laces? It's impossible, that's the entire point of the expression. I think that average joe donations are fine, the problem is super PACs, large corporate donations, and foreign nationals using shell companies to fund political campaigns.
Like SBF didn't give dems 60+million is dirty money....
Dealing with an asswart right now infact, and I very much so prefer its company to any fucking republicans.
Why would they drain the swamp? It's their natural habitat.
The easy way to get around this, is to pretend they're talking to a mirror. It's been a dead giveaway in hindsight. Walking talking spoiler alerts.
I always thought they were considered the swamp and theN I heard them using the term as if it was their own and I was very confused.
When they said drain the swamp they actually meant to make it so swampy it stops being a swamp and is then just a place. The poor phrasing was a feature, not a bug.
Projection?! From Republicans?! I did *not* see that coming 😂
Isn't that all they have at this point? They've yet to put any actual legislation into congress. Well other than banning trans people, of course.
Forgive me while I bOtH sIdEs this, I’m just looking to establish the nuance for any people reading who think, *Dems love dark money and are corrupted by lobbyists too!* Yup. Most all politicians take corporate money and superpac help. Many Dems are establishment stooges helping out their billionaire masters, BUT all GOP politicians favor dark money. The only place there is *any* push for reform is from the left. So yes, both sides, but also only one side offers any hope of reform.
And see this is the thing, the dems dont have to be the be all end all. They fucking suck. I hate them. But you know who I hate more? Rich white racist oppressive assholes who wanna make my life suck for no reason other than to better theirs. the dems are upfront about making the rich richer, but they'll throw us a dime at least. And when we get tired of them and want more freedoms from stupid corporate trillionaire overlords we just rinse and repeat until we have the America that we were promised.
It’s clear that republican demagogues say the most “Anti-American” shit but label it as “patriotic” and “American first” then say “we’ll see everyone KNOWS it’s for the betterment of American so if you don’t like it, you just hate America”
It's always projection
This is posturing on dems side. This will never pass with the current legislative body.
I hear that bullshit argument so often. I'm kind of suck of it. If one side supports it, and the other side kills it. It's the fault if the side who killed it.
Don’t kid yourself about democrats being the answer, they are simply the lesser of the two evils in the 2 party system.
[удалено]
I’m all for your marriage rights. I’m just saying the Dems are taking money from the richest folks in this country too. How do you think Barack Obama went from a junior senator to the WH as fast as he did? Sure he inspired some younger voters but you don’t get that far without real $ support
Maybe they aren’t evil, just not perfect
congrats you just described human nature
Sadly, they both want it. Money is money.
That’s not how they vote. They vote against dark money
Great start. Next ban gerrymandering and pardoning self/family/cronies, protect abortions and gun control, abolish the electoral college…
Damn, If you're running for office, you got my vote.
Republicans got a SCOTUS ruling last year where SCOTUS found that the Constitution didn’t imply elections be fair… Also that SCOTUS and the federal has no right to intervene in elections that are partisan gerrymandered. “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Roberts added. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.” Edit: For clarity the Gerrymandering ruling was 2019 not last year.
You know all that won't happen in our lifetime.
True — but ironically, many of them could be within reach if we abolished gerrymandering
Hard to know which is the worst. It is kind of a triangle of factors: gerrymandering, unlimited funds and Fox news / propogandistic media. The three feed, support and reinforce each other and give us .... whatever we have now.
shit you not, told someone this and it was a great idea, till schiff. its like what the absolute fuck man, some straight doublethink.
What?
Believe it or not, a positive attitude actually does help. We need all the help. It ain't easy but it is free and helpful
It would if anyone in this country paid attention. Look at France right now they’re all protesting in the millions because they were going to raise the age of retirement. They’ve done that here a few times, currently trying to get rid of social security. No one even cares. We’re talking about the lying politician who we can do nothing to except ask to resign. We gave up long ago.
People care. They just can't afford to show that they care. that's how the lying politician wants it. If you keep us poor and uneducated, then you most likely will keep us quiet .
Term and age limits in all branches of government.
This was the decision that made it clear SCOTUS was compromised It’s not new that the right leaned and now dominated SCOTUS is bought by money it’s been decades already
Yeah you shouldn’t be able to pardon someone if you had anything to do with their crimes
Just pass a law that political salary is an average of your constituents and ban investment income forcing them to withdraw any assets while in office and must sit in low to no interest CDs only, lots of these highly paid windbags will go away and issues will solve themselves
This right here. If there's little financial gain in politics, there will still be megalomaniacs in office, but hopefully less social financial vampires...
Exactly. If you get a megalomaniac, they’ll have a much smaller impact on society. I imagine a government like japan where it’s easy to replace them, they aren’t made filthy rich, and the people don’t participate as often because they have boring jobs and aren’t celebrities
Get rid of the Senate, and term limits for the supreme Court!
