Anarchistbear said:
concordtom said:
Anarchistbear said:
concordtom said:
DiabloWags said:

I have a hard time understanding how the curves could be reversed on the far left.
A problem with USA is that we are not used to hard times. All those who lived through the 30's and 40's are dead. Everyone today expects good times. Well, we have a serious reckoning coming with the Debt and with the annual Deficit, and we are totally unprepared to deal with it. Nobody is willing to make the hard choices.
An austerity candidate is needed, but there's no way s/he would get elected! And that's a cultural flaw, born of the times that have shaped this culture.
Voters see there is no austerity regarding "national security", ICE, wars or tax cuts, only on health care and food stamps.
Conclusion:
Lobbying wins.
So does racism (ICE).
The elected parties have little to do with their voters and a lot to do with their funders
Worst SCOTUS decision of my lifetime?
Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, which allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations and unions, requires a constitutional amendment, a challenging process requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states. While popular among many, overturning it is difficult; however, reformers are focusing on related issues like banning "redboxing" (candidate-PAC coordination) and foreign spending.
Key Aspects of the Citizens United Debate:
The Decision: The 2010 ruling deemed that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
Consequences: It enabled the rise of Super PACs, allowing corporations, unions, and nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts to advocate for or against candidates.
Proposed Solutions: Many advocate for a Constitutional Amendment to declare that corporations are not people and money is not speech.
Legislative Action: Some efforts focus on closing loopholes, such as the Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act to prohibit "redboxing" (coordinated spending) and restricting foreign-influenced corporations from spending in elections.
Despite the ruling, the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates remains in place.