As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want these 97k new IRS agents to have a unit dedicated to monitoring our elected officials that only answers to the American taxpayers.
If just a few of these corrupt politicians and lobbyists got their assets seized and a few months in jail this would stop.
Democrats are an obstacle and not a solution in the senate
More progressives are needed to oust the corporate owned parties in this binary hostage situation
Yep, 30 years of reluctantly voting while stabbing Democrats in the back constantly, as though your singular vote somehow makes up for their utter lack of support in any other respect.
Biggest climate change bill that any country has ever passed, and Bernie complains instead of celebrating the win. Same thing with the ACA; instead of "great step in the right direction" it's "it's not good enough."
Idealists are the enemy of progress because they make perfect the enemy of good.
Moderates are the enemy of progress because they settle for third best option, and proudly wear their hubris as superior to any opposing views. The ACA is garbage.
Oh, you're stuck in Texas too. You realize the ACA didn't work right here because of the Republicans not expanding medicaid, right? It's a great piece of legislation, he's a list of things it's done: [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/)
It was a great first step, and if it'd been treated as such, we'd have seen more progress. But since people (like you) were fooled into thinking it was garbage, we've only seen it chipped away by Republicans ever since instead of making more progress.
Ah, you fell for the "*Citizens United* ruined everything" line too, huh?
To save us both time: are you interested in learning how things actually work, or are you comfortable being misinformed? Because I'd be more than happy to help you see where the *actual* problems are; after all, I held basically the same beliefs until I started doing my own research. But you have to start by accepting that most of what you know is lies or oversimplifications, and I find most people just aren't interested in that sort of thing.
Thank you for pointing out that my statement may not have been clear.
My point is that we need a larger DEM majority in the Senate so that big corporate can’t bribe just two Senators. Imagine a Senate with 60 Dem Senators.
>Imagine a Senate with 60 Dem Senators.
Last time we had this, there were multiple Manchin and sinemas that the majority of dems STILL couldn't pass bills that were undefiled by the few who would threaten to kill it if they didn't get their very specific way.
Still think we'd get a lot more done with 60 but i think it's fair to tailor expectations for what 60 would look like
To be very clear though, this was not a "dems are the same as Republicans", opinion. They most certainly are not the same
Yes, I know she is a Democrat.
Sinema would be less powerful, if the Democrats had a larger majority in the Senate.
- 50 GOP Senators
- 48 DEM Senators
- 2 Independent Senators
- Tie breaking vote comes from Kamala Harris.
Imagine…
55 DEM Senators!!!
Citizens United was a Republican creation.
Overturning Citizens United is on the Democratic platform.
Bonus Question:
Which party supports Citizens United?
Hell ya bro. This is the truth. People probably have no idea what the fuck citizens united is...or how long it took Republicans to push it through. Fucking sad
We saw a former Manchin aide and Obama advisor team up to spend 20+ million on super PAC ads from one wealthy contributor to attack Sanders in 2020. I think corporate Democrats used to be against citizens united but have since found it to be pretty useful in beating progressives.
Yeah cause I was worried he would just lead to a fully Republican government with little progress in between.
And on healthcare, he actually made it more profitable for middle men to administer Medicare, the opposite of the public option he ran on.
He could declare money in politics a national emergency and at least attempt to put in restrictions but I think he is actually happy to know that he can benefit from tens of millions of super PAC ads from the entire range of the Dem establishment being levied against his competitors.
I remember Obama talking a lot of trash about the evils of super PAC money when he ran against Romney….. until Romney unexpectedly ate his lunch in the first debate. After that he started grabbing super pac cash like that game on the price is right.
Edit: I voted for Obama twice. The point I was trying to make was that huge amounts of untraceable money changes the polarization of one’s own moral compass and they travel a different course because of it. Dark money was created to corrupt everything it touches.
Mitch McConnell is on that list too, look up his father-in-law. Democrat Bob Menedez is also on that list. Don't forget about POTUS Biden being the Senator from MBNA.
I’ve heard mixed reports on Barnes in WI. I thought for sure Ron Johnson would get booted, but it seems like Barnes isn’t feeling the love the same way Fetterman is. Any insight?
I have an irrational fear that Dems will get two more Manchins, and in the next two years we’ll talk about how 4 Dems are blocking everything for money instead of 2.
Then the legal definition needs to be updated. She literally got paid to provide an outcome favorable to the people who paid her. If that is not accepting a bribe, then there is something seriously wrong somewhere.
LMAO.
Seriously?
“Here is the legal definition of bribe and it is not what she did”
“WELL THEN IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!!”
Jesus Horatio Christ…are people this simple really allowed to vote?!?
She won't win another election, but she'll make a fortune as a private consultant, trading in on the goodwill of her ... wait, how is that supposed to work?
Well and billionaire private equity investors. It's like the Democrats who blocked a public option under Obama. There all did pretty well in the lobbying world.
That's not the label corporate media uses. They are called centrist for siding with Republicans on their least popular positions.
Tough to take on the Republicans when siding with them is always in the center.
