>

I’m convinced we will never have another amendment. It takes 2/3rds and we have 1 party who refuses to adhere to good faith governance and compromise and a ton of small red states that would need to ratify.
Well it cuts to the heart of the matter.  We’re not going to get sane governance unless we put a stop to unlimited anonymous donations. >


unlimited anonymous donations.

The fact that it opens up foreign influence seems increasingly destructive to national security. The once in a century instability in the house of representatives, I am sure some nations would pay good money for that. >

Does anyone else remember the whole Maria Butina thing, where she got charged with espionage in a honeypot scheme that was ultimately aimed at funneling Russian money into Republican campaigns via the NRA?
Is it any surprise that the GOP has been sucking off Putin since Citizens United? Remember how they always used to call Putin a "strong leader" to shit on Obama? Yeah. How convenient that timing is. >

Does anyone remember when Obama argued it would open up American elections to foreign influences and people poo-pooed him? >

Wisconsinite here, can confirm. Our senator literally spent the Fourth of July in Moscow a few years back. He just won reelection after trying to overthrow the gov’t Jan 6. >

Hey. Your Wisconsin senator lives in Florida with all the other GOP loving Russians. Weird huh? >

Sounds like he needs a foot in his ass. >

Send in Red Forman! >

Reginald "Red" Forman: [to President Ford, after Eric streaks through the room wearing a Nixon mask] "How the hell could you pardon Nixon?" >

“Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release.”
I wouldn’t get your hopes up. >

There's a better shot of adding 10 dem judges to the supreme court and overturning the ruling like they did abortion. >

Good, it was one of the biggest attacks on democracy in recent memory >

For the love of god, please let this pass >

It won't.  It needs 2/3rds of the House and Senate.  And it might not even get 50%. >

Do it anyway. Out the traitors once and for all!
(Not that they haven't outed themselves yet but a few more times for the politically illiterate among us might help.) >

Yes!  Do it anyway! Even if you know it will fail, it matters that you tried. Speaking up matters! >

It doesn't show they tried, it shows they made a spectacle of trying. >

Do you not understand what "trying" means in this context, or do you just not understand the context at all and want to be defeatist and cynical?
Putting it to a vote so that people against it have to put their name on it is trying to progress the issue, even if it fails. This is the best they can really do, especially when the political reality means it is highly highly unlikely to be anything but a spectacle. Not for lack of trying, but because of the circumstances. >

"Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release."
.
It has just as much chance of being passed this time as it has for the past 10 years. >

This is worth trying every year for another 10 and then another 10 and then another 10 until Citizens United is overturned.  It shouldn’t be legal to buy politicians >

Sadly I don't think there's any chance of putting that cat back in the bag, not until we're at the point of writing a new constitution. >

I don’t disagree with you. But it’s one thing worth shouting about and one dead horse worth beating >

I've never met anyone in person who even knows what it is. Citizens United is the cement that covers the grave where democracy is buried, still alive but 6 feet under and the cement is curing. >

It's really a shame that it has a name in the headlines with such a positive connotation. Unless you do the research, which most people certainly do not, you would think it was something that benefited us all. >

Technically the amendment would give Congress the power to regulate and limit campaign financing.
Which means that not only would this amendment have to be passed and then ratified, but then Congress would still have to pass another law that sets rules. >

It's not going anywhere anyway. Too much money in politics already. Once it's in, I don't see much of a way to get it out.