A recent Wall Street Journal article — an actual article, in the workplace/lifestyle section, not even an op-ed! — laments the recent trend of horrible, lazy workers who, umm … *checks notes* … tak…
Chicken and egg problem. In order to ban political contributions, you would need to elect enough polititans who will vote for that against the corporate interests mentioned. Not just a majority if polititians either.
Because the high court has decided that political contributions are “speech”, it would take a constitutional amendment to end them. That means 2/3 of both the upper and lower houses. Then, it has to get a majority in 3/4 of the state legislatures as well before actually taking effect.
For reference, in the last 41 years it hasn’t been possible to do that for an amendment saying women have the same rights as men, something that runs into far less corporate opposition than ending bribery political contributions.
Yeah, no, your constitutional system is broken beyond repair.
That’s not up for debate. Like I said above, every other democracy has done a new Constitution or a full on rework at some point. Americans are pretty unique in getting hung up on their foundational moment like that.
I mean, SC precedent can be altered eventually, but even the really obviously flawed design of the court in general is a constitutional issue with obvious improvements available.
But again, a new Constitution seems like a much lower bar than… you know, The Revolution.
i think a lot of us feel the problems are so entrenched, and any lower bar to change so inaccessible, nothing short of violence will create any significant change.
given how difficult it would be to (for example) change our constitution or end corporate political contributions through non-violent means, what’s left? every part of our current system is self-reinforcing on the national level.
it doesn’t help that the sentimental commitment to “our founding fathers” is equivalent to something like religious faith (see - christofascism, american nationalism) and/or national identity (because we don’t have any other).
Chicken and egg problem. In order to ban political contributions, you would need to elect enough polititans who will vote for that against the corporate interests mentioned. Not just a majority if polititians either.
Because the high court has decided that political contributions are “speech”, it would take a constitutional amendment to end them. That means 2/3 of both the upper and lower houses. Then, it has to get a majority in 3/4 of the state legislatures as well before actually taking effect.
For reference, in the last 41 years it hasn’t been possible to do that for an amendment saying women have the same rights as men, something that runs into far less corporate opposition than ending
briberypolitical contributions.Yeah, no, your constitutional system is broken beyond repair.
That’s not up for debate. Like I said above, every other democracy has done a new Constitution or a full on rework at some point. Americans are pretty unique in getting hung up on their foundational moment like that.
I mean, SC precedent can be altered eventually, but even the really obviously flawed design of the court in general is a constitutional issue with obvious improvements available.
But again, a new Constitution seems like a much lower bar than… you know, The Revolution.
i think a lot of us feel the problems are so entrenched, and any lower bar to change so inaccessible, nothing short of violence will create any significant change.
given how difficult it would be to (for example) change our constitution or end corporate political contributions through non-violent means, what’s left? every part of our current system is self-reinforcing on the national level.
it doesn’t help that the sentimental commitment to “our founding fathers” is equivalent to something like religious faith (see - christofascism, american nationalism) and/or national identity (because we don’t have any other).