Blog

At the beginning of each new Congress, the majority party has an opportunity to set the agenda with a flagship piece of legislation. This is an opportunity to plant your flag in the ground and say, “This is where we stand.”

Last Congress, the Republicans submitted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, proving that our party represents the interest of blue-collar workers and puts American businesses first. This Congress, the Democratic majority have chosen for their signature bill, a plan to reshape our entire electoral system.

There are noble sentiments in this bill and even some provisions to which I am sympathetic, but ultimately this bill is a disappointing note on which to start the 116th Congress. Whatever one may think of our current electoral system, it is my belief that any substantial change to it should be agreed on a bipartisan basis. This bill does not meet that standard.

In one sentence, the main objective of H.R. 1 is to keep Democrats in office. It’s a power grab, pure and simple. In fact, this bill is so extreme that even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a very left-leaning organization, opposed its passage.

Of the many problematic elements of this bill is that taxpayers would be funding candidates they may not agree with. The bill would have the federal government provide a 6-to-1 match of campaign contributions up to $200. In other words, for every $200 that a political candidate receives, the federal government would chip in another $1,200 to that politician’s campaign using your tax dollars. This program would funnel billions of dollars each year from taxpayers to politicians. 

Imagine how this would play out. Candidates of the most radical political stripes would be able to raise taxpayer dollars for their campaign regardless of how outrageous or out of touch their proposals are. A man could run for office on a platform promising to shut down all dog parks and outlaw pets. In this case, you, the taxpayer, would be forced to subsidize his campaign. 

Furthermore, this bill is flatly unconstitutional. Let me give you two examples. First, it would violate the First Amendment by proposing to limit free speech and imposing vague standards that disadvantage all groups who wish to advocate on behalf of any legislative issue. Don’t just take my word for it, consider these passages written by the ACLU. According to them, this bill would: “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations,” and “will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.”

Second, it would also violate the Constitution by federalizing our election system. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that states have the right to determine their registration and voting practices. Congress has the right to impose laws instructing how voting takes place in the states, but Congress has no right to absorb that responsibility and that is exactly what H.R. 1 would do. 

I voted no on this bill and it passed 234 to 193. It will now be referred to the Senate where I expect its partisan and unconstitutional provisions will prevent it from being considered for a vote.