Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

[Unagi]

Another note is that Capito is burning the bridge by flat out lying about negotiating a fair deal (it was a sham) and saying Bifen ended it unilaterally. She was playing the usual game. Invite the Democrat to negotiate against himself and then still pull the ball away to run out the clock.

that's what she said

right?

[Smoove_B]

Not to get lost in the shuffle (and as a follow up to my post from yesterday), the Paycheck Fairness Act was shot down yesterday because of the filibuster:

A procedural vote to move forward with consideration of the legislation failed by a vote of 49-50, falling short of the 60 vote threshold needed to succeed.

The outcome of the vote underscores yet again how limited Democrats are in what they can do to advance their agenda with a 50-50 partisan split Senate as long as the legislative filibuster remains intact.

The bill would, according to the legislative text, "provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex."

Commentary from leadership:

"Senate Democrats intend to focus this month on the demands of their radical base, exploiting the cause of pay fairness to send a windfall to trial lawyers, saddling hospitals, schools and small businesses with crippling new legal burdens if they fail to keep pace with woke social norms," McConnell said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke in support of the bill on the floor earlier in the day on Tuesday and responded to McConnell's criticisms.

"Look, the only way that a bill to provide equal pay to women is designed to fail is if Senate Republicans block it," Schumer said, adding, "If the Republican leader wants to talk about radical positions, I'd say that opposing legislation to provide equal pay for women supported by a solid majority of voters is a radical position."

[malchior]

Infrastructure talks...pretty much proven as a sham.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, this was definitely clear in April. Republicans Love Infrastructure, Unless It's Paid For, Or Not Paid For.

[Drazzil]

Hmmm. Well, Drazzil, you certainly piqued my interest.

My first gut reaction to your tirade (which is totally forgivable IMO, given the situation), was almost exactly in line with the replies you saw already:
1. What you are suggesting is a GOP style "dirty tricks" playbook. Not technically illegal, but certainly goes against the "spirit" of the laws and the ideals of the country. Morally distasteful.
2. If we even COULD do what you are proposing (probably not even possible), we would practically become that which we are railing so hard against. I mean, the EXACT same shit you propose is the kind of shit that is and has already happened from the right, and has propelled us along this path to authoritarianism.

I guess the difference between my take and most of the replies I have seen is that some were suggesting that we would lose the country for sure if that were to happen, and I personally think we have already crossed that line and HAVE lost.

We "won" in November, technically, but only technically, in the most superficial way. Won the battle, lost the war and all that. November (and January's) results were similar to..maybe a late war battle/skirmish/encounter that Japan or Germany won against the Allies very late during WWII. Sure, they "won", but they were already losing, or so far down the losing path that it didn't matter (though I'm sure it felt good to them at the time, if they didn't look too far down the road at their future).

So I get your overall idea, and don't disagree with asking the REALLY important question, which is:

IF we have already "lost" (and I think the failed Jan 6 commission vote is a HUGE marker for that argument), and the gears and machination, and system is now and already in place to benefit the GOP (or whatever they have become) to get re-elected and stay in power for decades to come, what are we WILLING to do to prevent that?

Anything? No, that's why you are getting all the pushback. I think your response to that is "yes - whatever it takes".

So there are limits to what we can and should do, and feel morally comfortable doing. You can go the Machievelli/McConnell route, or you can go the Ghandi/Biden...Rousseau(?) route. Will Machievelli crush Ghandi when it comes to pure power grabs in a failing/failed Democracy? Yeah, probably. But PERSONALLY speaking, I would rather "lose" knowing I tried to do it the right way, with dignity and scruples, than "win" at all costs as you suggest. In a lot of ways, that's the easy way, and one of the biggest reasons I despise everything the modern GOP stands for: They couldn't do things the traditional, and right way and win, so they cheated. They bent the rules. They lied. They did things that had journalist (and many here) clutching their pearls for YEARS, and simply pointing out that it was "unprecedented" (because no one wanted to believe what was REALLY happening).

But even something as big as the fate of the country itself (which let's face it is already an idea on the verge of being too nebulous or ambiguous to really qualify) is not worth losing your soul. I am not looking for moral superiority, or some smug satisfaction that I didn't get in the dirt with the likes of the Giulianis, Gingriches and Stones of the world, either, it's not that. It's just that what you are suggesting is so distasteful to my personal sense of being/worth/whatever you want to call it, that I would refuse to sign on with it unless I was threatened with imminent death of a loved one or something along that scale.

