Summary

House Democrats, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, introduced the We the People Amendment to overturn Citizens United, aiming to curb corporate influence in elections.

The constitutional amendment asserts that constitutional rights apply only to individuals, not corporations, and mandates full disclosure of political contributions.

Jayapal cited Elon Musk’s massive campaign spending and subsequent financial gains as proof of the ruling’s harm.

Advocacy groups praised the move, calling it necessary to combat corporate power and dark money in politics, but Republicans have not backed the proposal.

  • Gointhefridge@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    This is one of the single biggest changes we can make to our current electoral system.

    Should’ve done this in 2021. This could’ve changed the 2024 election entirely.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      What did they do in 2021 instead?

      Probably nothing else going on really. They’re just lazy and fat off corporate cash piles, obviously.

      • Gointhefridge@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Nothing. That’s the problem. Democrats are so afraid to play an opposition party cause it will negatively affect party leadership and top donors. They want the status quo and are more than likely benefiting from the Trump regime in many ways.

        Make no bones about it: top Democrats have been complacent with a hostile takeover of the US government because it is benefiting them.

        Progressive Democrats and party newcomers are seeing this reality. They tried to play the game for a bit but got burned like Bernie did. Some democrats are finally growing a backbone to stand up against geriatric party leadership.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Make no bones about it: top Democrats have been complacent with a hostile takeover of the US government because it is benefiting them.

          I mean, I’d make a few bones about it. The best time to be an excellent Progressive party is 50 years ago. The next best time is now, though.

      • resin85@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        I’m surprised how quickly people forgot the very first bill the Democrats introduced in 2021 addressed this very topic. The Republicans in the senate killed it.

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1

        Passed House (03/03/2021) For the People Act of 2021

        "This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

        Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

        The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

        Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

        Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

        The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

        The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns."

    • Kate-ay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      There was less than a 0٪ chance that they could have passed a constitutional ammendment in 2021.

  • Chocrates@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 days ago

    Jfc. They and both houses of Congress multiple times since Citizens United and didn’t do shit. Bringing it up now, when it won’t even get through Congress, let alone the states, is a fucking distraction

    • Kate-ay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Even then they never had the support to pass this or any constitutional ammendment.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    I hate to say it but proposing a constitutional amendment is just virtue signaling at this point. There isn’t a snowballs chance in hell this passes even with 100% democrat support.

    I appreciate the thought and effort but put forth legislation that actually has a chance at passing.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Virtue signaling is an important act for a minority party. It lets the base know what you stand for and what your opponents stand against. This is something with broad public appeal yet low congressional support (because politicians like monies). It’s something you can hit your opponents with and, with a snowball’s chance, you might actually make progress in passing.

      “I want to take money out of politics, my opponent is captured by rich billionaires. They don’t serve you, they serve the billionaires” It’s an ad that writes itself.

      This is something dems should be doing, especially since the last election was them running away from policy and instead doubling down on how much their policy isn’t different from the average republican’s. We saw how that turned out.

      • WraithGear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        But its a lie… they had the chance to make this a reality, but they honestly don’t care. They can try to appeal to progressives but it’s too late.

      • optissima@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        Virtue signaling is different than signaling virtues. Here it’s referring to halfassing it when they can’t actually do anything about it.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I will never understand what is wrong with virtue signalling. We should all be happy when people feel pressured to publicly state that they stand with good things and against bad things. Plus, it’s not like they’re lying: if it gets called to vote then they’ll all show their colors, and if it doesn’t get called to vote then it forces the opponents to show theirs.

      As much as I like to imagine a world where everyone understands politics enough to know Republicans are against removing money from politics, we clearly do not.

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 days ago

    It is with a sense of similar urgency that I am proposing an amendment to make every Thursday a national holiday.

    Like the Democrats, I also do not have any power to enact this, let alone enforce it, but the important part is that I proposed something impossible instead of actually doing literally anything to stop this.

