this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
153 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30243 readers
2273 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Travis Trawick, CEO of FullPAC, told The Center Square the high court’s decision could unleash billions of dollars into campaigns throughout the country. He said the ruling could allow more billionaires to invest in political campaigns across the country, a trend recently seen by Elon Musk.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Here's an NPR article on it: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-5827039/supreme-court-campaign-finance

Backed by the Trump Justice Department, they contended that the only justification for imposing a fundraising limit on parties is to prevent corruption, but they maintained that there is no evidence that the law has prevented corruption.

We had the world's richest man purchase his own government organization in the last election, but somehow we're not worried about corruption?

"we are so corrupt this anti-corruption law didn't stop us, so we are going to rescind the law because obviously it's not working."

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Nope. They're on the payroll. Duh.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 4 points 1 day ago

They also had changed the definition of corruption so you have to very explicitly state the quid for quo, decided to free the old sleazebag speaker of the state house of New York, historically the most corrupt state in the country. That was like 15 years ago I think or something. But they made a couple of follow up rulings making it even more difficult to prosecute corrupt politicians and businessman.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

We had the world’s richest man purchase his own government organization in the last election, but somehow we’re not worried about corruption?

These are the same sacks of crap that literally said it was not OK to get a payment in advance for them to rule your way... but if they rule your way and you want to thank them with a gift after the fact, then it's all A-OK