Congress, let’s fix the problems in h.r. 1 so we can enact the bill’s much-needed reforms american civil liberties union gas monkey bar and grill


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.

Let’s first begin with what’s good with the legislation. H.R. 1 includes numerous federal protections for the right to vote, which has been under laser-like b games virus assault since the election of our first African-American president. The ACLU has long-supported many of the proposals H.R. 1 seeks to advance, especially the provisions aimed at unobstructed and equal access to voting.

In addition to voting rights, we also support a voluntary system of public campaign financing that would provide sufficient support for all eligible candidates to mount viable campaigns. H.R. 1 would take important steps to creating just that, including by matching small dollar contributions to federal grade 9 electricity unit review candidates’ campaigns at 600 percent. The ACLU has long championed and fought for these reforms, and we will continue to work with Congress to design legislation that achieves them.

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 gas near me app amount of money because the ad “opposes” Senator Harris’ positions, and, therefore, it may be found to “oppose” her election.

Or consider a different ad from a different organization describing immigration as the life blood of the United States and extolling Sen. Harris’ refusal to support building a wall. The problem is the same. Both of these organizations are expressing their opinion about immigration. The DISCLOSE Act could treat them as though they are expressing their opinions about the election of Sen. Harris.

For example, someone who might donate to the ACLU because of our advocacy on criminal justice reform, an issue that appeals to both conservative- and liberal-leaning reformers, may not necessarily support our work on other issues. However, if that individual’s donation were sizable enough to earn them a spot on ACLU’s top five donors’ list, their name would, by law, need to be prominently displayed on every “campaign-related” ad regardless of whether c gastronomie they are aware of the ad — or even support it.

The DISCLOSE Act and Stand by Every Ad Act together will have one of two pernicious effects on affected organizations. First, donors could choose not to give to organizations, even if they support their messages, or could be forced to give less than they otherwise might. Second, labor unions and advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood may choose to self-censor out of fear of crossing the DISCLOSE Act’s vaguely-defined line between what constitutes campaign-related communications and pure issue advocacy that refers to candidates for office.

If organizations do choose to speak, they may find themselves subject to onerous and intrusive disclosure requirements, including publishing the names and addresses of donors regardless of whether that donor supported gas symptoms or even knew about the communications that triggered the publication of their name. This could be especially burdensome for small organizations that cannot afford the compliance costs.

There are other provisions that raise First Amendment concerns as well, and we detail them in the letter we sent to the House Rules Committee. The good news is, as our letter demonstrates, all of this can be fixed through targeted amendments aimed at tightening the broad and vague language in these provisions and addressing the First Amendment concerns. We continue to urge the House to make these necessary changes.

So basically you’re opposing the bill because it might put the name of a top donor on an Ad that they may not support, and that might hamper your ability to receive donations. So what if the top 5 donors in support of the communication were listed instead of the top gas or electricity more expensive 5 in general? Is this something that organizations who buy Ads can differentiate? Because transparency in advertising is necessary to truth telling.

We have a bill that provides much needed protections of voter’s rights and electricity usage by appliance some oversight at ensuring fair elections. It’s a bill that’s long overdue and makes many corrections to the corruption and inequality that Citizen’s United brought to our election process. Opposing all of it, to protect your donors, is wrong. You should support bills that give us MOST of what is needed because it’s a start, and we desperately need to start. You can support the bill with objections and fix it later. But it shouldn’t be derailed. Your opposition to this bill is being sighted as reason, by opponents of this bill, for this bill to fail. That’s not fair. This bill is 99% good.