Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
This and Citizens United gave the rich and Russia all they needed to destroy democracy.
Fuck now we got trump crypto openly taking money as corrupt as possible from countries all over the world, especially Saudi Arabi.
So where’s my free money?
one of the worst decisions ever made. corporations aren’t human.ms with inalienable rights
Human.ms sounds like a bare bones early attempt at AI from Microsoft 🤔
lolololol my fat thumbs
And women used to have federally protected rights over their own bodies.
Things can change.
Expand the SC and revert this dipshit decision.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Fun fact, that quote is two years younger than this decision.
His words are timeless.
Even though I think it’s a huge problem to consider pacs or donations speech, there are some legitimately thorny issues here. How do we define speech in a way that allows us to clamp down corruption but does not interfere with the free press? And if we do find a ruling or law that walks this line, do the rich simply find another avenue to exert influence?
Not that these fights don’t matter–shifting the balance of power towards the people and away from the rich is a good thing. But I have come to believe that extreme wealth is simply incompatible with democracy. When you have enough time and money you can always find a way to subvert the rule of law, and it’s usually in your interests to do so. But of course this leaves us with the question of how to destroy the political power of the wealthy in a political system that is now heavily rigged against us. I know what some people will say but I still haven’t seen a really good answer to this question.
Maybe syndicalism, but labor tactics have been heavily restricted by federal and some state laws. So this would require more willingness on the part of unions to break the law, and a much clearer and more radical vision for our political system. Right now I don’t see this has much popular support. And the time to build this support is limited as fascism tightens its hold and automation and AI threaten to undermine the bargaining power workers hold today.
Easy step we can do. No contributions to individuals running for an office. Any money goes to a common fund that is distributed amongst the candidates. Equally. With a maximum amount per person correlated to the number of parties involved in the election.
Example: mayoral race with 2 parties and a fund of $500,000. Each person receives 250,000 for their campaign.
Same race but with $1,000,000 in the fund? That’s right. Each member gets 300,000 to use.
3 parties involved with that 1M fund? 333,000 per person but goes to 500,000 when the funds available allow for it
Catch: all donations go to this fund and all money used from this fund must be accounted for. Anyone found to be using their own money or any donations that did not come from the fund constitutes an automatic forfeiture of their campaign and any unspent money of their allotted amount gets returned to the funds.
Said returned funds do not get distributed to the other campaigns.
Any unused money of the fund at the end of the election is used by civil services budgets.
So equal funds for all parties, even those with minimal support? Interesting idea, I’d like to see how it works in practice.
However, this won’t solve the PAC issue.
the issue i see with being concerned that low supported groups would get more money then they would otherwise…is the point. the main reason other parties don’t have a presence is because they do not have the money to honestly present themselves. and we are talking reach here, if they are given equal reach, and what they say is agreed to by more people, then it turns out that they didn’t have minimal support, they were being quashed by special interests
Maybe I’m oversimplifying it, but “Money is Speech” is less of a problem than “Corporations are People” from Citizens United. Because the latter takes rights that this country historically reserves for humans and gives them to organizations (that are themselves composed of humans).
Simply reverse that, and you can restore limits on these organizations. Billionaires can still spend money how they are fit, but unless the billionaire does it all himself, at some point he will need an organization to do it, and that organization can have constraints.
This is a popular opinion but corporate personhood has a lot of implications beyond political activities which need to be considered.
For example, if corporations are not people, how does the first amendment apply to news outlets?
Freedom of the press is explicitly called out in the first ammendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/
A plan - if it’s not too late https://represent.us/ A video about it- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
And then BOOM!
Four to five years later America was introduced to something known as The Great DepressionDid you mean 46 years earlier instead of 4 to 5 years later?
I need to get more sleep; my brain is not mathing and I’m getting my facts crossed. @marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works Is on the money with what I was thinking of.
The Great Depression that happened almost 100 years ago? That definitely must have been caused by a court decision that happened half a century later
50 years ago?
They are talking about an earlier case, Buckley v. Valeo, that they say laid the foundation for Citizens United.
The case was 50 years ago. Citizens united was 2010.
Yes, but did the Court pay money to turn the words of its decision into legally-significant speech?
Because otherwise, it seems a bit self-refuting.
I’m a free money maximalist.
Grrr
