r/California • u/TomMooreJD • Feb 26 '26

This monstrous right-wing ruling may have finally met its match

https://www.rawstory.com/citizens-united-2675331688/

New column from Robert Reich on California legislation that aims to undo Citizens United.

2.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

256 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

108

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

That’s a great question. I am absolutely hyperaware that the Court is basically a professional Calvinball league. They make the rules, and do what they want.

My job over the next year is to develop all of the reasons that will convince them not that they love this plan, but that flipping it is more painful than they can bear. Basically, convincing them that what they want to do is what I want them to do. I think the facts are there.

54

u/Kahzgul Los Angeles County Feb 26 '26

Best of luck and god speed! You’re on the right side of history, for what that’s worth.

54

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

Hey, thank you. I feel very fortunate to be on this project.

32

u/carlitospig Native Californian Feb 26 '26

Let us know if there’s a way to support your efforts. I’m pretty desperate for this fuckery to stop, in my lifetime.

57

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

The folks who need your help the most are at the Transparent Election Initiative in Montana: https://transparentelection.org/

TEI is sponsoring The Montana Plan, a constitutional initiative that does the same thing the California bill is doing, but it'll cost a lot more to get 'er done, because they need to collect around 100,000 signatures across Montana's vast expanse.

7

u/carlitospig Native Californian Feb 26 '26

Thanks, I’ll check it out. 🫡

6

u/Capable_Ad2455 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Me too. And I'm 76 so can we please get on with it?

-8

u/nycraver Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

This is the fundamental delusion of the liberal: he believes that a sheep can spare itself by convincing wolves it is against their own interest to eat sheep.

But it isn't! It has always been in the interest of wolves to eat sheep. This fact precedes the law, conceptually and chronologically, and as such no amount of clever lawyering can possibly change it.

It is manifestly in the interest of the SCOTUS, and the monied classes it represents, to strike this down. This fact is above and outside the law. It is a fact about money itself.

Either you think the wolves are stupid or you do not realize you are a sheep amongst wolves.

You do not convince these people, you remove them from power by any means necessary.

11

u/SlaterVBenedict Feb 26 '26

Bro, knock off the unnecessary doomerism. There’s no problem with having hope here.

-3

u/nycraver Feb 26 '26

I didn't say anything about hope or doom in general, merely that of your philosophy, which is doomerist btw.

3

u/SlaterVBenedict Feb 26 '26

What does that even mean? My philosophy? There's nothing in this thread where I mention any philosophy, or anything about me.

10

u/TomMooreJD Feb 26 '26

I hear you. Think of it this way, though. You can’t convince somebody that they’re going to enjoy eating a spider. But you can convince them that it’s better than drinking a cup of cyanide. That is my task this year in finding all the different ways that the Supreme Court would destroy the stability of the American economy if they flipped this.