H.R. 1: Myths and Realities, Part 2
H.R. 1: Myths and Realities, Part 2
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 of 2021, is sweeping democracy reform legislation that is being considered by the House of Representatives this week.
Last week, Democracy 21 issued a Myths and Realities report that rebutted three of the myths being raised by opponents of H.R. 1. In Myths and Realities, Part 2, we challenge three more myths.
H.R. 1 is landmark democracy reform legislation that addresses fundamental problems facing our political system by providing voting rights, campaign finance, redistricting, government ethics, election security and foreign interference reforms.
MYTH: H.R. 1 is nothing more than a “power grab” by Democrats attempting to rewrite the rules to benefit themselves in future elections at the expense of Republicans.
FACT: H.R. 1 enacts voting rights laws to help ensure every eligible citizen can exercise their sacred right to vote; creates a new, voluntary small donor-based campaign finance system to counter influence-seeking, big money funders; and ends secret money being spent in federal elections. The legislation protects the interests and needs of the American people, not of any political party.
These democracy reforms benefit citizens of every political affiliation. They are an effort to ensure that every eligible citizen can vote easily and safely. The only partisan power grab taking place is happening in a number of state legislatures where Republicans are pursuing restrictive new laws to suppress voting and disenfranchise voters. Even though the 2020 election had record-setting voter turnout and was called the “most secure” election in American history by the Department of Homeland Security, Republican-controlled legislatures are moving to restrict voting rules that resulted in that record voter turnout without any evidence of meaningful fraud.
The reforms in H.R. 1 also provide federal candidates with an alternative way to finance their elections that does not rely on the special interest, influence money that now dominates our elections. The current financing system is dominated by influence-seeking billionaires, millionaires, lobbyists, bundlers, business executive, Super PACs, dark money nonprofit groups and special interest PACs.
The voluntary, alternative system created by H.R. 1 would allow presidential and congressional candidates who raise a qualifying threshold in small contributions to finance their campaigns with noncorrupting small donations and public matching funds. The public matching funds are financed entirely by a small surcharge on the fines, penalties, and settlements paid to the government by corporations, corporate executives, and wealthy tax cheats. H.R. 1 prohibits the use of any taxpayer funds to finance the public matching funds system. The disclosure provisions of H.R. 1 will eliminate secret money being spent in federal elections. These new rules will prevent the ability of donors and officeholders to exchange money for government benefits in secret and with no accountability.
These anticorruption campaign finance measures protect the interests of the American people, not of any political party.
MYTH: H.R. 1 would improperly federalize elections that should be run by State officeholders and local election officials establishing the voting rules in their own states.
FACT: Under H.R. 1, states will continue to administer and run elections. However, the federal government has a right under the Constitution and a responsibility to establish the voting rules for citizens who vote in federal elections. Congress establishes the campaign finance rules for candidates who run in federal elections, while the states establish the rules for candidates running in state and local elections. The same principle applies to voting rules.
The need for fair, uniform voting rules in federal elections is all the clearer when we see Republican legislators in states around the country trying to enact voting rules that will make it much harder for citizens to exercise their right to vote in federal elections. The efforts by Republicans in the states are being driven by President Trump’s Big Lie and an antidemocratic view that the fewer people who vote, particularly voters of color, the better it is for the country. The new barriers being advanced will substantially restrict voting by mail and early in-person voting, two secure and tested ways to vote that led to record voter turnout in 2020 without any evidence of meaningful fraud.
The efforts in the states are antithetical to our system of representative government. It also makes no sense for states to decide who can register, who can vote and how they can vote in federal elections. There should be a baseline of fair and secure voting in federal elections that does not vary by zip code. The 2020 national elections demonstrate that more safe and secure access to voting can maximize voter participation in federal elections, without problems arising.
MYTH: H.R. 1 will turn the FEC into a partisan agency that will shut down speech by whichever party does not control the agency.
FACT: The FEC is a dysfunctional agency that fails to enforce, or properly interpret, the campaign finance laws. For years, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has controlled the appointment of half of the six members of the Commission and has chosen agency members who will ensure that major matters before the agency are deadlocked in 3-3 votes on a partisan basis. This has meant that the “enforcement agency” is unable to find a majority to move forward with enforcement actions, or even to issue new regulations to interpret and implement the law. Candidates, donors, the parties, and outside spending groups know that the FEC does not enforce the campaign finance laws and that there will not be consequences for failing to comply with the rules.
H.R. 1 strengthens the enforcement powers of the FEC and modifies the structure of the current FEC while ensuring that neither political party will control the Commission. The number of Commissioners is reduced from six to five, consisting of a chairman and four other members, all of whom are appointed by the President, and subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. No more than two of the five members can be from the same political party, thus ensuring that neither party will have majority control of the agency.
Importantly, the bill also requires the President to appoint a diverse Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel, including retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or individuals with experience in election law. The panel will recommend to the President up to three nominees for each seat on the agency and the list of recommendations will be made public when the President submits his nominee to the Senate. This process will help ensure that nominees to the agency are experienced, qualified, and committed to carrying out the agency’s mission to enforce the campaign finance laws fairly and effectively. While the President is not required to select a nominee from the list of recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon panel, a failure to do so will be subject to public scrutiny and accountability.
###
