The sole Republican on the Federal Election Commission, Caroline Hunter, published an op-ed in Politico today describing how her colleague Ellen Weintraub's attacks on President Trump and frequent tweets and media appearances are undermining the public perception, independence, and impartiality of the FEC:  

Yesterday, the Committee on House Administration marked up the SHIELD Act (H.R. 4617, Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy Act).  The SHIELD Act contains the provisions of the Honest Ads Act, plus additional dangerous provisions.

If passed, it would likely have very little effect on foreign efforts to influence or interfere with U.S. elections.  Instead, it would regulate Americans seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, with the effect of restricting political speech.

The RNLA sent a letter to the House opposing the SHIELD Act:

While Democrats and liberal pundits would have us believe otherwise, there was no violation of campaign finance laws in President Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian President.  Like so much in the campaign finance realm, Democrats are attempting to apply an interpretation of the law against foreign campaign contributions as they wish it were, instead of the law as written or how it has been interpreted to date.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has jurisdiction to issue regulations and enforce federal campaign finance laws; in other words, to interpret and enforce the regulation of Americans' political speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.  

For years, Democrats have attempted to expand regulation of political speech through onerous disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements; low contribution limits; making the FEC a partisan body controlled by the President's party (such as in H.R. 1 and the perennial DISCLOSE Act); outright speech prohibitions; and even through spending limits (which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional back in Buckley v. Valeo).  

With the resignation of Republican FEC Commissioner Matt Petersen, the FEC is back in the news.

This past month, Democrat Representative Joaquin Castro released the names of Trump donors in San Antonio in a heated tweet claiming they are “fueling a campaign of hate.”

In natural form, the liberal mob immediately went on attack and began harassing these people.

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where Rep. Castro did not intend for the donors to be harassed. Why else would he publicly chastise them?

Like many Democrat candidates running for President in 2020, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has been an active proponent of campaign finance reform. According to OpenSecrets, "When he served as New York City’s public advocate in 2010, he penned an article in The Nation condemning Citizens United and called on state and local leaders across America to join him..."

And, like other 2020 Democrats, he doesn't think that the existing rules apply to him. 

House Democrats and their most loyal liberal allies are attempting in multiple different ways to effectively repeal the First Amendment.  By taking away donor privacy and controlling how money is spent.  The effort was their top priority as shown by the very symbolically numbered HR 1.  As Real Clear Politics describes it:

Despite criminal referrals and the involvement of ne'er-do-wells like Michael Avenatti, one group, “Demand Justice,” is continuing its groundless attacks on Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  As Ashe Schow writes in the Dailywire in an article entitled “Former Hillary Clinton Spox Is Trying To Get Brett Kavanaugh Fired From His Teaching Job:”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is no friend of Republicans or conservatives, but it has traditionally been a defender of free speech and First Amendment rights, especially for marginalized and unpopular speakers.  While there are signs that its traditional support for civil liberties is waning and being replaced by support for liberal policy goals (the current pop-up on their website reads: "We need you with us: Donate monthly to fight Trump's attacks on people's rights."), the ACLU still will support some First Amendment rights.  For example, earlier this month, the ACLU sent a letter to the House Rules Committee opposing H.R. 1 despite supporting many of its election administration "reforms":