Institute For Free Speech Documentation On H.R. 1 and S. 1

[Monk-Eye]

" Institute For Free Speech Documentation On H,R. 1 and S. 1 "

* Free Speech Perspective For Informative Competent Layout With Blog Example *

H.R. 1 and S. 1 Resource Guide (2021) - Institute For Free Speech

H.R. 1 and S. 1 would impose sweeping new restrictions on speech about campaigns and public affairs. The Institute for Free Speech has created numerous resources that highlight the many First Amendment problems in H.R. 1 and S. 1.

www.ifs.org

H.R. 1 and S. 1, better known as the “For the Politicians Act,” would impose sweeping new restrictions on speech about campaigns and public affairs. These radical bills would greatly harm the ability of Americans to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for better government and the causes of their choice.

In particular, H.R. 1 and S. 1 would force onerous and unworkable standards upon the ability of Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. Other provisions would violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters, stringently regulate political speech online, and compel speakers to include lengthy government-mandated messages identifying some of their supporters by name in their communications. Further, H.R. 1 and S. 1 would coerce Americans into funding the campaigns of candidates with which they may disagree in a system that research has proven hasn’t worked elsewhere. If signed into law, all these provisions would be interpreted and enforced by a newly partisan, five-member Federal Election Commission under control of the president.

The provisions in H.R. 1 and S. 1 are so complex and open to so many possible interpretations that the Institute’s views may well understate the chill this legislation would impose on speech. To this end, the Institute for Free Speech has published numerous resources that highlight the many First Amendment problems in both bills.

Unless otherwise noted, the resources below refer to the version of H.R. 1 introduced by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019. As many provisions in both 2021 bills are identical to their 2019 counterpart, the overarching arguments remain relevant. However, in the interest of accuracy and public awareness, the Institute for Free Speech is working to update these resources. All updated – and new – resources on H.R. 1 and S. 1 will appear below. This page will be updated on a regular basis.

COPIOUS CROSS REFERENCES INCLUDED

 

[pknopp]

That's what McCain/Feingold tried to do. The courts shot it down and would shoot this down.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Institute for Free Speech

Institute for Free Speech Background The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), founded under the name Center for Competitive Politics, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit describing itself as “the nation’s largest organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political speech rights.” [1], [2] IFS...

www.desmogblog.com

IFS has consistently argued against laws that would increase donor transparency in politics. It supports Super PACs, and opposes spending limits on political campaigns. For example, in 2019, IFS has fought against Bill H.R. 1, which “expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.” [3], [4]

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sounds Like Champions For Individual Interests "

* Over The Shelf Into The Deep *

Institute for Free Speech

Institute for Free Speech Background The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), founded under the name Center for Competitive Politics, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit describing itself as “the nation’s largest organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political speech rights.” [1], [2] IFS...

www.desmogblog.com

IFS has consistently argued against laws that would increase donor transparency in politics. It supports Super PACs, and opposes spending limits on political campaigns. For example, in 2019, IFS has fought against Bill H.R. 1, which “expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.” [3], [4]

The blog reference in the op that specified as to why ifs was against h.r.1 did not indicate " .. expands voter registration and voting access , make Election Day a federal holiday , and limits removing voters from voter roles . " as reasons .

If objections levied by ifs were not against those specific claims , the retort is disingenuous word play that forwards choice objectives of the legislation while ignoring the remainder that could potentially be unacceptable .

When it comes to voter registration , it is sufficient that one prove themselves via the real id system to be a citizen in only one of the fifty us states to vote in a respective state election , noting that one cannot be a citizen of two states at the same time and voting multiple times in a single election is illegal .

When it comes to removing voters from voter rolls , registration is obsolete with a real id verification of state citizenship , and simply show up within the window of time made available for voting and vote .

The status of individuals as deceased should be update within the real id system , so that use of real id of the decease could not occur , and a method of protest should be available with the ability to vote that is set on hold until verification can be completed .

When it comes to voting access , mail in ballets and drop boxes have become obsolete and are to be deprecated , as in person , anonymous , real id methods represent sufficient standards to ensure independence of the vote - Ensure Independence Of The Vote Campaign .

When it comes to making election day a federal holiday , extending the availability for voting in an election beyond a single day is by and far a much greater alternative .

Super PACs: Expanding Freedom of Speech - Institute For Free Speech

Super PACs are simply groups of like-minded citizens pooling their resources to support or oppose political candidates independently of those candidates’ campaigns. The product of a unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, super PACs have ensured...

www.ifs.org

Super PACs are simply groups of like-minded citizens pooling their resources to support or oppose political candidates independently of those candidates’ campaigns. The product of a unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, super PACs have ensured that Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights when they join together in groups.

Super PACs are not subject to contribution limits and can accept donations from corporations and unions. They enjoy this freedom because super PACs do not give money to candidates or parties, and do not coordinate their spending with these entities. However, super PACs are still heavily regulated by campaign finance laws. Just like candidates and political parties, super PACs must report detailed information about their donors who contribute over $200. They must also register with the Federal Election Commission and report all of their donations and spending on a schedule set forth by the government. This information is then published online in a searchable database available to anyone.

In practice, super PACs, which are primarily funded by individuals, have challenged the monopoly on political speech held by powerful politicians and big media corporations. Not since the 1960s have groups like super PACs existed that allow any group of citizens the unfettered opportunity to offer their views in competition with elite institutions. This freedom is something to celebrate.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sounds like of, for, and by the super rich.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" When Because Powerful Politicians And Big Media Corporations Are Only Legitimate Outlets For The Left "

* Anything In Particular Or Just Basis Non Specific Stone Walling *

Sounds like of, for, and by the super rich.

In practice, super PACs, which are primarily funded by individuals, have challenged the monopoly on political speech held by powerful politicians and big media corporations.