  • VeryVito@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 days ago

    Good, but why the hell didn’t they do this when they had control of Congress?

    • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because they don’t want it to pass obviously. When was the last time you went into your bosses office and demanded a pay cut??

      This is just pandering. Maybe one or two of them actually want it but the rest will just pretend to care because they know the genie is never going back in the bottle

    • TehWorld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 days ago

      No party has been anywhere near that level of “control” for a very long time.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    8 days ago

    Do this and keep doing it until it works. This isn’t a moonshot. It’s normal, sensible change. Everybody shut your fucking mouths with all this secondary “it isn’t going to work now” bitch energy. Get behind the shit you want, loudly.

  • RufusFirefly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    8 days ago

    Instead of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, immediately get rid of the gerontocracy (Schumer, Pelosi), regroup, find a leader with some balls and declare open warfare on Republicans. It’s not like there isn’t any ammunition.

    • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      Exactly, the conservatives have spent the last 40 years gradually doing exactly this and the Democrats have spent the last 40 years denying that reality and laughing off the right wing, talk show type populists while they slowly took control of the GOP and the court system.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 days ago

    Yeah, the sole reason they’re suggesting it now is because they know it’s too little too late. It will go nowhere and we all know this, them Dems will be like ‘oh but we tried!’ Fucking useless.

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Absolutely disingenuous to report this as “house Dems”, as though the liberal (i.e. conservative) Dems are in on it. They are not. These are progressive Dems who propose this basically every year, and who are actually fighting for us, not corporations and profits. Liberal Dems then work with their Republican friends to shut it down. This is why liberal Dems are as much the enemy as the Republicans.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 days ago

    That would have been useful and a great idea over a decade ago.

    Now it’s just “let’s do this” and nothing will happen. Its too late.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah even if they did actually repeal it, which they won’t, it’s really closing the stable door after the horse has bolted at this point IMO.

      Because with the current administration, you can say it’s illegal to accept money from so-and-so, and they’ll just go “fuck you” and do it anyway and nobody will will stop them or bring consequences, so … yeah. This is kind of doing time, not talking time.

    • Azal@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I mean… that was literally one of the things that Hillary ran on. So… your timeline checks out.

      • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Only at the end to try and court Bernie supporters. Before that she was mostly silent and won the primary with corporate money.

        • Azal@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Y’know what, I’ll bite. It’s been long enough I can’t definitively say whether it came up before or not.

          But that’s a point though, she did move her policy to that of the ones that the Bernie supporters and they still snubbed her and we got Trump.

          So in that we made sure the Left didn’t have a seat at the table because they didn’t bother to show up right after showing they had the numbers and ability to do so, and we got a billionaire man-baby who sucks up to other billionaires and fascist regimes. Good trade.

          I say this as a Bernie voter, but my national vote was still for Hillary. Citizens United and the Supreme Court were on the line, I told other leftists it was on the line, I was told I was overreacting… so call me fucking Cassandra.

          • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            I was a Bernie and Hillary voter as well. I also failed to convince a number of other Bernie voters that they had to support Hillary.

            She held too far center for too long and a lot of Bernie voters didn’t trust her or the party. Hell, even when she announced a push for an amendment in her first 30 days I didn’t buy it would happen but I also knew we needed to keep Trump out.

            Really I still didn’t trust the party. I still don’t think we have enough progressives and will still do what we need to keep corporate donors happy above the voting public.

            Money is speech and it has the loudest platform.

      • glitchdx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        As we’ve seen though, a woman cannot win against a racist sexist nazi shitbag in the united states.

        Don’t at me (as the young people say), I voted for the woman.

        • Azal@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Pretty much. I just always like to point these things out as there’s a nice bit of revisionism amongst the left on “We want this, why didn’t the dems give it to us” while people don’t show up and vote for them, then cry they didn’t show up because “Dems are as bad as republicans.” Which frankly is as bad as the right on their revisionism.

