There is not the political will to do so.
-
-
Replying to @TiffanyBond @DorothyGale_Oz
Political will? The Supreme Court considers that unconstitutional.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We had one chance to overturn Citizens United. It was by electing Clinton and her filling the open Supreme Court seat. Those staying home and going for Stein, Johnson and Trump nixed that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ASFried @DorothyGale_Oz
I am clearly, deeply, and personally committed to getting $ out of politics. I live that message in how I campaign, despite it probably making for a longer shot at the goal post. However, we do have a problem with there being the political will to follow suit and change the law.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Regardless of what factors made that happen, it is. I agree with you very much that our system is paid off. Until we send different people it is unlikely to change. That's the closest we have to a national referendum...though we know in Maine how seriously those are taken anyway.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @TiffanyBond @DorothyGale_Oz
So you’re dropping the absurd claim that all we need is the political will to change the law? Good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ASFried @DorothyGale_Oz
The people we have sent to Congress, in aggregate, do not have the will to change this law, and they are the ones with yhe power to do so. Not sure how that is unclear.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @TiffanyBond @DorothyGale_Oz
It’s like you have no idea of the role of the Supreme Court in our campaign finance regime and how they overturned laws that took a lot of political will to enact.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ASFried @DorothyGale_Oz
It's like I think we have an existing situation, and that situation has 2 possible remedies, different law created by legislative action, or different law created by judicial ruling. I'm not assigning a value or likelihood to either path, merely stating those are the options.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @TiffanyBond @DorothyGale_Oz
Surely you’re aware that passing campaign finance laws means nothing if the Supreme Court considers them unconstitutional.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That would be the role SCOTUS has. That leaves the legislators the option to try different reasoning/drafting, an amendment, or confirm Justices with different philosophical leanings. The remedies exist with Congress and SCOTUS, which each have different checks.
-
-
Replying to @TiffanyBond @DorothyGale_Oz
Confirm different judges? You mean under a different president, right? Trump isn’t going to nominate anyone who would overturn Citizens United.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ASFried @DorothyGale_Oz
I think that's pretty obvious...which brings us back to Congress, which is lacking the political will to tackle the issue at this point, whether or not SCOTUS would strike it down. It's a vicious circle. That's why I am trying to test a different, albeit unlikely, model.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.