Election integrity and security has become a major talking point of the Trump cult — because when your side loses, it can only be due to a “rigged” system — but the issue has also been adopted by Democrats as cover for passing legislation like the “For the People Act,” a bill that will nationalize elections and destroy free speech if it becomes law.
Momentum to nationalize elections started picking up steam during the Obama administration when he suggested using the Department of Homeland Security to “monitor” voting systems. In August 2016, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson introduced Obama’s idea, and using the catch-all phrase “critical infrastructure,” he provided his justification for allowing the Feds to seize control of our elections.
“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is political infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid. There’s a vital national interest in our process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others as critical infrastructure.”
Johnson also expressed his concern at the time that our voting system isn’t centralized, saying that “there’s no one federal election system.”
Congress didn’t address the issue in 2016. But in 2018, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan picked up where Obama and Johnson left off when they reauthorized and “reformed” DHS.
The reform part of the Republican plan included House amendments addressing cybersecurity. And in the Senate, it included amendments co-sponsored by then-Senator Kamala Harris and Republican Senator James Lankford that would bolster cybersecurity of voting systems.
But as I mentioned above, Republicans and Democrats are looking for ways to put elections in the hands of both parties because both parties are always looking for ways to seize control of government from we the people.
After riding the wave of the Blue Tsunami to victory in 2018, the Democrat-controlled House passed a bill to nationalize elections and destroy free speech called the “For the People Act” (H.R. 1), a bill intended to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.” (emphasis mine)
Here are key excerpts taken from the summary of the For the People Act:
This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.
The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.
This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.
This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates. (emphasis mine)
Everything highlighted above addresses how the For the People Act will nationalize elections, but how does it destroy free speech? You’ll find that in the paragraph that reads: expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.
“Expanding disclosure rules” is politispeak for requiring political organizations that collect and spend money to give donor information to the new commission that will be created by the For the People Act — not just donor names, but their personal information as well — thus making political donations (i.e. free speech) subject to the approval/disapproval of the Republican/Democrat duopoly in Washington.
Government has tried this type of thing in the past.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1958 (NAACP v. Alabama) that Alabama’s attempt to force the NAACP to turn over their membership lists violated the organization’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. SCOTUS also ruled in 2010 (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) that campaign donations are a protected form of free speech.
The First Amendment protects our God-given right to lawful free speech, and it prevents the government from interfering with that right. And since political donations are a form of free speech, the government has no right to pass any law preventing or endorsing political donations.
The House voted again last night on the For the People Act and it passed, but now the 800-page behemoth provides even more ways for the federal government to impose free speech-killing burdens on citizens wishing to do nothing more than exercise their First Amendment right to engage in political speech, including new requirements concerning government access to the personal information of everyone who donates to a candidate or political organization.
Republicans want you and me to believe that H.R. 1 is just another step in the direction of the far-left’s goal to seize complete control over us; they want us to believe that Democrats are out to destroy liberty while Republicans are out to save it; and they want us to believe that Democrats (not Republicans) want to silence and censor us if we dare to take a stand against blatant power grabs like the For the People Act.
However, Republicans are just like their Democrat counterparts, which means they will have no problem if the For the People Act should ever become law because every single change contained in H.R. 1 accomplishes the goals of liberty-killing leftists in both parties.
The For the People Act will give the government permanent and unconstitutional control over our voting system and our God-given rights, and with that power, it will nationalize elections and destroy free speech.
David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties.