- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
Who is it that said repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it to be truth? Because it’s obvious he is hoping it works. Oh, that’s right-Instead of crying, I recomend that the Dimwits actually work with the Republicans on a new bill that takes care of ALL instead of simply DemonRATS!Well let's see what this DEMOCRAT BILL WOULD DO....PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE, as they are going to try and LIE ABOUT what this bill does!...Written in LAWYER SPEAK, it is deliberately twisted so it sounds great by isn't!Even after I show you you still won't believe it. HR.1, the Peoples Act. It's held up by Moscow Mitch. He won't even allow the senate members to discuss it and do a counter offer. There is a lot in there and NONE of it is partisan. It comprises of three sections and it scares the living hell out of Moscow Mitch and a bunch of Senators if it gets passed into a bill.
(a) Divisions.—This Act is organized into 3 divisions as follows:
(1) Division A—Voting.
(2) Division B—Campaign Finance.
(3) Division C—Ethics.
The new legislation politicizes and weaponizes the FEC to favor the ruling political party. Under current law, the FEC is a six-member commission, with three Republicans and three Democrats. Four votes are needed to move forward with any prosecution of alleged violations or investigations. This construction ensures that decisions made by the Commission are truly bipartisan and free from any political animus.
H.R. 1 fundamentally changes the construction of the FEC by reducing the number of members from six to five. Advocates of H.R. 1 try to obfuscate this clear politicization by insisting that the new five-person committee must consist of two Republicans, two Democrats, and one “independent” member that is a member of a minor political party.
By this logic, the president could appoint an independent like Bernie Sanders, who is functionally a liberal Democrat, to be the fifth member of the FEC. The new construction rigs the system to ensure total partisan control of the FEC, exactly the opposite of how the Commission is designed under current law.
To make matters worse, H.R. 1 authorizes the president to pick the Chairman of the FEC, all but ensuring total presidential control of the Commission. Under current law, the FEC has a Chair and Vice Chair, and they must be from different parties and selected by the Commission. Not only would H.R. 1 allow the president to pick the Chair, the legislation drastically increases the power the Chair has over the committee.
Essentially, the Chair would function as Chief Administrative Officer over the committee, and would be allowed to act on his own with regard to issuing subpoenas, compelling testimony, and controlling the FEC budget. H.R. 1 also abolishes the requirement that the Vice Chair must be a different party than the Chair, further demonstrating that Democrats want the ruling political party to have ironclad control over a historically bipartisan agency.
H.R. 1 also changes how campaigns are funded. The bill implements a subsidy for politicians in the form of a 600 percent match for small-dollar political contributions. Any individual that donates under $200 to a candidate or PAC is entitled to a 6 to 1 match from the federal government. In effect, this provision would force taxpayers to subsidize political campaigns. This insane 600 percent match of political contributions would be another step towards campaigns funded by theft from taxpayers instead of voluntary political contributions.
Another provision contained in H.R. 1 is new donor identification requirements that would further suppress free speech. According to the new legislation, organizations that make “campaign-related disbursements” totaling more than $10,000 during a two-year period must publicly identify all that gave over $10,000 during the two-year period. The legislation also expands the “stand by your ad” disclaimer in video advertisements, forcing organizations to identify their top five donors at the end of advertisements.
This is obviously an egregious infringement on the First Amendment rights of every American to support causes without fear of intimidation or harassment from those that may disagree. Especially in today’s rancorous political environment, protecting the integrity of donor information is more important than ever.
The bill also creates numerous cases where the ruling political class suppresses political speech. Specifically, the bill creates a new standard for regulating political speech called “PASO.” The PASO standard is an overly-vague standard that asks whether speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “supports,” or “opposes” a candidate or official. If political speech meets the vague PASO standard, the speech can be regulated.
H.R. 1 also undoes the FEC’s “Internet exemption” which excludes the internet from regulation of political speech. Essentially, if the FEC deems that online communication is “paid,” it is subjected to the same regulations and donor disclosure requirements as traditional advertisements. This overbroad and overvague provision would even include content on free platforms like Twitter and Facebook, as the paid definition extends to paid staffers managing the platforms.
Finally, this legislation contains a whole host of bad provisions that would federalize and fundamentally transform how elections are conducted in this country. If the bill was signed into law, the federal government would force the states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting. The bill would also invalidate voter identification laws all over the country by allowing voters to simply sign a statement affirming their identity instead of providing identification.
H.R. 1 also contains language designed to block voter intimidation, which seems reasonable until you realize that it largely duplicates measures already in place all across the country. These systemic changes are a gift to campaign lawyers and their litigious clients, and it comes at the cost of our electoral integrity.
Make no mistake about it – H.R. 1 is a dangerous piece of legislation. If implemented, the bill would suppress political speech, politicize and weaponize the FEC, fund campaigns through theft of taxpayer dollars, and implement numerous reforms that would damage our electoral integrity. This parade of horribles is a clear attempt to grab power by Democrats and to rewrite election law to benefit their cronies and lobbyists. Congress should reject this legislation.
As stated, it is to make the Democratic party the DIXTATOR over free speech and a way to have their Soros funded THUGS attack YOUR CHOICES!
NOW LET THE COMMIE SPIN BEGIN!
By not allowing it to be discussed by the Senate Floor, the good parts will never have a chance to be realized. It's called "Comprimize" something that isn't happening in todays Congress. Both sides need to be talking and making deals.
The whole bill can be read at Text - H.R.1 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): For the People Act of 2019
Now, let's look at your points.
H.R. 1 fundamentally changes the construction of the FEC by reducing the number of members from six to five.
Right now, the membership is chosen by the President and the Senate and it supposed to be 6 members. But currently it only has 3 members with 3 vacant seats. One Rep, One Dem and one Independent. There is no mention of changing that number in the bill. Your handler needs to learn how to read or you need a different handler. Those 3 slots that need to be filled would have to comprise of one Rep, One Dem and one Independent and be approved by the President and the Senate. Even if they dropped it to 5, it would still be 2 Reps, 2 Dems and 1 Independent which would leave neither party in control. Your charge of "Weaponizing the FEC" in favor of the ruling party is just plain BS.
To make matters worse, H.R. 1 authorizes the president to pick the Chairman of the FEC, all but ensuring total presidential control of the Commission.
Someone has to chair it and there has to be a method of figuring out who is in that chair. Right now, it's a Democrat with the Rep as Vice Chair. Are you saying that Rump should not be afforded the opportunity to make that choice himself? One would think that would just go with the job. What's the matter, you afraid that someone other than Rump might get to make a choice in something? Right now, with one of each, the choice of who is in the chair can't be changed. In order to do a change the FEC would first have to fill the 3 vacant seats to change from the Chair that is sitting today and that is a Democrat. Sounds to me like the President and Senate needs to stop all the BS games and get those 3 vacant seats filled if you want any change to happen. If you have balanced votes in the FEC it is possible but highly improbable that you could have the Vice of the same party as the Chairperson. And it's not a requirement anyway that the Vice has to be the opposite party now. The Position is still voted on by the commission members. Right now, there aren't enough members to have it any other way except you could have an independent filling one or the other positions. But right now, due to the lack of members and the inability to do a vote, the Chair stands as Dem and the Vice stands as Rep. Otherwise, allow the President to do it so it gets done or it just won't get done. Get over yourself. And fire that damned Handler.
H.R. 1 also changes how campaigns are funded.
Text - H.R.1 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): For the People Act of 2019
“(a) In general.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the eligible candidates of a party in a Presidential election shall be entitled to equal payment under section 9006 in an amount equal to 600 percent of the amount of each matchable contribution received by such candidate or by the candidate’s authorized committees (disregarding any amount of contributions from any person to the extent that the total of the amounts contributed by such person for the election exceeds $200), except that total amount to which a candidate is entitled under this paragraph shall not exceed $250,000,000.”.