We tried to do it the right way, but it wasn't enough. That's a stupid fairy tale, IMO...and a dangerous idea to teach kids...that "light" always somehow magically beats "dark"...for...reasons? No, sometimes (hell, OFTEN), the good guys lose, and lose hard.

Eff my country. I hate my country. I could care less about "saving it" The US is past saving. You say that our modern day robber barons want us to party like it's 1900's. You know the kind of stuff they would have to do to keep everyone submissive and compliant in that sort of situation? Think racial unrest, think racial sorting, think a massive techno surveillance state fueled by the complete disregard of our constitution. Think of megaslums, and the commodification of everything we need to live. Water? Clean air? The news? No freedom of press, a walled internet along with draconian penalties for speaking the truth. Everyone pitted against everyone.

There may be a time in the near future where actually taking back our lives will be completely out of the realm of human possibility. Technology and the ability to control people is getting better and better.

[Drazzil]

But then again. Fascist governments seem to be too stupid to survive long term. One misstep and its Russian or French style revolution all over again.

If you guys don't listen to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. I recommend you start. Pay particular interest to the French Revolution. You guys can disengage after Louis loses his head. Or even the Russian revolution would be good. It hasn't gotten past 1905 but its a fun listen.

[Carpet_pissr]

Well at some point probably not too distant, the world will be run by algorithms completely, so there's that. Human level politics will cease to exist as we know them.

[Isgrimnur]

Well at some point probably not too distant, the world will be run by algorithms completely, so there's that. Human level politics will cease to exist as we know them.

No bias could ever exist there!

[Carpet_pissr]

Well at some point probably not too distant, the world will be run by algorithms completely, so there's that. Human level politics will cease to exist as we know them.

No bias could ever exist there!

If we aren't culled, and if bias does exist, it will likely be in a form we won't understand, so...KINDA?

[Drazzil]

Okay. So here's another thing that keeps me up at night. Has anyone ever given a thought to what an "America's going out of business" sale would look like? The sheer amount of weapons, NBC, and other crap our super bloated military budget would unleash on the world? Quite frankly the USSR avoided this because they had enough astute people to realize that putting this kind of crap into the hands of winning bidders would do to the rest of the world.

Do you guys think our politicians are as astute? We're really looking at three paths we could take here: Fascist oglarchy, Soviet style collapse or Syrian style civil war.

Not that our Democrats would *ever* crack down on the bullshit the GOP wants to pull (I still believe they really want the same thing) But arguing that we should just stand by because what the GOP wants to do is just madness.

So lets step forward in time here to 2024. Republicans refuse to certify Dem wins. States put forward their own electors. Biden either buckles and steps down (likely) or thumbs his nose at the house and SC. Crisis ensues. Then we're looking at the military stepping in. Which side do they take? Biden's? The house and SC legally told him to fuck off. So then the military would almost be forced to back a legal coup. Where does that leave us?

That's why I am arguing FOR using these measures now. Because by 2022 or 24 its going to be far far too late. Waiting until 24 is insanity. It will cause far more trouble then it solves.

[Holman]

Okay. So here's another thing that keeps me up at night. Has anyone ever given a thought to what an "America's going out of business" sale would look like? The sheer amount of weapons, NBC, and other crap our super bloated military budget would unleash on the world? Quite frankly the USSR avoided this because they had enough astute people to realize that putting this kind of crap into the hands of winning bidders would do to the rest of the world.

Do you guys think our politicians are as astute?

At the risk of not tarring everything with extremes, it's worth remembering that it was "our politicians" (and diplomats and intelligence groups) who engineered the containment of the Soviet arsenal. Some of the same people are still in office today.

[Drazzil]

Okay. So here's another thing that keeps me up at night. Has anyone ever given a thought to what an "America's going out of business" sale would look like? The sheer amount of weapons, NBC, and other crap our super bloated military budget would unleash on the world? Quite frankly the USSR avoided this because they had enough astute people to realize that putting this kind of crap into the hands of winning bidders would do to the rest of the world.

Do you guys think our politicians are as astute?

At the risk of not tarring everything with extremes, it's worth remembering that it was "our politicians" (and diplomats and intelligence groups) who engineered the containment of the Soviet arsenal. Some of the same people are still in office today.

And they were dealing with a country that was educated, had some sort of (at least on paper) ideal of the advancement of humanity. Our government? Not so much. People in the USSR were use to dealing with making do with less, and doing without regular paychecks towards the end.

Our guys? Not so much. How many paychecks do you think our guys would be willing to go without before they start looking around to see what they can sell? Individualism is at the heart of our country. The eff you I got mine ethos. Think things will be the same here?

[Holman]

And they were dealing with a country that was educated, had some sort of (at least on paper) ideal of the advancement of humanity. Our government? Not so much. People in the USSR were use to dealing with making do with less, and doing without regular paychecks towards the end.

Our guys? Not so much. How many paychecks do you think our guys would be willing to go without before they start looking around to see what they can sell? Individualism is at the heart of our country. The eff you I got mine ethos. Think things will be the same here?

If the USA collapses, the caretakers of our sell-off will be Chinese. They're already very well-versed in how to keep the right people happy in order to get the outcomes they prefer. No one is going to be in a position to sell our weapons because (a) no one else has the infrastructure to maintain them and (b) China will already own and secure them.

Do you imagine that a suddenly unemployed tank crew will be in a position to sell its Abrams to some Mexican cartel? How would they do that? Tanks barely travel under their own power at all except in battle conditions. They require specialized rail cars, and if they use even the best highways they require expensive maintenance after 50 or 60 miles.

Your scenarios of revolution and collapse are cartoons. The much more likely scenario is one where rights are lost but comforts are preserved. That's how you do successful autocracy.

[Alefroth]

Then we're looking at the military stepping in. Which side do they take? Biden's? The house and SC legally told him to fuck off. So then the military would almost be forced to back a legal coup. Where does that leave us?

Forced by who? I'm not sure you quite understand how the military works.

[Zarathud]

Drazzil, get that paranoia looked at by a therapist.

[Kraken]

Your scenarios of revolution and collapse are cartoons. The much more likely scenario is one where rights are lost but comforts are preserved. That's how you do successful autocracy.

Yup, there will still be a USA, its rulers will still pay lip service to the Constitution, and we'll still go through the motions of elections. Most Americans will barely notice a difference.

[Drazzil]

Your scenarios of revolution and collapse are cartoons. The much more likely scenario is one where rights are lost but comforts are preserved. That's how you do successful autocracy.

Yup, there will still be a USA, its rulers will still pay lip service to the Constitution, and we'll still go through the motions of elections. Most Americans will barely notice a difference.

The fact that a lot of people seem to be cool with this outcome vs using the laws and tools of the trade given them is why I think my words are wasted.

[Little Raven]

The fact that a lot of people seem to be cool with this outcome vs using the laws and tools of the trade given them is why I think my words are wasted.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much over that. This forum is a lot of things, but we're lacking in diversity. An OO R&P user is overwhelmingly likely to be

• male
• Over 35
• Comfortably secured with the system

Historically, that's the demographic that safeguards against rebellion, not foments it. You'd be hard pressed to find less fertile ground for revolution if you tried.

[El Guapo]

The fact that a lot of people seem to be cool with this outcome vs using the laws and tools of the trade given them is why I think my words are wasted.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much over that. This forum is a lot of things, but we're lacking in diversity. An OO R&P user is overwhelmingly likely to be

• male
• Over 35
• Comfortably secured with the system

Historically, that's the demographic that safeguards against rebellion, not foments it. You'd be hard pressed to find less fertile ground for revolution if you tried.

To be clear no one here is cool with that outcome. However, any sort of armed rebellion (versus a sustained nonviolent movement) would be an awful way to try to improve anything.

[Holman]

Open conflict would give a license to kill to the best-armed and angriest elements of our society.

Those people are not on our side. We don't win that fight no matter how idealistic we are.

[pr0ner]

Open conflict would give a license to kill to the best-armed and angriest elements of our society.

Those people are not on our side. We don't win that fight no matter how idealistic we are.

And yet, that's what Drazzil has been promoting. For *years*. This really isn't anything new for him.

