'Interesting article. Even though it is opposed to HR 1, it makes several
interesting points. The overall tenor of the article, though, is that we
should not do anything.
It equates money with speech. That way, the mega-rich and corporations can
spend as much as they want and call it free speech. If donations were limited
to relatively small amounts, there should be no reason to "out" the donors.
Large donations, whether direct or indirect through a PAC, are clearly meant to
get around limitations on campaign donations. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant. I don't know about you, but I am bombarded with requests for
donations, often using the same printouts, for candidate, issues in congress,
in state elections, etc. How much is too much? When I unsubscribe, they seem
to change their names and come back.
It also tacitly says that corporations are people. When was the last time you
spoke with a megacorporation?
"The Constitution and its amendments make two promises that are sometimes at
odds: voting rights can’t be abridged and states should run their own
elections. While there should be a strong federal role in protecting the right
to vote and election security, the specifics of election administration should
be left to the states."
This is all very well as long as people are not disenfranchised. When voting
is made onerous or impossible, people who find it difficult to vote are less
likely to deal with the vagaries of their state's voting structure. Somehow,
ALEC has created a template for those who wish to create similar forms of
suppression and there seem to be quite a few of these.
Having said all of these things, the final paragraph goes on to say that there
many things that are good and many that need fixing about our current system.
It would be very nice to see Republicans introduce legislation that would do
some of that fixing. Then the ideal of bipartisanship could be realized.
Eric
________________________________
From: uupretirees-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <uupretirees-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of hils. <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 6:28 PM
To: uupretirees@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <uupretirees@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [uupretirees] Re: Why HR 1 is not addressing a trivial question
Here is another view.
H.R. 1 is a direct attack on free speech and federalism | R
Street<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rstreet.org%2Fhr1%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd987102c3e9d4095e2d808d92eba8ad3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637592200987660692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Zctfmbmoa0HxlmjBRph3kv4PXr0ktPvaFIvI%2FQrJanQ%3D&reserved=0>
Bob Kasprak
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Uupretirees Yahoogroups <uupretirees@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Jun 13, 2021 5:46 pm
Subject: [uupretirees] Why HR 1 is not addressing a trivial question
Unless you don't want everyone to easily vote. Eric
Supreme Court weighs voting rights in a pivotal Arizona case -
Alternet.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2F2021%2F06%2Fabortion%2F%3Futm_source%3D%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3D7306%26recip_id%3D21814%26list_id%3D2&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd987102c3e9d4095e2d808d92eba8ad3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637592200987670689%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=SEyxvWfrVwI19XbCakupo8J351LR7ZiXiHnfCO4fYq8%3D&reserved=0>
