• ChlkDstTtr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    3 months ago

    We had a law. The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court invalidated it saying the First Amendment takes precedence so we’d need another Amendment limiting speech in politics, which is complicated. I believe we already have laws about foreign money in politics, but we have extremely weak enforcement for it (and weak enforcement of other political laws in general). If we made stronger laws requiring PACs to report where all of their funding came from the current Supreme Court would likely knock it down saying anonymous speech is also protected by the First Amendment.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      We don’t need an amendment. We just need to get rid of a few openly corrupt supreme court justices.

      Because as has been shown, precedent can be ignored.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I am writing a several-thousand word paper on this very thing, and the nature of a corrupt court doesn’t get fixed until you put better representatives in the House and Senate, which doesn’t happen until you change the rules of the game for Campaign Finance & Election Law.

        Ultimately, the stacked court is there to stay for decades if not perpetuity until a grassroots demand for a constitutional amendment reforming our elections occurs. This must be a movement as big if not bigger than civil rights in order to happen. But it’s the only way to fix the root problem and also sidestep the Supreme Court.

        Pretty much every single major issue that plagues our country is caused or exacerbated by:

        • The Electoral College
        • FPTP Voting
        • Money = Speech, Dark Money, and Corporate Personhood
        • Gerrymandering
        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t get me started on Ordinal vs Cardinal voting systems… But the TLDR is that Ordinal is great when you have two options, and shit when you have more than that.

          STAR is the best voting system I’ve found so far. (Still looking for better, but STAR is pretty good)

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yeah STAR is really promising! I ultimately appreciate anything that 1) isn’t FPTP, 2) Eliminates the Spoiler Effect, and 3) is extremely intuitive to even the most demented grandma and youngest most newest newcomer to voting. I really like Approval Voting because it’s kind of foolproof.

            Like you said, hard to find perfection (eg, condorcet winner meets intuitive), but we also can’t let perfection be the enemy of good.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ll take the amendment still, one worded strongly enough that a corrupt supreme court can’t argue around it.