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.

  • RufusFirefly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      immediately get rid of the gerontocracy (Schumer, Pelosi), regroup, find a leader with some balls and declare open warfare on Republicans.

      to be fair, this is probably exactly what republicans want to be able to pull the entire curtain down.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    7 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.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 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.

  • VeryVito@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 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
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 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
      9
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

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

      • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        OK, but trying would have let them know where the weak links are, where to put pressure in the future. Same goes for Dobbs. Even if they failed to secure a federal right to abortion in the legislature, having the voting record would have been a powerful tool to use against DINOs – “Shape up, or loose your funding”

        That they never even tried means Democrats are just not interested in strategically working towards success.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 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
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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
          2
          ·
          6 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
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 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.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        it’s literally the meme of

        lemmy: “you’re not doing anything”

        GOV: “i am literally doing everything”

        lemmy: “you’re not doing good enough”

        GOV: “i’m literally the best in my field trying the best i can with good results”

        lemmy: “well it’s still not good enough”

        GOV: “find me a better solution then.”

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      this might actually work if this goes through the states in the midterms, might be a little bit too early for that to happen, but i guess we’ll have to see. I would entirely expect this to be 100% possible to get passed, it just needs support.

  • Tronn4@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Now they ask for this? After having zero majority in either house? Acter letting a nazi waltz into the white house?

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      The Democrats have a long history of waiting until Republicans hold a majority in both houses to propose milquetoast change.

      Keeps their name in the papers without actually having to do anything.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        The Democrats have a long history of waiting until Republicans hold a majority in both houses to propose milquetoast change.

        Every time. Legalizing weed? Only when Republicans control. Making abortion federally protected? Only Republican control. Raising the minimum wage? Only when Republicans control.

        When they are in office? Never one of those, but pushing for bills that get everyone in congress paid more by their handlers called lobbyists.

  • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

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

  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Wouldn’t it be nice if they did shit like this when they were actually in power?

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      It would fail the vote either way, as a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority vote - and there has not been a supermajority in the Senate since 1979. Which was the last time the Democrats successfully put through an amendment, before anyone further complains they do nothing with power when they get it.

      Depending on how jaded you are this is either a stunt, or the particular (left-leaning?) Democrats involved in tabling the legislation are trying to raise the issue their constituents have asked them to. Either way it’ll force the Republicans to show their hand and all vote against it.

      • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yeah it would have forced the republicans to show their hamd back when democrats did control most of the government too Maybe a bit more trying things that would ‘force the republicans to show their hand’ would have been useful when something actually could have been done about it. Everyone knows the republicans fucking hand now.

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

          Everyone knew the Republicans ‘hands’ back before the federal election too - they haven’t suddenly switched their platform or policies. Nothing has changed. You make it sound like there was vaguery in the leadup?

          Just a whole lotta rubes who voted for Republicans after listening to people like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are finally having the penny drop that they’ve been conned.

          Gosh, if only someone had told them once or twice in the last decade that Donald Trump is a multiple-convicted world famous conman and fraud. Damn Democrats!

          • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            So why do this now? Doing it back when they had power would have been a lot more meaningful. Or actually doing literally anything to improve peoples lives. But doing it now is just an entirely empty gesture to try to win back peoples support that they dont deserve in any way.

  • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      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

      • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

      • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        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

    • Guidy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yep, now that it’s far too late and the damage is done and they don’t have a majority.

  • inbeesee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Seems like they realize repubs are winning the ‘get rich taking bribes’ game so hard it’s erasing America. Seems like it’s bad enough to alienate donors? Edit: a word