Legislation to limit money in Washington passed!

a reply to: DanDanDat

I haven't read the bill as a whole so I can't 100% say if it's on the up and up.

At the same time, based on how it is being marketed, what part would Republicans have an issue with?


The greater election security while still encouraging more voters? I thought the GOP were all about more security for election.

The limit on election funding? Every election we're told the Dems only did well because of Soros money.

Seriously, what part of this law could be considered an attack on the GOP?

Also there is no scheduled vote in the senate for this bill just like all the mj bills collecting dust.

It is a decent thought though and i hope it is discussed in the senate but............WALL

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I look at it as another tax added to the taxpayers to ensure career politicians campaigns are funded. That's a killer all by itself for me.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Duderino
what do you mean you cannot wait to see the details?? This was mentioned in january, you had plenty of time to read the details. How is it you open a thread with such certainty of your views, and you have not even read the details??

The way you opened up, I actually thought you read the legislation publicly available on the congress government website. I suppose it is more truthful to you to hear and read pundits interpretation rather thasn actually investigating the legislation and reading it for yourself.
Go read the thing before you open a thread with such arrogant cockiness.

Wow, you got up on the wrong side today?

You understand people have work and we don't live on the internet? This is news and I have yet to read the bill, but a thread about it is not out of place is it? At least I use real news and real links, unlike the many who get paid to post here.

You know what... I can still be nice even though you are obviously a bit light on manners. Thank you for the link. Have a good day. And learn to look in the mirror before you call other people arrogant or cocky. Or maybe you were looking in the mirror.

Sec. 1904. Permitting use of sworn written statement to meet identification requirements for voting.

Oh HELL no.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

exactly! They get nothing until it really gets us EVERYTHING we want. They have to participate in the same healthcare, they have to live in their district, we need term limits on ALL of them, we need to restrict their GOLDEN PARACHUTE pensions( that NO OTHER industry gets), we need to stop all family and relatives from getting put on boards of corporations for years after they leave office, NO INSIDER TRADING. We will see how many of these still want to do " public service".

I don't trust any legislation the Dem party proposes and their constant blatant hypocrisy and deceit has given me a good reason not to trust them. While there's a few things in it I fully agree with, past observation of how the Dems conduct their business tells me to run like hell. Of course we could just go ahead and pass it to find out whats really in it.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I look at it as another tax added to the taxpayers to ensure career politicians campaigns are funded. That's a killer all by itself for me.

I slammed on the brakes after reading that and its a no-go for me too. How gullible do they think we are? mmmmm....... nvm no need to answer that.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Xcalibur; the glaringly obvious answer to your question is the requirement for presidential candidates submit their tax returns. One would have to be living under a rock the last three years not to know that this a highly partisan issue. Why poison an election overhaul bill with the addition if it could have easy been avoided.

After that giving federal workers a holiday on election day might sounds like a nice idea; but it adversely affects the Republicans and helps the Democrats. Why would the Republicans sign on to that with out a concession? The rest of the points work the same way.

If "greater election security" meant some kind of national voter ID law you might find Republicans see an insensitive to support this; but it doesn't.

All these measures might be good things for the American people but Democrats knew they could not pass the Senate with this bill as written and that makes it a show and a waist of time. I wouldn't even be surprised if Dem leaders don't want this bill as much as the GOP and floated it knowing they'd get what they wanted and a photo opportunity.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Duderino

The Democratic-controlled House on Friday approved legislation aimed at reducing the role of big money in politics, ensuring fair elections and strengthening ethics standards.
-
The House measure would make it easier to register and vote, and would tighten election security and require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.

Election Day would become a holiday for federal workers, and a public financing system for congressional campaigns would be set up.

Boston

Doesn't this sound like everything we always say we would do if we had the power? Limit money and donations, require transparency and honesty, strengthen election security. Even a free holiday for some so more people can get to vote!

But it stands little chance in the Republican-run Senate, where the GOP leader has pledged it will not come up for a vote, and the White House issued a veto threat.

Whaaaat?

Anyone else have this reaction when they read this?

The White House calls it "micromanaging" elections and calls the programs unnecessary and costly at the same time as $1b of military pay and pension funds are being diverted for steel fencing at the border.

ATS. Do you stand with what you've always wanted or do you now change your hopes and dreams in order to fall in with the party? Moment of truth.

I dare you to be true to yourselves.

Why just Presidents to disclose tax returns? Shouldn't congress and senate need to as well?

How does the bill limit money? Is photo ID part of voter security? Aren't Democrats against photo ID.

Inquiring minds want to know...

I like your post better than the OP. Yes, all of the candidates for congress should be checked out to see if they are corrupt before they are allowed to apply for the job.

On top of that, they should be monitored to make sure they get no money from special interest groups and should be banned from working for big corporations after they get out of office. Same with people overseeing all government program decisions, the FDA should not have upper management tied to Pharma companies employment, before or after their job.

There is a lot of corruption in our government, both parties have corrupt members and also irrational members.

No campaign contributions should come from businesses, private donors should be limited to maybe ten thousand maximum, no money for campaigns should come from out of country donors either. An ID should be required every time you vote too.

