H.R. 1 – The Intimidate Conservatives Bill

Contact Your Elected Officials

A group of over 100 conservative leaders and organizations, including ConservativeHQ.com, has released a letter analyzing the unconstitutional and deleterious effects on political participation of H.R. 1 and S.1, the Democrats’ bill to intimidate conservatives.

H.R. 1 and S. 1 would dramatically alter the First Amendment protections that Americans have enjoyed since the founding of our country. It would institute sweeping new burdens on their constitutionally protected rights to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for the causes they support. In particular, H.R. 1 and S. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable regulatory standards on the ability of individual Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. This bill would also violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters and stringently and excessively regulate political speech on the Internet.

As the letter points out, our Founding Fathers used pen names to encourage independence from Great Britain. Nearly 200 years later, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the state of Alabama from demanding the supporter list of the NAACP, citing concerns about retribution against the group’s members and financial backers. And earlier last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a California regulation forcing charities to hand over their supporter lists to the government.

Clearly, the purpose of H.R.1 and S.1 is to legalize exactly the kind of intimidation the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional in the Alabama versus the NAACP case.

If passed, H.R.1 and S.1 the government would be in the business of:

Subjecting citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations to harassment and intimidation by making their personal information available in a searchable government database. This mandate focuses public attention on the individuals and donors who support causes instead of on the messages communicated by those organizations, exacerbating the politics of division and personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse. This would have a considerable chilling effect on civic engagement and free speech.

Policing speech by Americans about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising that bears no relation to an election. This will subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.

Indiscriminately regulating groups that incidentally or occasionally advocate on federal judicial nominations and require those groups to broadly expose their donors, even if those citizens had nothing to do with the groups’ speech about judicial nominees.

Forcing groups to publicly identify their supporters on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what the law would consider (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose not to give to nonprofit groups.

Increasing regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting (and failing) to address the threat of Russian propaganda.

Expanding the universe of regulated online political speech by Americans beyond paid advertising to include communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and email messages.

Deterring American citizens from serving their country through political appointments by forcing them to disclose their donations to causes they have supported in the past.

Our elections will not be more honest, more informed, or more secure from foreign interference if we sacrifice the privacy of American citizens. But our democracy will be weakened if voices are eliminated from public debate through intimidation and overregulation.

Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell Republican Representatives and Senators you are speaking on behalf of the millions of Americans who cherish and rely on the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment and intimidation, tell them you demand they oppose H.R. 1 and S. 1, the deceptively named “For the People Act.”

  • H.R. 1
  • S. 1
  • First Amendment
  • Free Speech
  • Political Speech
  • Donor lists
  • Charities
  • NAACP v. Alabama
  • Nonprofit organizations
  • Online advertising
  • For the People Act
  • Mail-in voting
  • Voter ID
  • Voter integrity
  • Speech regulation
  • intimidation


By George Rasley

Read Original Article on ConservativeHQ.org

See text of the letter below analyzing the unconstitutional and deleterious effects on political participation of H.R. 1 and S.1, the Democrats’ bill to intimidate conservatives below:

February 1, 2021

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Chuck Schumer
Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Republican Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Republican Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Republican Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader Schumer, and Republican Leader McConnell,

On behalf of the millions of Americans who cherish and rely on the right to support causes we believe in without fear of harassment and intimidation, we, the undersigned individuals and organizations, ask you to reject H.R. 1 and S. 1, the deceptively named “For the People Act.”

Nonprofit organizations serve a vital role in encouraging free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Privately supporting causes — and the organizations advancing those causes — is a fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers used pen names to encourage independence from Great Britain. Nearly 200 years later, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the state of Alabama from demanding the supporter list of the NAACP, citing concerns about retribution against the group’s members and financial backers. And last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a California regulation forcing charities to hand over their supporter lists to the government.

