4 ms·
Unavoidable now because of the Citizens United court decision. Of course it's bad, but what are you gonna do?
by greesil 4y ago
Unavoidable now because of the Citizens United court decision. Of course it's bad, but what are you gonna do?
- stephc_int13 4y agoMake noise about it. If you believe this is wrong, that is.
- skrebbel 4y agoI don’t know, it’s not this prevalent everywhere so it is possible.
- nradov 4y agoYes, it is possible to amend the US Constitution to carve out an explicit exception in the 1st Amendment for political donations. So far Congress hasn't made a serious effort to do so.
- yccs27 4y agoI'm not really familiar with the US constitution, but doesn't the 1st Amendment only protect speech, petition and assembly? Is there some part I'm missing or did a court classify campaign donations as speech?
- krustyburger 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- yccs27 4y agoAh thanks, that's what I was missing. Such a mindboggling decision.
- nradov 4y agoIf you actually read the decision, there's nothing mind boggling about it. It is consistent with the US Constitution, and with Supreme Court precedents. The result of that decision has been terrible, but we can only reliably fix it through the defined constitutional amendment process.
- ncallaway 4y agoIt wasn’t this prevalent here either until recently. The Supreme Court has decided that Congress isn’t allowed to regulate this kind of behavior. The Court has also chipped away at bribery statutes, narrowing them significantly. Unfortunately, without a constitutional amendment, new justices on the Supreme Court, or a revolution, there’s not a lot that can be done. I support an amendment, but with the current court it’s… we have a long way to go.
- dgfitz 4y agoOr the “honest and honerable” politicians stop accepting donations they know are evil. Ah never mind, we all know they can’t help it.
- watwut 4y agoMoney matter in campaign. Politicians accepting these have massive advantage over those who don't- so they end up more winning.
- bloomingeek 4y agoIn my opinion, this is the voters fault. Read up on the candidates, talk to other voters, if the candidate's ad is all fluff and no substance, don't vote for them. STOP believing non-journalistic cable TV channels who only profit from eyeballs and not the facts.
- DangitBobby 4y agoAdvertising is very effective. There's no point in blaming people for it, especially since they are the victims in this scenario.
- bloomingeek 4y ago"Victims", really?!?
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoBand together with other citizens and demand an end of this! Also since we're at it corporations aren't persons. The founders of the US were very vocal about giving power to the people, the laws were never intended to grant personhood to legal entities for the purpose of enabling unlimited political lobbying by their wealthy owners.
- erik_seaberg 4y agoWhat kind of organization should citizens be allowed to create to promote a political position, if not a corporation?
- greesil 4y agoIf by citizens you mean citizens with a fuckload of money.
- bobbylarrybobby 4y agoOne with limited spending power appears to be the gist, to everyone but the Supreme Court
- ben_w 4y agoA political party, surely. (Also, despite that I am not much of a fan of the UK political system, I do like that it has extremely low limits on election spending).
- erik_seaberg 4y agoA new political party would itself be a corporation (because if not, who owns its assets?) Running single-issue minor party candidates is also useless unless your issue is important enough to convince a majority of voters to abandon one of the big two parties that have run everything for our lifetimes.
- bandyaboot 4y agoThe non-profit kind for starters.
- tiahura 4y agoMaybe I’m dense, but what difference does it make whether it was SBF or FTX making the donations? Why implicate Citizens United?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 4y agoYes, Citizens United articulated a system where "money for access/attention" is the dominant paradigm of American democracy.