[El Guapo]

Open conflict would give a license to kill to the best-armed and angriest elements of our society.

Those people are not on our side. We don't win that fight no matter how idealistic we are.

And yet, that's what Drazzil has been promoting. For *years*. This really isn't anything new for him.

Also, while armed revolutions always produce immense human misery, they essentially never produce democracy. I'm not sure I can think of any example where a revolution overthrew a government and then established a free democracy (separate from secessionist revolutions like the American Revolution, which have).

[YellowKing]

Yeah I'm not sure what level of shitstorm things would have to be at for me to actually take up arms, but I know even America at its Trumpiest over the last 4 years wasn't anywhere close to that. I've got a career and a family - as long as society is at least halfway functional, I'm not doing anything to jeopardize either one. I think we have to be careful not to be whipped into the same kind of frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy as the other side.

[El Guapo]

Yeah I'm not sure what level of shitstorm things would have to be at for me to actually take up arms, but I know even America at its Trumpiest over the last 4 years wasn't anywhere close to that. I've got a career and a family - as long as society is at least halfway functional, I'm not doing anything to jeopardize either one. I think we have to be careful not to be whipped into the same kind of frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy as the other side.

It's also why the "we need to be able to have AR-15s so that we can resist a tyrannical government" arguments are so aggressively stupid. If America does descend into tyranny, supplies to sustain a protest movement are going to be way more important than AR-15s.

[Carpet_pissr]

Okay. So here's another thing that keeps me up at night. Has anyone ever given a thought to what an "America's going out of business" sale would look like? The sheer amount of weapons, NBC, and other crap our super bloated military budget would unleash on the world? Quite frankly the USSR avoided this because they had enough astute people to realize that putting this kind of crap into the hands of winning bidders would do to the rest of the world.

Whoaaaa, whoa whoa! Who said anything about going out of business? You think a dramatic shift in the government style will suddenly mean a liquidation of military assets?

Hell, if anything, we'll likely get even more armed, not less. Autocracies seem to love their military hardware, for some strange reason.

Currently that is one big thing we already share with the world's autocracies. Absurdly large military/budget (per capita).

[Octavious]

Tell that to Trump. We were almost out of bullets!

[malchior]

Back to infrastructure. The vaunted "bipartisan" deal that probably won't survive contact with the larger caucuses on either side? Predictably the 'agreement' is already running into resistance and for the usual reasons. No will ever mistake that pols give a shit about the future of our children.

[Kraken]

I think Biden has to play this out in great detail to get Manchin's support for the reconciliation bill that will follow. Bipartisanship has to fail definitively.

[Drazzil]

I think Biden has to play this out in great detail to get Manchin's support for the reconciliation bill that will follow. Bipartisanship has to fail definitively.

I don't think Manchin is interested, at all in bipartanship. Anyone with half a brain and 20 minutes reading about this situation knows that. The R's are just playing for time and Manchin is helping them do it.

[malchior]

I think Biden has to play this out in great detail to get Manchin's support for the reconciliation bill that will follow. Bipartisanship has to fail definitively.

I don't think Manchin is interested, at all in bipartanship. Anyone with half a brain and 20 minutes reading about this situation knows that. The R's are just playing for time and Manchin is helping them do it.

Exactly. There is only one thing that Manchin is probably interested in and it is himself. The alternative is he truly is an idiot or delusional. Instead the most likely situation is the obvious. He is just another toxic narcissist. Consider the multiple self-important op eds, the quips, and all the conversations about how he is just trying to save the Senate. Like he is some governmental super hero. It's a sham. It is all in service to himself. He loves being the center of attention. He has the power. He makes all the stories dance to his tune. Maybe he isn't as obviously broken as Trump but he is just another American politician who only cares about himself. Our entire government is riddled with monsters like him who kill us gently.

[Kraken]

I think Biden has to play this out in great detail to get Manchin's support for the reconciliation bill that will follow. Bipartisanship has to fail definitively.

I don't think Manchin is interested, at all in bipartanship. Anyone with half a brain and 20 minutes reading about this situation knows that. The R's are just playing for time and Manchin is helping them do it.

Manchin cares about being reelected. For that, he needs the resources of the D Party, and he needs his voters to believe that he exhausted bipartisanship before backing the party's agenda. For their part, the Democrats can't afford to lose a single seat, and so they will play Manchin's tune -- at least up until they face a real threat of losing progressives. Bernie has said that he won't vote for the bipartisan infrastructure deal because it's not green enough, so Manchin needs to get at least 11 R senators on board.

I don't think Manchin cares whether the bipartisan effort succeeds or not -- he merely needs to be seen pushing for it. It's better for the Dems if it fails.

[malchior]

I think Biden has to play this out in great detail to get Manchin's support for the reconciliation bill that will follow. Bipartisanship has to fail definitively.

I don't think Manchin is interested, at all in bipartanship. Anyone with half a brain and 20 minutes reading about this situation knows that. The R's are just playing for time and Manchin is helping them do it.

Manchin cares about being reelected. For that, he needs the resources of the D Party, and he needs his voters to believe that he exhausted bipartisanship before backing the party's agenda. For their part, the Democrats can't afford to lose a single seat, and so they will play Manchin's tune -- at least up until they face a real threat of losing progressives. Bernie has said that he won't vote for the bipartisan infrastructure deal because it's not green enough, so Manchin needs to get at least 11 R senators on board.

I don't think Manchin cares whether the bipartisan effort succeeds or not -- he merely needs to be seen pushing for it. It's better for the Dems if it fails.

This is way too kind a read IMO. He didn't need to do half as much as he has done so far if this was his plan.

Edit: If you haven't seen it I recommend digging up the Christopher Wallace interview with Manchin. It was not flattering at all to Manchin. I'll dig it up if I can but that wasn't a man playing at some grand strategy to get re-elected in 3 years time. Also, the idea that this is about re-election doesn't make much sense considering the time frame involved.

[Smoove_B]

Manchin cares about being reelected.

You cannot convince me of that. Sure, maybe prior to 2018 he did but now? He'll be ~78 in 2025. I don't believe for a minute he has any plans of continuing so right now, he's just hanging out and doing whatever it is soon-to-be-retired Senators do to enrich themselves prior to retiring.

EDIT: I'm sure they were very busy

Manchin & Sinema didn't attend Senate Dem lunch where Texas Democrats spoke about need to pass For the People Act to stop GOP voter suppression

[malchior]

Manchin cares about being reelected.

You cannot convince me of that. Sure, maybe prior to 2018 he did but now? He'll be ~78 in 2025. I don't believe for a minute he has any plans of continuing so right now, he's just hanging out and doing whatever it is soon-to-be-retired Senators do to enrich themselves prior to retiring.

He's already incredibly wealthy and his family is as well. That's why when I try to reason out a focus it keeps circling back to himself and what he thinks people see as his image.

[Kraken]

Manchin cares about being reelected.

You cannot convince me of that. Sure, maybe prior to 2018 he did but now? He'll be ~78 in 2025. I don't believe for a minute he has any plans of continuing so right now, he's just hanging out and doing whatever it is soon-to-be-retired Senators do to enrich themselves prior to retiring.

He's already incredibly wealthy and his family is as well. That's why when I try to reason out a focus it keeps circling back to himself and what he thinks people see as his image.

I am willing to consider the possibility that I am talking through my hat.

[Drazzil]

Manchin cares about being reelected.

You cannot convince me of that. Sure, maybe prior to 2018 he did but now? He'll be ~78 in 2025. I don't believe for a minute he has any plans of continuing so right now, he's just hanging out and doing whatever it is soon-to-be-retired Senators do to enrich themselves prior to retiring.

He's already incredibly wealthy and his family is as well. That's why when I try to reason out a focus it keeps circling back to himself and what he thinks people see as his image.

I am willing to consider the possibility that I am talking through my hat.

This is kind of exactly what I'm talking about when I speak about the Dem party being dragged ever rightward by the republicans. The repugnicans have fog collared and silenced the Dem majority. Every time the R's have power they smash and grab and tear shit up, and the Dem's talk a good game about not allowing this stuff when *they're* in power. Then the second they get the majority everything has to be "bipartisan" and they get all mealy mouthed and handwringy about doing their job to govern.

Then the second these fuckin dems need the vote they go out scaremongering and pointing at the republicans and use the R's as a stick to beat the vote out of their tired, disenchanted voters. Wash rinse, repeat.

