Dems Get Their Dox in a Row
You may not support Democratic candidates, but if H.R. 1 passes, your tax dollars will!
You may not support Democratic candidates, but if H.R. 1 passes, your tax dollars will! That’s just one of the problems with the House’s massive new election law overhaul. They call it the “For the People Act,” but after reading it, you’ll agree — the only people it’s for are in Congress.
When it comes to silencing conservatives, liberals don’t know the meaning of the word quit. Unfortunately, they don’t know the meaning of the word “constitutional” either, because their latest proposal is a 600-page affront to America’s founding document. If H.R. 1 were honestly named, NRO’s David French argued, it would be called the “First Amendment Demolition Act,” or the “Federalism Repeal Act,” or maybe, the “Incumbents Protection Act.” This isn’t about making the elections fair or democratic, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and company would have you believe. It’s about rigging the system, harassing voters, censoring speech, and taking power away from the states.
At more than a ream’s worth of text, it’d be impossible to cover all of the “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” moments in the bill. So let’s just start with the highlights. Democrats want taxpayer-funded campaign ads. That’s right. Under a new political match program, your hard-earned dollars would be shipped off to candidates you don’t even agree with. The idea is that the government would offer “subsidies” (up to six times the donation amount) to people who make small political contributions. In other words, Washington would be forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns — without ever having a say in whose! Don’t want to see Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) reelected? Too bad. You’ll be paying for her bumper stickers and robocalls. Likewise for the other side.
Democrats are also going back to the well on a horrible plan they tried to pass in 2010: the DISCLOSE Act. It was a bad idea then — and a worse idea now, when liberal mobs have racked up more than 600 incidents of violence and harassment against conservatives. In the age of “get up in congresspeople’s faces,” “we can’t be civil,” and “when they go low, kick them,” Pelosi has a clever way of drying up GOP funds: scaring donors. Groups like FRC Action would be forced to publicize the names and addresses of anyone who gives to the c4 — even if it’s not for an election campaign. It’s “government-mandated doxxing,” French fumes. Democrats are calling it “transparency.” We call it harassment.
“Suppression of political speech is still very real,” Adam Brandon writes in the Washington Examiner, “and H.R. 1 will only exacerbate it.” Naturally, Democrats aren’t concerned about exposing their donors, because the angry mobs are on their side. Their supporters don’t lose jobs for engaging in the political process. Their nonprofits aren’t hunted down by the IRS and threatened about their tax-exempt status. They don’t face character assassination or have to hire extra security for sharing their views. “House Democrats should brush up on their history if they believe exposing the names of donors will lead to free elections,” Brandon warns. “It would do the opposite.” And they know it.
Even the ACLU drew the line at that, writing to House leaders that it would “[harm] our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.” As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned, “Democrats did not design H.R. 1 to protect your vote. They designed it to put a thumb on the scale of every election in America and keep the Swamp swampy.”
Not surprisingly, if you like your federalism, you can’t keep it. One of the other charming aspects of H.R. 1 is that it would strip even more power from the states and give it to federal agencies instead. Every democratically-enacted voter ID law would be wiped out in favor of a loose online voter registration system that doesn’t have a single defense against fraud. All 50 states would be “forced to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.” Under this miserable excuse for campaign reform, states wouldn’t even be allowed to draw their own congressional districts. (That’s sure to be effective, since they’ll be controlled by legislators with a personal stake in the elections.)
In one of the more ironic moments of Tuesday’s debate, House conservatives decided to see just how committed Pelosi is to giving every American a voice. Assuming “the People” includes pastors, Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) tried to add the Free Speech Fairness Act to the overall bill. After all, if Democrats want to make sure everyone can participate in the political process, surely they’d be in favor of doing away with the Johnson amendment and let church leaders speak openly again on the issues of the day. Wrong.
“Adding the Free Speech Fairness Act to this bill could have ended the federal government’s practice of silencing churches and other nonprofits who engage in our democracy,” co-sponsor and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said when the motion was defeated. “Contrary to their claims, this bill is not about promoting election fairness and participation. Democrats are simply eroding American freedoms to suit an agenda that only seems to benefit them, not the American people.”
And this is only the tip of the liberal-leaning iceberg. You might also be surprised to know the bill supports things like D.C. statehood, voter registration for 16-year-olds, prepaid absentee ballots, and much more. It’s time to tell Washington to stop trying to control our votes — and start earning them! Contact your House member and tell them you oppose H.R. 1.
Originally published here.
House Jumps to the Wrong Collusion
The president denies it. His enemies can’t prove it. And even his critics say it never happened. So why are Democrats still beating the Russian collusion drum?
It’s certainly not because Americans are pushing the issue, polling shows. In a new Rasmussen survey, most of the country seems ready to move on if the Robert Mueller probe doesn’t prove the Left’s case. A majority of voters think that if the special counsel doesn’t find any evidence, Democrats should “let it go.” If the report isn’t incriminating, only 29 percent of voters think congressional Democrats “should do their own investigation” to see if the Russian government helped Donald Trump win the presidency. Sixty-four percent said the House Majority should turn their attention to other things. After more than two years of non-stop investigations, the American people agree: enough is enough.
Good luck persuading the House Judiciary Committee of that, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told me on Monday’s “Washington Watch.” Now that the Democrats are in control, they’re “going to pursue this bogus, ridiculous obstruction of justice.” “I’m surprised that’s where [Chairman] Jerry Nadler is choosing to go, because [the case] is so weak… It is just so ludicrous, but now, I can understand when your number one goal is political, and it is not the good of the country, then you’re seeing after [Michael] Cohen’s testimony, there really is nothing to this Russian allegation involving Donald Trump. He never conspired, he never colluded.”
Now, the Left is saying that Americans need a wider net than Mueller. But as Louie told our listeners, there’s no such thing! This probe had an unlimited bank account, a host of attorneys, and “the most far-ranging jurisdiction that’s every been given to a special counsel,” and still it’s clear that there’s nothing to this allegation. So, the Democrats have to fall back to this wild goose chase of obstruction, even though it’s the weakest and most disprovable charge.
“They’re going to keep digging until they find something — anything! Because their whole reputation — what’s left of it — of the Democratic party is replying on what they’ve convinced the rest of the country [which is] that there was Russian collusion.” And since there’s no evidence of that, “they’ve got to come up with something — and that’s what Nadler is trying to do… He’s trying to find something to hang their hat on, and they know that so far, nothing has come out that would be a basis for impeaching the president.”
Originally published here.
Liberal Firm Brings the Blues to Nashville
Amazon isn’t the only one fed up with New York’s ridiculous tax rates. Plenty of companies are packing their bags and looking for office space in states with more business-friendly policies. There’s just one problem: a lot of these top firms can’t stand the conservative laws that make their new homes so successful.
AllianceBernstein (AB), another firm fleeing the Empire State’s stifling economy, just announced that it’s relocating its $70 million headquarters to Nashville. But before it moves, the CEO is warning Tennessee: it’s not a fan of religious liberty. And AllianceBernstein is proving it by fighting the state’s faith-based adoption bill. “AB chose to move to Tennessee because we believe it is a welcoming state that is focused on growing jobs, incomes, and the tax base,” COO Jim Gingrich said in a statement. But, “the bills being debated in the current session of the legislature send a clear message to certain constituencies that they are not welcome. Other states have tried to pass similar bills,” he claims, “and this has proven to be anti-growth, anti-job, and against the interests of the citizens of those states.”
Is that so? Because the last time financial experts checked, the most socially conservative states also happened to be the most prosperous. For years, places like North Carolina (#1), Texas (#3), and Georgia (#6) have topped Forbes’s Best States for Business List — despite high-profile campaigns for privacy, religious liberty, and life. What these liberal CEOs don’t understand is that these favorable business climates only come from conservative legislators who understand that real freedom leads to economic growth. That’s why these red states are so enticing to companies, because their social values haven’t just built a foundation for workforce and family success — but thriving corporations too.
The Left loves to throw around this stale talking point that fighting for conservative values hurts states. Hardly! In the aftermath of the fiercest bathroom fight ever in North Carolina, nothing the liberals predicted came to pass. Even after a string of canceled concerts and celebrity boycotts, the Tar Heels are thriving. More than two years after the law, more businesses are moving to North Carolina than away from it. “The outlook is also strong. Job growth and gross state product growth are expected to rank among the strongest in the country over the next five years,” Forbes points out. As for all of those people moving out of the state because it dared to protect women and children? “The population is growing twice as fast as the U.S. average…”
Why? Because in states where the social structure is better, you don’t need as much government interference. There’s less regulation, more freedom, and lower taxes in places like Tennessee (#13). But companies like AB can’t have it both ways. Too many of these corporate refugees are relocating and trying to impose their extreme politics on their new homes. If conservative states want to keep their economies competitive, they need to make it clear. Businesses can either embrace the social structure that leads to growth and opportunity, or they can do what most Americans would prefer — and stay out of politics all together. If CEOs don’t like those options, tell them to go back to the high-regulation, high tax states from which they come!
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
