H.R. 1: Myths and Realities
H.R. 1: Myths and Realities
A Democracy 21 Response to Incorrect Claims Made About H.R. 1,
the For the People Act of 2021
H.R. 1, the For the People Act, is sweeping democracy reform legislation that is scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives next week.
“The enactment of H.R. 1 is essential to fix our broken political system, repair our corrupting campaign finance system, and revitalize our democracy,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
The Act addresses fundamental problems facing our political system by enacting voting rights laws to help ensure every eligible citizen can exercise their sacred right to vote; by creating a new, alternative campaign finance system to free federal candidates from influence-seeking funders; by establishing new rules to close a gaping loophole in disclosure laws which currently allows secret, unlimited contributions to be spent in federal elections; by providing for non-partisan redistricting commissions to prevent extreme partisan gerrymandering; and by establishing new ethics, conflict of interest and self-dealing rules for public officials.
The voting rights provisions ensure that voting by mail, early in-person voting, and automatic voter registration are properly available to eligible voters in federal elections. The new, alternative financing system provides that contributions of $200 or less to presidential and congressional candidates are matched with public funds at a 6 to 1 ratio. The new disclosure rules require that nonprofit groups that spend money to influence federal elections disclose the large donors who fund these expenditures.
MYTH: Widespread voter fraud occurred in the 2020 elections and state legislatures need to enact new laws to prevent this from happening in future elections.
FACT: The record turnout for the 2020 presidential election resulted in good part from new opportunities to vote by mail or to cast ballots early — both of which were safer than in-person voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Despite President Trump’s blatantly false claims, there was no evidence of meaningful voter fraud in the 2020 election. Trump’s Big Lie, however, is being used as cover in Republican-controlled state legislatures to justify new voter restriction laws that will suppress mail-in and early voting, and disenfranchise large numbers of voters, particularly voters of color.
A recent Brennan Center study found that “legislators have introduced well over four times the number of bills to restrict voting access as compared to roughly this time last year. According to the Brennan Center study, “These proposals primarily seek to: (1) limit mail voting access; (2) impose stricter voter ID requirements; (3) slash voter registration opportunities; and (4) enable more aggressive voter roll purges.” The Republican-controlled state legislature in Georgia appears to be leading the way in pursuing a number of new voting restrictions in response to Democratic victories in the 2020 presidential election and in two U.S. Senate races.
H.R. 1 would establish voting rules for federal elections and override any new state laws that suppress voting and disenfranchise voters. The bill would help keep in place the voting procedures that resulted in a record voter turnout in the 2020 elections without any evidence of significant fraud occurring.
MYTH: The small donor, public matching funds system in H.R. 1 is financed with tax revenues and takes these taxpayer funds away from other government programs.
FACT: Under H.R. 1, no tax revenues will be used to finance the new public matching funds system for federal candidates. In fact, H.R. 1 prohibits the use of tax revenues to pay for the system. Instead, the entire financing for the public matching funds will be paid for by a new, small surcharge imposed on fines, penalties and settlements paid to the government by corporations or corporate officials who are convicted of a criminal offense, or who pay a civil or administrative penalty, or who are involved in settlements of civil, criminal and administrative matters. The system will also be financed by a new, small surcharge on the additional taxes or the penalties paid to the IRS by wealthy individuals (i.e., those subject to the highest marginal income tax rates). Anyone who claims that the new financing system involves tax subsidies or is otherwise paid for out of tax revenues is not telling the truth. While the presidential public financing system, used by almost every major party presidential candidate for seven elections, was financed with taxpayer funds, no tax revenue will be used to pay for the new public matching funds system.
Critics also argue that tax revenues are being diverted from other government programs to pay for the public matching funds system. That is also not true. Since no tax revenues will be used to pay for the public matching funds, no taxpayer funds will be diverted from other programs.
MYTH: The DISCLOSE Act infringes on First Amendment free speech rights by requiring disclosure of donors to non-profit groups spending money on federal elections, and by subjecting such donors to threats of harassment or violence.
FACT: Since Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and as reaffirmed in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure requirements because they serve the important governmental interests of “providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending” in order to help citizens “make informed choices in the political marketplace.” Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 914.
Critics of the disclosure provisions in H.R. 1 say that such disclosure would restrict or deter non-profit groups from engaging in speech and advocacy. But these critics simply ignore the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United where, by an 8 to 1 vote, the Court rejected this argument and found that disclosure requirements for campaign-related expenditures by nonprofit groups “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities” and “do not prevent anyone from speaking.” Id.
Critics also raise concerns about whether disclosure of large donors to non-profit groups could subject those donors to harassment and threats of violence. But H.R. 1 has an explicit safe harbor provision that exempts from disclosure any donor who may be subject to “serious threats, harassment or reprisals.”
The Supreme Court stated in Citizens United that disclosure requirements are not invalid because of a generalized or theoretical concern about “public harassment.” The Court said that disclosure provisions are invalid only in specific cases where a group can show a “reasonable probability” that disclosing the names of its contributors would “subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.” If a group can make such a showing, the DISCLOSE Act in H.R. 1 exempts the group from disclosure requirements.
###