This right here? This is why I will no longer vote. I'm fuckin done. Let the R's cause a collapse. After the R's (And their vichy democrat buddies... Vichycrats? hah! I like that one!) have been neumbergered, and introduced to the rope for all the crimes against humanity they will undoubtedly do in office, Then we can rebuild without their fucking taint.

[malchior]

Manchin cares about being reelected.

You cannot convince me of that. Sure, maybe prior to 2018 he did but now? He'll be ~78 in 2025. I don't believe for a minute he has any plans of continuing so right now, he's just hanging out and doing whatever it is soon-to-be-retired Senators do to enrich themselves prior to retiring.

He's already incredibly wealthy and his family is as well. That's why when I try to reason out a focus it keeps circling back to himself and what he thinks people see as his image.

I am willing to consider the possibility that I am talking through my hat.

Same here. There are many possibilities. Manchin could also just be defending wealth using the filibuster. There are some reports he was pressured by the Koch network over HR.1. I was reminded of that allegation this morning by a piece in the The New Yorker. It is a story about how dark money knows that HR.1 is popular legislation. Especially provisions to limit the influence of dark corporate money. The call between McConnell's folks and oligarch-aligned interests illustrates that and Manchin just so happens to be carrying the ball right now. He can take the beating because he isn't up for 3 years, is older, and it aligns with his familial wealth interests. In other words, there are multiple overlapping solutions.

The real problem is that our democracy is incredibly unhealthy. If I thought that what comes next won't almost certainly be worse I might be happy to see a reset.

In public, Republicans have denounced Democrats’ ambitious electoral-reform bill, the For the People Act, as an unpopular partisan ploy. In a contentious Senate committee hearing last week, Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, slammed the proposal, which aims to expand voting rights and curb the influence of money in politics, as “a brazen and shameless power grab by Democrats.” But behind closed doors Republicans speak differently about the legislation, which is also known as House Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 1. They admit the lesser-known provisions in the bill that limit secret campaign spending are overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum. In private, they concede their own polling shows that no message they can devise effectively counters the argument that billionaires should be prevented from buying elections.

A recording obtained by The New Yorker of a private conference call on January 8th, between a policy adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell and the leaders of several prominent conservative groups—including one run by the Koch brothers’ network—reveals the participants’ worry that the proposed election reforms garner wide support not just from liberals but from conservative voters, too. The speakers on the call expressed alarm at the broad popularity of the bill’s provision calling for more public disclosure about secret political donors. The participants conceded that the bill, which would stem the flow of dark money from such political donors as the billionaire oil magnate Charles Koch, was so popular that it wasn’t worth trying to mount a public-advocacy campaign to shift opinion. Instead, a senior Koch operative said that opponents would be better off ignoring the will of American voters and trying to kill the bill in Congress.

Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow-conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a “spoiler.” “When presented with a very neutral description” of the bill, “people were generally supportive,” McKenzie said, adding that “the most worrisome part . . . is that conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public was when they read the neutral description.” In fact, he warned, “there’s a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these types of efforts.”

As a result, McKenzie conceded, the legislation’s opponents would likely have to rely on Republicans in the Senate, where the bill is now under debate, to use “under-the-dome-type strategies”—meaning legislative maneuvers beneath Congress’s roof, such as the filibuster—to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be “incredibly difficult.” He warned that the worst thing conservatives could do would be to try to “engage with the other side” on the argument that the legislation “stops billionaires from buying elections.” McKenzie admitted, “Unfortunately, we’ve found that that is a winning message, for both the general public and also conservatives.” He said that when his group tested “tons of other” arguments in support of the bill, the one condemning billionaires buying elections was the most persuasive—people “found that to be most convincing, and it riled them up the most.”

...

The proposed legislation, which the House of Representatives passed on March 3rd, largely along party lines, has been described by the Times as “the most substantial expansion of voting rights in a half-century.” It would transform the way that Americans vote by mandating automatic national voter registration, expanding voting by mail, and transferring the decennial project of redrawing—and often gerrymandering—congressional districts from the control of political parties to nonpartisan experts. Given the extraordinary attempts by Donald Trump and his supporters to undermine the 2020 election, and Republicans’ ongoing efforts to deter Democratic constituencies from voting, it is the bill’s sweeping voting-rights provisions that have drawn the most media attention. During his first press conference, last week, President Joe Biden backed the bill, calling Republican efforts to undermine voting rights “sick” and “un-American.” He declared, “We’ve got to prove democracy works.”

