The House passed (220-210) H.R.1, a measure to federalize elections and represents a top priority for Democrats, that includes a wide range of campaign finance, voter access, and ethics provisions intended to help reduce the influence of big money donations in politics, make it easier for Americans to vote, and set higher standards of ethics for politicians and government. 

The Senate will now take up their version (S.2093) of the measure.

Among the provisions, it requires various groups, including "dark money" groups, to disclose their political donors; effectively prohibits super PACs from running ads that support or oppose specific candidates; establishes a voluntary public financing system for congressional candidates under which small-dollar donations would be matched six-fold; makes it easier to register to vote, requires states to allow for early voting at least 15 days before an election, and makes election day a federal holiday; and requires states to use independent redistricting commissions when redrawing congressional districts. It also requires the president and vice president to divest any financial interests that may create a conflict of interest, and to release 10 years worth of tax returns. 

For H.R.1

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
“As we know, trust in Government is at a low point, we have many challenges that we have to work on together. One thing is that everyone in this country has a stake in how our country works and the way they express that is through their vote and deciding who their government will be.

“The mechanics of our democracy—access to voting, running for office, holding government accountable—have all undergone radical changes in recent years. These changes have tended to restrict the rights of eligible voters to vote. It has made the voices of the wealthy and powerful so loud that they can drown out the voices of ordinary people, our neighbors and our communities.

“Cutbacks to early voting, shutting down polling places, and purging eligible voters from the rolls all put barriers to participation to our elections and certainly we have issues with technical matters relative to voting and voting machines. There is hope that we can work to restore our democratic promise and H.R. 1 is the beginning of that.

“Ultimately, if we are to address the problems that we face tomorrow, and in the years and decades ahead, it is essential that our democracy works and the voices of all of our citizens, rich and poor, young and old are heard and heard equally. The promise of our democracy is indeed For the People."

Against H.R.1

Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): "...H.R. 1 makes our elections vulnerable to fraud, violates the Constitution, and injects taxpayer funds into political campaigns. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 isn’t for the people at all, but for the politicians and political consultants who will profit and stay in office longer, thanks to your tax dollars.

Our United States Constitution gives states the primary authority to determine the “time, place, and manner” of their own elections. What works in California or New York isn’t going to be right for Missouri, and what does work is for the people of Missouri to decide. But H.R 1 would force every state to comply with one-size-fits-all Washington mandates controlling every detail of holding elections. H.R. 1 dictates when elections are held, where polling places can be located, how states collect their ballots, and how states draw their Congressional districts.

H.R. 1 forces every state to allow convicted felons to vote, including people found guilty of election fraud. Every state would be forced to register people to vote on election day and collect and count ballots after election day. It makes our elections vulnerable to fraud and abuse while preventing states from protecting their election processes by removing ineligible voters from their rolls or even checking to see if voters are registered in multiple jurisdictions.

One of the requirements H.R. 1 would force on every state is automatic voter registration based on DMV databases, which often contain people who are ineligible to vote....

H.R. 1 is projected to cost taxpayers at least $2.4 billion and inject billions more of federal dollars into political campaigns, something I fundamentally disagree with. Every campaign donation up to $200 would be matched 6-to-1 by federal funds. Tax dollars would pay for a flood of campaign attack ads, robocalls, and mailers, regardless if you agree with that candidate’s message or not. But H.R. 1 also lets candidates spend campaign funds in completely new ways – on their personal health insurance, licensing fees, and even day care expenses.

Should Congress pass H.R. 1 - For the People Act?

###

Detailed Arguments For and Against:

Democrats say the bill is needed to help preserve democracy, get big money out of politics, and begin to restore people's faith in Washington and government. They argue that with state Republicans around the nation now seeking to suppress the ability of Americans to vote in the wake of the 2020 elections, particularly Black and other minority voters, it is more critical than ever to establish national standards for early and mail-in voting and for voter registration to encourage voting, as well as to bolster the security of our election systems. Similarly, the explosion of big dollar contributions and "dark money" in elections logically leads people to believe that monied special interests control the agenda and benefit; Democrats say public disclosure is essential for unmasking those interests to better hold lawmakers accountable and ensure foreign interests aren't able to wield influence. And establishing a robust system of public financing that magnifies the impact of small donations will allow candidates to run for office without depending on deep-pocketed donors, while empowering the ordinary Americans who make those small contributions, they argue. Finally, they say the bill's ethics rules will help ensure that public servants serve the public in Washington, rather than special interests or themselves.

Republicans say the bill represents a Democratic power-grab to federalize elections and make other changes designed to ensure Democrats have overwhelming advantages in future elections. By setting federal rules on voter registration, voting practices and the actual voting systems used, they say the bill reverses longstanding state control and administration of elections and would prevent states from enforcing prudent state safeguards against voting fraud — including by blocking reasonable state voter ID requirements or state efforts to update voter rolls, and conversely by mandating ballot harvesting and locking in no-excuse mail-in voting. It would force states to automatically register convicted felons when released from prison, they note, often contrary to public sentiment in the state. And also contrary to public wishes, it proposes to directly fund political campaigns with federal dollars for both congressional and presidential races. The bill's overt partisan tilt is exemplified by its changes to the Federal Election Commission, they say, where the bipartisan six-person commission would become a five-person body headed by a Democrat with expanded powers. Rather than protecting democracy the bill imposes constitutionally-questionable requirements, including unprecedented limitations on political speech, that could help cement in place Democratic control of the political process, they argue.

Should the Senate pass H.R. 1 - For the People Act?