this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
515 points (99.8% liked)

politics

27959 readers
2570 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
 

Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

And this is why we can "officially" be incorrupt, the very act of bribery is endorsed by the State!

Every time you see the word "donations" or "contributions" just swap it with "bribes".

Amazon and friends aren't "donating" millions of dollars out of charity.

Citizens United and Super PACs were the final nails in the coffin, today we are seeing the results of 50 years of unbridled bribery by corporations and robber barons.

And that's why minimum wage is seven bucks an hour and no universal healthcare and on and on and on and on.

They do allow us to argue about abortion and gay marriage though, as long as it doesn't affect the bottom line, so that's nice.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

And this is the point where everything went to shit.

Thanks, guys!

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

We need a wealth cap

Nobody should be able to have a networth over 1 million dollars. NOBODY.

You go over the 1 million? All over 1M goes 100% to taxes. All income goes to taxes until your below again.

It's a simple rule that will change the world for the better.

[–] Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

1 million is ridiculously little. That would completely prohibit homeownership. And pension savings.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 1 points 37 minutes ago

But, houses would probably become a lot cheaper if 1 million was the limit.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 25 points 16 hours ago

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

[–] AuroraZzz@lemmy.world 37 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

If corporations are people, they should be arrested whenever they kill other people

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah shutdown the whole thing

[–] OshagHennessey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

And allow another capitalist to buy it? Why not nationalize it instead?

[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago

And executed

[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 19 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

US laws: money is speech

People: OK, we'll just choose to not spend money with those we dislike

US laws: that's illegal

(Anti BDS laws)

[–] lemmylump@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This and Citizens United gave the rich and Russia all they needed to destroy democracy.

Fuck now we got trump crypto openly taking money as corrupt as possible from countries all over the world, especially Saudi Arabi.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 6 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Come on, this is all homegrown fascism. Sure, it benefits Russia, because the US being alienated from her allies is obviously beneficial to Russia, but Trump is corrupted mainly by American fascist interests, in my opinion.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I hope we don't repeat the mistake of not prosecuting the wealthy. By refusing to take down the bastards, the Roosevelt administration basically gave permission for fascism to grow.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 3 points 17 hours ago

Democrats have always been complicit with fascism. The entire two party system and capitalism itself must be destroyed for freedom to reign.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

While a lot of the fuel was present the Ruskies most certainly added to it and helped ignite the current fire. Otherwise it'd probably still look like the 1990s militia movement.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 9 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

There's no denying that Russia has done a lot to foment far-right sentiment, but the idea that the US couldn't or wouldn't destroy democracy without Russian interference is ridiculous

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The idea that the US ever had a real democracy in the first place is pretty suspect. The way the Senate was designed to prevent the people from coming for the rights or property of the wealthy is very telling. They basically knew it was a lie from the start and designed fail-safes to prevent their cronies from losing power.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 9 points 19 hours ago

100%. The American Revolution was a war waged by the rich against the mega rich, and they got poor people to die for it.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Nor am I saying that it wouldn't happen, but I'd argue the case that they are instrumental in its acceleration and current form. Don't get me wrong it is almost inevitable that US democracy will end be it with the dissolving of the Union or dictatorship probably followed by the former, but it happening as it has almost requires Russia and honestly 9/11 Bush did a fucken number on the system.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 5 points 19 hours ago

Russia didn't stir up anything that wasn't already there, but they definitely stirred. The post 9/11 rush into authoritarianisn is far, far more instrumental, and 9/11 was a very predictable outcome of post-WW2 US foreign policy

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's easier and more comforting to imagine that there is some villainous foreigner responsible for all of the evil you see in the world, but actually, America is the home of evil. The truth can be painful, but it will also set you free.

If you can recognize that the global ruling elite don't care about countries except to use them against eachother, you begin to see that Russia and China are just convenient scapegoats for capitalists in America. In Russia, they blame America and China. In China, they blame Russia and America.

The truth is, they are all playing the exact same game. We're the pawns in that game.

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago

Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Orwell saw the pattern back then. The dynamics and details have shifted greatly, but the essence remains.

I do think you guys should stop quibbling over the detail of who is responsible for the fall of US democracy, though. Russia was an integral component, as the other guy says, and you were right about Russia not being the top of the chain of responsibility. Capital is at the top. Billionaires, corporate execs, the capital class. (Not the Jews, by the way, even though Israelis are prominent in the framework. Jewishness is not the useful part there, it's the fact that Israel is a colonial project, an outpost of capitalism in the Middle East. The Epstein Files, if anything, has shown us how that works.)

You are both right, and you both agree on the important bit. As do I.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 108 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fun fact, that quote is two years younger than this decision.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

His words are timeless.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

jesus would the US just write some new legislation and stop with the pseudo-philosophical supreme court bullshit

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago (1 children)

one of the worst decisions ever made. corporations aren’t human.ms with inalienable rights

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Human.ms sounds like a bare bones early attempt at AI from Microsoft 🤔

[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

lolololol my fat thumbs

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 10 points 23 hours ago

The Supreme Court is illegitimate

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And women used to have federally protected rights over their own bodies.

Things can change.

Expand the SC and revert this dipshit decision.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Women will always be second class citizens until the equal rights amendment is passed.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Personally, I think that if UBI and wealth caps are implemented, that people should be able to use money to support political speech...up to a limit. Say, a $1,000 limit per individual, each year. Corporations can't use money for speech, just citizens. Anyone caught selling their speech for favors, lose their citizenship.

By setting a visible and clear amount of 'maxing' a person can do, it sets a goal. A fair number of people would work towards filling that political bucket of money, since they know the goal is achievable, and that their speech actually matters. A billionaire can't put their finger on the scales, if their billions didn't exist in the first place. This is helpful for preventing a feeling of not mattering within the ordinary person.

When it comes down to it, many of society's ills come from the wealthy. Not just because of the influence they exert, but also because they demoralize people who otherwise would participate in democracy.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

How are you going to prevent billionaires from giving money under the table? Seems simpler to me to just not have billionaires.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 19 hours ago

Well, I DID mention wealth caps. Part of this is to limit how much income an individual can earn each year - anything beyond the cap should be fully taxed. Also, an maximum amount of money that a person can have in total savings and assets.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Even though I think it's a huge problem to consider pacs or donations speech, there are some legitimately thorny issues here. How do we define speech in a way that allows us to clamp down corruption but does not interfere with the free press? And if we do find a ruling or law that walks this line, do the rich simply find another avenue to exert influence?

Not that these fights don't matter--shifting the balance of power towards the people and away from the rich is a good thing. But I have come to believe that extreme wealth is simply incompatible with democracy. When you have enough time and money you can always find a way to subvert the rule of law, and it's usually in your interests to do so. But of course this leaves us with the question of how to destroy the political power of the wealthy in a political system that is now heavily rigged against us. I know what some people will say but I still haven't seen a really good answer to this question.

Maybe syndicalism, but labor tactics have been heavily restricted by federal and some state laws. So this would require more willingness on the part of unions to break the law, and a much clearer and more radical vision for our political system. Right now I don't see this has much popular support. And the time to build this support is limited as fascism tightens its hold and automation and AI threaten to undermine the bargaining power workers hold today.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DokPsy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Easy step we can do. No contributions to individuals running for an office. Any money goes to a common fund that is distributed amongst the candidates. Equally. With a maximum amount per person correlated to the number of parties involved in the election.

Example: mayoral race with 2 parties and a fund of $500,000. Each person receives 250,000 for their campaign.

Same race but with $1,000,000 in the fund? That's right. Each member gets 300,000 to use.

3 parties involved with that 1M fund? 333,000 per person but goes to 500,000 when the funds available allow for it

Catch: all donations go to this fund and all money used from this fund must be accounted for. Anyone found to be using their own money or any donations that did not come from the fund constitutes an automatic forfeiture of their campaign and any unspent money of their allotted amount gets returned to the funds.

Said returned funds do not get distributed to the other campaigns.

Any unused money of the fund at the end of the election is used by civil services budgets.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

So where's my free money?

load more comments
view more: next ›