Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would let ordinary citizens and state attorneys general sue a president for money obtained through corruption.

Senator Alex Padilla and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer unveiled the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act on 30 July 2026 at a Public Citizen forum in Washington.

The bill would create the first independent federal agency dedicated to policing corruption across the executive branch. Its sponsors describe it as a direct answer to what they call the unprecedented self-dealing of President Donald Trump’s second term.

  • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 hours ago

    ‘Hey Mr.President sir, Can you sign this law that would let me sue you? Thanks.’

    Good luck with that one. I like the thought, but yeah, not gonna happen. At least making them say no is a statement I guess.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      Yeah. If they had the cotes to override a veto on this, they’d also be able to remove him from office.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Most watchdog agencies actually do their job when allowed.

        For decades Government Accountability Office reports were the place to look if you wanted to know what the fuck the rest of the government was doing.

        But yes. The distribution of money part makes me question it a bit.

        The combination of other watchdogs orgs and empowerment there of, well that part I like.

  • BigMacHole@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I can’t WAIT until Democrats take MAJORITY Control and PASS this Legislation! KILL this Legislation since it’s NOT good Enough!

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I think you’re confusing things a bit, the proponents of gun control are the ones who put this forward. The people in favor of child murder are the ones who would be most targeted by this, because they seem to also love corruption.

      Or are you advocating for gun use, because a fuckload of children will die when that kicks off, so it’s best to delay. Also, Trump is losing support by the day here. He’s wildly unpopular and openly declining.

      Right now the optics are on our side, so when ICE rolls into town, you go protest, stand in front of your neighbors, but keep it non-violent. At least from your end, ICE will be violent sociopaths, but fuck, I can take it. Or if I can’t, it was a good run.

      No, I firmly believe that now is not the time for violence. We will all know when it’s time.

      • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        43 minutes ago

        I’m not confused. Shoot the tyrants. The time for violence was when corporations and politicians agreed bribery was legal. And before that when the housing market was turned into a circle jerk, and before that when the cops decided because of the Rodney King riots they needed military gear, and before that when Reagan rat fucked the world by making the petrodollar, and before that when companies thought they could pay people in funny money. Violence is the tool of the masses when their leaders think themselves above all else. You haven’t been taught that because its the only thing keeping capitalism running.

      • Cris_Citrus (he/him <3)@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        We will all know when it’s time.

        Rest of the comment aside I think this is untrue and not a good position to be arguing. We have already passed many things that people would have thought completely unthinkable, I think it is dangerous to assume it will just be obvious. We all have lives and unless we are individually targeted they will just go on- getting worse little by little, every passing day, and you will get used to it

        Regardless of where you draw your line, people will not all just innately know, people must draw their line consciously and decide when it has been crossed over

        • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          41 minutes ago

          Together, we must all draw a line, and say this far and no further whether it effects me or not. Unfortunately my line is far crossed.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          No, you will know when it’s time because there will be some spark, some incident that pushes normies to the brink. It will be quiet at first, and then it will just keep blowing up to the point where it’s all anyone will talk about, and then, it will be time for violence. Everyone will sort of agree on violence at the same time, but the who and how will be different. It will be a chaotic mess of mass murder and retaliatory mass murder. Because that’s what it looks like when it’s time for violence.

          There are no winners when it’s time for violence. Which is why it’s not time yet. But trust me, we will know when it is.

  • dan1101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Why are they wasting time on bills that will never pass? If you can’t get republicans to vote on your bill it’s a huge waste of time.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Making people see that Republicans don’t want this is as much a strategy as trying to pass the bill itself. ‘Only try to pass legislation if you know it will pass’ is why Senate Democrats are weak babies who are more concerned with getting along with their Republican colleagues than playing the game.