If there is one thing that unites those concerned with free speech; open fair and honest elections; libertarians and conservatives; and the GOP and ACLU; it is opposition to HR1.  Today we’ll highlight three groups opposition. 

First, we want to highlight the opinions of those who know elections best, the Secretaries of State who wrote a letter opposing HR 1:

We are writing you today to urge you to reject the “For the People Act” otherwise known as H.R. 1 or S. 1, which is a dangerous overreach by the federal government into the administration of elections.

Each state legislature should have the freedom and flexibility to determine practices that best meet the needs of their respective states. A one-size-fits-all approach mandated by Congress is not the solution to any of our problems.

These bills intrude upon our constitutional rights, and further sacrifice the security and integrity of the elections process. We firmly believe the authority to legislate and regulate these changes should be left with the states.

With H.R. 1 scheduled to come to the House floor the first week of March, it is important to revisit just how destructive this legislation, first introduced during the 116th Congress, would be for the U.S. election system. The Committee on House Administration Republicans have exposed H.R. 1 for what it is — "a partisan and massive congressional overreach designed to keep their Democrat majority by nationalizing our elections."

Just like in 2019, Democrats have made sweeping election reforms their top priority for this Congress. One of the most alarming parts of the legislation is its massive restrictions on Americans' freedom of speech. As the Institute for Free Speech's Luke Wachob explained:

Once again, House and Senate Democrats have made it their top legislative priority to limit First Amendment rights, expose Americans to harassment and intimidation for their beliefs, crack down on political speech on the internet, pump millions of tax dollars into politicians’ campaigns, and transform the enforcement of federal campaign finance law into a partisan endeavor. The bill’s cheerleaders, meanwhile, have made it their top priority to lie to the public about the proposal.

During the Night 2 of the Republican National Convention, one of the most poignant speeches came from Nick Sandmann.  Sandmann was attacked by the mainstream media in 2019 for an encounter he had with a Native American elder when he attended the March for Life while wearing a Make American Great Again Hat.  As a result of the media's attacks, Sandmann filed a defamation suit against the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill, and NBC.  Settlements have been reached with CNN and the Washington Post.

In July, the Federal Election Commission dismissed a complaint filed by the liberal Campaign Legal Center (CLC) against America Progress Now (APN). CLC alleged that APN had technically violated federal campaign finance regulations by failing to include required disclaimers for political ads on Facebook Ads run by APN's Facebook page. CLC also insinuated that APN was a "fake political group."  However, CLC's real motive was not to get the small potatoes APN. The Commission made the decision to dismiss the Campaign Legal Center's complaint unanimously. In FEC Chairman Trey Trainor's Statement of Reasons for the complaint's dismissal, he raised concerns how a technical violation could be used to chill free speech.

Continuing their wide-ranging efforts not to let a good crisis go to waste, Democrats and their liberal allies are using the novel coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to call for increased censorship, particularly of online speech.  This is not a new effort for them but merely a new excuse, and they are alarmingly praising communist China as a model for online speech censorship (yes, the same China that recently suppressed and threatened those who shared accurate information at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, blocks its citizens access to many websites, and regularly monitors individuals' "private" conversations on various chat and email platforms).  As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local governments are taking many steps to protect the health and safety of their residents.  There is broad--and increasing--debate over the wisdom of some of these measures.  No one can deny the unprecedented nature of the threat from this novel coronavirus, but it is equally true that Americans do not surrender all their First Amendment liberties during times of disaster or distress.  Indeed, there are established bodies of law that apply to government restrictions on free speech and religious liberties, even during a public health crisis.  This Friday on a Zoom webinar for RNLA members, two experts--Rick Esenberg and Casey Mattox--will address restrictions on free speech and religious liberty during the current pandemic.

Recently, we marked the ten year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). We continue to hear a lot about this decision in the mainstream media, with some Democratic candidates describing it as a threat to American democracy, launching attacks on any candidate - liberal, socialist or otherwise - that will take money or support from political action committees (PACS) of any kind.

In a series of two blog posts, RNLA will detail our top 10 blog posts of 2019.  Today Numbers 10-6.  

10.  May 1: TOP MOMENTS OF BARR HEARING

Attorney General Bill Barr drives it home -"How did we get to this point? The President was falsely accused of colluding with Russians - the evidence shows those allegations are false. To listen to some of the rhetoric you’d think the Mueller Report had found the opposite."

John Fund wrote in National Review yesterday about "No Safe Spaces," a film by conservative commentator Dennis Prager and comedian Adam Carolla. The film describes how politically correct culture on college campuses is threatening free speech, suppressing dissent from the prevailing liberal view, and undermining our cultural value for free expression: