H.R. 1. incorporates portions of language from the Honesty Ads act.
And this other bill, when passed in States, has in fact been levied with an injunction due to constitutional difficulty.
Why? Because it puts undue requirements on people to express their opinion. You basically have to dox yourself, and list out your name and address, and contact information for where you can be reached.
For all political ads, those running on radio, tv, and online.
It further puts database and recording requirements onto media platforms, that most platforms cannot even afford to do.
Google stopped running ads in Maryland after the latter passed their own version of the law. Newspapers in other states did the same thing. It was simply too expensive to comply.
Creating a system where only the most monied interests can post political ads, is a system that hurts freedom of speech for the small players. Courts just aren’t going to go along with that.
Another H.R. 1 measure is incorporation of language to strike down Citizens United. The Supreme Court already ruled on this, so we know what it’s constitutionality is. That’s beyond the pale.
The talking point on expanding and verifying voters access might be nonpartisan, but H.R. 1 itself is not.
You’ll just have to acknowledge that cs. There was more going on in this bill.
None of what you mention is in the video I posted, so you’re replying to something not discussed.
As far as the reaction based on:
Something I’d like to read more about. Do you have any good links?
Fantastic. Sounds like a great idea to me.
There always is.
Your title is “H.R. 1 A nonpartisan issue”.
Except, it is.
Your video posits that H.R 1 itself is constitutional; the video speaker states this outright.
Except, the track record of its other portions in the court system shows that’s false.
Both of what I mentioned is in H.R. 1. So you’ll have to admit that claim wasn’t accurate.
Fair is Fair. If you can’t admit to critiques, I don’t see the point in posting videos like this. It was painting with a broad brush, and that is a mistake.
Because you’re weighing intentions, not results.
The 8 best managed states before Citizens United was decided, all ran regimes where political input of the same type was allowed.
Citizens United weakens the incumbent effect, and allows more people to enter into the field.
Those are good things for Democracy. Being held sway under party controlled institutions is not, nor other medium platforms who will cater to their platforms.
Again, with respect to the issues raised in the video. Of course the bill is, that’s not what I was talking about.
But fair enough, I concede that the title was misleading. It was more of an eyecatcher than meant to be taken that seriously.
Thanks for the link, I’ll take some time to read it.
There are much better ways to achieve this.
Take for example instant runoff voting.
Which this bill does not do. It makes the existing system worse, and puts it more into the hands of the existing elites and their powerbase.
That is worse for democracy and worse for voters of all stripes who would prefer more diversity.
Care to address the video?
Is it unconstitutional?
Is it a “state issue?”
Should we increase access to voting?
Multi-day voting/ voting holidays?
No excuse for absentee voting?
Automatic voter registration?
Should localities be able to remove people who don’t vote in an election/ successive election from the voter rolls?
If the issue is better accountability of people who are qualified to vote, which is often the excuse, can’t we solve that problem without purging people who are qualified to vote? And again, even if you agreed to this provision, should a person be able to reinstate their right to vote at the polls on the same day?
What say you?
“The talking point on expanding and verifying voters access might be nonpartisan, but H.R. 1 itself is not.”
I’ll also offer that gerrymander reform is not something I’m against.
For most of the rest, I’ll point here:
It is, but I’ll buy the argument the Federal Government has some pull here, as it has in the past.
Why ignore most of what I asked?
Because the link I posted answers it while levelling my own point; this bill has merit, but you need to get rid of the partisan portion of it.
HR-1 I insures that voter fraud will insure that will give the Democrats control of the government for the next century. What is wrong with proving what you name is when you vote? Are Democrat voters entitled to voting more than once? Are dead people entitled to vote? Are people who have moved out of a district entitled to vote twice? In the most extreme cases, are 16 year olds allowed to vote because they have a driver’s license, when the voting age is 18, because of this bill.
This is the Democrat Party wins all elections bill? Yes, it is.
An article from last year from the Bee: