To clarify: by something like this I meant legislation that allows behavior like this to be legal. A single company acting badly would lead to a local strike, probably not a general strike (those are for forcing government policy changes).
Just out of curiosity: This is very uncommon in modern democracies, isn't it?
In most European countries (and maybe also in the US?) each newly elected government shows enough respect for the previous government by not reversing laws established just 1-3 years ago. They usually either concentrate on different topics, or restrict themselves to refinements and corrections of existing laws.
And there's some good reason for that: You don't want a country's set of laws switching between two versions every 4-5 years without making any progress.
However, since that taboo has been broken by now, maybe the next US president would have the courage to do the same with everything the current president did?
These were executive orders, not legislation. It is quite common for new administrations to rescind or override executive orders of previous administrations. EOs usually direct an administration to enforce department rules a certain way and a new administration is within their right to interpret them another way. Enacting legislation that specifically spells out how certain rules are to be carried out is the best way to make them concrete. Nowadays it is very difficult to enact any legislation let alone remove it.
> These were executive orders, not legislation. It is quite common for new administrations to rescind or override executive orders of previous administrations.
OTOH, the US having both a weak party system and a separation of power system makes it so that, to return to the upthread question about modern democracies, it does a lot more through executive orders than many modern democracies, which often have a strong-parties parliamentary system or a weaker Presidency, so that the executive has either less ability or less motivation to issue executive orders for matters that might be directly addresses by legislation.
> it does a lot more through executive orders than many modern democracies
Obama did a lot more through executive orders than his predecessors, in large part due to Congress obstructing all policy much more than its predecessors. IIRC, at a certain point he turned to executive orders to implement policy the best he could.
Also, most other modern democracies use parliamentary systems, in which the executive always has the majority in the legislature. In those cases, executive orders are less needed because the legislature and executive are much more likely to agree.
this wasn't a law, though, it was an executive order, which is just a decision by the president on how to run the executive branch.
in this case, it only applied to companies that had contracts with the federal government for more than $1 million. basically, Obama ordered his departments to stop doing business with companies that had certain arbitration clauses. Trump removed this restriction.
i would expect a ton of Trump's executive orders to be overturned if the next president is a Democrat.
it's much harder and less likely to repeal an actual law passed by Congress.
The problem is that an executive order isn't exactly a 'law'. It's the president ordering the executive branch about what to do, so it has no inherent permanence.
I wouldn't expect most executive orders to stay the same here if the president changes parties. But that's a statement about what I expect, not about how things ought to be.
Citizens United was a Supreme Court decision that said money was free speech. The result is that it is perfectly legal to “bribe” U.S. politicians now.
Most people don't know the background of the Citizens United case. Since you do, then I'd wager that you also know the effects that it's had on campaign finance laws. The ruling overturned existing laws that limited campaign contributions from corporations while also overruling other cases that had previously limited free speech rights.
> It means that citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they form groups.
That's basically what the court's majority opinion stated. But the dissenting opinion also stated that the ruling provides more opportunities for corruption and for laws to be "bought and sold". So to say that GP's comments are "Not evenly remotely true" is disingenuous.
But the impact of the Citizens United decision has allowed dark money to flood into U.S. political system in the form of anonymous spending from "independent" political action groups.
Dark money can be used for purposes akin to bribery since the speech of the group has been interpreted as political influence. While the money doesn't go directly to the candidate, it is used for their benefit or detriment during elections.
It just so happens that outside political spending has risen dramatically since the SCOTUS Citizens United decision in 2009.[0]
> citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they form groups.
... even when those groups are legally obligated to act in service of a profit-driven corporate agenda. It's not really 'free' speech when you take the labor of your employees and use it to promote policy that directly conflicts with their interests.
It enabled corporations and other groups to utilize unlimited, unregulated, anonymous spending on elections. As a result, much of, maybe most election spending is by people unidentified to the American public, and of course that makes politicians beholden to them. At least the Russians are identified!
To clarify: by something like this I meant legislation that allows behavior like this to be legal. A single company acting badly would lead to a local strike, probably not a general strike (those are for forcing government policy changes).