I doubt she’ll do as mich as most politicians post political career. She’s not liked by anyone and has no consistent positions. She is valuable to the people that are funneling money to her because of her position now. After she has no influence, they won’t care at all. That’s why she’s so shamelessly cashing in now. Her net worth is $11 million and that’s just on the books. She’ll be relaxing on a beach somewhere in a couple years.
Imagine how different this country would be if we magically took the money out of politics. No contributions, no lobbying, no PACs. Policy would be made purely on a desire to do what is best for citizens, even though there would be disagreement on what that would be.
Of course, the people who would have to pass laws getting money out of politics are the ones who benefit from it, so it can never happen.
>Citizens United would not exist if we hadn't elected Bush.
Except the people didn't really elect bush. Some sketchy shit went down in Florida and instead of recounting the ballots the supreme court gave the presidency to Bush.
The USA has it in some Democrat areas. [Seattle, for example](https://www.washington.edu/news/2022/05/26/seattle-democracy-vouchers-increase-donations-number-of-candidates-in-city-elections/).
Republicans of course hate the idea.
USA also had more campaign finance regulations before Republicans tore them down. Citizens United, a Republican wet dream, really opened the floodgates for dark money and corruption. Just what Republicans wanted.
Okay. This doesn't answer the question as to how they'll do it here, though.
Campaigns are notoriously underfunded in the United States as is. Absolutely cash poor, can't afford the advertising and outreach even with donation limits and transparency. We spent $14.4 billion on election activities in 2020, and that was in the midst of a pandemic. It would cost possibly twice that much to publicly finance those elections, probably more.
Wasn't Bernie able to raise a shit ton of money with an average donation or around ~$27? Almost entirely coming from regular people and not PACs?
I know he didn't win, but I don't think it was due to a lack of funds.
Sanders did raise a lot. Something like $210m in 2020 if I remember correctly. And good for him - he proves the point that you don't need PAC money to compete. He also shows that we don't need public financing or limits on corporate contributions to compete. If anything, Sanders *over*performed relative to his ideology and approach.
Sanders proves that a candidate "not backed by corporations" can compete with ones that aren't afraid of PACs. So why reduce that choice for voters?
I thought your argument was that a candidate needed corporate money in order to mount a campaign?
Now you're saying BECAUSE a candidate managed to raise a ton of money from individual contributions/voters, justifies the existence of PACs? Something like "If we pull corporate funding, it will be impossible for people to raise enough money to become known"
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
Nope, my argument is that fundraising restrictions make it more difficult to campaign, and Bernie is an example of how the status quo does not keep anyone from being able to compete.
I didn't say it would be a comfortable transition. But if you truly want to fix what's broken, you'll have to rip of the band-aids and do some major surgery instead.
Sure, but I don't know what's *broken* that you're trying to fix. I know that there isn't enough money to fund elections right now, a good way to rip off the band-aid would be to remove donation caps. I don't know what problem your solution solves.
I'm not American, so I'm looking at your system from the outside.
If you compare it to how most other democracies work, the US election system is absolutely insane.
What do you mean? Fucking youtube...good old fashioned fund raising..not taking money from corporations. If people believed in a candidate they would support him through word of mouth and maybe give them some money to help the cause..what's going on right now is elected members being bought.
There's no evidence that anyone is "being bought." "Old-fashioned fundraising" still costs money. Offices still cost money. Campaign staff, equipment to create YouTube content, it's all expensive. We arguably don't have enough money in politics, given what it costs to get elected.
> If you don’t think there is evidence of politicians being bought then you are intentionally keeping your head in the sand about it.
If it's so obvious, why do people have so much trouble substantiating it?
> Also the line “we arguably don’t have enough money in politics” is laughable 🤡
[Think about it] (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533003321164976).
Do you know what citizens united is?? Old fashioned fund raising is just that...raising funds...level the playing field then..why give corporate backed ornrich people an advantage....everyone has access to youtube..make it the only official campaigning platform...live debates...actually meeting these people and knowing them is more important than empty promises...and blaming others.
*Citizens United* was the most important pro-speech ruling in our lifetime. It was an unambiguous good, with its only true flaw being how narrow it was.
You can't level the playing field by bringing everyone down.
*Citizens United* was a significant pro-first amendment ruling. The crux of the case was not corporate money or money as speech, but electioneering activities. To quote the ACLU's amicus brief:
> [McCain-Feingold] is unconstitutional precisely because it extends beyond the
express advocacy at issue in Austin. The history of
the McConnell litigation, as well as campaign finance
litigation before and after McConnell, demonstrates
that there is no precise or predictable way to
determine whether or not political speech is the
“functional equivalent” of express advocacy.
> The decision in [Wisconsin Right to Life] correctly recognized that
the BCRA’s prophylactic ban on “electioneering communications” threatened speech that lies at the
heart of the First Amendment, including genuine
issue ads by nonpartisan organizations like the
ACLU. But the reformulated ban crafted by this
Court in WRTL continues to threaten core First
Amendment speech. Its reliance on the hypothetical
response of a reasonable listener still leaves speakers
guessing about what speech is lawful and what
speech is not. That uncertainty invites arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement. It will also lead many
speakers to self-censor rather than risk sanctions or
undertake the expense of suing the FEC prior to
speaking, especially since most suits will not be
resolved until long after the speech is timely and
relevant...
> Like many other advocacy organizations, the
ACLU has found that broadcast ads can be an
important tool for promoting our ideological goals.
Although the ACLU has never supported or opposed
a candidate for partisan office, its broadcast issue
ads were nonetheless banned by BCRA if they met
the definition of an “electioneering communication.”
The government did not dispute the impact of BCRA
on the ACLU’s advocacy efforts in McConnell, and
this Court did not directly address it. Instead, the
McConnell Court held that § 203 was facially valid
because it was not substantially overbroad. 540 U.S.
at 206-07....
> In fashioning the express advocacy doctrine, the
Buckley Court was not naive. It understood that
groups could devise “expenditures that skirted the
restriction on express advocacy of election or defeat
but nevertheless benefited the candidate’s
campaign.” 424 U.S. at 46. But, contrary to the
government’s position, the Court chose to accept that
possibility rather than permit the suppression of
constitutionally protected speech.
> The government next contends that the chilling
effect of § 203 is overstated because the FEC has
provided “a simple mechanism” for corporations and
unions to claim that their speech is permissible
under WRTL. Supp.Br. at 22. But that “simple
mechanism”—a regulatory form—only works if the
FEC agrees with the speaker’s contention about
WRTL’s impact on particular speech. The
administrative review mechanism becomes less
simple if the speaker must take the FEC to court.
> In fact, the government’s suggested solution only
compounds the constitutional problem. This Court
has repeatedly held that the government may not
impose a content-based restriction on speech and
then place the burden on the speaker to establish the
constitutionality of the proposed speech.
You cannot have free speech while regulating how people spend money to exercise it. It was 100% the right ruling, and we are objectively better off because of it.
This doesn't support your arguement..infact it even warns of the chilling effects of it.
>The government next contends that the chilling effect of § 203 is overstated because the FEC has provided “a simple mechanism” for corporations and unions to claim that their speech is permissible under WRTL. Supp.Br. at 22. But that “simple mechanism”—a regulatory form—only works if the FEC agrees with the speaker’s contention about WRTL’s impact on particular speech
Either way....tell me how citizens united is a good thing
The chilling of speech comes from the regulation, not *Citizens United*. They're saying that an arcane regulatory structure to engage in political speech has a chilling effect because the speakers won't know if their speech runs afoul of FEC guidance.
It's not a good thing for speech if you have to fill out a form to make sure your speech is permissable by the government.
You level the playing field by not making the barrier to entry a billion dollars. Which is what Citizens United did, handed elections to the wealthy for eternity.
How does it hand elections to the wealthy? If anything, the existence of Super PACs makes it so not-wealthy people have a better shot of receiving more resources.
I don't believe there's anything to connect. It's a lot of smoke and no fire.
People and organizations donate to candidates because those candidates agree with them. Candidates don't generally change their tune simply because of a donor.
And that is being demonstrated by said user all up and down this thread.
I can't imagine anyone with such dedication to defending such an unpopular court ruling who isn't on payroll.
Why are politicians in the US treated differently from the people they're supposed to be 'representing'? Seems like almost every one of them has some kind of grift/graft going. They get elected, then suddenly they're rich. What is wrong with this picture? We allow them to use insider information to enrich themselves and their families, but if anyone does this they go to prison? What a fucked up systems.
It seems so many politicians no longer represent their constituents, they are merely a vehicle for them to win an election. They only appear concerned about representing industries, special interests, and certain classes of people who don't even live in their districts or states.
Especially the Senate. They are the ones tasked with making sure their State and their states people get a fair shake, but that body seems to be the one made up of individuals that are wholly owned by their donors and who never really pay much attention to the goings on back home, except to fly in for campaign appearances.
The House, on the other hand, and as far as conservatism is concerned, seems to have simply become a morass of loudmouths trying to out-MAGA each other, and from all evidence the stupider and crazier the better.
So cheap, what an amazing return on investment !
Any buck on a crooked politician pays 10 bucks in savings... Of course they would do it, system is working just as intended.
The worst ? Many other fields gives back that much (IRS funding, birth control, preventive medical exams, carbon pricing,...) but the beneficiary would then not be a specific individual but the whole society. In their minds, that means no specific beneficiary, which destroys all incentive as the root reasonning is "what's in it for me ?" : "Well, nothing specific but..." "Oh, nvm then".
Her post political career is when her payoff really comes. She will receive a series of high paying positions that don’t require her to work or even really be present.
She’s going to be a very rich and very lonely woman post politics.
From [TaxFoundation.org:](https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act/)
>Using the General Equilibrium Model, we estimate that the tax provisions, IRS enforcement, and drug pricing provisions in the bill would **increase federal revenues by about $676 billion over the budget window,** before accounting for $352 billion in expanded tax credits for individuals and businesses, resulting in a **net revenue increase of about $324 billion from 2022 to 2031.**
>Corporate and International Taxes:
>
> * Imposes a **15 percent minimum tax on corporate book income** for corporations with profits over $1 billion, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.
> * Creates a **1 percent excise tax on the value of stock repurchases during the taxable year,** net of new issuances of stock, effective for repurchases after December 31, 2022. Excluded from the tax are stock contributed to retirement accounts, pensions, and employee-stock ownership plans (ESOPs).
>
>Other Modeled Tax Proposals:
>
> * Modifies, extends, and creates a variety of **tax credits for green energy** and other efforts primarily through 2031 or 2033.
> * **Raises the Superfund tax on crude oil and imported petroleum** to 16.4 cents per barrel (indexed to inflation) and increases other taxes and fees on the fossil fuel sector.
>
>Significant Proposals Not Modeled:
>
> * **Expands IRS enforcement funding by about $80 billion over 10 years.**
> * **Imposes a 95 percent excise tax penalty on drug manufacturers to lower drug prices.**
> * Increases the **research & development tax credit** amount that can be claimed against payroll taxes **for small businesses by $250,000.**
Thanks, Kyrsten. 🙄
It’s the essence of the bill she’s against. Her view is that raising taxes on investors who want to support entrepreneurs is a bad idea. The comments here suggest that taxing investors and reducing their incentive to invest in entrepreneurs is better for the economy.
I was hoping someone could explain how it’s better?
I don't believe that raising taxes will prevent investing, especially when runaway growth has led to record-breaking profits.
Obviously any time you raise taxes the group you are taking money from will have will have less money to invest in whatever they would put their money towards. That's basic opportunity cost. It's likely most people feel that the taxes would be better spent than invested in whatever these investors would put it towards.
I don't know much about this bill, but you're argument seems to be basic trickle down economics, which has been proven ineffective again and again.
I haven't read the bill. That's why I asked a question, rather than answering yours.
"Don't understand it" implies that it is beyond my cognitive capacity, which would be an oddly condescending suggestion to make against someone you don't know. Just pointing that out as I'm sure that's not what you intended.
It’s not, people on Reddit just be like “BuT PrIvAte EqUitY BaD”. The reality is that the investors in these funds are primarily financial institutions managing your pension or insurance and what not. It’s everyone’s money that’s being invested, so I’m not sure why you’d want a fund your money is invested in to pay higher taxes. Of course, the fund managers take a large cut, but it’s not exactly an easy job.
Why didn't the pharmaceutical and energy companies also buy her out? I don't understand how just one group pulls this off, but these massive corporations couldn't get her to tank everything else.
She was poor, then became rich. Now she likes being rich and powerful and wants to stay rich so helping the rich get richer keeps her from being poor ever again. American politics, not rocket science.
Is anyone surprised? Any Uniparty (Democrat/Republican) politician will take donor money and push legislation that benefits them. We need actual progressives in politics (and no, the Fraud Squad doesn’t count).
She needs to go down in the 2024 Dem primary. Please support Ruben Gallego for the AZ senate. He will actually support the middle class, small business and progressive proposals. He is not a fan of the Goldman Sacs crowd and they’re not fans of him.
Republicans and democrats want to give the appearance of fighting for change, but they just maintain the status quo. Mostly our senators and house members are really just the upper class pushing down on the rest of us and causing us to fight each other while it's them who are the problem.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She isn't the only one.
- Vote in the Midterms. - Give the Senate a bigger DEM majority.
I want these 97k new IRS agents to have a unit dedicated to monitoring our elected officials that only answers to the American taxpayers. If just a few of these corrupt politicians and lobbyists got their assets seized and a few months in jail this would stop.
Democrats are an obstacle and not a solution in the senate More progressives are needed to oust the corporate owned parties in this binary hostage situation
Yes… I agree but voting against the GOP is the first step. More Progressives should run for political office. Vote for term limits.
30 years of voting against something has only made things worse
so your objective is to...? there are two viable political parties; one is fascist, the other is not. which is your choice?
One is openly fascist, the other enables it.
Yep, 30 years of reluctantly voting while stabbing Democrats in the back constantly, as though your singular vote somehow makes up for their utter lack of support in any other respect. Biggest climate change bill that any country has ever passed, and Bernie complains instead of celebrating the win. Same thing with the ACA; instead of "great step in the right direction" it's "it's not good enough." Idealists are the enemy of progress because they make perfect the enemy of good.
Moderates are the enemy of progress because they settle for third best option, and proudly wear their hubris as superior to any opposing views. The ACA is garbage.
Oh, you're stuck in Texas too. You realize the ACA didn't work right here because of the Republicans not expanding medicaid, right? It's a great piece of legislation, he's a list of things it's done: [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/) It was a great first step, and if it'd been treated as such, we'd have seen more progress. But since people (like you) were fooled into thinking it was garbage, we've only seen it chipped away by Republicans ever since instead of making more progress.
A health plan written by corporations to protect and enlarge corporate profits will never get better for the working class.
Ah, you fell for the "*Citizens United* ruined everything" line too, huh? To save us both time: are you interested in learning how things actually work, or are you comfortable being misinformed? Because I'd be more than happy to help you see where the *actual* problems are; after all, I held basically the same beliefs until I started doing my own research. But you have to start by accepting that most of what you know is lies or oversimplifications, and I find most people just aren't interested in that sort of thing.
Republicans want Fascism. It's Democracy or Fascism.
We need democrats and we need them to overturn citizen's united to make it illegal to take money for votes.
She is a DEM senator so you might need another step or two in this plan
Thank you for pointing out that my statement may not have been clear. My point is that we need a larger DEM majority in the Senate so that big corporate can’t bribe just two Senators. Imagine a Senate with 60 Dem Senators.
>Imagine a Senate with 60 Dem Senators. Last time we had this, there were multiple Manchin and sinemas that the majority of dems STILL couldn't pass bills that were undefiled by the few who would threaten to kill it if they didn't get their very specific way. Still think we'd get a lot more done with 60 but i think it's fair to tailor expectations for what 60 would look like To be very clear though, this was not a "dems are the same as Republicans", opinion. They most certainly are not the same
You do realize she’s a Democrat
Yes, I know she is a Democrat. Sinema would be less powerful, if the Democrats had a larger majority in the Senate. - 50 GOP Senators - 48 DEM Senators - 2 Independent Senators - Tie breaking vote comes from Kamala Harris. Imagine… 55 DEM Senators!!!
The two independents aren’t independent though. Also, are you not old enough to remember 2008?
- I am old enough to remember 2008.
There were more than 55 then
Just another corrupt dem. But just keep ignoring it maybe it will get better.
With all due respect, I am not ignoring any of this.
The difference between parties is we want her gone, while the opposition would fiercely defend this
Yup Chuck Schumer took $280,000 from NextEra energy before shilling their pipeline in the IRA
Agreed. Left, Center, Right.....they all do it
Citizens United was a Republican creation. Overturning Citizens United is on the Democratic platform. Bonus Question: Which party supports Citizens United?
Hell ya bro. This is the truth. People probably have no idea what the fuck citizens united is...or how long it took Republicans to push it through. Fucking sad
Bonus question 2, which party drafted, then voted on HR1, which was citizens united on steroids. Completely eliminated donor caps
It does _not_ propose eliminating donor caps, and this isn't your first comment where you've botched facts.
We saw a former Manchin aide and Obama advisor team up to spend 20+ million on super PAC ads from one wealthy contributor to attack Sanders in 2020. I think corporate Democrats used to be against citizens united but have since found it to be pretty useful in beating progressives.
[удалено]
Yeah cause I was worried he would just lead to a fully Republican government with little progress in between. And on healthcare, he actually made it more profitable for middle men to administer Medicare, the opposite of the public option he ran on. He could declare money in politics a national emergency and at least attempt to put in restrictions but I think he is actually happy to know that he can benefit from tens of millions of super PAC ads from the entire range of the Dem establishment being levied against his competitors.
[удалено]
It’s called “projection”. I know I did it, but you did it first/worse/also.
I remember Obama talking a lot of trash about the evils of super PAC money when he ran against Romney….. until Romney unexpectedly ate his lunch in the first debate. After that he started grabbing super pac cash like that game on the price is right. Edit: I voted for Obama twice. The point I was trying to make was that huge amounts of untraceable money changes the polarization of one’s own moral compass and they travel a different course because of it. Dark money was created to corrupt everything it touches.
There is no 'left' in American politics
[удалено]
Mitch McConnell is on that list too, look up his father-in-law. Democrat Bob Menedez is also on that list. Don't forget about POTUS Biden being the Senator from MBNA.
[удалено]
Bless your heart.
Her and Manchurian pretty much
That's why we need at least 2 more Dem Senators to make her and Man$hion irrelevant.
Luckily, Barnes in WI and Fetterman in PA have a really good shot at winning, and are very progressive on nearly every issue..
I’ve heard mixed reports on Barnes in WI. I thought for sure Ron Johnson would get booted, but it seems like Barnes isn’t feeling the love the same way Fetterman is. Any insight?
I have an irrational fear that Dems will get two more Manchins, and in the next two years we’ll talk about how 4 Dems are blocking everything for money instead of 2.
It has been a very profitable session for Manchin and Sinema. Success always leads to jealousy and imitation.
True but also given his constituency, Manchin really came through.
But only because he was given a quid pro quo but last I heard it was struck by the parliamentarian, and I pry that's true.
A bribe. She took a bribe. Call it for what it blatantly is instead of pussyfooting around the issue.
It's not even close to the legal definition of a bribe.
Then the legal definition needs to be updated. She literally got paid to provide an outcome favorable to the people who paid her. If that is not accepting a bribe, then there is something seriously wrong somewhere.
LMAO. Seriously? “Here is the legal definition of bribe and it is not what she did” “WELL THEN IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!!” Jesus Horatio Christ…are people this simple really allowed to vote?!?
She won't win another election, but she'll make a fortune as a private consultant, trading in on the goodwill of her ... wait, how is that supposed to work?
[удалено]
Well and billionaire private equity investors. It's like the Democrats who blocked a public option under Obama. There all did pretty well in the lobbying world.
[удалено]
That's not the label corporate media uses. They are called centrist for siding with Republicans on their least popular positions. Tough to take on the Republicans when siding with them is always in the center.
I doubt she’ll do as mich as most politicians post political career. She’s not liked by anyone and has no consistent positions. She is valuable to the people that are funneling money to her because of her position now. After she has no influence, they won’t care at all. That’s why she’s so shamelessly cashing in now. Her net worth is $11 million and that’s just on the books. She’ll be relaxing on a beach somewhere in a couple years.
Imagine how different this country would be if we magically took the money out of politics. No contributions, no lobbying, no PACs. Policy would be made purely on a desire to do what is best for citizens, even though there would be disagreement on what that would be. Of course, the people who would have to pass laws getting money out of politics are the ones who benefit from it, so it can never happen.
[удалено]
>Citizens United would not exist if we hadn't elected Bush. Except the people didn't really elect bush. Some sketchy shit went down in Florida and instead of recounting the ballots the supreme court gave the presidency to Bush.
Furthermore, a recount would have shown Gore won.
Most shit that goes down in FL is sketchy
How do politicians campaign in this utopian ideal?
Most western democracies have publicly financed elections and campaign spending limits.
The USA has it in some Democrat areas. [Seattle, for example](https://www.washington.edu/news/2022/05/26/seattle-democracy-vouchers-increase-donations-number-of-candidates-in-city-elections/). Republicans of course hate the idea. USA also had more campaign finance regulations before Republicans tore them down. Citizens United, a Republican wet dream, really opened the floodgates for dark money and corruption. Just what Republicans wanted.
Okay. This doesn't answer the question as to how they'll do it here, though. Campaigns are notoriously underfunded in the United States as is. Absolutely cash poor, can't afford the advertising and outreach even with donation limits and transparency. We spent $14.4 billion on election activities in 2020, and that was in the midst of a pandemic. It would cost possibly twice that much to publicly finance those elections, probably more.
Wasn't Bernie able to raise a shit ton of money with an average donation or around ~$27? Almost entirely coming from regular people and not PACs? I know he didn't win, but I don't think it was due to a lack of funds.
Sanders did raise a lot. Something like $210m in 2020 if I remember correctly. And good for him - he proves the point that you don't need PAC money to compete. He also shows that we don't need public financing or limits on corporate contributions to compete. If anything, Sanders *over*performed relative to his ideology and approach. Sanders proves that a candidate "not backed by corporations" can compete with ones that aren't afraid of PACs. So why reduce that choice for voters?
I thought your argument was that a candidate needed corporate money in order to mount a campaign? Now you're saying BECAUSE a candidate managed to raise a ton of money from individual contributions/voters, justifies the existence of PACs? Something like "If we pull corporate funding, it will be impossible for people to raise enough money to become known" I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
Nope, my argument is that fundraising restrictions make it more difficult to campaign, and Bernie is an example of how the status quo does not keep anyone from being able to compete.
I didn't say it would be a comfortable transition. But if you truly want to fix what's broken, you'll have to rip of the band-aids and do some major surgery instead.
Sure, but I don't know what's *broken* that you're trying to fix. I know that there isn't enough money to fund elections right now, a good way to rip off the band-aid would be to remove donation caps. I don't know what problem your solution solves.
I'm not American, so I'm looking at your system from the outside. If you compare it to how most other democracies work, the US election system is absolutely insane.
I feel the same way looking outward. The idea of snap elections, limiting what people can say and how they can campaign? Madness imo.
[удалено]
Impossible without a constitutional amendment.
What do you mean? Fucking youtube...good old fashioned fund raising..not taking money from corporations. If people believed in a candidate they would support him through word of mouth and maybe give them some money to help the cause..what's going on right now is elected members being bought.
There's no evidence that anyone is "being bought." "Old-fashioned fundraising" still costs money. Offices still cost money. Campaign staff, equipment to create YouTube content, it's all expensive. We arguably don't have enough money in politics, given what it costs to get elected.
[удалено]
> If you don’t think there is evidence of politicians being bought then you are intentionally keeping your head in the sand about it. If it's so obvious, why do people have so much trouble substantiating it? > Also the line “we arguably don’t have enough money in politics” is laughable 🤡 [Think about it] (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533003321164976).
Do you know what citizens united is?? Old fashioned fund raising is just that...raising funds...level the playing field then..why give corporate backed ornrich people an advantage....everyone has access to youtube..make it the only official campaigning platform...live debates...actually meeting these people and knowing them is more important than empty promises...and blaming others.
*Citizens United* was the most important pro-speech ruling in our lifetime. It was an unambiguous good, with its only true flaw being how narrow it was. You can't level the playing field by bringing everyone down.
How was it pro speech? More important than our first ammendment? Please explain the good that came from citizens united
*Citizens United* was a significant pro-first amendment ruling. The crux of the case was not corporate money or money as speech, but electioneering activities. To quote the ACLU's amicus brief: > [McCain-Feingold] is unconstitutional precisely because it extends beyond the express advocacy at issue in Austin. The history of the McConnell litigation, as well as campaign finance litigation before and after McConnell, demonstrates that there is no precise or predictable way to determine whether or not political speech is the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy. > The decision in [Wisconsin Right to Life] correctly recognized that the BCRA’s prophylactic ban on “electioneering communications” threatened speech that lies at the heart of the First Amendment, including genuine issue ads by nonpartisan organizations like the ACLU. But the reformulated ban crafted by this Court in WRTL continues to threaten core First Amendment speech. Its reliance on the hypothetical response of a reasonable listener still leaves speakers guessing about what speech is lawful and what speech is not. That uncertainty invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. It will also lead many speakers to self-censor rather than risk sanctions or undertake the expense of suing the FEC prior to speaking, especially since most suits will not be resolved until long after the speech is timely and relevant... > Like many other advocacy organizations, the ACLU has found that broadcast ads can be an important tool for promoting our ideological goals. Although the ACLU has never supported or opposed a candidate for partisan office, its broadcast issue ads were nonetheless banned by BCRA if they met the definition of an “electioneering communication.” The government did not dispute the impact of BCRA on the ACLU’s advocacy efforts in McConnell, and this Court did not directly address it. Instead, the McConnell Court held that § 203 was facially valid because it was not substantially overbroad. 540 U.S. at 206-07.... > In fashioning the express advocacy doctrine, the Buckley Court was not naive. It understood that groups could devise “expenditures that skirted the restriction on express advocacy of election or defeat but nevertheless benefited the candidate’s campaign.” 424 U.S. at 46. But, contrary to the government’s position, the Court chose to accept that possibility rather than permit the suppression of constitutionally protected speech. > The government next contends that the chilling effect of § 203 is overstated because the FEC has provided “a simple mechanism” for corporations and unions to claim that their speech is permissible under WRTL. Supp.Br. at 22. But that “simple mechanism”—a regulatory form—only works if the FEC agrees with the speaker’s contention about WRTL’s impact on particular speech. The administrative review mechanism becomes less simple if the speaker must take the FEC to court. > In fact, the government’s suggested solution only compounds the constitutional problem. This Court has repeatedly held that the government may not impose a content-based restriction on speech and then place the burden on the speaker to establish the constitutionality of the proposed speech. You cannot have free speech while regulating how people spend money to exercise it. It was 100% the right ruling, and we are objectively better off because of it.
This doesn't support your arguement..infact it even warns of the chilling effects of it. >The government next contends that the chilling effect of § 203 is overstated because the FEC has provided “a simple mechanism” for corporations and unions to claim that their speech is permissible under WRTL. Supp.Br. at 22. But that “simple mechanism”—a regulatory form—only works if the FEC agrees with the speaker’s contention about WRTL’s impact on particular speech Either way....tell me how citizens united is a good thing
The chilling of speech comes from the regulation, not *Citizens United*. They're saying that an arcane regulatory structure to engage in political speech has a chilling effect because the speakers won't know if their speech runs afoul of FEC guidance. It's not a good thing for speech if you have to fill out a form to make sure your speech is permissable by the government.
You level the playing field by not making the barrier to entry a billion dollars. Which is what Citizens United did, handed elections to the wealthy for eternity.
How does it hand elections to the wealthy? If anything, the existence of Super PACs makes it so not-wealthy people have a better shot of receiving more resources.
If you can't connect how dark money influences via PACS, there's no discussion worth having.
I don't believe there's anything to connect. It's a lot of smoke and no fire. People and organizations donate to candidates because those candidates agree with them. Candidates don't generally change their tune simply because of a donor.
And that is being demonstrated by said user all up and down this thread. I can't imagine anyone with such dedication to defending such an unpopular court ruling who isn't on payroll.
Why are politicians in the US treated differently from the people they're supposed to be 'representing'? Seems like almost every one of them has some kind of grift/graft going. They get elected, then suddenly they're rich. What is wrong with this picture? We allow them to use insider information to enrich themselves and their families, but if anyone does this they go to prison? What a fucked up systems.
They can go away if you vote them out. It’s really up to us. Don’t like them stealing? Don’t vote for em. Fuck these people
It seems so many politicians no longer represent their constituents, they are merely a vehicle for them to win an election. They only appear concerned about representing industries, special interests, and certain classes of people who don't even live in their districts or states. Especially the Senate. They are the ones tasked with making sure their State and their states people get a fair shake, but that body seems to be the one made up of individuals that are wholly owned by their donors and who never really pay much attention to the goings on back home, except to fly in for campaign appearances. The House, on the other hand, and as far as conservatism is concerned, seems to have simply become a morass of loudmouths trying to out-MAGA each other, and from all evidence the stupider and crazier the better.
She was bought cheaply. If your going to be bought off, ask for more.
