Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

U.S. Congress Part 116


thebluefood

Recommended Posts

 

2 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Had some trouble figuring out what things people were accusing other people of, in this tweet.  

 

However, a Google on "ACLU opposes HR1" did reveal this item that seems to support part of one of the tweets.  And kinda wanted to discuss it.  

 

Congress, Let’s Fix the Problems in H.R. 1 So We Can Enact the Bill’s Much-Needed Reforms


 

Quote

 

Members of Congress are expected to vote this week on H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019. There is a lot to like about the bill. 

 

. . . 

 

But, as we detail in a recent letter to Congress, there are provisions within the bill that, while well-intended, are overly broad and vague. If enacted, they would violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. Unless those provisions are fixed, we will oppose H.R. 1 and recommend that members of Congress vote against it.

 

 

I think the ACLU is wrong on this one.  

 

They mention two portions of the law, and use two hypotheticals which they think the law would unfairly prohibit.  

 

One was:  

 

Quote

 

But, as currently drafted, the DISCLOSE Act would go beyond that. It would regulate communications that merely mention a candidate for office if the election is near. It would also regulate communications that “support, promote, attack, or oppose” the election of a candidate. These standards are unclear and entirely subjective, which will lead to confusion and, ultimately, less speech.

 

Consider, for example, a California-based organization placing an ad describing a “crisis at the Southern border” and criticizing Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for failing to support President Trump’s efforts to build a wall. That organization might then have to disclose all of its donors that gave above a certain amount of money because the ad “opposes” Senator Harris’ positions, and, therefore, it may be found to “oppose” her election. 

 

 

Sorry, I think the ACLU is wrong on that one.  the hypothetical ad they created mentioned a specific candidate for office, and a recommendation on whether to vote for or against said candidate.  (They mentioned a second hypothetical, of a fictional group endorsing Harris for her position on the same issue.)  

 

To me, that's a campaign contribution.  The purpose of the ad is to tell people to vote for or against a particular candidate.  

 

I can understand the notion that you want to allow advocacy groups to advocate for or against particular positions on particular issues.  But to me, when said group gets to telling voters who to vote for or against, it's a campaign contribution.  

 

Their second problem is a portion of a law stating that when an advocacy group runs an election issue ad, the group must disclose the top 2 (or 5) donors to the organization, in the ad. 

 

(Their hypothetical in this case is to pretend that the ACLU were to run such an ad.  They point out that people who donate to advocacy groups do not necessarily agree with every single position of the group, and a donor might be afraid to donate to a group like the ACLU because of fear that his name might wind up being listed as paying for an issue ad which the donor did not approve of.)  

 

And again, I think they're wrong.  

 

In the case of the ACLU (the example which they chose to use), I'm pretty sure that no one chooses to be one of the top 5 donors to the ACLU unless they agree with virtually all of the organizations.  

 

And I think we have way too big a problem with sock puppet organizations being created by billionaires (or corporations) for the sole purpose of allowing unlimited campaign contributions with funds that have been laundered by passing them through the sock.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2019 at 2:01 AM, visionary said:

 

8 years, huh?  That sounds nice Ms. Omar, but how do you plan to do that, exactly?  Who do we support?  How do we support them?  I love Ms. Omar, in fact I have a crazy crush on her, but if she's on the foreign relations committee, she has a responsibility to tackle the insanely complex Syria problem more seriously than to suggest we be cheerleaders for a dead revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Koala said:

8 years, huh?  That sounds nice Ms. Omar, but how do you plan to do that, exactly?  Who do we support?  How do we support them?  I love Ms. Omar, in fact I have a crazy crush on her, but if she's on the foreign relations committee, she has a responsibility to tackle the insanely complex Syria problem more seriously than to suggest we be cheerleaders for a dead revolution.

It was a nice nod on twitter that a lot of people involved in the revolution appreciated.  Twitter isn't really the venue for hashing out policy for congresspeople though.

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Damn, AOC always on their minds. She's a socialist sleeper agent. Next they're going to be asking for her birth certificate.

 

"Some people allege that she has a staff, and that she prepares."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...