this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
196 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4508 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
196
Andy Levin, Pushed Out of Congress by AIPAC, Calls for Change in U.S.-Israel Policy (www.democracynow.org)
submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 54 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well let's get fucking real about this. PAC activity is bad because it invites foreign influence and limitless spending. The honest tale is that any system that allows this is bad, and these shitheads are just exposing that, and it's not the first time.

We need to repeal any laws that allow this kind of bullshit. Also probably to stop self-funding of campaigns, as has become a problem.

[–] ChlkDstTtr@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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 3 points 2 months ago

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

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is horrible.

I'm truly sorry we lost Andy Levin's support in the Michigan Congress. And I won't soon forget the foreign meddling that caused this.

[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

He lost his reelection a while ago. His district changed due to redistricting. I met him at the Huntington Woods 4th of July parade. Really seemed like a great guy

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

What is the real solution to money buying elections. All I can think of is the gov gives you a budget, and that is all that can be spent. People are welcome to voice thier opinions, but not to spend money spreading it. Seems unlikely to work out as planned. Any better ideas?

[–] BeardoPNW@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Limit campaigning to 6 weeks before the election. Our drawn out campaign cycle is unsubstainable.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

1st amendment would be an issue with this.

[–] would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Prevent substantial wealth differentials in the first place.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You're not wrong. But while you can knock them down, you can't stop them. The powerful will always find a way.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Ban political advertising and campaign contributions, at minimum. Might need a constitutional amendment for this.

Or it might be necessary to ban rich people.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Or it might be necessary to ban rich people.

Haha, now we're talking!

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah that's the thing, an solution that requires an ammendment is a nonstarter. That is why all these PACs exist. They are not part of the official campaign, so they aren't under any campaign rules. I just don't know how we manage that without an ammendment.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

This is correct. The government decided the amount you get for ads and such. I’d really like something like France also where we have a media black out about it leading up to the election.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

Democracy Now - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Democracy Now:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/21/andy_levin
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support