• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Every drop helps, but the US spends around $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare. If we changed to single-payer, cut out the middle-man multi-pipeline network of private insurers thereby also lowering administrative overhead that last I checked was around 30%… We would likely achieve what most other nations are achieving at half the per-capita cost we pay now.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    Citizens United.

    But just a few, incredibly rich ones. So it’s like the opposite of what the name seems to imply.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3323 days ago

    They always give these draconian laws positive sounding names. Also, all that disposable money could’ve be used for social programs through taxation

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2323 days ago

        They appear to be mistaking the shorthand for the Supreme Court ruling to be the name of a law. In fairness, bills do often have overly patriotic names that hide their paradoxical purposes.

        • KingJalopy
          link
          fedilink
          923 days ago

          The ministry of Truth would never lie! It’s right there in the name!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          723 days ago

          Well the same principle is at play here, since Citizens United is a deceitful name for an astroturfed, billionaire-funded organization that had absolutely no involvement from ordinary citizens.

        • Billiam
          link
          fedilink
          123 days ago

          Typically, the collection of judicial opinions are referred to as “case law” if one wanted to be generous.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1323 days ago

    After a certain point, they’re just going to cut out the middle-man and say Money = Votes and allow you to bid or hold shares in the office of the President.

    Citizens United and SpeechNow fucked us. Until these are overturned, along with the Electoral College and FPTP abolished, dark days are ahead for our Democracy.

    • skulblaka
      link
      222 days ago

      At which point we the people would be morally and legally obligated to make that office uninhabitable.

      There is always an answer. Just not always a civilized one.

  • Aurelius
    link
    fedilink
    1323 days ago

    Are there other western countries that have a similar rule regarding money in politics? I’m not familiar with rules regarding political donations in other countries

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2423 days ago

      Not really. Most actually have very strict rules about who can donate

      • Aurelius
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        Are the rules around who can donate or around how much they can donate? My understanding is that in the US, most people can donate directly to a candidate (within a limit) but you can donate unlimited amounts “indirectly” to the candidate

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1123 days ago

          Most have rules stipulating who can, and how much and where.

          In the US, that’s how it works. The caveat is that the people who fund it are supposed to be know. This is why we have PACs that act as a buffer between the actual donors and the public.

          Ken griffin (the idiot billionaire in the photograph… of Citadel Securities infamy,) recently dropped millions to defeat a measure that would have seen taxed “enough” that it was profitable to do that.

          Do you think it would have worked if the scare-ads said “this message brought to you by a rich fuck you all hate”?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    y’all come on now, just cause they donated a couple billion bucks does not mean their opinion matters more than an average citizen does it?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    623 days ago

    Republicans don’t want to get rid of it because it helps them against Democrats. Democrats don’t want to get rid of it because it helps them lock out progressives. We’re stuck with it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      223 days ago

      How would the Democrats “get rid of” a supreme court decision?

      Proponents of which party brought the case? Appointees of which party were in the deciding majority on the court?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        123 days ago

        How would the Democrats “get rid of” a supreme court decision?

        Stacking the courts and bringing another case. Or an amendment.

        So like I said, we’re stuck with it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    222 days ago

    Pretty sure I might be on this list. Gave $20 not too long ago, so I’m about to buy some laws.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    223 days ago

    So let’s see Kamala’s plan to end this bullshit… Obviously Trump wouldn’t, but Kamala might if we push enough

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      322 days ago

      Lmao this take that Kamala is somehow immune to the realities of our political financing structures makes no sense to me

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        222 days ago

        Not immune, and not calling for her to abstain… But she could easily say she wants to change the system and how. It’s not even controversial and would get her plenty of points from the left to the center.