But as the State Policy Network’s conference call demonstrated, some of the less noticed provisions in the eight-hundred-plus-page bill are particularly worrisome to conservative operatives. Both parties have relied on wealthy anonymous donors, but the vast majority of dark money from undisclosed sources over the past decade has supported conservative causes and candidates. Democrats, however, are catching up. In 2020, for the first time in any Presidential election, liberal dark-money groups far outspent their conservative counterparts, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. Nonetheless, Democrats, unlike Republicans, have pushed for reforms that would shut off the dark-money spigot.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, from 2010, opened up scores of loopholes that have enabled wealthy donors and businesses to covertly buy political influence. Money is often donated through nonprofit corporations, described as “social welfare” organizations, which don’t publicly disclose their donors. These dark-money groups can spend a limited percentage of their funds directly on electoral politics. They also can contribute funds to political-action committees, creating a daisy chain of groups giving to one another. This makes it virtually impossible to identify the original source of funding. The result has been a cascade of anonymous cash flooding into American elections.

...

With so little public support, the bill’s opponents have already begun pressuring individual senators. On March 20th, several major conservative groups, including Heritage Action, Tea Party Patriots Action, Freedom Works, and the local and national branches of the Family Research Council, organized a rally in West Virginia to get Senator Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat, to come out against the legislation. They also pushed Manchin to oppose any efforts by Democrats to abolish the Senate’s filibuster rule, a tactical step that the Party would probably need to take in order to pass the bill. “The filibuster is really the only thing standing in the way of progressive far-left policies like H.R. 1, which is Pelosi’s campaign to take over America’s elections,” Noah Weinrich, the press secretary at Heritage Action, declared during a West Virginia radio interview. On Thursday, Manchin issued a statement warning Democrats that forcing the measure through the Senate would “only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.”

Pressure tactics from dark-money groups may work on individual lawmakers. The legislation faces an uphill fight in the Senate. But, as the January 8th conference call shows, opponents of the legislation have resorted to “under-the-dome-type strategies” because the broad public is against them when it comes to billionaires buying elections.

[Zarathud]

No surprise then that Mitch McConnell called in “personal favors” to filibuster HR.1. His power comes from killing campaign finance reform and letting the sweet money flow into Republican coffers.

Vote. Against any and all of McConnell’s allies if you believe in stopping corruption. They win by getting you too angry or annoyed or inconvenienced to bother voting.

Third world collapses show that the little guy suffers, not the powerful.

[LordMortis]

I thought Ted Cruz was done with taking filthy lucre from the corporate communism.

What would make me smile in a different reality was

conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public was

Conservative dude meeting with conservative representatives of the general public says that conservatives are not part of the general public.

[malchior]

Vote. Against any and all of McConnell’s allies if you believe in stopping corruption. They win by getting you too angry or annoyed or inconvenienced to bother voting.

Accurate but you also can't blame people for being annoyed, discouraged, etc. because they vote and vote and vote and nothing changes. The system has been bottled up to work this way. It has near ironclad advantages baked in for the powerful and wealthy. From policy preferences, tax advantages up through their near impunity from the law. In the face of that we have the worst leadership all around in generations. From Republicans who are authoritarian or corrupt to Democrats who are hapless, inept, and unable to deliver even low bar policy preferences of their electorate. Sure the Democrats have a much harder job and a higher bar to clear but they aren't even near to the challenge. The most inspirational leader of the generation was someone who helped embed the institutional norms that Trump abused. And the current President is an institutionalist who lacks the ability to be the firebrand we need to break out of this death spiral. So I get when the Drazzil's of the world don't vote. It would be amazing if we could convince them to vote and prove this all wrong but it isn't hard to understand why it won't happen.

Third world collapses show that the little guy suffers, not the powerful.

Exactly, which is why this is especially sad to watch because the powerful people who should be standing up for them (e.g. Manchin, Pelosi, and Schumer's of the world) are such disappointments. They've failed for years to deliver and now it is all coming home. I hope it changes but why would it? They have such dismal records.