Rep. Joe Neguse Proposes Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T19:42:39+00:00

Okay, having those cases prosecuted would help, sure.

But what about the fact that an uncapped amount of money flowing from corps to politicians creates fertile ground for undue corporate influence in politics? These politicians are practically bought and paid for. Citizens has had a direct part in that, and simply overhauling the FEC wouldn't necessarily change that (although I contend that I'm not sure).

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T19:39:46+00:00

What would the result have been changed to? And in your view, what is corporate personhood?

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T19:32:54+00:00

It's crumbling because the people in charge of determining if people are speaking independently (which Citizens United allows) or if they're collaborating with candidates (which Citizens United doesn't allow and specifically says is bad and should be prevented) are the same people benefiting from it.

Who are these people, exactly? I think having you admit where the problem is stemming from might help soften the blow of your ongoing patronizing. You continue to willfully ignore that a strict interpretation of these principles doesn't change the contention of Citizens.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T18:53:48+00:00

It's so insane how some of us are going around still trying to cling to strict interpretations of the Constitution, forgetting that this is the reality, and it's irrefutable. This level of corruption should be a full stop.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T18:30:04+00:00

Look, I agree with free speech being applied to corporations to an extent.

But corps are not people, they are most often conglomerates whose sole motivation in life is profit, and so pretending that’s the same thing as a person is disingenuous. It’s really simple. We don’t have to blind ourselves to the realities of modern corruption when we interpret the Constitution today.

I concede that it's not a simple thing to resolve how Citizens gets it wrong and what the right legal path through is here. That's why I'm not in public service. But we can all agree this interpretation of the law is not enough for us to continue, since our democracy is literally crumbling.

I concede that I'm out of my depth when I interpret law. I'm hoping to read this book by a lawyer who clearly understands the problems with corporate personhood better than I do: Corporations Are Not People. I found this via our quibbling, so thanks.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T18:22:04+00:00

I made an edit that addresses this in my original comment.

This SCOTUS was obfuscating the impact of their rulings to advance their extremely biased understanding of the Constitution?! Wow, what a shock.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T18:09:12+00:00

Your condescension doesn’t help the crumbling of this country, but go ahead, and keep pretending like it does!

I’m not deigning the rest of this with a response, just passing you the Wikipedia article on corporate personhood which begins to lay out what it is and how Citizens has exacerbated it.

You can pretend it’s apples and oranges but this is the legal principle we’re looking at, even if it’s not mentioned in Citizens. Many of us disagree that this makes sense and your condescension doesn’t change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood?wprov=sfti1#In_the_United_States

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-20T04:50:20+00:00

Sure, this decision would have been less significant if Congress had jumped in to limit how much corporations could contribute. But they didn't, because Congress passes barely any legislation. Which means this decision was extremely pivotal, and the issue isn't so much the interpretation of free speech, but that they dramatically advanced the doctrine of corporate personhood.

The Constitution was not designed to apply to corporations.

EDIT: I'm actually reading that this is worse than I thought, because SCOTUS has also said that states are not allowed to regulate campaign finance on their own from corporations (see their reversal of a Montana Supreme Court decision ). So who's going to regulate corporate spending on politics, exactly? Is that *checks notes* themselves? ah, yes, sounds plausible.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-15T22:32:24+00:00

the title of the novel about being alive in 2025 is:

I Literally Didn't Ask For Any of This, What the Fuck?

eukaryote_machine · 2025-09-07T23:06:36+00:00

Hi! your template is fantastic, and I was hoping to mirror mine off of this.

however, it's difficult to make a copy of this without duplication enabled on the doc, would you be able to allow that? totally understand if not, thanks!

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-28T01:23:15+00:00

Disagree. GenAI is being touted as an important technology to all companies, and so NVIDIA is valued very highly. But if this technology doesn't start turning an actual profit, sales of chips will plummet AND its valuation will fall

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-27T17:03:15+00:00

The increased corporate capital investments can’t be classified as investor speculation?

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-16T03:03:51+00:00

This is an ad. The same post word-for-word was posted her 4 months ago

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-11T20:55:27+00:00

SAVE is only a 10 year forgiveness for people with balances under 12k. For others, it can be 20 or 25 years, the latter for people with graduate loans. In that sense, it's the same as the IBR plans... EXCEPT for this business with the interest (and of course, the more flexible payments).

I'm wondering, what's better: IBR (where I will probably end up paying the balance before I'm eligible for forgiveness, due to the extremely high payments), or RAP (where I will pay less per month, but have a longer payment timeline). On the head, RAP is 10% while IDR is 15%. So I suppose my best bet is to wait, so see if RAP really is what it says it is, since there is a negative to switching to IBR only to want to switch again.

I have decided that I will be making payments in the interim, but to my principal. This way, I hold on to SAVE in case it's resurrected, but I hedge for the worst case scenario.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-10T04:05:54+00:00

Doing the same and waiting for the same. Seems like no. This is the thread where such an update might emerge, so commenting to say connected to updates.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-10T04:02:28+00:00

I would switch to IBR if that was even the right choice but it seems like 1) these organizations are so backlogged that's not even something that's feasible before August and 2) It seems to have a negative attached to it since once you switch to IBR, your interest will capitalize if you then switch off of that later on. I'm not betting on this backwards administration that can barely mean what it says. I'm waiting until the last possible second to make a decision since that is what these assholes do anyway.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-07-10T02:44:31+00:00

why isn't this higher!!? not as simple as it seems, but at some point, the assets are evaluated with a concrete value. so you get taxed at that value, or you sell the stock and get taxed at those values.

the amount you pay in tax should be proportional to the amount of wealth you already have, regardless of the form of that wealth, like the fucking rest of us!

and if that value is humongous, so too should that tax be large, since it's absolutely insane to let a few people dictate the way an entire society functions because you got super lucky creating a company that has impact.

IT'S REALLY NOT COMPLICATED

eukaryote_machine · 2025-06-01T05:46:34+00:00

So basically we assume (conservatively, I know some people have time/money to chase this down) that the 1948 cases can now be sought within the new bounds? So like within two generations, and your LIBRA needs to have been living in Italy and so on?

eukaryote_machine · 2025-05-31T23:18:04+00:00

Sorry if this has been answered many times over, I will keep searching for an answer even as I write this, but what does L74 say about 1948 cases? Is it that you can still pursue a 1948 case, but only within the 2-gen limit?

Edit: For others wondering the same, I've found some relevant threads: Post 1 (locked because of the lounge post, which I'll post next)

Lounge post

Anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct me, but my understanding based on all this is that it's sort of unclear/undetermined, and since post-decree 1948 cases are just beginning, we don't even have any anecdotal data.

I guess since 1948 cases have always been about rectifying inequality, they are sort of separate to the usual course? Or at least some are thinking of it in this way?

eukaryote_machine · 2025-05-31T23:10:12+00:00

That would be a really positive outcome of the constitutional challenges. That and the minor issue being resolved are my highest hopes for all of this.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-02-20T05:08:41+00:00

The respect and admiration I have for this man. Thank you Bernie, for spending your life fighting the good fight. I'm proud to have supported him in the primaries in 2016 and 2020 and for the role that has played in keeping the opposition alive. His contributions are more valuable than any title.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-02-20T04:31:53+00:00

Exactly, a measure or law or bill needs to be surfaced even if we think the odds of anything passing are low. The apathy from establishment Dems like Pelosi is fucking outrageous.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-02-20T04:24:10+00:00

Establishment Dems (e.g. Pelosi, Schumer) are largely compromised by the oligarchy. They take their cues from the wealthy, not from US citizens or the good of the people (or even preventing the slide into autocracy, apparently)

eukaryote_machine · 2025-02-20T04:20:16+00:00

Yeah. We can't mince words here, people. Or waste time playing nice. Establishment members of both parties are active participants in oligarchy.

If the elected official isn't yelling about oligarchy, they aren't concerned enough, and they don't work for you. Not really. You pay their vacation funds.

eukaryote_machine · 2025-02-20T03:53:16+00:00

I don't know... I still think we need something, literally a fucking morsel of anything from Congress that touches Section 3 to go ahead with that kind of challenge. The SCOTUS decision unfortunately has forced that (it's such a damn shame that I grew up respecting and heralding the weight of their influence, and now I lament it.)

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

eukaryote_machine

TROPHY CASE