Let's take a look at the current Contributions. You have one candidate that is backed by the deep pockets and gets the big donors and you have the other candidate that is backed by the grass roots with hundreds or millions of small contributors. Right now, both get the same matching amount as in dollar for dollar up to a certain amount against their total qualified donations. Under what is presented in HR.1, the grass roots (which will have the smaller dollar amount) will get the 600% help to even out the playing field. Of course, the Corporations will be totally against this since it would take their advantage of buying the election away from them.
Another provision contained in H.R. 1 is new donor identification requirements that would further suppress free speech.
And this is a bad thing how? If a person, Corporation or other contributes to a party or person running for office, they would have to be identified. If a person, corporation or other would contribute to a PAC where the money was used for Political Purposes then that would be made public. That's been a bi-partisan wishlist for a couple of decades. Speech would still be free but it would be transparent. If a large corporation wants to try and buy and election, they get credit for it. As it stands now, the PACs are totally anonymous in who is contributing to whom. And that scares the hell out of the large Corporations who have gotten into the habit of buying elections with no one knowing they are doing it.
The bill also creates numerous cases where the ruling political class suppresses political speech.
And
H.R. 1 also undoes the FEC’s “Internet exemption” which excludes the internet from regulation of political speech
Not in there at all. It does regulate how and by whom money can be contributed. And those are quite fair. If you call that suppression of Political Speech you are being might liberal with the Supreme Court Ruling. One thing it does is make the Internet equal to the networks for political content if it's done my either a political party or a PAC. Not a bad thing unless you are trying to buy an election.
The Internet has escaped a lot of Regulation because it's been self regulated. And until about 2014, it worked out well. Enter the GRU attacks. Other countries have learned to use the Internet to tear the US to pieces. And I am not playing Partisan on this one. Read the Mueller Report concerning this. And read what the CIA, NSA and others have reported about it. Out of all the big Content Providers, the only one that refuses to self regulate is Zuckerburg and that could be the downfall for everyone since his organization controls the lions share of the information. And it only works if the Internet is Self Regulating. Zuckerburg can stop this by self regulating. If not then the FEC must get into the act. Trust me, self regulation works much better.
Finally, this legislation contains a whole host of bad provisions that would federalize and fundamentally transform how elections are conducted in this country
This is hogwash. What HR1 does is allow funding the HELP the states to do a better election. Including the added cost of paper ballots if that is what the State thinks they need. It also funds post election audits that many states (mostly Red States) can ill afford to pay for. The State still makes the decisions and conducts the voting but they can request and receive federal assistance if they need it. You really need to fire that handler.
Now, about your response. HR1 goes on for a few hundred pages. There is no way in hell you could have read it and understand it in the short time from my post to the time you posted. You are cut and posting from someone else who is making up crap to cover for Moscow Mitch. The Senate Members need to be allowed to read it, make revisions and shoot it back to the House. Let it go back and forth for a few times until they come to an agreement and then shoot it to the President for an up or down. That is how the system was designed to work. One person should never stop the system from working. There are some not so pretty things in it that needs to be ironed out but there are mostly some really positive things in it that needs to be made into law.
If you expect us to swallow this, we certainly would be dimwits. The HR1 has been presented to the Senate. It's now up to the Senate to do a counter offer. That's the way it traditionally works. it's worked that way from the very day this nation was formed until 2017. HR1 is a bipartian effort from both Dems and Reps of the house. And there is a very good chance that a form of it would be worked out with the senate if allowed to come to the floor for discussion. The only non traditional thing is Moscow Mitch's refusal to present the bill so that the senate can work on it's own version. The only thing I can figure out is, Moscow Mitch doesn't want fair elections where it's harder for a Corporation to steal an election. And that is not a partisan issue.
HR1 is not just a Democrats effort. It's also a Republican House effort. Thank you for letting us know that you wish for Corporations to continue stealing elections. Rump and Moscow Mitch are proud of you.
There you go lying AGAIN! Not a single Republican voted for it in the House.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propagandist.
