What's new

Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations to....

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
36,633
Reaction score
8,719
Points
1,360
yep the entire GOP propaganda machine and its orange clown and eyegore are all over it. When anybody who is not a total lying a***** agrees they will cover it. This is been investigated several times and nothing is there but GOP
The Washington Times is a fake newspaper run by the moon family, brainwashed functional moron. Lies like a rug just like all your other media.... And you're orange clown and his Igor barr...
Msn/cnn
George Nader, key Mueller witness, charged with funneling contributions to Clinton campaign
Well fine he sounds like a scumbag according to your propaganda machine. Let's see if anything actually happens or it is another phony Scandal like the hundreds you still believe in....but nobody in the real world believes any of this crap anymore, just you super dupers. B a r r and Trump will go down as the worst president and attorney general in our history by far... Only pure garbage propaganda and ignoramuses like you make this possible....
View attachment 293976

Ignorance is bliss on the left... You idiots think its ok for you to do but illegal for others.. there is no higher hypocrisy from people that choose to have their heads up their asses...
Not a single one of your propaganda machines phony scandals has ever gone anywhere in the real world and this is the same thing. Nothing but part of your propaganda.... Investigate all you want but do not blackmail foreign leaders to do it or tell China and Russia to do it. You people are just unbelievable.Everyone in the real world knows that Biden
is like the most honest politician there is.... Google Google news right now or Yahoo news and check every story from every angle instead of being a blowhard brainwashed functional moron oops brainwashed functional blowhard moron. And that is a political insult not a personal one.
Oh, so cnn is a right wing propaganda machine now?
upload_2019-12-9_13-47-54.gif
upload_2019-12-9_13-47-59.gif
upload_2019-12-9_13-48-2.gif
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
36,633
Reaction score
8,719
Points
1,360

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,032
Reaction score
14,759
Points
2,180
Yep, do it if they are guilty. Though their’s was minor league compared to these 8., consisting of multi-millions.
Wow, your propagandists have done a terrific job of keeping you in the dark.

Parnas and Fruman are also accused of illegally donating millions.
 

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
61,820
Reaction score
3,545
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
yep the entire GOP propaganda machine and its orange clown and eyegore are all over it. When anybody who is not a total lying a***** agrees they will cover it. This is been investigated several times and nothing is there but GOP
The Washington Times is a fake newspaper run by the moon family, brainwashed functional moron. Lies like a rug just like all your other media.... And you're orange clown and his Igor barr...
Msn/cnn
George Nader, key Mueller witness, charged with funneling contributions to Clinton campaign
Well fine he sounds like a scumbag according to your propaganda machine. Let's see if anything actually happens or it is another phony Scandal like the hundreds you still believe in....but nobody in the real world believes any of this crap anymore, just you super dupers. B a r r and Trump will go down as the worst president and attorney general in our history by far... Only pure garbage propaganda and ignoramuses like you make this possible....
View attachment 293976

Ignorance is bliss on the left... You idiots think its ok for you to do but illegal for others.. there is no higher hypocrisy from people that choose to have their heads up their asses...
Not a single one of your propaganda machines phony scandals has ever gone anywhere in the real world and this is the same thing. Nothing but part of your propaganda.... Investigate all you want but do not blackmail foreign leaders to do it or tell China and Russia to do it. You people are just unbelievable.Everyone in the real world knows that Biden
is like the most honest politician there is.... Google Google news right now or Yahoo news and check every story from every angle instead of being a blowhard brainwashed functional moron oops brainwashed functional blowhard moron. And that is a political insult not a personal one.
Oh, so cnn is a right wing propaganda machine now?
View attachment 293997View attachment 293998View attachment 293999
of course not. They are just reporting what the attorney general did it's a fact duh. The problem is that no one in the Justice department believes that crap and the attorney general is just another Trump scumbag and Russian asset whether he knows it or not.... Trump bought off scumbags are the only people floating this crap which has all been discredited in the real world. They're just trying to keep things confused and distracting and only ignoramuses believe it. Poor America
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
36,633
Reaction score
8,719
Points
1,360
Yep, do it if they are guilty. Though their’s was minor league compared to these 8., consisting of multi-millions.
Wow, your propagandists have done a terrific job of keeping you in the dark.

Parnas and Fruman are also accused of illegally donating millions.
You’re right, of a plan to-
DOJ-
The table described a “multi-state license strategy” to make between $1million and $2 million in political contributions to federal and state political committees.

Now these 8, only 1 alone did make multi million dollar donations alone.
OpenSecrets
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
36,633
Reaction score
8,719
Points
1,360
yep the entire GOP propaganda machine and its orange clown and eyegore are all over it. When anybody who is not a total lying a***** agrees they will cover it. This is been investigated several times and nothing is there but GOP
Well fine he sounds like a scumbag according to your propaganda machine. Let's see if anything actually happens or it is another phony Scandal like the hundreds you still believe in....but nobody in the real world believes any of this crap anymore, just you super dupers. B a r r and Trump will go down as the worst president and attorney general in our history by far... Only pure garbage propaganda and ignoramuses like you make this possible....
View attachment 293976

Ignorance is bliss on the left... You idiots think its ok for you to do but illegal for others.. there is no higher hypocrisy from people that choose to have their heads up their asses...
Not a single one of your propaganda machines phony scandals has ever gone anywhere in the real world and this is the same thing. Nothing but part of your propaganda.... Investigate all you want but do not blackmail foreign leaders to do it or tell China and Russia to do it. You people are just unbelievable.Everyone in the real world knows that Biden
is like the most honest politician there is.... Google Google news right now or Yahoo news and check every story from every angle instead of being a blowhard brainwashed functional moron oops brainwashed functional blowhard moron. And that is a political insult not a personal one.
Oh, so cnn is a right wing propaganda machine now?
View attachment 293997View attachment 293998View attachment 293999
of course not. They are just reporting what the attorney general did it's a fact duh. The problem is that no one in the Justice department believes that crap and the attorney general is just another Trump scumbag and Russian asset whether he knows it or not.... Trump bought off scumbags are the only people floating this crap which has all been discredited in the real world. They're just trying to keep things confused and distracting and only ignoramuses believe it. Poor America
Poor franco. You do stay confused.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
15,409
Reaction score
916
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
What you are really pointing out is the problem with campaign contributions gone crazy for both sides. And there is a bill passed bi partisan from the House sitting gathering dust under Moscow Mitch's desk to prevent a lot of this from happening. Force Moscow Mitch and the Party of the Rump merry criminals in the Senate to pass the damned thing.
You have a HR # ON THAT OR A LINK TO THAT FACT. NOT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE
YOU.....
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.
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!

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.
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!
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.
 
OP
T

The Purge

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
16,560
Reaction score
4,791
Points
290
You have a HR # ON THAT OR A LINK TO THAT FACT. NOT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE
YOU.....
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.
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!

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.
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!
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.
You, of course never heard of NEVERTRUMPER Republicans, like Romney and certain others from the North East....but obama is Putin's puppet... HE WALKED ALL OVER THE SURRENDER MONKEY!!!

 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
15,409
Reaction score
916
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
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.
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!

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.
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!
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.
You, of course never heard of NEVERTRUMPER Republicans, like Romney and certain others from the North East....but obama is Putin's puppet... HE WALKED ALL OVER THE SURRENDER MONKEY!!!

Your diversionary tactic of "Hey, look over there" is noted. It's about HR1 and that was done during Rumps time.
 
OP
T

The Purge

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
16,560
Reaction score
4,791
Points
290
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!

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.
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!
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.
You, of course never heard of NEVERTRUMPER Republicans, like Romney and certain others from the North East....but obama is Putin's puppet... HE WALKED ALL OVER THE SURRENDER MONKEY!!!

Your diversionary tactic of "Hey, look over there" is noted. It's about HR1 and that was done during Rumps time.
By a DemonRAT HOUSE....FUCKING THE AMRRICAN PEOPLE AGAIN!....YOU REALLY ARE THIS STUPID!
 

tyroneweaver

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
18,908
Reaction score
2,948
Points
280
Location
Burley, Idaho
One of muellers witnesses is a child molester.
Of course we know in dem circles, child molesters, groomers, sexual assaulter s are the new norm for integrity.
 

Sun Devil 92

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
22,913
Reaction score
2,705
Points
290
Sweet...today's edition of Fake News from the Purge
Attorney General Barr blasts progressives’ anti-Trump ‘resistance’

So you no longer agree with the Washington Times?
Fake libertarian will believe in the tooth fairy if she bags on Trump.
Funny coming from a fake libertarian that worships the head of the federal government.
Gator, what are your thoughts on Leftists?
Thoughts ?

That would imply thinking.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
32,504
Reaction score
3,614
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
...Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Top Senate Democrats!!!

The Liberal Media Is Covering This Up!…

HUGE DEMOCRAT MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN DONATIONS SCANDAL BROKEN UP!


On Friday The Gateway Pundit reported on the news that Democrat operative and Robert Mueller chief witness George Nader was indicted for his involvement in illegal campaign contributions from foreign entities to the Hillary campaign in 2016

Nader was one of Mueller’s top witnesses and he is a top Democrat donor and convicted child molester

Read much more at

UPDATE: Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Top Senate Democrats
What you are really pointing out is the problem with campaign contributions gone crazy for both sides. And there is a bill passed bi partisan from the House sitting gathering dust under Moscow Mitch's desk to prevent a lot of this from happening. Force Moscow Mitch and the Party of the Rump merry criminals in the Senate to pass the damned thing.
234-193 is NOT bipartisan, dumbass! It was a straight party line vote! 234 Democrats for and 193 Republicans against!

Why do you lie? Are you so stupid to not realize that someone would actually look at the bill and see the actions taken on it? Yes, you are definitely stupid!
 
Last edited:

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
32,504
Reaction score
3,614
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
...Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Top Senate Democrats!!!

The Liberal Media Is Covering This Up!…

HUGE DEMOCRAT MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN DONATIONS SCANDAL BROKEN UP!


On Friday The Gateway Pundit reported on the news that Democrat operative and Robert Mueller chief witness George Nader was indicted for his involvement in illegal campaign contributions from foreign entities to the Hillary campaign in 2016

Nader was one of Mueller’s top witnesses and he is a top Democrat donor and convicted child molester

Read much more at

UPDATE: Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Top Senate Democrats
What you are really pointing out is the problem with campaign contributions gone crazy for both sides. And there is a bill passed bi partisan from the House sitting gathering dust under Moscow Mitch's desk to prevent a lot of this from happening. Force Moscow Mitch and the Party of the Rump merry criminals in the Senate to pass the damned thing.
You have a HR # ON THAT OR A LINK TO THAT FACT. NOT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE
YOU.....
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.
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!

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.
Comprimize? That's not even a word, dumbass! The sad thing is that was the best part of your post.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
32,504
Reaction score
3,614
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Yep, do it if they are guilty. Though their’s was minor league compared to these 8., consisting of multi-millions.
Wow, your propagandists have done a terrific job of keeping you in the dark.

Parnas and Fruman are also accused of illegally donating millions.
Key word - accused.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
32,504
Reaction score
3,614
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
You have a HR # ON THAT OR A LINK TO THAT FACT. NOT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE
YOU.....
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.
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!

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.
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!
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top