Reading through it now

SEC. 1015. Voter protection and security in automatic registration.
(a) Protections for errors in registration.—An individual shall not be prosecuted under any Federal or State law, adversely affected in any civil adjudication concerning immigration status or naturalization, or subject to an allegation in any legal proceeding that the individual is not a citizen of the United States on any of the following grounds: (1) The individual notified an election office of the individual’s automatic registration to vote under this part. (2) The individual is not eligible to vote in elections for Federal office but was automatically registered to vote under this part. (3) The individual was automatically registered to vote under this part at an incorrect address. (4) The individual declined the opportunity to register to vote or did not make an affirmation of citizenship, including through automatic registration, under this part.

Emphasis added by myself there. So how, if a person is automatically enrolled by this auto enrollment system is their identify verified as a legal citizen of the USA? I'm not seeing anything in here for validation of that fact. How this reads to me, and I am not an expert or lawyer/law student, is that if this system automatically signs you up as a voter, no legal action can be taken against you if the system signs you up and you're ineligible to vote. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me...still reading.

Yep, this right here is a deal breaker.

SEC. 1904. Permitting use of sworn written statement to meet identification requirements for voting. (a) Permitting use of statement.—Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303 the following new section: “SEC. 303A. Permitting use of sworn written statement to meet identification requirements. “(a) Use of statement.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, the State shall permit the individual to meet the requirement— “(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election; or “(B) in the case of an individual who desires to vote by mail, by submitting with the ballot the statement described in subparagraph (A).

Once again added emphasis is my own. That right there is a huge red flag and should stop this thing dead in its tracks. I would say that it promotes insecurity of an election more than anything else.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DanDanDat
what part would Republicans have an issue with?

They're primarily against expanding voting access and ease of voting.

So I stopped at subtitle D, as that is my area of expertise.

“(3) ELECTION CYBERSECURITY GUIDELINES.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Development Committee shall issue election cybersecurity guidelines, including standards and best practices for procuring, maintaining, testing, operating, and updating election systems to prevent and deter cybersecurity incidents.”.

Why they don't just call out NIST 800-53 as their best practices guidance is beyond me.

(6) develop an expeditious process by which an individual, organization, or company can register with the Department, submit to a background check as determined by the Department, and receive a determination as to eligibility for participation in the Program; and (7) engage qualified interested persons, including representatives of private entities, about the structure of the Program and, to the extent practicable, establish a recurring competition for independent technical experts to assess election systems for the purpose of identifying and reporting election cybersecurity vulnerabilities;

That part at least is decent, that being said the impartiality of said individuals and entities that would be conducting such testing and assessment of the security architecture is something that would need to be addressed. I understand the requirement for all of those involved to be vetted by the government as you don't want your election system publicly available for just anyone to tack a crack at, but knowing they're working on the election system of the USA is going to compromise that impartiality that should exist.

There are no easy answers for any of this, but from what I'm seeing just in division A, I would vote no on it and send it back for revision and division into separate bills.

Its for political purposes, they don't want it to pass and what it to be the Republicans fault...so they can say I told you so....see how many Democrats vote for it in the Senate and you will know what is going on.

a reply to: Wayfarer

How much easier can it get to vote? We have early voting, absentee ballots, and voting on the day of the election. What more do you want? Internet voting? Yeah nothing could possibly go wrong there.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Duderino
what do you mean you cannot wait to see the details?? This was mentioned in january, you had plenty of time to read the details. How is it you open a thread with such certainty of your views, and you have not even read the details??

The way you opened up, I actually thought you read the legislation publicly available on the congress government website.I suppose it is more truthful to you to hear and read pundits interpretation rather thasn actually investigating the legislation and reading it for yourself.
Go read the thing before you open a thread with such arrogant cockiness.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Duderino

as $1b of military pay and pension funds are being diverted for steel fencing at the border.

It becomes hard to take your thread seriously when you stick blatant lies in your OP.

Good question.

a reply to: Khaleesi

I'll just add that I have 2 anecdotal instances that show me there is plenty of time for people to vote. In 2000 my father broke his hip and wasn't mobile at election time. We called and asked about absentee voting . They actually sent someone with the ballot to his bedside. In 2016 I forgot I was going to be out of state at election time. I called and they mailed my absentee ballot on vacation in another state in plenty of time for me to vote,and mail it back. It didn't even cost me the price of a stamp. They sent an envelope with prepaid postage. All I had to do was answer a few simple questions on the phone to prove my identity. It isnt hard to vote.

I felt compelled to post, did anyone catch the part, the second part posted?
It says that

"Sec. 1904. Permitting use of sworn written statement to meet identification requirements for voting. "

Let that sink in....realllllllly sink in.
Are you freaking KIDDING ME
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
dear God help this country....

Oh, HELL, NO!

This is the text of the bill as of yesterday. Now, I have not yet read the whole thing, but I read enough in the very first section to make the above statement. This removes all possible voter ID laws.

It specifies that states must make Internet access to register available by Internet, and that only an electronic signature is required. For those who have a state ID with an electronic signature on file (read: citizens), that signature is used. For anyone else (read: non-citizens), they can mail in a copy of a handwritten signature, or they can just make an electronic 'mark' and then sign the roll at the polls.

Then it goes on to say the same services must be offered through an automated telephone access.

This is nothing more than a way to let all those illegal aliens vote.

I repeat:

Oh, HELL, NO!

TheRedneck