Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

Mike Pence will surprise you at times.  Or is it that people have not been paying attention even when they thought they were?  I don't know, but I like this piece by Mike Pence:

Election Integrity Is a National Imperative

March 03, 2021

After an election marked by significant voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of the 2020 election.

That’s why when I was serving as presiding officer at the joint session of Congress certifying the Electoral College results, I pledged to ensure that all objections properly raised under the Electoral Count Act would be given a full hearing before Congress and the American people.

The tragic events of Jan. 6—the most significant being the loss of life and violence at our nation’s Capitol—also deprived the American people of a substantive discussion in Congress about election integrity in America.

Under the Constitution, elections are governed at the state level. And each state is required to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

 

Many of the most troubling voting irregularities took place in states that set aside laws enacted by state legislatures in favor of sweeping changes ordered by governors, secretaries of state, and courts.

While legislators in many states have begun work on election reform to restore public confidence in state elections, unfortunately, congressional Democrats have chosen to sweep those valid concerns and reforms aside and to push forward a brazen attempt to nationalize elections in blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution.

Congress will vote this week on HR 1, the so-called For the People Act, a massive 800-page election overhaul bill that would increase opportunities for election fraud, trample the First Amendment, further erode confidence in our elections, and forever dilute the votes of legally qualified eligible voters.

In 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s new voter ID law, the ruling noted that America has a long, well-documented history of election fraud. The court cited the 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, which said the “electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud.”

HR 1 would eliminate those safeguards and prevent states from implementing new, needed reforms. Polling shows that large numbers of Democrats did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election and that large numbers of Republicans still do not trust the outcome of the 2020 election.

We have to do everything we can to change that and ensure that the American people, no matter which political party they favor, have confidence in the fairness and security of the election process.

HR 1 mandates the most questionable and abuse-prone election rules nationwide, while banning commonsense measures to detect, deter, and prosecute election fraud.

The bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots, early voting, same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and automatic voter registration for any individual listed in state and federal government databases, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles and welfare offices, ensuring duplicate registrations and that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.

States would be required to count every mail-in vote that arrives up to 10 days after Election Day. States must also allow ballot harvesting—where paid political operatives collect absentee ballots from places such as nursing homes—exposing our most vulnerable voters to coercion and increasing the risk that their ballots will be tampered with.

At the same time, state and local election officials would be stripped of their ability to maintain the accuracy of voter rolls, barred from verifying voter eligibility, and voter ID would be banned from coast to coast.

Congressional districts would be redrawn by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Illegal immigrants and law-abiding American citizens would receive equal representation in Congress. Felons would be able to vote the moment they set foot out of prison.

Leftists not only want you powerless at the ballot box, they want to silence and censor anyone who would dare to criticize their unconstitutional power grab.

HR 1 is also loaded with ill-advised changes to federal campaign laws that would impose onerous legal and administrative burdens on candidates, civic groups, unions, nonprofit organizations, and ordinary citizens who want to exercise their First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, including on public policy issues that are vital to the life of our nation.

Under HR 1, donations to many private organizations would be made public, exposing millions of Americans to the radical left’s cancel culture crusade.

Every single proposed change in HR 1 serves one goal, and one goal only: to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.

HR 1 would turn a blind eye to very real problems at the state level, exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, and further undermine the American people’s confidence in the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Election reform is a national imperative, but under our Constitution, election reform must be undertaken at the state level. Our Founders limited Congress’ role in conducting our elections for good reason: They wanted elections to be administered closest to the people, free from undue influence of the national government.

Having run for office at both the state and federal levels, I have concluded that the bedrock principles of free and fair elections are access, security, and the ability to engage in free and open debate.

HR 1 is an unconstitutional, reckless, and anti-democratic bill that would erode those foundational principles and could permanently damage our republic.

After a year in which our nation has endured a global pandemic, economic hardship, and a contentious election, now is not the time to further inflame passion and division. It is time for our nation’s leaders to help America heal.