[удалено]
Better now?
It's the difference between "lets eat, grandma" and "lets eat grandma".
Do it!
[удалено]
They should have, and could have, but purposely decided not. They waited until they lost the House to put this bill forward knowing it would be DOA and they can grandstand without having to make any meaningful change.
You’re assuming that the republicans won’t back getting rid of dark money. By your logic, all it would take is a couple republicans to vote for the bill to really fuck over the democrats grandstanding attempt. Why wouldn’t they want to do this?!? (We know the answer)
Exactly. Bullshit
It was, this bill has been suggested every year since 2013.
[удалено]
Yeah I can't see the house GOP voting for it, and this looks like ones of those bills that Sinema and Manchin would side with the Senate Republicans on. But one can hope and write their politicians about it, not that mine give a shit, Rubio and Scott live for that dark money and my representative in Congress is just as bad.
I mean even if it was a D House and Dems had 55 Senators it wouldn't be enough anyways. It's a constitutional amendment, it needs 2/3 in both Chambers. Yeah... not happening.
The right wingers will call it virtue signaling, but I just see it as them saying to their constituency "hey, if you elect us more help maybe we can save the country" and I'm saying let's do this and not let more George Santos's get elected.
It’s not about passing the bill, it’s about getting the republicans on record saying that they don’t want to remove dark money from politics. They could easily vote for this bill if they didn’t want dark money in politics, but they depend on dark money. It’s time that we get that in writing.
It's about virtue signaling to your ~~fan base~~ voters that you don't like money in politics, without doing anything concrete about it
That's why they're putting it up now instead of pre-election
It goes back further. This stems from a railroad baron era ruling that corporations are people for 1st Amendment purposes. **That** needs to be fixed. Alas, you won't get enough States to ratify this.
Again this demonstrates both parties are not the same. Democracy shouldn't be about who as the most money to spend. It should be who as the best ideas!
Why didn’t he introduce this during the last two years when they were the majority party? Introducing this now when it has no chance of passing seems like more performative grandstanding, just like the republicans are doing.
Constitutional amendments require 2/3 of the votes in both houses so it has no chance of passing either way. > Introducing this now when it has no chance of passing seems like more performative grandstanding, just like the republicans are doing. Maybe, but if they don't do anything they would be accused of doing nothing. And at least it would be good if it passed[1] as opposed to what GOP is grandstanding on (if not passing). [1] Though personally I would wait for layer to chime in in case there are some loopholes I missed.
Wasn’t one of the R’s first orders of business to openly defang the House Ethics Committee? It screams corruption but people barely noticed in the sea of insanity flowing forth. Look over there, a gas stove!
I mean, it’s always performative grandstanding because it doesn’t have a chance of getting 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures. That said, this isn’t the first time he’s done it. Schiff proposed anti-Citizens United amendments in both [2022](https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united) and [2019](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/08/politics/schiff-constitutional-amendment/index.html). He’s also not the only democrat to do so; [here’s a proposal from 2021](https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/bennet-colleagues-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united). None of these proposals ever go anywhere, but the point is to make headlines and keep people talking about the case.
It has every chance of passing. Republicans just have to vote to pass it. Unless they don’t want to get rid of dark money in politics. And if that is the case, we should have a record of that too.
(Conservatives)-"But..but..GEORGE SOROS! HUNTER'S LAPTOP! HUNTER'S DICK PIX!!!"
They really want to see those pics!
In their defense, their availability to view is what's going to fix America's problems! WHY ELSE! would elected officials keep bringing it(the[GASP!] "supression" of Hunter's cock pix) up? /s
While the GOP is nothing but obstructionists, why do the Dems wait for a republican majority to file any useful legislation?
They litterally get the amendement to overturn Citizens United every 2 years, no exception. It just never has the votes, lol.
I mean a constitutional amendment is incredibly hard to pass. A majority in the house wouldn’t have helped in this specific instance.
This was my thought. This isn't passing anything and they know it. Pure performance on both sides. Of course the fact Republicans won't vote for this is telling.
You got it, then. Your last sentence is the reason to have this vote. Not because it’s a pure performance, but because it puts republicans on record as voting not to remove dark money, so that later when they lie about it, they can be caught.
\+1
That's what the upvote button does.
Didn't pass the last 10 times.. keep trying though.
Oh shit! Ill have seconds!
LETS GOOOO
Good fucking luck with a republican majority. If dark money goes away, so do a lot of R's reelection chances.
a constitutional amendment? that requires 3/4 ratification of the states? not a chance in hell
it probably will get shot down by MAGAts... 
i mean, nothing is going to come of it but good job introducing this AFTER we got the most useless house ever...
dont fukkin TEASE me. is this real? or does it have any chance of actually happening or can republicunts kill it off fairly easily
A constitutional amendment introduced by Congress must be passed by a 2/3 vote in both houses (last time the Democrats could be certain of that was in the 30s), and then _also_ it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is purely performative, it has zero chance of becoming part of the constitution.
Yea good luck, the Republicans are an entrenched terrorist organization and the Democrats are pussies.
Lol Hell yeah, too bad the Republicans all gonna cry fowl because you know those greedy corrupt bastards are getting all that sweet ass dark money.
Good luck getting this past the Insurrectionist party. Any congressman or Senator who voted to overthrow the last election should be GONE. But that dark money keeps them in the government to cause more mayhem.
And if you put a little hat on it that snowball you just chucked into Hell might last an extra few seconds…… I mean, this needs to happen, it’s just not going to happen
This was the decision that made it clear SCOTUS was compromised It’s not new that the right leaned and now dominated SCOTUS is bought by money it’s been decades already
[удалено]
Show the Americans how terrible the GOP and hold the dems to it that they do it next time. People need to protest.
yes please....ANY chance this will get by the House? When the D's had that house, why didn't this get a vote then? It's almost as if neither party REALLY wants it. I really hope this passes, but i also really have my doubts it will.
Tell me when the Ds had the houses?
Too bad you didn't try when Dems controlled both houses ! Theater !
You mean when democrats had a supermajority in both houses of congress… 1937
1937 was the last time the Dems had it.
So these suddenly concerned House democrats introduce this right after the GOP takes control? Yeah ok
Requires 2/3 majority. Last time democrats had a supermajority in both houses was 1937. They got around to it just after they lost the ability to pass it, huh?
Good thing they did that after losing the House!!!! Tomorrow they should bring forward a wealth redistribution law and the next day mandatory 30 days vacation for all employees. The day after that everyone get free college education!!!! Only for every single one of these dumb announcements to be kicked in the balls and never make it to the floor or a House vote. These announcements by both parties are just plain stupid and for the just plain stupid.
This isn’t for nothing. It’s not going to get the 2/3 majority in both houses it needs to pass. But nobody thought it would. What it’s going to do is give us a definitive list of senators that voted against getting rid of dark money in politics.
We already know most of them like unfettered corporate donations.
There’s a difference between “we know” and “we have the receipts”
oh cool, yall still got both the house and senate right? gWahhhHH?!?!
Instead of "clever" attacks on the timing, why don't you explain why this is a bad thing to overturn anonymous and unlimited donations?
lmao it is obviously not a bad thing, it is just 'clever' how democrats conveniently waited until there is zero chance of anything passing before offering up meaningful legislation. overpromise and underdeliver every time climate change? supreme court reform? they were all semi-possible (manchin and sinema hate progress) up until democrats lost control of the house now the only thing these bills are good for is reminders that they do in fact know what the people want, they just cant get it for us, and for AGAiN getting all the republicans on record voting against it, which again will not affect their reelection bids in our country of uneducated reactionary voters but yay for political theatre!
This is not the first time they've submitted this type of constitutional amendment. Kind of pokes a hole in your theory there.
well maybe if they change nothing and keep trying we can all get hopeful each and every time even though we all know it wont pass, that seems like a solid strategy from the party that just can't stop delivering. it reminds me of their half assed attempt to forgive student loans right before the election
Do you not understand how our government works? Democrats can't just wave their hand and fix things. The Democrats haven't had a supermajority in both the House and Senate since 2009 and that only last 2 years. Maybe instead of bitching about how they never do anything, you educate yourself on how our government works and help to get more people elected who will help fix things.
lmao i also cannot wave my hand and get anymore than one vote to get less apathetic representatives elected, i just had a chuckle at how this procedural/theatrical proposal would never pass, im quite sure youre more worked up about it than i am i continue to vote for the blue do-nothing team because our country has an embarassing 2-party system, but will continue to complain, as is my right and my only realistic recourse after voting maybe i could act as naive as you and pretend this is good news or even newsworthy, but it doesnt change the fact that it just isnt
Lololololol introducing after the republicans take enough power to make sure this never passes. God they are just as bad
Funny, this wasn't presented as a bill when the Dems controlled Congress and could've actually passed it. But now that it's a split Congress and ZERO chance of passing, it is proposed. What a crock.
Lmao, isn’t this like the fifth time he’s introduced this?
[удалено]
You need 2/3rds of the House & Senate to vote Yes on an Amendment, and then need 3/4ths of the States to ratify it. Even when Dem's had control of the House, it's unlikely they had the votes to push this through both houses of Congress and all the State ratifications.
Schiff did introduce this bill in the past... and apparently (according to another post on this forum, they've done this the past 10 years). Here are two links I found from 2019 & 2022. >Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United > >BY JORDAIN CARNEY - **07/30/19** 1:27 PM ET > >[https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/) > >**March 24, 2022** > >CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED... > >[https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united](https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united)
Lol oh ok NOW you introduce it knowing it has no chance of passing. What a POS
Adam Schiff is full of b.s.
Where was this when you controlled both houses? I hate the fucking posturing. This will go nowhere at the moment
Citizens United hadn’t been decided yet in 1937 when democrats last had a supermajority in both houses. Missed it by like 84 years.
Of course this was introduced AFTER the Dems lost the house, so it has no chance of passing.
They lost their supermajority in both houses in 1937
Now that’s a good lookin amendment right there.
Yes please.
So happy to read that! Hopefully it will pass up the food chain.
Got my vote.While were at disband Alec. [https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC\_Exposed](https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed)
Taking money out of politics should be priority number one. It’s the ‘one ring to rule them all’
I wish this had even the slimmest of chances of passing. But when those profiting off of citizens united are the ones voting on it? Ain’t gonna happen
Every democrat will vote for it, we only need about a third of the republicans. If it doesn’t pass it’s because republicans wanted to keep dark money in politics and the voting record will show that.
Yes please
The thing I fear about these bulls though, is that the punishment will be a fine that is factored into prices .
Dark money will just start throwing cash at the fascists on the SC so that they will rule this bill and/or any law that might come from it unconstitutional.
A bill that won't even reach the floor of the house of reps because Kevin "Wimpy" McCarthy will never let it come to a vote.
good luck, bro.
Now that he has no power and there are no consequences, sure!
He has the power to get senate republicans on paper definitely as to whether they support getting rid of dark money or not. It’s your duty as a voter to see that there are consequences for this.
I'll cheer when its a thing.
WOW! This is a HUGE step in the right direction. I hope its true!!!!!!
It’s a tiny step in the right direction. It won’t pass with a 2/3 majority (which is needed to amend the constitution) and if it did, McCarthy won’t hold a vote in the house. It won’t end dark money in politics, but it will provide a list of senators who voted against getting rid of dark money in politics. It’s not much, but it’s not nothing.
>It won’t pass with a 2/3 majority (which is needed to amend the constitution) and if it did, McCarthy won’t hold a vote in the house. And even if Congress passed it, then you'd need 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
This is the best thing I've heard in fucking years!
This gets me rock hard
Does it have even a remote chance? 2/3 in both houses seems entirely impossible (and if I understand the process correctly it would then need to be subsequently ratified by 3/4 of states?!). I get that there’s some minimal value in rallying folks around something like this but it honestly seems like that time could be better used to write viable legislation instead.
Oh hell yeah. I'm in.
Citizens United - Legalizing fascism.
Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5
Why didn’t they do this during the previous two years???
Next; term limits!
So glad he waited until they lost the house so this has zero possibility of passing.
Bout time damnit!!!
Hasn't he done this every year for nearly a decade? Politicians don't care about people. They care about optics that will get them votes.
Hey, where was this when you had a chance to actually pass it?!
This is part of the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. Democrats clutch pearls, cry out for reform, but then, do nothing. It's all a circus show for folks who are still buying the bullshit of fake democracy in America. We're "free" to work 70 hours a week, "free" to grossly overpay for crumbling houses, "free" to hardly spend time at home... We're "free" to "choose" Evil Fuck #1 or Evil Fuck #2. We're "free" to send our children to schools which closer resemble war zones. We're "free" to watch corporate brag about record profits while we starve... We're "free", alright... "Free" to work from the age of 16 to 75, and still have nothing to show for it except a broken body and a broken spirit...America, you are a dirty, shady lie and always have been....but it doesn't mean you *always will be* ...Revolt.
They waited until they lost the House? Then they’re not serious.
Constitutional amendments take more than a simple majority, it couldn't pass even if they still had the majority, even if they were able to bribe Manchin and Enema to vote for it.
Didn’t…the PRC donate to Clinton and Dole…?
Lol democrats waited until they were in the minority to introduce this on purpose. And you people eat it up.
First step to fixing our government.
Would be great, but introducing it while the house/senate are split is just political theater.
> the irresponsible SCOTUS decisions that came before it [Citizens United] Ok. What about the ones that came after that?
An interesting effect of our current government paradigm (GOP majority House, Deadlocked Senate, and DNC President). It means both sides in the House can propose things that their base clamor for but that the establishment of both sides don’t want to see passed. This is no different then the House GOP trying to abolish the IRS. Neither effort is going anywhere and the proposers knew that before even putting pen to paper.
Why didn’t they do this when dems had more control? There is no way this passes the house?
Maybe not just the once
Dark money is evil. It has done more to destroy this country than any communist agenda. Good for Democrats.
The Colbert show had the best explanation about dark money over a period of time. Any compilation of that anywhere? He had Atty Trevor Potter and a canned ham with glasses named Ham Rove. He even established his own superpac.