This should be the litmus test for ALL candidates at EVERY level, for EVERY office!

Joe Neguse is a Representative, not a Senator.

He's my rep and I can't wait until he's Senator Neguse.

He makes it a point to spend lots of time in CD8, knowing that Gabe Evans is worse than useless. We are always delighted to have him here.

.

Only 72?????
Only 72?????

OMG, how are our representatives NOT in favor of this?

WTF???

We have a winner here!

(Of course, most of us are, but that is another issue.)

Thank you!

Tear 'em a new one!

The crooked money needs to stop.

Sadly - there isn't a single GOPee congresscritter who wouldn't rather feed their wives to a lion, than allow this bill to pass.

(heck - many of them don't even need that)

When I can chew on someone's ear long enough to explain exactly what it is they usually get that "WTF?" look on their face. Left, right or independent, when it's explained to them they no want it AT ALL! No, no and a hell no. Seriously I can't believe how many of the left leaning/center/independent people I know really don't understand what it is. Right wingers have 0 clue to the point one guy told me he thought it was Bush 1's "Thousand Points of Light" shit made into law (yeah I know. He's a helluva cabinet maker but .... lol). We should pound this into the affordability message like crazy. Once you get some people to understand it it tends to make them see these "tax cuts" completely differently (don't ask me why).

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


FF!!!

A way for a person not familiar with the issue to see its absurdity and make them realize that this is something that was never in their favor or self-interest. A way to make an issue "stick" so that more people will grasp it and rise up against it. This is the work of political cartoons, reducing an issue to a simple, visual message; we need to devise verbal "cartoons."

Citizens United.... sounds great right? Let's unite as citizens.

Needs a new name that makes it clear what it is.

We have new voters coming of age every year and I wouldn't blame them for not knowing what this is. They may be aware that there's too much money in politics but don't know it didn't use to be like this.

Terms like "Super Pacs" and "Citizens United"

I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for CU and it says:

When they ruled on Citizen United. It was the ruling the filthy-rich have always wanted to instill on American citizens since the 1800s. And they finally got a Supreme Court dumb enough to do it.

The decision on Citizen United should be called the 2nd class citizen act....though the Supremes are not empowered to establish law or acts, but they do anyway.

If we had a functional congress, they would have passed a law overturning this nonsense years ago. That a group of filthy-rich people joined together financially to protect and increase their riches (called a corporation) are people is beyond a dumb idea.

Or at the very least, require all lawmakers to wear one of those NASCAR-style jumpsuits, with patches of sponsors and donors sewn everywhere

We need to fight for this. Best news I heard today, that an effort even exists.

... a supreme court decision, especially one rooted in the first amendment?

.... "H.J.Res.122 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States..."

Not. A. Chance.

(and still is.....), but hundreds go for it every year. We can do it IF we work hard enough for it!

It has to go. It's aim is to let the wealthy to buy the Government Leasdership that will work for them

..... H.J.Res.122 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

There is no chance of this going anywhere.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/122/text

Wouldn’t it?
I remember reading about it on DU back in the day:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

I really like him. 👍

Congressional District 2 caucus via Zoom. He’s running unopposed of course, but I also get to vote for a Democratic candidate for the University of Colorado District 2 regent, a position three people are running for.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.

......require public positions be taken by reps? This as a precursor to the house debating and hopefully passing (by two-thirds) a proposal by the house for such an amendment and sending it to the Senate?

Have a HEARTBEAT. They are NOT CITIZENS.
Beyond that, an individual should be allowed political donations in the amount of $1,000.00 aggregate total, and must show proof of citizenship. At least most citizens might be able to afford to make a donation that might have some impact. You can guess the relative impact of Millions of Dollars versus Hundreds of Dollars in the mis-dis-information campaigns we endure for months-on-end.
Citizens United is “OPEN BORDERS” Wild West logic (tune in to “Deadwood” for an illustration), and the damage and chaos done to our Nation is obvious and indisputable. Oligarchs and Billionaires have influence across all aspects of our political spectrum, and can actually buy influence far beyond the 99%.
The Heritage Foundation used its influence to pack the Supreme Court (The "Clarence Tomas Winnebago Gambit”), and steer their agenda through Congress.
Never forget the hue and cry when citizens intrude on THEIR business and try to tell them how to behave (Global Warming, anybody?).
Speech is Speech.
Money is money.
See the difference???

The only way to “overturn” CU is to first expand the court to 13 justices, one for each district, then you begin to target individual parts of CU, focusing on political bribery, by passing laws against them. I don’t think a constitutional amendment of any kind could happen in this country ever again; the chasm is too great. The only way we might ever come together for a common goal is if we were invaded by aliens from another galaxy, and all herded into the same ‘pen’.

One of our top priorities must be to completely reform the SCOTUS. From the very beginning, and especially in the past 20 years, the SCOTUS has effectively made up law from whole cloth. This is why one of the most selfish and destructive acts in the history of our nation was when RBG would not give up her seat at a time that a liberal could replace her.

Congress has the power to reform the courts. But that means we must have a President that will sign that legislation. And before that, we must have a Senate that will go along with what emerges from the House. And before that, we must have a House that will actually vote for these reforms. Remember that we still have something like 100 "centerists" who will never do anything helpful without great pressure.

So it is a long road, but we must start now. We need to make SCOTUS reform one of the top 5 issues that every Dem is confronted with in every election. And it does not have to be a completely partisan thing. There can be a fair and balanced set of reforms, such as

* Expand to 13 active justices
* Rotation of Chief
* 1 new justice seated in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of each POTUS term
* When there are more than 13, the longest-tenured become "Senior" and non-voting

With such a system, no President would ever name more than 6 justices (less than a majority). Other than death or resignation, there would effectively be a term limit of about 17 years. If we had that system today, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts would have been non-voting years ago. Sotomayor and Kagan would be nearing their "senior" status.

And not even bother trying to climb that hill! Not bother to fight. Just give up.

So much winning. 🙄

Can anybody name three things that each of the most recent Dem Presidents (or candidates) clearly staked out as things they were committed to accomplishing -- with specifics the people could relate to?

Trump was pretty clear in 2016 about building a wall. And in 2024, the GOP had Project 2025, which was absolutely specific. Practically everything they have done (for better or worse) was spelled out in detail. They were doing to deport millions. They were going to fire 50,000 civil service people and replace them with political hacks. They were going to take agencies established with political independence and place them under a king/President. They called for Biblical law to persecute gays and criminalize abortions.They plan to end birthright citizenship. These things are all right there in the book

Americans don't necessarily want to understand policy. It makes their brains hurt and take time away from their fantasy football. But they are naturally attracted to the candidates that speak forcefully about tangible plans. Americans hate wishy-washy talk.

Dem candidates avoid specifics at all costs. We don't talk about expanding the highly successful, very efficient, and popular Medicare system to cover all Americans. Instead, we say things like "making health care more affordable". That means nothing to people. We don't talk about raising the maximum tax rate on the richest people to where it was in 1981, before Reaganomics when we had a strong middle class, and opportunity was growing for everyone including minorities. Instead, we speak in generalities like "economic fairness". That means nothing. It has no teeth.

So I applaud what Neguse is trying to do, but we need our own Project 2027 and Project 2029 that has SPECIFICS. We should be talking about the specific reforms for the SCOTUS. We should be talking about the specific demands we will make of the richest corporations and individuals, a la "ask not what your country can do for you ..." We should be talking about specific changes we will fight for to take money and bribery out of our politics, as Neguse is doing. And so on.

Is it too much to ask that Democrats actually have a real action plan?