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.
Do the people in these comment sections not grasp how Constitutional amendments work?
It requires two thirds of the Senate. Which Democrats have not had in the past half century.
That is why Democrats didn’t try it when they had a majority. Because it would not work.
People really just want an excuse to blame Democrats for everything.
It’s far more complicated than that to get an amendment passed including a route that doesn’t require Congress.
Second, there is value in trying things that will fail. It sends a signal to the citizenry that this isn’t acceptable. This can be a good just as much as it can damage their reputation. In my opinion, the Dems need to rebuild a reputation that is connected to the people in some meaningful way. I don’t get the sense that Democratic leadership see that as the core issue
We didn’t have 4/5 of state legislatures when we had Congress.
If they don’t get that it isn’t acceptable now, nothing is going to convince them.
I don’t get why failing even more would make the Democratic Party look good.
Doing something that resonates with your base and, frankly, most Americans, could help. I can’t help you beyond that.
Two thirds of Americans voted Trump or didn’t vote. “Most Americans” don’t appear to give a fuck.
Also, “failing resonates with Democratic voters” does not have the makings of a great slogan.
This has to be the most persistent, stupidest reading of the vote.
Why? What other reading is there?
Maybe if they actually tried to do shit people would give them more power?
Maybe if they tried to pass stuff repeatedly that they knew would fail, and certainly be painted in the majority right-wing mainstream media as incompetence - the swing voters who are largely poorly politically informed (according to polls) would somehow see these failures as reason to vote for them more? I like your optimism there but it runs contrary to history