McConnell Prescient On Democrat Politician Protection Act

ACLU Agrees With Leader McConnell That The Democrat Politician Protection Act ‘Would Chill The Speech Of Issue Advocacy Groups And Non-Profits’

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “Democrats want to impose stunningly vague, broad, and potentially unconstitutional restrictions on the abilities of all kinds of advocacy groups -- on all sides of the political spectrum -- from exercising their constitutional right to speak out about elected politicians and their positions on substantive issues.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/13/2019)

ACLU: “[H.R. 1] would chill the speech of issue advocacy groups and non-profits such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA that is essential to our public discourse and protected by the First Amendment. These groups need the freedom to name candidates when discussing issues like abortion, health care, criminal justice reform, tax reform, and immigration and to urge candidates to take positions on those issues or criticize them for failing to do so.” (Ronald Newman and Kate Ruane, ACLU, Letter to Reps. McGovern and Cole, 3/01/2019)

• “[H.R. 1] interferes with that ability by impinging on the privacy of donors to these groups, forcing the groups to make a choice: their speech or their donors. Whichever they choose, the First Amendment loses.” (Ronald Newman and Kate Ruane, ACLU, Letter to Reps. McGovern and Cole, 3/01/2019)

ACLU Also Agrees That The Bill ‘Unduly Burdens Constitutionally Protected Associational Rights’ Through Overbroad Requirements To Publicize A Group’s Private Supporters

SEN. McCONNELL: “[Under H.R. 1, t]here’d also be new latitude to decide when a nonprofit’s speech has crossed that same fuzzy line and subsequently force the publication of the group’s private supporters. All this appears custom-built to chill the exercise of the First Amendment and give federal bureaucrats -- and the waiting left-wing mob -- a clearer idea of just who to intimidate.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 1/29/2019)

ACLU: “The bill unduly burdens constitutionally protected associational rights by requiring widely distributed disclosure of the names of donors to organizations that are not engaged in express advocacy of the election or defeat of the candidate…. [T]he bill creates too great a risk of invading the privacy of donors to pure issue advocacy groups.” (Ronald Newman and Kate Ruane, ACLU, Letter to Reps. McGovern and Cole, 3/01/2019)

• “The Constitution requires a healthy respect for associational privacy. In NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court recognized that ‘[i]nviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.’ For that reason alone, we should be very cautious when contemplating invasions of that privacy.” (Ronald Newman and Kate Ruane, ACLU, Letter to Reps. McGovern and Cole, 3/01/2019)

House Democrats Agree With Leader McConnell That Removing Election Control From States And Giving It To Washington, D.C. Is ‘Really What This Bill Is About’

SEN. McCONNELL: “Perhaps most worrisome of all is the unprecedented proposal to federalize our nation’s elections, giving Washington D.C. politicians even more control over who gets to come here in the first place. Hundreds of pages are dedicated to telling states how to run their elections, from when and where they must take place, to the procedures they have to follow, to the machines they have to use.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 1/29/2019)

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA), House Administration Committee Chair: “I would just note that I understand the gentleman's objection to federalizing federal election eligibility, but that’s really what this bill is about.” (U.S. House of Representatives Administration Committee, Markup, 2/26/2019)

A Bloomberg Report Agrees With Leader McConnell That The Democrat Politician Protection Act Would ‘Pump Millions Of Dollars Of Taxpayer Money’ Into Elections

SEN. McCONNELL: “It’s a taxpayer-funded stimulus package for campaign consultants and political candidates. Democrats want to sign taxpayers up for a six-times matching subsidy for certain political contributions. It could total about $5 million dollars in taxpayer money for every candidate that wants it. Right into the pockets of political campaigns. Middle-class Americans would have the privilege of watching television commercials attacking their own beliefs and the candidates they support and knowing their own tax dollars bought that airtime.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 3/05/2019)

BLOOMBERG GOVERNMENT: “House Democrats, who promised to get big money out of politics, are preparing to vote on providing public financing for congressional races, a move that could pump millions of dollars of taxpayer money into those contests. Public funding for candidates for Congress is included in legislation (H.R. 1.) that Democrats plan to bring to the floor … The bill also would revive an existing but little-used public financing program for presidential campaigns. The legislation would let eligible congressional candidates qualify for nearly $5 million each in federal matching funds, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis. The money would come from direct congressional appropriations.” (“Democrats’ Bill Would Offer $5 Million-Per-Candidate Bonanza,” Bloomberg Government, 1/15/2019)

• “Critics see a potentially huge expense for taxpayers with no guarantee that it would curb the influx of outside money into campaigns…. Even supporters say the bill would do nothing to directly limit congressional campaign spending …” (“Democrats’ Bill Would Offer $5 Million-Per-Candidate Bonanza,” Bloomberg Government, 1/15/2019)