This is how democracy dies.
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
131 points (94.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3244 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wonder how much Commissioner Lindenbaum charges for her vote.
I'm sure there's no "conflict of interest", "insider trading", or "anti-bribery" training for her and I, an engineer with no direct reports below me and no power to make financial decisions, have to recertify those things annually.
Behold the fruits of "no matter who."
If you check out the offending appointee, there's not really anything in her history that suggests she'd be expected to vote like this. Like sure, who knows what beliefs she professed in private vetting, but public information doesn't look like Biden appointed a risky choice likely to be friendly to big money.
FTA:
At first blush, Ms. Lindenbaum would seem a surprising apostate for the left. She once marched with Code Pink, the left-wing antiwar group, and later served as a top lawyer for Stacey Abrams, the progressive former candidate for Georgia governor, and her voting-rights group.
“She came from the progressive community, so I think everyone was caught by surprise,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a consumer-advocacy group.
Pretty surprising, wasn't like some staffer for a more conservative dem or something, all public indicators were pointing to a progressive person. She also had the support of Bernie Sanders and other progressives, so the people in this comment thread implying omg Biden snuck a conservative onto the FEC are seriously misguided here or didn't read the article.
What's FTA?
Sorry, from the article
So if you vote blue, at any time without warning, your chosen candidate could flip and vote opposite of their what their constituents wanted like Sinema and Fetterman did. Manchin was always Manchin but the Democrats ability to run to the right after they get power is staggeringly consistent.
You spelled "behold the fruits of people who don't vote because they think politicians will notice or be able to care, but it only drives candidates right to capture more voting power" wrong
Edit: Okay this comment is very controversial. The thing I said above is a basic fact. If a group markets itself as unreliable voters, politicians will stop trying to get their vote over more reliable voters. Your vote matters. Your vote matters. Go fucking vote.
Edit 2: biden is currently not touting his more left-wing accomplishments (and oh boy there are a lot of then) to try and get more cwntrost votes, because the far left is currently "But Isreal" which is valid but trump is NOT better.
Edit 2a: sorry about that. I many go say "them" instead of "then" and centrist instead of "cwntrost" which us the word a catboy says instead of "contrast"
No matter who also gave us Manchin's successor, Fetterman
Its interesting right? In a Machiavellian sense.
The timing just.. all came together for Manchin to have played his role, and now Fetterman gets to be "that 'Democrat' ".
Maybe the Fetterman one hits a bit closer to home because I don't think Manchin really ever presented himself as anything other than what he was. Regardless, the useful tool of an "unreliable Democrat" remains firmly in place.
Regardless, the useful tool of an “unreliable Democrat” remains firmly in place.
Unreliable? They reliably do exactly what party leadership wants.
The next one will be Slotkin out of Michigan.
Democrat. Former CIA ‘analyst’ during the Bush 2 Iraq years.
Ran unopposed for a house seat in a “blue wave” (semi-competitive rural) district in 2020 and barely got 1% more than her opponent. Redistricting would have gotten her primaried in 2022, so she moved into the house of a lobbyist for 4 months to run without democratic opposition in a newly created district with a few cities, won with 0.5% of the vote. Then moved back to her house out of district because it’s only illegal to be elected if you live out of district.
When a senate seat unexpectedly came up, several other well-liked, progressive or at least middle of the road (and known) candidates expressed interest, and were rumored to have been offered concessions by the Democratic Party not to run. She’s now in a primary battle with a C grade actor that self-financed and gets no positive press coverage. It’s very obvious which candidate the establishment has picked for Michigan.
She’s widely hated by her constituents, because she talks of being a progressive but votes in line with big business interests. And voters will hand her an undeserved seat that she’ll use for the next 6 years to ruin people’s lives.
She and Whitmer have both debased themselves for Israel's genocide now as well. They both proved to that they aren't fit for office, if Whitmer goes for president in 2028 I might vomit after her comments about the uncommitted campaign.
Wierd how theres always enough Democrats willing to come out at just the right time to prevent progress or outright claw it back, but never enough republicans swapping over. Doesn't seem accidental when it only goes one way.
Well not always - this story is about how for years and years there was a deadlock between the two parties at the FEC that has now been broken by a Democratic board member shocking everyone and siding with the Republicans.
We saw the writing on the wall with the first draft of the House's 2021 Freedom To Vote bill. It was unlimited campaign contributions on steroids. It made Citizens United look like child's play and essentially killed off 3rd party ability to findraise and gain ballot access.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Divided equally between three Republicans and three Democrats, the Federal Election Commission deadlocked so often it became a political punchline as investigations languished, enforcement slowed and updated guidelines for the internet era stalled.
Conservatives who for years have dreamed of loosening restrictions are delighted, even though many of the rulings were sought by one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent attorneys, Marc Elias, who was seeking political advantage and clarity for his clients.
Those on both sides of the ideological divide agree on one thing: The changes amount to some of the most significant regulatory revisions since the campaign finance law, the McCain-Feingold Act, was put in place two decades ago.
One decision this spring that is already reshaping the 2024 presidential race allowed super PACs and campaigns for the first time to work together to plan and execute costly door-to-door canvassing operations.
The dysfunction was so bad that by 2021, Ms. Weintraub pushed the Democrats to adopt the unusual tactic of refusing to close stalled investigations in hopes the commission would get sued for failing to act.
Interestingly, the campaign arm of the Senate Republicans lobbied against some of the looser rules that Mr. Elias successfully sought, warning against making sweeping changes in an election year.
The original article contains 1,691 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!