H.R. 1 - For the people act of 2021

[MidMoFo]

I’m about 3 episodes into the docu-series Amend: The Fight for America, which to that point, displays many of the issues HR 1 attempts to address 150 years later.

Here is a link to HR 1:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-H0C72CA940E684A0986583236950CC71E
 

H. R. 1

To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.

I support anything that reduces the influence of money in our elections, especially foreign interests. Voting should be easily accessible to every citizen, while maintaining the integrity that John Doe votes for John Doe only and his vote is equal to the vote of Jane Doe. Gerrymandering should not be distorted by either party.

The bill has passed the house, will it pass through the senate? Are you for it or against it?

[bobeph]

I am for someone spiking their 4th TD football through you teeth, Al Bundy!

#PolkHigh!

[The Norseman]

This bill doesn't stand a chance in the senate, thank god.

[paco]

H.R.1 sounds like swine flu, so I am against it.  

[MidMoFo]

"In 43 states across the country, Republican lawmakers have proposed at least 250 laws that would limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting with such constraints as stricter ID requirements, limited hours or narrower eligibility to vote absentee, according to data compiled as of Feb. 19 by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. Even more proposals have been introduced since then.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/voting-restrictions-republicans-states/

 

[NVeagle]

[mr_hunt]

Quote

What’s in the bill

The For the People Act weighs in at close to 800 pages. Broadly, it can be broken down into three buckets: expanding voting rights, implementing campaign finance reform, and beefing up ethics laws for members of Congress.

Here are some major points in the bill, broken down by category:

Voting rights

• Creates new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Requires chief state election officials to automatically register eligible unregistered citizens.
• Requires each state to put online options for voter registration, correction, cancellation, or designating party affiliation.
• Requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections; early voting sites would be open for at least 10 hours per day. The bill also prohibits states from restricting a person’s ability to vote by mail, and requires states to prepay postage on return envelopes for mail-in voting.
• Establish independent redistricting commissions in states as a way to draw new congressional districts and end partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.
• Prohibits voter roll purging and bans the use of non-forwardable mail being used as a way to remove voters from rolls.
• Restores voting rights to people convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences; however, the bill doesn’t restore rights to felons currently serving sentences in a correctional facility.

Campaign finance

• Establishes public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. This has long been Sarbanes’s vision: The federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. The maximum small donation that could be matched would be capped at $200. This program isn’t funded by taxpayer dollars; instead, the money would come from adding a 4.75 percent fee on criminal and civil fines, fees, penalties, or settlements with banks and corporations that commit corporate malfeasance (think Wells Fargo).
• Supports a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.
• Passes the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require super PACs and "dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
• Passes the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Klobuchar and Mark Warner (VA), which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platforms and share how much money was spent. (A Facebook spokesman told Vox the company has publicly supported Honest Ads Act since 2018).
• Discloses any political spending by government contractors and slows the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell companies.
• Restructures the Federal Election Commission to have five commissioners instead of six, in order to break political gridlock at the organization.
• Prohibits any coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Ethics

• Requires the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must also do the same.
• Stops members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.
• Gives the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and implement stricter lobbying registration requirements. These include more oversight of foreign agents by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
• Creates a new ethics code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.

 

we'll be hearing a lot about this now that the covid relief has gone through.  repugs are all about making it more difficult for folks to vote...folks who vote dem anyway.  

there's a great chance that zero repug senators will vote for this. 

[mr_hunt]

On 3/14/2021 at 11:18 AM, NVeagle said:

Quote

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.

 

[Kz!]

The easier we make voting, the less chance anyone but hard-left socialist dems have a chance to win. The only thing standing between where we are now and people like Bernie and AOC dominating every election is that people that support those retarded policies are too stupid and/or lazy to vote. I'm for making it more difficult to vote, if anything.

[Paul852]

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

The easier we make voting, the less chance anyone but hard-left socialist dems have a chance to win. The only thing standing between where we are now and people like Bernie and AOC dominating every election is that people that support those retarded policies are too stupid and/or lazy to vote. I'm for making it more difficult to vote, if anything.

Oh please, there are plenty of idiots to go around. Soothe yourself.

[Dave Moss]

19 minutes ago, Kz! said:

The easier we make voting, the less chance anyone but hard-left socialist dems have a chance to win. The only thing standing between where we are now and people like Bernie and AOC dominating every election is that people that support those retarded policies are too stupid and/or lazy to vote. I'm for making it more difficult to vote, if anything.

At least you’re smart enough to figure out that you need to stop people from voting for your candidates to win elections.  That’s something I guess...

[Kz!]

12 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

At least you’re smart enough to figure out that you need to stop people from voting for your candidates to win elections.  That’s something I guess...

Absolutely. If voter turnout was always 100% of the voting population, Republicans would never win another national election in this country. That's no secret.  

[Dave Moss]

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

Absolutely. If voter turnout was always 100% of the voting population, Republicans would never win another national election in this country. That's no secret.  

At least you admit it.

[mikemack8]

44 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

 

"Oh you don't have an ID?  Please provide your written eligibility, sir" 

 

Dems:

 

🤡

[JohnSnowsHair]

8 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Absolutely. If voter turnout was always 100% of the voting population, Republicans would never win another national election in this country. That's no secret.  

or, you know, maybe they would have to adjust their platform to appeal to a broader portion of the population by moving a little to the middle.

crazy, I know. 

[JohnSnowsHair]

I like a lot of what's in H.R. 1, though I question its constitutionality. Like it or not, states have most of the power in determining how elections are run. 

I think it's incredibly important that every eligible person be able to vote easily. It's absolutely true that republicans in many districts and states have sought to put as many road blocks in the way as possible. If it was as simple as "just get a photo ID!" and suddenly everything is great, that would be one thing, but republicans try to make it as bureaucratically difficult as possible for people to vote because that's to their advantage on election day. 

[Toastrel]

In a move surprising no one, the GOP, after losing badly, want to limit voting and the Dems, who won, want to expand it.

[Boogyman]

12 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Absolutely. If voter turnout was always 100% of the voting population, Republicans would never win another national election in this country. That's no secret.  

This is the most accurate post you have ever made. 

[Gannan]

On 3/6/2021 at 10:12 AM, The Norseman said:

This bill doesn't stand a chance in the senate, thank god.

Yes. The republicans have firmly entrenched themselves as the party that wants to do away with elections.

16 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Absolutely. If voter turnout was always 100% of the voting population, Republicans would never win another national election in this country. That's no secret.  

Agree there. 

[Kz!]

17 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

or, you know, maybe they would have to adjust their platform to appeal to a broader portion of the population by moving a little to the middle.

crazy, I know. 

In what ways do you think they should "move to the middle?"

[VanHammersly]

Just now, Kz! said:

In what ways do you think they should "move to the middle?"

Not supporting whiny grievance-politics blowhards like Trump and Tucker Carlson would be a good start.

[Gannan]

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

In what ways do you think they should "move to the middle?"

Supporting the idea of free and fair elections and presidential term limits would be a good start. Treating people of color as equal citizens would be another, but I realize that's asking for waaaaay too much. Baby steps. 

[mr_hunt]

30 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

"Oh you don't have an ID?  Please provide your written eligibility, sir" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah...something like that on a piece of scrap paper works.  or...you know...a sworn affidavit like a bunch of states currently accept.  either one. 

[mikemack8]

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

 

yeah...something like that on a piece of scrap paper works.  or...you know...a sworn affidavit like a bunch of states currently accept.  either one. 

Yep - the people who are too lazy to go obtain a form of photo identification will DEFINITELY take the time to get a sworn affidavit.   

[mr_hunt]

4 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Yep - the people who are too lazy to go obtain a form of photo identification will DEFINITELY take the time to get a sworn affidavit.   

uhh...that process already exists in a bunch of states.    it's a thing.