H.R. 1 and S. 1 would dramatically alter the First Amendment protections that Americans have enjoyed since the founding of our country. It would institute sweeping new burdens on their constitutionally protected rights to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for the causes they support. In particular, H.R. 1 and S. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable regulatory standards on the ability of individual Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. This bill would also violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters and stringently and excessively regulate political speech on the Internet. More specifically, H.R. 1 and S. 1 include numerous, sweeping provisions that would violate the First Amendment rights of Americans by:

• Subjecting citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations to harassment and intimidation by making their personal information available in a searchable government database. This mandate focuses public attention on the individuals and donors who support causes instead of on the messages communicated by those organizations, exacerbating the politics of division and personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse. This would have a considerable chilling effect on civic engagement and free speech.
• Policing speech by Americans about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising that bears no relation to an election. This will subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
• Indiscriminately regulating groups that incidentally or occasionally advocate on federal judicial nominations and require those groups to broadly expose their donors, even if those citizens had nothing to do with the groups’ speech about judicial nominees.
• Forcing groups to publicly identify their supporters on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what the law would consider (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose not to give to nonprofit groups.
• Increasing regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting (and failing) to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
• Expanding the universe of regulated online political speech by Americans beyond paid advertising to include communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and email messages.
• Deterring American citizens from serving their country through political appointments by forcing them to disclose their donations to causes they have supported in the past.

Our elections will not be more honest, more informed, or more secure from foreign interference if we sacrifice the privacy of American citizens. But our democracy will be weakened if voices are eliminated from public debate through intimidation and overregulation.

As a Member of Congress, you have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. H.R. 1 and S. 1 propose multiple violations of our First Amendment rights. On behalf of the millions of American citizens our organizations represent, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1 and S. 1.

Sincerely,
See PDF Below for Signatures

See PDF of letter analyzing the unconstitutional and deleterious effects on political participation of H.R. 1 and S.1, the Democrats’ bill to intimidate conservatives below:

Oppose_HR1_S1

(H. R. 1, H.R. 1, H.R.1, HR 1, HR1,hr 1,hr1)

The Thinking Conservative
The Thinking Conservativehttps://www.thethinkingconservative.com/
The goal of THE THINKING CONSERVATIVE is to help us educate ourselves on conservative topics of importance to our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. We do this by sharing conservative opinions on all kinds of subjects, from all types of people, and all kinds of media, in a way that will challenge our perceptions and help us to make educated choices.

Remember Epstein’s “Little Black Books”?

Image of Bill Clinton getting a massage from Jeffrey...

On the Major League’s periphery: A major trip through the minors

For Nick Dunn, the trek through the minors is a trifecta of physical, mental, and organizational hurdles filled with politics, roster volatility, and injuries.

Private Citizens are Now Looking into Epstein Client List

Most Americans have never felt so betrayed and confused by a president and his admin as they are by the Trump admin over the Epstein client list issue.

Peace In Ukraine Won’t End The West’s Hybrid War On Russia

The West’s Hybrid War on Russia to follow peace in Ukraine is inevitable due to neoconservatives and liberal-globalists in its decision-making ecosystem.

Epstein Case Closed?

The DOJ and FBI announced on Sunday evening of the July 4th holiday weekend that Jeffry Epstein had no client list and didn’t kill himself in prison.

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order After Supreme Court Ruling

Judge barred Trump admin from enforcing EO limiting birthright citizenship, after Supreme Court restricted judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

California Might Stop Making Necessary Debt Payments for 2 Years

California State Legislature met the budget submission deadline and it was signed by the governor, but they still need to cut $12 billion in spending.

MP Materials Secures Rare Earths Deal With DOD, Shares Surge 50 Percent

MP Materials Corp. announced a public-private partnership with the DOD to build out rare earth magnet supply chain and reduce dependency on China.

Ex-CIA Director Brennan Says DOJ Hasn’t Contacted Him About an Investigation

Former CIA Dir Brennan said he hasn't been contacted by DOJ, FBI, or CIA following reports he and former FBI Dir. Comey are under investigation.

RFK Jr. Bans Illegal Immigrants From Government-Funded Programs

HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is rescinding a 1998 interpretation of a law that allowed illegal immigrants to access certain government-funded programs.

Rubio Set to Visit Malaysia for ASEAN Meetings Amid Tariff Tensions

A delegation including U.S. Sec. of State Marco Rubio will travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for series of high-profile meetings between July 11 and 12.

US Will Collect More Than $300 Billion in Tariff Revenues This Year, Treasury Secretary Says

U.S. is on track to potentially raise “well over $300 billion” in tariff income by end of the year, Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent said during WH Cabinet meeting.

Senate Panel Advances Trump’s CDC Director Nominee

A Senate committee on July 9 voted to advance the nomination of Susan Monarez to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
spot_img

Related Articles