Notwithstanding our belief that Georgia’s 95-page amendment of the state’s election laws is not the monster many believe it to be, and that House Resolution 1 as written is not a perfect antidote to voting suppression efforts, it makes sense for the federal government to dictate the rules to ensure that anti-democratic politicians cannot overrule the will of the people.
The Washington Post takes issue with the proposed federal law because it takes power away from the states, but with many state legislatures trying to pass restrictive voting laws that disenfranchise voters, the states have shown that they cannot be trusted in such an important matter. The only point that the Post makes a convincing case for is the matter of voter IDs.
“[HR1] would … prevent states from requiring any form of voter identification. It’s one thing for Congress to stop states from imposing unduly burdensome ID rules — like a notarization requirement for absentee ballots. But it’s excessive for Congress to deny states the power to employ reasonable ID rules that do not operate as barriers to participation,” the paper opines.
The major components of the federal law are supported by voters in both parties, if not by the politicians who represent them. The New Yorker carries an article that discusses a private conference call on January 8 between a policy adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell and the leaders of several conservative groups, including one run by the Koch brothers’ network. A recording of the call reveals the participants’ worry that the proposed election reforms have wide support among conservative as well as liberals, and their problem crafting a message that can counter that support.
Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, said his research found that the most effective message was naming a politically “diverse coalition of groups [that] opposed” the bill. Even that message effective only with conservatives.
Nick Surgey of Documented, a progressive watchdog group that investigates corporate money in politics, told the New Yorker that the proposed legislation “poses a very real threat to McConnell’s source of power within the Republican Party, which has always been fund-raising.” The 800-plus-page bill (which I admit I have not read in its entirety) requires greater disclosure of the identities of donors who pay for election ads and donors who give $10,000 or more to social-welfare groups if that donation is spent to sway elections.
“Both parties have relied on wealthy anonymous donors, but the vast majority of dark money from undisclosed sources over the past decade has supported conservative causes and candidates. Democrats, however, are catching up. In 2020, for the first time in any Presidential election, liberal dark-money groups far outspent their conservative counterparts, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. Nonetheless, Democrats, unlike Republicans, have pushed for reforms that would shut off the dark-money spigot,” The New Yorker reported.
The Wall Street Journal recently carried a story about a new nonprofit advocacy group created by President Biden’s allies that has refused to set a limit on how much money it will raise and won’t disclose the identities of its donors. Building Back Together, which plans to promote and defend Biden’s agenda, will “leave it up to individual donors on whether to publicly release their donations,” said Danielle Melfi, who will lead the nonprofit. She said it will not accept contributions from for-profit corporations or their political-action committees, from donors who work for fossil-fuel companies, or from lobbyists.
Tyson Brody, a former research director for Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign who has advocated for more campaign-finance disclosure, said the arrangement ran counter to the spirit of Biden’s government reform agenda. “It is violating the notion that you’re going to clean up campaigning or make it more transparent,” Brody said.
Building Back Together is not unique, however. Supporters of former President Donald Trump created America First Policies, a nonprofit that was staffed by former Trump campaign aides and also did not disclose donors. It held fundraisers where donors could get face time with White House officials and members of Congress.
HR1 would end that anonymity, which has groups from Koch supporters to the Washington Post objecting to such disclosures. For that reason alone, HR1 might be worth passing.
The News Café is a virtual meeting place where we discuss the news of the day. You can support us by subscribing to this newsletter for as little as $5 per month and, in exchange, you will receive all posts directly in your email in-box. Paid subscribers also have access to the web archives of all the newsletters. Subscribers can share their knowledge, thoughts, and questions about any topic, and we may select some of those subjects for more in-depth analysis.
If you’re unable to pay but still want to see twice-weekly public posts at the News Café, sign up with a free subscription. You’ll get the public posts in your in-box, and will be able to share them with your friends.
Either way, we invite you to fill your cup with your favorite drink, pull up a chair, and join us at The News Café as we build our community. www.libertymedianh.org