Congressman Don Bacon (NE-02) today voted no on H.R. 1, as urged by the ACLU in a letter dated March 6, 2019 and sent to Members of Congress:
“As someone sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, I voted no on a bill that was an attempt to thwart the constitutional rights of states in regulating elections, an attempt to silence Americans’ free speech, and violates separation of powers. H. R. 1 will create a 6 to 1 government match for all small donor contributions and means American tax dollars will pay for more tv and radio ads. It also means taxpayers will at times be funding candidates they do not support. This bill places limits on freedom of speech putting vague standards on groups who wish to advocate on any legislative issue. This is why the ACLU doesn’t support H.R. 1 and two days ago urged members of Congress to vote no. Though there are portions of the bill I like, I cannot support a federal takeover and federal funding of Congressional elections and the curtailment of free speech.”
Read below for what others had to say in opposition to H.R. 1, including the ACLU, 16 Secretaries of State, and conservative groups.
American Civil Liberties Union:
"...certain aspects of H.R. 1 would too greatly impinge upon the freedoms of speech and association, and we cannot support those provisions, or allow the House to vote without voicing our opposition to them. For those reasons the ACLU opposes H.R. 1 and urges you to vote “no” on passage of the bill."
Joint letter from 16 Secretaries of State from across the United States:
"H.R. 1 constitutes an unwise and unconstitutional intrusion into our authority to administer the election process. It is unneeded and will impose substantial costs on state and local government. We do not need more unnecessary, expensive, burdensome, and unfunded federal mandates that endanger the integrity of our elections."
People United for Privacy, Policy Director Heather Lauer:
“No one deserves to have their private information exposed and to be threatened with harassment or violence because of their opinions. H.R. 1 is dangerous and will erode the very rights that protect and strengthen our democracy - freedom of speech and freedom for Americans to support causes they believe in.”
Institute for Free Speech, President David Keating:
"H.R. 1 would institute sweeping new limitations on speech about campaigns and public affairs. It does so in a very complex, vague, and unintuitive manner. The measure’s provisions are so complex and open to so many possible interpretations that the Institute’s views on the bill may well understate the chill this legislation might place on speech.
"Importantly, these restrictions would reach far beyond campaign speech to regulate discussion of legislative issues and public affairs. For advocacy groups, unions, and trade associations, several of the limits proposed in H.R. 1 would operate as a total ban on speech."
