this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
162 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26640 readers
1902 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court is considering a Republican-led drive, backed by Donald Trump’s administration, to overturn a quarter-century-old decision and erase limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.

A day after the justices indicated they would overturn a 90-year-old decision limiting the president’s power to fire independent agency heads, the court is revisiting a 2001 decision that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old.

Democrats are calling on the court to uphold the law.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago

OH NOH!

why is it everything I hear about the Supreme clownshow fills me with dread

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Let me guess. They're using the ~~bribes~~ donations are a form of free speech argument?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 27 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

How the fuck can anyone still pretend that our system even attempts to reflect the will of the people? Money in politics is a horrendous issue already. Sure let's fucking make it worse because the oligarchs want that

[–] mika_mika@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Because there was a candidate who ran an inspirational platform against money in politics amongst other populist issues, and he was stomped down twice. Because of this people will feel they have no choice but to spit on anyone that criticizes the DNC and will blame their poor candidates and wasted votes on left purity tests and by falling for propaganda.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So instead of answering the rhetorical question, you just thought you'd remind me of the horrible world we live in. Cool.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 1 points 1 minute ago

Truly sorry, good person.

[–] lunelovegood@ttrpg.network 5 points 14 hours ago

Bread & Circus

It's football season~

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 50 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ it's hard not to downvote headlines like this out of anger.

[–] Kronusdark@lemmy.world 15 points 14 hours ago

They need a new “hate it, but more people should see this” button.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 32 points 17 hours ago

We wouldn’t have these justices if it weren’t for massive amounts of money in our elections. So it checks out.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I can't wait to vote in the next Republican-Amazon-Prime-Super-Spectacular-Disney-Time-Warner-Johnson&Johnson-GoogleMetaAI-Election-Extravaganza. (No need to vote, that's already been decided, it's entirely for entertainment purposes and coveted advertiser slots.)

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 8 points 15 hours ago

I agree. Let's get rid of limits on party spending. Instead, let's ban it altogether.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 18 points 18 hours ago

Infinite Corruption in Infinite Combinations

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 13 points 17 hours ago

Of course, and then any political money benefitting Democratic candidates will be declared antifa terrorism

[–] etherphon@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago

There was a limit? The spending is already ridiculously out of control. I don't want to see any more fucking ads.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago
[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What’s precedent anyhow? It’s for suckers and losers! Dats what orange grandpappy tole me /s

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

That really is the crux of it though isnt it. Soon as i saw that last line about "they need to follow the law". Its not law its something some people agreed on but was never codified. This has been a major weakness of our government since inception. Its just that in the past people respected traditions and precidemt and things like that. But it was never a 'requirement'. We rely on precident FAR to much. Our lawmakers have abdicated their responsibility to the courts and the executive branch. And now were going to reap what they sowed. This is exactly what authoritarians are always talking about. We have to find a way to force lawmakers to do their jobs and make it punishable to be so obstinate as to to disagree with everything out of spite.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

How convenient

[–] lunelovegood@ttrpg.network -5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, just speedrun this shit at this point.

All Americans deserve to suffer for sucking off corporations.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Says the 8-hour old account, lol.