WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is considering a Republican-led drive, backed by President 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 on Tuesday 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.
The limits stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.
I think we all know how this is going to turn out.
We already have a political campaign system that allows candidates to legally loan themselves money and then pay themselves back at 20% interest with your campaign contributions, and both sides do it, so it’s hard for me to imagine this getting much worse. (But, like everything we’ve experienced since 2001, the only constant is it always gets worse no matter who we elect.)
The masses must Luigi for a while until good qualities start to become popular among leaders.
I’ve seen a meme floating around showing the gunman (I’m not willing to concede they got the right guy) talking about the thousands of insurance approvals that resulted from Brian Thompson’s sacrifice. (Also not willing to call it a murder, because health care CEO’s are mass murderers themselves) Whoever it was that shot him probably saved hundreds of lives.
And it’s wild to think that way, but it’s objectively true.
it’s not wild at all and the ruling class has been expecting it; that’s why they build safety bunkers for themselves.
that’s also why they’re suppressing news stories of copy-cat shooters; a huge majority are still unaware that more ceo’s have been targeted and shot like this.
Can’t argue with you on that. To me it felt wild watching how enthusiastically people of all political stripes came together in support of the shooting and in support of Luigi.
And it felt wild that there was a little bit of a chink in the armor of the mighty US health care insurance cartel.
this and the no-kings marches show that there’s A LOT of kindling for a revolutionary fire and that the armor of the ruling class has small holes in it.
our wealth gap inequality is already worse than that of the pre-french-revolution era; gaza, trump and epstein are showing us that we have an autocracy that is rivaling pre-revolution tsarist russia; and the last half century of repeated episodes of the democrats capitulating to republicans’ demands to dismantle the welfare state as well as intense levels of education, healthcare, and household debts proves that our peasantry is reaching pre-revolutionary levels of china.
however the ruling classes’ propaganda game is still VERY strong and sophisticated enough to keep this asshattery going for atleast another generation or three and there’s no bigger sign of this than the self fulfilling manufactured narrative that we must keep voting for the political duopoly that makes all of this happen despite living, breathing proof at the american southern border that we can start to change things by simply voting 3rd party.
They are just removing the need to do thing s discreetly.
Since nobody polices the relationship between candidates, parties, and super PACs I feel like this law is already just pure symbolism. The fact that Trump and Steve Chabot are involved makes me think there’s something sinister hidden in this, probably just makes the grafting more straightforward.
Agreed, 100%.
But that’s the story of the Donald presidency. He’s just outwardly doing everything that was already occurring in the shadows.
