Tag: hr1

“For The People Act” is NOT What it Seems, It Destroys 3rd Parties, Solidifies 2-Party Dictatorship

A new bill recently introduced to Congress and passed by the House of Representatives seeks to make it nearly impossible for any third party or independent candidates to meet the requirements necessary to participate in national elections.

But you wouldn’t know that if you read it’s title or were subjected to the gerrymandering praise of the corporate media. House Resolution 1, the unironically titled, For The People Act, is being promoted as the next milestone for voting rights. In reality, this is not entirely the case. A few barely noticeable caveats show it’s true purpose is a power grab for the two party establishment. While HR 1 does have some detractors in the GOP, it isn’t being met with much opposition outside of paradigm grandstanding. Ultimately it benefits them both.

Green Party US pointed out on Twitter — “Democrats are selling HR 1 as a “voting rights” bill, but they aren’t telling you about a little-known poison pill designed to further restrict voter choice by suppressing independent candidates & parties”.

Keep reading

Democrats’ H.R. 1 Sets ‘Unconstitutional’ Limits on 1st Amendment: Free Speech Group

“Buried in H.R. 1’s nearly 800 pages is a censor’s wish list of new burdens on speech and donor privacy. It proposes a democracy where civic engagement is punished and where fewer people have a voice in our government, our laws, and public life,” Eric Wang, the author of the study, said in a statement accompanying the release of the analysis. He is an IFS senior fellow and special counsel in the election law practice group at the Washington law firm of Wiley Rein, LLP.

Among the 14 constitutional problems identified by the IFS analysis in H.R. 1’s Title IV—including especially subtitles B, C, and D—the first are provisions that “unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague, subjective, and dangerously broad standard that asks whether the speech ‘promotes,’ ‘attacks,’ ‘supports,’ or ‘opposes’ (PASO) the candidate or official.”

“This standard is impossible to understand and would likely regulate any mention of an elected official who hasn’t announced their retirement.”

The proposal does that by creating a new category of regulated speech called “campaign-related disbursements” by nonprofit advocacy groups and others interested in communicating about public policy issues.

Such speech would include any public communications that mention a specific candidate for federal office and attacks or supports that candidate “without regard to whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against” the candidate.

Keep reading