House Dems Pass Massive Federal Override of State Election Statutes

2.4k views

Late Wednesday, March 3, the Democrat-controlled House by a party-line vote of 220-210 passed H.R. 1, the insultingly labeled “For The People Act” that attacks the power of people on the state level to control the parameters of their elections.

And good luck to those who want to read the actual text of the bill on the official government website, because those “for the people” people like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez provide only a summary, not the actual text.

Indeed, Pelosi is taking things one step further than her absurd statement about having to “pass the bill in order for you to find out what is in the bill” that the House “Speaker” offered when pushing Obamacare. She and her cohorts are grabbing power over elections and not even letting people see the fine details where the government typically posts its bills.

But enough is visible in the outline to understand many parameters, and they’re ostentatiously oriented towards concentrating vote-control power in DC.

Was your state legislature working on passage of Voter ID at the polls, the same as Texas and Alabama have? Do you know folks in your state who are trying to stop ballot harvesting, guard against easily manipulated ballot drop boxes and mail-in ballots? How about stopping ballot-counting in secret for several days after a state statute says the vote is supposed to be done?

This federal statute, this centralization of power labeled “For The People” will ban such measures, nationwide. 

And then there’s the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer money via “surcharges on civil penalties and settlements” on business to pay for campaigns, which FoxNews’ Marisa Schultz exposes:

A major pillar of the legislation is setting up a new public financing system for congressional and presidential elections to incentivize small-dollar donations.

“Incentivize.” That’s a curious term. 

The legislation would establish a 6:1 match for each grassroots contribution to a candidate up to $200.

For example, a $200 donation to a House candidate would garner a $1,200 match in public funds for a total contribution of $1,400.

And the money for this “program?”

The public match program would be funded by a new 4.75% surcharge on criminal and civil penalties and settlements that corporations pay to the U.S. government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this week the new revenue stream would generate about $3.2 billion over 10 years.

Expect the feds to ramp-up agency fines and start frivolous suits against businesses, just to generate settlements from the businesses. And expect that rate to increase over time, because, of course, federal receipts are fungible, and the feds constantly operate at a deficit as they keep multiplying the tentacle arms of their leviathan.

Writes Schultz:

It also prohibits voter roll purges and partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, imposes new campaign finance rules, and requires presidential nominees to release 10 years of tax returns.

But, of course, one party saying that the other is engaging in “partisan gerrymandering” usually is based on partisanship.

Related: Bunches of Mail – Including Mail-In Ballots – Found In a Rural Wisconsin Ditch

And the “campaign finance rules” are not clear but appear to, in part, mandate disclosure of campaign donations in such a way as actually to disincentivize individual, small donors from donating, and the bill would require new disclaimers on political ads.

So much for Congress passing no law infringing on the right of free speech, found somewhere in that dusty thing called the Bill of Rights.

Breitbart’s Hannah Bleau reportson this federalization of elections:

A summary of the bill notes that it ‘expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting)’ and imposes limits on removing voters from voter rolls.

And Bleau notes the warning of Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R):

’We have H.R.1 and the Democrats, they call this the ‘For the People Act.’ No. It’s the “For the Swamp Act.” This is something that will federalize our elections. It’s a D.C. takeover of our elections,’ Boebert said. ‘This goes right back to them controlling the language. They act like it’s something that’s great for you.  … They act like all of these things are wonderful for the American people, and they’re not.’

And Boebert emphasized the government-collected money the Dems want to pour into the system

’But the “For the People Act,” “For the Swamp Act,” you know, this actually has tax dollars that will pay for politicians’ campaigns. It’s disgusting,’ she added. ‘No tax dollar should go to a campaign.’

The US Constitution prescribes two rules on elections, one for the election of House and Senate members, and the other for the election of the President.

The rule for electing members of the House and Senate can be found in Article One, Section Four:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So, while the Founders expressed a sentiment leaning towards letting states handle elections for those offices, the Constitution allows the Congress to alter any of those state rules, except for the voting locations for choosing Senators.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that can be construed as allowing federal officials taking the money of citizens to fund political campaigns.

Likewise, Article Two, Section One, Paragraph Two clearly preserves for the states the prerogative to handle their process for Presidential elections and the choosing of their members of the Electoral College:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

This is extremely important, and, unless people pay attention, and share this information with friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family members, very few Americans will have any clue as to what the Democrat majority in the House are attempting to do via H.R. 1.

It moves to the Senate, and stands a strong chance of the Dem majority passing it.

Beware, and spread the word.

MRC Merch

MRC Merch