Nancy Pelosi, in promoting the bill, declared, “[We] must not suppress the vote of our newcomers to America.”
Well, if the “newcomers” are noncitizens then we must, because it’s illegal for them to vote in federal elections. That’s why states, which have the constitutional authority to determine the qualifications of voters, have passed voter identification laws to require proof of eligibility before casting a ballot.
Democrats wrote H.R. 1 to nullify these laws; the bill allows a potential voter to simply sign a piece of paper swearing they’re eligible instead of having to show identification. I wonder who “our newcomers” are more likely to vote for, Democrats or Republicans?
The Times also says this bill will, “end big money in politics?” How? The bill would require the federal government to match any donation up to $200 to a candidate’s congressional campaign by a factor of six. Donate $200 and the taxpayers will kick in another $1,200. The candidate must agree, however, to accept only these “small dollar” donations. But career politicians, who can raise big money, will not restrict themselves. Have any media asked Speaker Pelosi, who has served in Congress for over 30 years and outraised her last opponent by over 340 to 1, if she will limit herself to small donations in her next reelection? Not a chance.
H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a party-line vote, should be renamed the, “For the Career Democratic Politicians Act.” This bill would take power away from the states, help elect Democrats, and protect career politicians. Yet that’s not the conclusion one would draw by reading the “news.”
Here’s the first line in the New York Times story about the passage of H.R. 1, “The House passed the Democrats’ showcase anti-corruption and voting rights legislation on Friday, an expansive measure that aims to dismantle barriers to the ballot box, end big money in politics and impose stricter ethics rules on federal officials.” “Anti-corruption?” Really? How does this bill crack down on public corruption?
Prosecutors have lost major public corruption cases in the past few years, including the prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel and current U.S. Senator Bob Menendez. The McDonnell case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a decision making it even harder to convict a public official for bribery. So, does the bill expand the definition of bribery? Does the bill make it easier to bring cases against corrupt politicians or even increase the criminal penalties? Of course not. The bill does nothing to combat public corruption.
So how else do the media mischaracterize the, “For the People Act?” The Times also claims the bill will “dismantle barriers to the ballot box” What? Are there barriers preventing Democrats from getting to the voting booths? Is that why they lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the last presidential election? Has President Trump built a wall around voting booths in Democratic precincts? Of course not. There are no barriers to voting for eligible voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ..