          The 16 election was an attempt to take down Citizens United as well as bring up the Trans Pacific Partnership. The TPP was specifically trying to get the other Asian countries to lock out China in trade to reduce its power. But the right wingers thought “No we want to be hard on China” pulled out of it, and basically left China to look at all the other Asian countries who didn’t have a partnership with the US and bring them to heel.

          Citizens United came about in 2010, during the Obama administration, and specifically that same year Republicans had gained majority in the House, creating a divided congress that meant no laws could get through, especially an anti-Citizens United bill. An executive order isn’t going to fix this one.

          The Left falls into the same fallacy as the Right, they want a strong leader who can “solve all the problems.” Problem is the Right is really good at it because it’s really their authoritarian style. The part that pisses me off is the Right is also really good at showing up at the polls when they matter even if they hate the candidate, as long as it moves the needle one step over to their side while the Left keeps having a lot of voters be all or nothing.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      True. I really wish they would focus on things they can actually do as the minority. Like, this is performative, but I’m not even sure for who it’s supposed to be performative. Do dems honestly think there’s even a single voter out there with the attitude of “well I wasn’t going to vote next year, but after seeing dems moonshot yet another dead-on-arrival amendment about a 15-year old court ruling I’m on board!”

      Look at what republicans were able to accomplish on the level of school boards, counties, churches, state houses, election commissions, etc while they were out of power and steal their playbook for goodness sake 😒

        • khepri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Or trying to look like they are trying. “Trying” kind of implies at least a tiny sliver of a chance of actually succeeding, which this, at the current political moment, absolutely does not have. Believe me, I’m all for them trying stuff, but this might as well be proposing eliminating the electoral collage, electing Senators based on population, or passing the ERA. I’m all for all of those things, but they are a total pipedream from our current position. I just really really don’t think there is an appreciable number of voters out there who think that now is the time for democrats to be showing off their impossible Christmas wish list because “people will complain if we don’t”. What people are complaining about is Dems puttering around having meetings and proposing non-starter solutions rather than owning the fact that they got stomped this time and should now switch to organizing the type of ground-level resistance that worked such wonders for the republicans the last 10 years.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 days ago

    Do not waste time talking about a non-starter.

    You need 290 votes in the House, you have (at most) 215. You need 75 Republicans to flip.

    If, miracle of miracle, that happens, it goes to the Senate where you need 60 votes to end a filibuster, you have (at best) 47. You need 13 Republicans breaking rank to end cloture + 7 more to pass it.

    Then it goes to the states for ratification, you need 38. In 2024 19 states went to Harris which means you need all of them +19 Trump states.

    Yeahhh…

    • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      The thing is, at the very least this forces the Republicans (and for that matter Democrats) to pick a side on the issue.

      Citizens United is extremely unpopular with the Republican base, as it is with the Democrat base. If a Republican voter sees that their Congress person voted to maintain citizens United, they might be upset.

        • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Some will. But if 1% of the right see this and either become demotivated or change sides, that is enough to swing entire elections.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Ron Paul used to introduce doomed bills like this all the time. It’s not expected to pass. It’s to reveal the owners of other legislators.

      Even some Democrats will vote against this bill. Every one of those legislators work for the corporations - not for us - and need to be replaced.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Check the comments, 75% of the people here don’t believe the simple fact that the Democrats have not had a supermajority to pass such an amendment since 1979, 30 years before the infamous Citizens United win at the Supreme Court became the current interpretation of law.

      They don’t know that the legislation discussed in this post has been brought to vote multiple times by Democrats over the years under different names, and that this is just the latest instance.

      They just want to complain that Democrats ‘don’t do anything good when they have power, and wont even try when they know they cant win’ - handwaving away reality.

  • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    Would have been a lot cooler if Biden did this as a executive action. But you know spinless Democrats and all that…