To restore public confidence in our elections, our leaders should uphold the Constitution, reject congressional Democrats’ plan to nationalize our elections, and get about the serious work of state-based reform that will protect the integrity of the vote for every American.

The American people expect us to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to vote and also make sure that their vote is not stolen or diluted through errors, mistakes, or outright fraud.

Every citizen deserves the freedom to support, oppose, criticize, or promote the candidates and causes they believe in. And most importantly, the American people must have the utmost confidence that every voice matters, and every vote counts—or democracy cannot survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

And this is what the Dems are trying to do to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with H.R.1 (my bold at the end):

February 9, 2021

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Chuck Schumer Majority Leader U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Republican Leader U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Republican Leader U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Republican Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader Schumer, and Republican Leader McConnell:

We write out of deep concern for the threat that the self-styled “For the People Act” (H.R. 1 and S. 1 in the current Congress, hereinafter the “FPA”) poses to the long-standing bipartisan structure of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”)—a concern based on our many years of experience as commissioners of the FEC. The FEC is the federal agency entrusted with primary interpretation, civil enforcement, and administration of federal campaign finance laws.

The threat to bipartisanship in this federal agency should be a concern for the public, but also for members of Congress, who are among the most visible subjects of FEC scrutiny. Candidates for federal office know that the FEC is an intrusive presence in virtually every aspect of their campaigns, requiring disclosure of detailed aspects of their contributions and expenditures, initiating investigations, subpoenaing witnesses and records, imposing civil penalties for violations of its hundreds of pages of regulations, and conducting audits of campaign committees selected by the Commission to monitor compliance, among other actions.

We are all former members of the FEC. Collectively, we have over six decades of service on the Commission. Most of us served as Chair of the FEC, and at least one of us was serving on the Commission at all times between 1998 and 2020.1

The FPA, as introduced in the House, is 791 pages and addresses virtually every aspect of election rules and administration. Our comments here are limited to Titles IV and VI in Division B of the Act. We address those provisions because they concern the jurisdiction of the FEC, and our comments specifically represent our combined expertise and experience over decades of service on the Commission. Our decision not to address provisions of the FPA changing election administration outside of FEC jurisdiction, however, should not be viewed as support for or acquiescence in those proposals.

Title VI would transform the FEC from a bipartisan, six-member body to a five-member body subject to, and indeed designed for, partisan control. Proponents claim this radical change is necessary to prevent “deadlock” on the Commission and assure efficient operations. This perception of perpetual deadlock is incorrect. Empirically, even the most extreme study of FEC votes—that is, a vigorously contested, non-peer reviewed study, conducted during a short period of relatively high disagreement within the Commission, and not transparent about its methodology or selection of votes—found a maximum of 30 percent of enforcement matters ending in 3-3 votes. But other studies, including peer-reviewed studies, have consistently found much lower rates of “deadlock,” typically in the one to six percent range.2

Moreover, the argument that the bipartisan makeup of the Commission hinders its effectiveness is based on a misunderstanding of the FEC’s work and why deadlocks occasionally occur. By definition, campaign finance law inserts the government into partisan electoral disputes. In our experience, the agency’s bipartisan structure both assures that the laws are enforced with bipartisan support and equally important, that they are not perceived as a partisan tool of the majority party— an electoral weapon, if you will. “The indispensable ingredient in the FEC’s creation was its bipartisan makeup,” with an equal number of members from each major party and a voting structure requiring some minimal measure of bipartisan agreement before an enforcement action went forward or a rule was adopted.3 As Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) explained during post-Watergate Congressional debates about the agency’s creation: “We must not allow the FEC to become a tool for harassment.”4 Political actors who violate campaign finance laws, and their partisans, are often quick to denounce enforcement as a “partisan witch hunt.” The FEC’s bipartisan makeup is a direct response to this claim and is fundamental to public confidence in the system.

Further, a neutral examination of the relatively few “deadlocks” that do occur reveals that a substantial portion of them concern differences of opinion over the reach of the statutes the FEC enforces. One bloc of three commissioners has often reflected the views of activist organizations that advocate for even more extensive regulation, supporting an expansive view of the statutes that goes beyond what Congress has enacted. In short, the complaints about “deadlocks” come from the regulatory activists who haven’t gotten their way. They now seek to change the bipartisan nature of the Commission, to smooth the path for agency adoption of the more expansive regulations they have unsuccessfully sought for years. Congress has consistently declined to adopt those expansive objectives.

Similarly, in rule-making, the FEC’s bipartisan structure is a beneficial feature, not a defect. It demands that commissioners work to reach consensus and compromise on measures to achieve bipartisan support. If Congress wanted to destroy confidence in the fairness of American elections, it is hard to imagine a better first step than to eviscerate the FEC’s bipartisan structure.

But Title VI goes further. First, it allows the Chair, who is appointed on a partisan basis by the President, to hire and fire the FEC’s General Counsel, a statutory position, with the support of just two commissioners. Thus, this crucial enforcement position can be filled with no bipartisan agreement, as the Chair, the other commissioner from that party, and an “independent” member appointed by a President of the Chair’s party, could make the decision. Further, it places sole authority to hire or fire the Commission’s Staff Director, also a statutory position, in the hands of the FEC Chair, not even requiring the support of an independent commissioner. The Staff Director oversees the Commission’s Auditing, Reports Analysis, Administrative Fines, and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes, which combined handle far more enforcement matters than the Office of General Counsel. Both the appearance and reality of bipartisanship in enforcement is fundamental to the FEC’s success, and Title VI destroys both.

The FPA also makes startling changes in the FEC’s enforcement processes, perhaps no more so than in § 6004 of Title VI. That section provides that, in the event the Commission, after reviewing or investigating a complaint, finds the respondent candidate, campaign, or other entity did not violate the law, the complainant may sue in federal court. There, the matter will be reviewed de novo, with no deference to the Commission’s findings of law or fact. If, however, the Commission finds that the respondent did violate the law, and the respondent seeks to contest those findings in court, the Commission’s rulings will be afforded the traditional deference given to administrative agencies by courts of law. In short, while the American justice system has traditionally erred in favor of the accused, so as to protect the innocent and unjustly convicted, the FPA turns the formula on its head, explicitly biasing the judicial review process in favor of findings of guilt against candidates, campaigns, and other defendants.

Furthermore, Section 6004 allows for the appointed General Counsel to launch investigations and even determine matters of guilt or innocence without any majority vote of the Commission. It does this by sharply limiting the time the commissioners have to consider a matter, and then substituting the General Counsel’s verdict for a vote of the Commission.

Other changes in Title VI to the Commission’s structure, enforcement, and regulatory processes are similarly ill-conceived.

In addition to our concerns about Title VI, the FPA also includes a number of troubling, substantive changes to campaign finance law. Most notably, we reiterate the concerns previously expressed in 2010 by many of the signatories below regarding the “DISCLOSE Act,” included in Title IV, Subtitle B. 5 The DISCLOSE Act is unnecessary, burdensome, and would stifle constitutionally protected political speech.

Similarly, the “Stand by Every Ad Act” included in Title IV, Subtitle D would make disclaimer regulation more complex, have a chilling effect on speech, and provide little or no information that is not already available to the public under the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) and existing Commission regulations. Indeed, in many cases, it would mislead the public as to the sources of an ad’s funding.

Subtitles F and G of Title IV aim to affirmatively clear the way for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission to become involved in campaign finance regulation. This is contrary to the design of the FECA, which gives the FEC primary civil enforcement responsibilities and exclusive authority for administering and interpreting the Act.6 These other agencies do not have expertise in campaign finance law. Attempting to use the IRS for campaign enforcement led to the scandal of 2013, which tarnished that agency’s reputation and public confidence in its operations. Inviting other non-expert agencies into campaign finance enforcement would create a likelihood of inconsistent interpretations and applications of the laws and increase the complexity of a regulatory system already famous for its intricacy.

Based on our collective decades of experience at the FEC, we believe that these, and several other provisions of Titles IV and VI not specifically addressed here, would complicate the law and hinder grassroots political speech and activism, with little or no benefit to public accountability, transparency, understanding of public policy, or reduction in corruption.7

Given these concerns, we are disturbed by recent news reports that House Leadership plans to bring H.R. 1 directly to the floor, bypassing committee consideration. We urge members of Congress in both chambers to deliberately and carefully consider this complex, nearly 800-page legislation, with special attention paid to the bill’s harmful impact on First Amendment speech and association rights.

Most importantly, we believe that Title VI, by shifting the Commission from a bipartisan, six-member body to a five-member body subject to partisan control, would be highly detrimental to the agency’s credibility. It would lead to more partisanship in enforcement and in regulatory matters, shattering public confidence in the decisions of the FEC. The Commission depends on bipartisan support and universal regard for the fairness of its actions. The FPA frustrates these goals with likely ruinous effect on our political system.

Thomas J. Josefiak (1985-1991) Darryl R. Wold (1998-2002) David M. Mason (1998-2008) Bradley A. Smith (2000-2005) Michael E. Toner (2002-2007) Hans A. von Spakovsky (2006-2007) Matthew S. Petersen (2008-2019) Caroline C. Hunter (2008-2020) Lee E. Goodman (2013-2018)

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Pence is a bit late and a dollar short. As the person in charge of certifying the election--or not--he was the one person in the world who held power at his fingertips. What power?

Well, at least six states decided, on their own, to change the election laws. Their attorney generals decided, usually in collusion with their secretaries of state, to not carefully examine signatures or residence status, to allow all sorts of mail-in voting that violated long-standing election rules. Then there were the machines: several forensic experts said they could be maligned. The courts refused to hear these objections. Even the SCOTUS refused. 

Mike Pence was the one person who had the power to demand voter reconciliation. All he had to do was say that he held in his heart and soul the objections that he so nicely articulated in the letter above, and that he would certify the votes just as soon as he was satisfied they represented fairness and honesty. That's all. If we needed martial law at that point, bring it on. Those six states would have had no recourse but to allow their votes to be counted by a brigade of bipartisan vote-counters, their machines to be examined, the whole thing paused until there was no doubt. If there was sufficient hanky-panky, fix it. If not, certify. 

What he did instead was take the easy way out. He buckled, got his feelings hurt, and certified the election. Georgia claimed the Senate and here we are with the HR-1 crap being read into law. 

We have now become hostage to just about any nonsense the Democrat Party wants to throw at us. It's not all Mike Pence's fault, but he passed up the last great opportunity for honesty and a slap on the wrist, for fair elections. Mike Pence doesn't even deserve to have his damn letter read at this point. He failed America in his only true test as our VP. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Mike Pence is a bit late and a dollar short. As the person in charge of certifying the election--or not--he was the one person in the world who held power at his fingertips. What power?

Mike Pence was the one person who had the power to demand voter reconciliation. All he had to do was say that he held in his heart and soul the objections that he so nicely articulated in the letter above, and that he would certify the votes just as soon as he was satisfied they represented fairness and honesty. That's all. If we needed martial law at that point, bring it on. Those six states would have had no recourse but to allow their votes to be counted by a brigade of bipartisan vote-counters, their machines to be examined, the whole thing paused until there was no doubt. If there was sufficient hanky-panky, fix it. If not, certify. 

 

I think you're being a bit hard on Pence - he didn't have a choice.  As president of the Senate, Pence simply presides over the proceedings when the votes are tallied; his role is, really, ceremonial.  This is what drove Rep. Louis Gohmert to launch a Federal Lawsuit to empower the Vice-President, at their 'discretion', to unilaterally reject certain Electoral College votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gregory1972 said:

I think you're being a bit hard on Pence - he didn't have a choice.  As president of the Senate, Pence simply presides over the proceedings when the votes are tallied; his role is, really, ceremonial.  This is what drove Rep. Louis Gohmert to launch a Federal Lawsuit to empower the Vice-President, at their 'discretion', to unilaterally reject certain Electoral College votes.

