This requires reversing a supreme court decision that benefits capital. This means 5 members of the supreme court must vote to end something that vastly benefits them and the people who got them appointed to that position. You do not get that high up in our judicial system by consistantly ruling in favor of the working class. You simply won't get appointed with that kind of track record. I'm sorry but the odds are really stacked against us here.i'm not saying its impossible but I am saying that its close. Even if it were to happen I am almost certain corporations would find other avenues to control our political establishment.

It’s possible to reverse Citizens United if we expand the court, that would at least make it so we wouldn’t have to wait a whole lifetime. That has its challenges to do, but theoretically it’s possible with a simple majority in the House and Senate + the Presidency. We would want to do it after getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. Alternatively, if we already have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House, we could pass a new law that puts limitations on Citizens United. Implementing term limits on the Supreme Court would make sense as well if we had those capabilities.

I do agree that finding suitable judges to be appointed that would overturn Citizens United would be challenging, we would also need a progressive President in power that would nominate those kinds of progressive judges and enough Senators to support those nominees.

I agree corporations will always look for ways around it, especially if they have the funds to spend buying influence. 

Implementation is once again very difficult here. This requires incumbent politicians who see their positions as a career to intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage. This isn't impossible and i am certain it will happen in some places from good faith actors but nationwide? Idk if that is feasible and who's to say this wouldn't eventually be reversed by new incumbents looking to hold on to power and their career? Essentially this requires politicians to act against their own interests on a large scale

Alternative voting seems to have the highest chances at success at the local level. The more cities that adopt it, the higher chances it has at taking off at the state level. If it’s adopted at the state level, then there is higher odds of that state wanting it implemented at the federal level elections for elections. For instance, Alaska and Maine are two states that already use an alternative voting system for their state and federal elections.

I believe off year elections are our best bet at passing an alternative voting system, as the voters in those elections are often more informed. Any alternative voting system will struggle to pass in a presidential election year imo.

To a degree, most states can implement an alternative voting system without needing to rely on the state legislature. Through ballot initiatives citizens can directly vote to pass an alternative voting system. Currently no blue states have banned alternative voting systems from being voted in, meanwhile several red states have already banned Ranked Choice Voting since they know they would lose power if it were to pass. Overturning an alternative voting system that is passed by a ballot initiative has a higher barrier to remove. Most states allow citizens to gather signatures to overturn a veto on ballot initiatives.

Misinformation is currently very beneficial to the political establishment. It allows them to spin whatever narrative they want through whatever avenues they want. This goes for both sides of the american political dichotomy. If the people cannot trust anything then they will only trust what reinforces their already held beliefs. Meaning they won't differ from the party line they already subscribe to. It allows political parties to isolate their members from external narratives highly effectively. From the perspective of the bourgeois rather than the political class they use, misinformation allows them to keep the working class divided. Instesd of the working class recognizing our common enemy we are kept busy fighting eachother through whatever narratives can be whipped up by the slim few who control all of our media services. To put shortly, neither the ruling economic class nor the political elite have a material interest to reduce misinformation. We are post truth.

I agree that it is difficult to break through in our age of misinformation. I would say the incentive to change things are for those struggling to break through currently. Corporate news is almost completely controlled to drive narratives, at the very least certain stories are stopped from being pushed by the editors and owners. While those owners may not want things to change, I believe the constituents may still want a fuller picture.

At the very least, I think conceding this fight for information is not one we should ever back down from. It’s not even just misinformation being spread these days, but the fact that bots are pushing the same misinformation everywhere all day, every day makes it more difficult each day to combat it. Either we need to be building bots of our own to respond to the misinformation by other bots in real time or we need to rein in the media system itself.

The media sphere is perhaps the most frustrating issue to deal with. I firmly believe bots and paid propagandists are propping up many of the most toxic content creators on say Twitter, YouTube, and Twitch. They make it appear as those views are more popular than they are, which in turn makes some real people that are fence sitters or young adults give their opinions equal weight to real experts or people with more reasonable takes.

Okay so let’s say we have a perfectly regulated system where our politicians legally cannot own businesses, be landlords, or accept money from corporate interests. Why wouldn't the capitalists just leave? Fuck off to some place where they can do that. Then what? The vast majority of our wealth just gets transferred to another country where we cannot siphon some of it off as taxes for the public good. Now we are a country of workers entirely dependant on a foreign ruling class for jobs who have no interest in improving or maintaining our infrastructure. Capital flight is a real thing and I encourage you to look into it. Regulating capitalism is not feasible at this point, not in any way that matters. I guess we could stop them from flering the country through the threat of violence but I don't think you are in favor of that.

If the current capitalists in power leave, others who are not well off will take their place overnight. Capitalism is a beast of competition, any perceived weakness or market that is left open will be a void that becomes filled by entrepreneurs looking to make a profit for themselves. The billionaires are more than welcome to go where they want, but their assets and wealth are tied to the US currently, especially for the company stock they own. If the billionaires want to transfer their wealth, then they will need to cash out their stocks which is the one thing they would hate to do.

Billionaires pay for everything with their stocks so it doesn’t get taxed and they get treated as though they have no income. Currently, we can’t tax their wealth unless they cash out their stocks which or unless it is sold to go to their next of kin. Now, if they did decide they wanted to sell their stocks, while paying moderate taxes in doing so, and then leaving the US after, they will have to convert US dollars to another currency. There is no guarantees that where they go will be as profitable for them.

The issues they would face of a new market are the following: the market is already dominated by another local company and the new company struggles to compete (like Starbucks failing in Italy), the business owners may not know much about the market they are entering and do not understand the wants/needs of the locals, and the owners would lose out on the US market which is one of the largest economic markets to sell to.

The US is mostly a service economy that is hard to replace in full. I would say our current predicament is close to being that of one where there is little interest in improving or maintaining infrastructure. I believe we can still regulate capitalism, it just takes a majority of the states to want that as well. Many blue states do regulate capitalism in their own states, but there could be more done such as public utilities and more public housing.