>

Perfectly timed introduction when all the Dems can vote on it knowing it will fail
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. >

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. >

I don’t understand how Citizens United is legal in the first-place. It allows foreign investors more representation than US citizens. That has to go against the equality part our founding fathers cared so much about.
Beyond that, it opens up a billion avenues to thwart national security. Our military doesn’t have to be fought to take America, we’ve put ourselves up for sale to the highest bidder. Might take a bit longer, but the transition will be much smoother.
This is the kind of thing that should have bi-partisan support with voters. For all the rage-baiting news, and loud idiot minorities online, the majority of Americans want the same things. We’ve just had semantics weaponized against us, and perceived reality fractured. What are the odds any news of this gets posted to r/conservative? I guarantee 90% of conservatives would agree that money in politics is bad, but the right will spin-it as though democrats want to write the laws surrounding campaign finance, so that they can cut off Republican funding, but keep the ability to accept money from the corporations Dems are aligned with. Same way they twisted the campaign finance transparency to be a ploy to get all republicans cancelled for their political donations.
Edit: auto correct >

On its face, the CU ruling makes sense. If the first amendment protects your right as an individual to promote your political views, it protects your right to band together with like-minded individuals to promote those views.
It gets even more complicated when you discover that the ruling is the exact opposite of what the conservative group was going for. They thought that documentaries critical of a candidate should be regulated as a campaign contribution to the opponent.
It's hard to reconcile the first amendment with the modern global political machine. >

I would be fine with groups of citizens, with transparent contribution records. But not businesses, who can be owned in-part, or in-whole, by dictators of other countries, who have wet dreams about the demise of America. I’m almost positive Russia has infiltrated Wall-Street for this very reason. Mobsters gone mainstream, a nation chipping away at their enemies by destroying their economy, and sharing the wealth with useful idiots. The CIA learned that torture, drugs, and all kinds of other stuff didn’t work — when trying to get foreign agents to turn on their countries. The magic pill ended up being bags of cash. I don’t even think most of our politicians believe they’re doing bad, or even wrong. They’re just being greedy. >

Some think tanks are of the mind that a simple overturn of Citizens wouldn't work anyway, as political finance is completely off the rails at this point. But here are some smaller pieces of legislation that could minimize the influence of the small group of rich donors that currently dominate political finance:

Boost Citizen funding of elections by providing tax rebates for small contributions
More transparency on political spending by strengthening donor disclosure requirements
Require transparency for online Ad buys
Close loopholes that allow super PACs to coordinate with candidates
Stop the flow of dark money to nonprofits by increasing disclosures requirements past a certain dollar amount
Re-fund the FEC to monitor, audit, and enforce campaign finance

I think exactly zero of these will happen because many people in DC would have to answer a lot of tough questions about what they've been up to over the last decade. I think they'll get away with this con until something catastrophic happens (like a scandal) that gets the people's attention. Otherwise, "campaign finance reform" is not a topic that seems to hold the general public's attention for very long.
Source: Brennan Center >

And that is why I always donate $3 of my tax return to the election fund. >

Shit, you aren’t even donating it, you’re just telling the IRS that $3 of the money you already owe needs to go to that fund. I don’t understand why people DON’T do it. It literally costs us nothing and collectively gives the people a somewhat stronger voice in politics >

This isn't an argument for or against checking the box, but you should probably know that most major party candidates decline these funds because they can raise more on their own (not surprisingly, following Citizens United). So, in effect, by checking the box you are mostly funding third-party candidates. >

Win majorities in congress, keep hold of the presidency,  nix the filibuster and re-balance/expand the court and set a 15 year appointment for the justices. >

I like it...or maybe 16 years cause I feel like term limits should be even for some dumb reason lol. >

18 years. There are 9 justices so you could stagger the terms to where one seat comes up every 2 years. 
Each presidential election would thereby have 2 supreme court seats on the line. >

Schiff has introduced this same legislation every year since 13. Citizens United ruling has hurt this country beyond belief. It’s repeal is needed badly. Unfortunately, it will never get voted on in this Congress. Yay! >

Only way we will ever fix this country is if the Bird Flu goes airborne . >

Schiff's been doing this every ~~year~~ congress for 9 years, trying to introduce an amendment since 2013.  The fact that this has mostly been met with silence by other members of congress and the media is deafening.
EDIT: From what I can tell, the article incorrectly states:

Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release.

He hasn't introduced it every year, but every elected congress, so every 2 years.  It first started with the 112th congress (2011-2012) to today's 118th congress (2023-2024).  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. >


Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013

This really tells you all you need to know.  I'm 100% with them that the Citizens United decision is bad for the country and should absolutely be overturned and I applaud the effort, but this is going to go the same place the last 9 did. >

How quaint. A constitutional amendment that needs to be ratified by the craziest GOP run state governments in history. >

Wow, it's weird how they chose to introduce it now instead of earlier when they had a slim majority.  It's almost like they don't want it to pass or something. Huh weird >

"Schiff has introduced an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling every year since 2013, according to the release." >

This will never pass, don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for it but I doubt it happens. >

And tax the church >

Hell yes. >

IIRC, Schiff has brought this up every year since the ruling occurred. I love his persistence. Hoping we can see something come from this, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the current GQP majority in the House. >

A day late and several hundred billion dollars short >

That’s where we are, it requires a constitutional amendment to make bribery illegal >

How can normal citizens support this concretely? >

Repealing Citizens united has an 80% approval rate across all parties in the USA.
Republicans hate it too. Corporate power should be separated from the govt. the founders didn’t perceive the influence of corperations would begin to wield. >

Excellent! >

Of course they'll do it now, when they don't have a majority in the House. WTF were they doing for the past 2 years?
Edit: I stand corrected. Looks like he's been introducing it for the past decade. >

It wouldn’t have gotten out the senate back then either. Plus this is a constitutional amendment. You need 2/3 to pass >

Run this in ADs. Say republicans are accepting bribes. >

Hey Republicans... This is what we want. This is the kind of 'small government' shit you all seem to crave so much. This is how you start to dig the tick known as 'dark money' out of American politics and begin to 'drain the swamp'. Get on board... help us get this done. This isn't for party, it's for country. Get behind this.
I'm an independent and I approve this message. >

Don't amendments need 2/3rds to pass anyway? >

Yes. >

Please let this fucking pass. Fuck companies and their money >

More of this, please >

Yes please >

There are very few things that are more important to the US than this legislation. >

Democrats are proposing this while republicans want to revamp the tax code to be regressive. 
Both parties are not the same and fuck whoever spreads that lie. >

About fucking time! >

It's about damn time. Waaaayy too late, if you ask me. We should've been on this corruption since it's inception. This is literally the law that allows corporations and the ultra-wealthy to "buy politicians", and by extent, influence their will upon the general population, not to mention the laws of our society. Large corporations that are treated as people according to this law.
Not sure which is worse. The Patriot Act, or this. Both are insults to democracy and modern human rights. >

I'd love to see the GOP call their bluff and pass it. >

Every legislator that will vote against this should be considered corrupt >

Everyone who thinks this is a good idea: call your elected representatives.  Tell them you support the constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United, and you will not support any politician who doesn't.
It takes 5 minutes, and if enough people do it it could just save our democracy. >

He’s introduced this proposal every year since 2013. That’s both awesome and super depressing. >

This is one of the biggest issues both Democrats and Republicans alike seem to agree on for the most part. If this doesn’t work, I don’t know what else will wake up people to the fact that republicans are against the people and for the billionaires >

"We the People".... not a word including business....and many founding fathers were businessmen.  If they wanted to include business to all our rights they would have said so. >

Holy shit. Bravo. 
Even if it’s just an attempt the fact this is even a thing. Fuck ya. >

This shows the difference between Dems and repunicants >

This subreddit is so mired in delusion it’s honestly frightening. >

Interesting but, with regard to Section 4:

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge freedom of the press. 

That appears to say that anything I, or anyone else,  can legally publish today durring an election,  we could continue to publish after the amendment.  Which doesn't really do anything about CU at all. >

This isn't going to go anywhere with the Congressional makeup like it is. >

It might? Gaetz brought this up in his last speech before they elected the speaker, if he and the other MAGA truly mean it when they say “drain the swamp” maybe this could pass? Assuming 100% dem support, which idk about. This could just be for show but hey, let’s see how this goes! >

They definitely don't want to drain the swamp. That's just a slogan like Got Milk? >

The new slogan should be "milk the swamp" >

Yes, this is how they drain it. >

Zero media coverage. No one is going to bat for this. Shame, it could have the biggest real world positive change in politics in a long time. >

Why not do this when you had a majority? 
I really don’t want to hear anything about bill introductions for the ne two years. >

Exactly. This. Why didn’t they? >

This is all I've ever wanted from a political party.
Red blue or yellow I do not give a damn, just for and by the people >

Why?  It’s going straight into the trash bin. >

Why didn't they do this a year ago when they had the house? >

And they didn't want to do this when they controlled both chambers of Congress? >

Why didn't they do this a year ago? >

When fixing a house plagued with corruption, you should always start with the foundation. If passed this would have an enormous impact on every issue we face as a nation. >

Why didn't they do this a few months ago when they had control of the house? Either way this is good to see. >

Schiff has proposed this every year for the last 10 yrs now, read the article before posting, or at least a few comments >

This case really is the source of a shot ton of problems in this country today. Most people haven’t even heard of it. >

Why wait to try this when in the minority of the house? I hope they can somehow pick off a handful of r’s to get it passed but I doubt it. >

DO IT! 
If a corporation can't be locked in prison for crimes, then it is not a People. >

couldn’t they have done that when they were in the majority? >

Which will accomplish exactly nothing. >

If by some miracle it passed it would do a lot actually >

Now we’re talking.  Make the peoples vote count.  Get rid of so much money influencing elections.  It’s not democracy anymore. >

Cool. Introduce the single most important piece of legislation you possible can after you lose half of congress. >

And you couldn’t do this while you still had control of Congress? >

Yawn.  Wake me up when something real happens. >

Give ‘‘em hell. >

Why didn’t they introduce this when they had the majority? >

No fuckin way this passes and the masses won't even care >

They really should have done this last year.  Its pointless with the GQP in control of the house. >

It's about fucking time!!! >

Anonymous political contributions and lack of transparency into our political process is a huge problem in the medium and long term of our imperfect democracy. This needs to be at the top of the legislative agenda and people need to push their representatives to back such an effort. >

How does this happen practically?  This, to me, is the single most important thing we can do as a country. >

God Speed. >

Yes please!!!! Finally this gets some attention! >

This is so important >

Yes. Please let politicians expose themselves for being special interest shills. >

Fuck yes. Some much needed sanity >

The whole thing needs a rewrite from the ground up. >

Please. This is where everything started going horribly wrong >

The amount of people who don't read the article are ridiculous.   Schiff has done this every year since 2013. >

My version would be simple. If you can’t actually vote for the candidate you can’t donate. $2,000 per cycle limit. Eliminate PACs. >

This is the kind of shit that will save a democracy. >

Won’t pass, but even if the legislation is mostly symbolic, it points to a major flaw in the system and a need for real change. Nothing will ever be done if it’s never even discussed, so at least it’s being proposed and there’s some sort of a conversation there.