Yes, to me, these lawsuits were unprofessional. Gohmert should know the law better, but maybe he'll face his peers:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/boldly-frivolous-gohmert-v-pence-election-lawsuit-spurs-bar-complaints-against-attorneys/ar-BB1e646G

The problem is of course, mass psychosis about what truth (information) and contra-truth (disinformation) is, in an era where 'content' is easily personalized for people's inverted personalities (aka the "echo chamber effect", have people lost the ability to think for themselves?):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filtering#Application_on_social_web

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the cult "Storm?"  Is Trump in power?

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gregory1972 said:

I think you're being a bit hard on Pence - he didn't have a choice.  As president of the Senate, Pence simply presides over the proceedings when the votes are tallied; his role is, really, ceremonial. 

Ivan Raiklin is a pretty good constitutional lawyer. His stand was that U.S.C. 12 not only allows a vice president to ask for the accurate slate but demands it. The role is actually a bit stronger than "ceremonial," it is as the last gatekeeper against wrongdoing in the form of election fraud. 

Republicans in Pennsylvania and Arizona asked the U.S. Congress not to accept the votes assigned by their state's Secretary of State, suggesting they represented fraudulent election results. According to Raiklin, that was ample opportunity for Pence to call for the EC slates that accurately and truly reflected the will of the people.

That would have been a substantial logjam.  If nothing else, it would have precipitated a constitutional crisis. And that's looking pretty good right about now. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The fraud was fake news; the cult is absent, there is no Storm.  You guys were played like suckers and the master quit the cult. 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

*crickets*

Losers finally want this thread to die? 

Embarrassed?

Edited by Symmetry
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 3:28 AM, Dan Warnick said:

And this is what the Dems are trying to do to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with H.R.1 (my bold at the end):

February 9, 2021

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Chuck Schumer Majority Leader U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Republican Leader U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Republican Leader U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Republican Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader Schumer, and Republican Leader McConnell:

We write out of deep concern for the threat that the self-styled “For the People Act” (H.R. 1 and S. 1 in the current Congress, hereinafter the “FPA”) poses to the long-standing bipartisan structure of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”)—a concern based on our many years of experience as commissioners of the FEC. The FEC is the federal agency entrusted with primary interpretation, civil enforcement, and administration of federal campaign finance laws.

The threat to bipartisanship in this federal agency should be a concern for the public, but also for members of Congress, who are among the most visible subjects of FEC scrutiny. Candidates for federal office know that the FEC is an intrusive presence in virtually every aspect of their campaigns, requiring disclosure of detailed aspects of their contributions and expenditures, initiating investigations, subpoenaing witnesses and records, imposing civil penalties for violations of its hundreds of pages of regulations, and conducting audits of campaign committees selected by the Commission to monitor compliance, among other actions.

We are all former members of the FEC. Collectively, we have over six decades of service on the Commission. Most of us served as Chair of the FEC, and at least one of us was serving on the Commission at all times between 1998 and 2020.1

The FPA, as introduced in the House, is 791 pages and addresses virtually every aspect of election rules and administration. Our comments here are limited to Titles IV and VI in Division B of the Act. We address those provisions because they concern the jurisdiction of the FEC, and our comments specifically represent our combined expertise and experience over decades of service on the Commission. Our decision not to address provisions of the FPA changing election administration outside of FEC jurisdiction, however, should not be viewed as support for or acquiescence in those proposals.

