[Anti-Corruption] HR 1: For the People Act of 2019

Against all campaign finance reform pretty much. Love free speech and hate those who try to stop it. Also in this God awful political climate, political donations should definately be private . I can totally see why the leftie political rage mob would want donations public. Just look what happens if you wear I hate supporting a politician.

Also the ethics stuff is non sense. Ethics plan? Code of ethics? Wtf?

 

if they add in voter id laws yes.

 

woudln't expect anything less from a 30%er

In the United States, elections are administered locally, and forms of voter suppression vary among jurisdictions. At the founding of the country, the right to vote in most states was limited to property-owning white males.[11] Over time, the right to vote was formally granted to racial minorities, women, and youth.[12][13][14] During the later 19th and early 20th centuries, Southern states passed Jim Crow laws to suppress poor and racial minority voters – such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses.[15][16][17] Most of these voter suppression tactics were made illegal after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2013, discriminatory voter ID laws arose following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which some argue amount to voter suppression among African-Americans.[18][19]

In Texas, a voter ID law requiring a driver's license, passport, military identification, or gun permit, was repeatedly found to be intentionally discriminatory. The state's election laws could be put back under the control of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, the DOJ has expressed support for Texas's ID law.[20] Sessions was accused by Coretta Scott King in 1986 of trying to suppress the black vote.[21] A similar ID law in North Dakota, which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans, was also overturned.[22]

In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"[23]; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.[22]

Other controversial measures include shutting down Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in minority neighborhoods, making it more difficult for residents to obtain voter IDs;[24][25] shutting down polling places in minority neighborhoods;[26] systematically depriving precincts in minority neighborhoods of the resources they need to operate efficiently, such as poll workers and voting machines;[27] and purging voters from the rolls shortly before an election.[28]

Often, voter fraud is cited as a justification for such laws even when the incidence of voter fraud is low. In Iowa, lawmakers passed a strict voter ID law with the potential to disenfranchise 260,000 voters. Out of 1.6 million votes cast in Iowa in 2016, there were only 10 allegations of voter fraud; none were cases of impersonation that a voter ID law could have prevented. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the architect of the bill, admitted, "We've not experienced widespread voter fraud in Iowa."[29]

In May 2017, President Donald Trump established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, purportedly for the purpose of preventing voter fraud. Critics have suggested its true purpose is voter suppression. The commission is led by Kansas attorney general Kris Kobach, a staunch advocate of strict voter ID laws and a proponent of the Crosscheck system. Crosscheck is a national database designed to check for voters who are registered in more than one state by comparing names and dates of birth. Researchers at Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Microsoft found that for every legitimate instance of double registration it finds, Crosscheck's algorithm returns approximately 200 false positives.[30] Kobach has been repeatedly sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for trying to restrict voting rights in Kansas.[31][32]

 

Troll gonna keep trollin. Keep at it man. I won't read your post because it looks like a cheap copy and paste. Actually provide some original feedback other than throwing out insults and we'll have a real dialogue.

 

LOL, his copy and paste contains factual info, while your opinions are, well, "opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one". If you can't respond to the facts presented, perhaps you should choose a different argument.

 

so you deny all the facts I pasted?

 

This is a great idea.

However, there’s no chance this becomes law at this point in time. But, that probably isn’t the goal; goal is to push something that should be common sense and get the Republicans to vote it down and fight it.

McConnell and the Republicans have already taken the bait. Going to make for some solid sound bites and talking points during the campaigns next year.

 

I deny that you made an argument. What is your point Troll?

 

I will respond when he makes an actual point.

 

On a cursory look there are things in it I like and some I don't like. Maybe it could be the basis of some negotiated compromise bill. The main thing I don't like is federal usurpation of control over elections, which appropriately rests with the states. Campaign finance rules should be federal because it's interstate, and you can make federal ethics rules for federal office, but not voter registration stuff.

Funny, I think anonymous speech is the thing that's killing us. Free speech is great, including money as speech, but I don't see why people shouldn't expect to have their name attached

 

because people will dox you,boycott you, call for you to be fired, and ruin your life. go look at what happened to people in California for supporting prop 8. AN individual shoudl be able to privately support their positions without having to worry about opposition going after them personally.

 

I like that the Democrats are trying to push campaign finance and voter enfranchisement as a bigger topic of discussion heading into 2020, hopefully it gives more exposure to the fact that Republicans rely heavily on dark money and voter suppression in maintaining their political power.

In a more general sense, the Democrats need to do a better job of winning the messaging war, there are too many issues affecting the average person (ridiculous costs of healthcare and higher education, continually increasing living expenses when wages aren't rising at the same rate, climate change, etc.) that we aren't even talking about that much because our blowhard president is dominating the messaging war with things like his manufactured immigration crisis and his rantings about the entire world being rigged against him and his corrupt cronies. I mean the guy is so incredibly out of touch that he's now looking into reforming how the FBI arrests white collar criminals because of the way one of his buddies was arrested, think about that for a second.

Hopefully Democratic control of the House leads to more passing of legislation that, although symbolic, forces the drawing of lines in the sand and more discussion of topics like this one.

 

Boycotts, at least, I think are totally appropriate. And, most of the time, they aren't even actually effective because they require more discipline than people really have. As for other, inappropriate reactions, I think they'll actually moderate. If everyone's speech was non-anonymous than the people calling for you to be fired are themselves vulnerable to people calling for them to be fired. Everyone would have to be more responsible for what they say. Other things like doxxing, harassment, stalking can be regulated by the legal system. I don't think it'll be a disaster.

 

It already is a disaster, even without having to make your political donations public.

How is this different then making people's votes public? Its incredibly ****ed up. I should be able to express myself politically without being harassed for it.

How do you feel about CNN and other 'news' outlets spending hundred of billions of dollars each year pushing a political message? Why do you think campaign donations need to be kept in check but not this?

 

CNN's allowed to have journalists on their programs that have their own opinions?

If you're against CNN pushing a political message then you should also be against Fox, Breitbart, any news outlet pushing a political message...at that point, why have any of them at all?

 

To each his own, I guess. I find the environment tolerable. Unless you know of a way we can quantify the carnage and judge objectively whether it's a disaster or not.

In any case, most political expressors and donors are price-takers in this market. What they say, what they give, and who they are, alone have no measurable affect on the metaphorical market price. When I say something, people might say I'm stupid, they might even commit a crime against me, but they won't organize a boycott against me or ruin my reputation in the newspapers. I'm not worth the trouble. It's the big donors, like the Koch Brothers or George Soros or Alexander Torshin, that can make market-moving donations to candidates or policies. They aren't really vulnerable to bullying, for one. But do we want them to be able to move these markets covertly? With votes, it's all one vote per voter. In the public square, Soros' bullhorn is a billion times bigger than mine. Why should he be allowed to be deceitful with what he does with it?

 

So, when I voted this year I was required to show ID in order to vote. The part about your post re: the Texas voter ID law being struck as discriminatory struck me as interesting so I googled it because I had heard that before but then was required to show government issued picture ID to vote. Apparently, if you don't have one of the traditional forms of ID (TDL, passport, etc), you can use some non-picture ID (such as utility bill, paycheck, etc.) but you have to fill out a special form (which I assume is so they can check for voting issues if there is a close election, recount, etc.) I wonder how well known that ability is to potential voters who don't have a government issued ID.

 

What are you even advocating here? I care far more about who is funding the political campaigns of elected officials than I do about the cash flow at CNN. Elected officials create and craft policy that affects everyone in this country while CNN puts a bunch of "analysts" on TV that scream at each other in front of viewers who made up their minds politically a long time ago. Equating the two is ridiculous nonsense.