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.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

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

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 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.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    19 hours ago

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

  • ameancow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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.)

  • etherphon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    18 hours ago

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

  • santa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

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

    • Zexks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 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.

  • lunelovegood@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Honestly, just speedrun this shit at this point.

    All Americans deserve to suffer for sucking off corporations.