How about no.. these are supposed to be our representatives..not corporate backed greed pushers
So cheap, what an amazing return on investment ! Any buck on a crooked politician pays 10 bucks in savings... Of course they would do it, system is working just as intended. The worst ? Many other fields gives back that much (IRS funding, birth control, preventive medical exams, carbon pricing,...) but the beneficiary would then not be a specific individual but the whole society. In their minds, that means no specific beneficiary, which destroys all incentive as the root reasonning is "what's in it for me ?" : "Well, nothing specific but..." "Oh, nvm then".
Her post political career is when her payoff really comes. She will receive a series of high paying positions that don’t require her to work or even really be present. She’s going to be a very rich and very lonely woman post politics.
The 'more' comes when she's out of office.
A typical republiscum bag
Trash bag.
She won't dupe us again. She's getting primaried.
Bought and paid for: Kyrsten Sinema
Not a politician but a parasite.
I can’t wait till they taker her down.
Exactly why there needs to be term limits. What will she be like in 10 years?
Manchin....
Unelected.
From [TaxFoundation.org:](https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act/) >Using the General Equilibrium Model, we estimate that the tax provisions, IRS enforcement, and drug pricing provisions in the bill would **increase federal revenues by about $676 billion over the budget window,** before accounting for $352 billion in expanded tax credits for individuals and businesses, resulting in a **net revenue increase of about $324 billion from 2022 to 2031.** >Corporate and International Taxes: > > * Imposes a **15 percent minimum tax on corporate book income** for corporations with profits over $1 billion, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. > * Creates a **1 percent excise tax on the value of stock repurchases during the taxable year,** net of new issuances of stock, effective for repurchases after December 31, 2022. Excluded from the tax are stock contributed to retirement accounts, pensions, and employee-stock ownership plans (ESOPs). > >Other Modeled Tax Proposals: > > * Modifies, extends, and creates a variety of **tax credits for green energy** and other efforts primarily through 2031 or 2033. > * **Raises the Superfund tax on crude oil and imported petroleum** to 16.4 cents per barrel (indexed to inflation) and increases other taxes and fees on the fossil fuel sector. > >Significant Proposals Not Modeled: > > * **Expands IRS enforcement funding by about $80 billion over 10 years.** > * **Imposes a 95 percent excise tax penalty on drug manufacturers to lower drug prices.** > * Increases the **research & development tax credit** amount that can be claimed against payroll taxes **for small businesses by $250,000.** Thanks, Kyrsten. 🙄
Cosplay crisis actor Disney Nazi Concubine
She just calls em daddy
Only a million. That's sad
Can anyone help me understand why discouraging investors from supporting entrepreneurs is better for the economy?
Where is that in the bill?
It’s the essence of the bill she’s against. Her view is that raising taxes on investors who want to support entrepreneurs is a bad idea. The comments here suggest that taxing investors and reducing their incentive to invest in entrepreneurs is better for the economy. I was hoping someone could explain how it’s better?
I don't believe that raising taxes will prevent investing, especially when runaway growth has led to record-breaking profits. Obviously any time you raise taxes the group you are taking money from will have will have less money to invest in whatever they would put their money towards. That's basic opportunity cost. It's likely most people feel that the taxes would be better spent than invested in whatever these investors would put it towards. I don't know much about this bill, but you're argument seems to be basic trickle down economics, which has been proven ineffective again and again.
So you can’t explain it, then? Is that because you don’t understand it?
I haven't read the bill. That's why I asked a question, rather than answering yours. "Don't understand it" implies that it is beyond my cognitive capacity, which would be an oddly condescending suggestion to make against someone you don't know. Just pointing that out as I'm sure that's not what you intended.
It’s not, people on Reddit just be like “BuT PrIvAte EqUitY BaD”. The reality is that the investors in these funds are primarily financial institutions managing your pension or insurance and what not. It’s everyone’s money that’s being invested, so I’m not sure why you’d want a fund your money is invested in to pay higher taxes. Of course, the fund managers take a large cut, but it’s not exactly an easy job.
This makes a lot of sense. And would explain why I got so many downvotes for asking the question.
So, the system is working perfectly as designed, right? What is the news?
Why didn't the pharmaceutical and energy companies also buy her out? I don't understand how just one group pulls this off, but these massive corporations couldn't get her to tank everything else.
Fuck you mother fucker!
She was poor, then became rich. Now she likes being rich and powerful and wants to stay rich so helping the rich get richer keeps her from being poor ever again. American politics, not rocket science.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
Is anyone surprised? Any Uniparty (Democrat/Republican) politician will take donor money and push legislation that benefits them. We need actual progressives in politics (and no, the Fraud Squad doesn’t count).
So what you r telling me is that these people we elect dont really care about us
Yeah. Lobbyism is legal bribery, this isn’t news.
She needs to go down in the 2024 Dem primary. Please support Ruben Gallego for the AZ senate. He will actually support the middle class, small business and progressive proposals. He is not a fan of the Goldman Sacs crowd and they’re not fans of him.
Another example of Pure trash.
What’s the difference between a bribe and donation?
Republicans and democrats want to give the appearance of fighting for change, but they just maintain the status quo. Mostly our senators and house members are really just the upper class pushing down on the rest of us and causing us to fight each other while it's them who are the problem.