Title VI would transform the FEC from a bipartisan, six-member body to a five-member body subject to, and indeed designed for, partisan control. Proponents claim this radical change is necessary to prevent “deadlock” on the Commission and assure efficient operations. This perception of perpetual deadlock is incorrect. Empirically, even the most extreme study of FEC votes—that is, a vigorously contested, non-peer reviewed study, conducted during a short period of relatively high disagreement within the Commission, and not transparent about its methodology or selection of votes—found a maximum of 30 percent of enforcement matters ending in 3-3 votes. But other studies, including peer-reviewed studies, have consistently found much lower rates of “deadlock,” typically in the one to six percent range.2

Moreover, the argument that the bipartisan makeup of the Commission hinders its effectiveness is based on a misunderstanding of the FEC’s work and why deadlocks occasionally occur. By definition, campaign finance law inserts the government into partisan electoral disputes. In our experience, the agency’s bipartisan structure both assures that the laws are enforced with bipartisan support and equally important, that they are not perceived as a partisan tool of the majority party— an electoral weapon, if you will. “The indispensable ingredient in the FEC’s creation was its bipartisan makeup,” with an equal number of members from each major party and a voting structure requiring some minimal measure of bipartisan agreement before an enforcement action went forward or a rule was adopted.3 As Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) explained during post-Watergate Congressional debates about the agency’s creation: “We must not allow the FEC to become a tool for harassment.”4 Political actors who violate campaign finance laws, and their partisans, are often quick to denounce enforcement as a “partisan witch hunt.” The FEC’s bipartisan makeup is a direct response to this claim and is fundamental to public confidence in the system.

Further, a neutral examination of the relatively few “deadlocks” that do occur reveals that a substantial portion of them concern differences of opinion over the reach of the statutes the FEC enforces. One bloc of three commissioners has often reflected the views of activist organizations that advocate for even more extensive regulation, supporting an expansive view of the statutes that goes beyond what Congress has enacted. In short, the complaints about “deadlocks” come from the regulatory activists who haven’t gotten their way. They now seek to change the bipartisan nature of the Commission, to smooth the path for agency adoption of the more expansive regulations they have unsuccessfully sought for years. Congress has consistently declined to adopt those expansive objectives.

Similarly, in rule-making, the FEC’s bipartisan structure is a beneficial feature, not a defect. It demands that commissioners work to reach consensus and compromise on measures to achieve bipartisan support. If Congress wanted to destroy confidence in the fairness of American elections, it is hard to imagine a better first step than to eviscerate the FEC’s bipartisan structure.

But Title VI goes further. First, it allows the Chair, who is appointed on a partisan basis by the President, to hire and fire the FEC’s General Counsel, a statutory position, with the support of just two commissioners. Thus, this crucial enforcement position can be filled with no bipartisan agreement, as the Chair, the other commissioner from that party, and an “independent” member appointed by a President of the Chair’s party, could make the decision. Further, it places sole authority to hire or fire the Commission’s Staff Director, also a statutory position, in the hands of the FEC Chair, not even requiring the support of an independent commissioner. The Staff Director oversees the Commission’s Auditing, Reports Analysis, Administrative Fines, and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes, which combined handle far more enforcement matters than the Office of General Counsel. Both the appearance and reality of bipartisanship in enforcement is fundamental to the FEC’s success, and Title VI destroys both.

The FPA also makes startling changes in the FEC’s enforcement processes, perhaps no more so than in § 6004 of Title VI. That section provides that, in the event the Commission, after reviewing or investigating a complaint, finds the respondent candidate, campaign, or other entity did not violate the law, the complainant may sue in federal court. There, the matter will be reviewed de novo, with no deference to the Commission’s findings of law or fact. If, however, the Commission finds that the respondent did violate the law, and the respondent seeks to contest those findings in court, the Commission’s rulings will be afforded the traditional deference given to administrative agencies by courts of law. In short, while the American justice system has traditionally erred in favor of the accused, so as to protect the innocent and unjustly convicted, the FPA turns the formula on its head, explicitly biasing the judicial review process in favor of findings of guilt against candidates, campaigns, and other defendants.

Furthermore, Section 6004 allows for the appointed General Counsel to launch investigations and even determine matters of guilt or innocence without any majority vote of the Commission. It does this by sharply limiting the time the commissioners have to consider a matter, and then substituting the General Counsel’s verdict for a vote of the Commission.

Other changes in Title VI to the Commission’s structure, enforcement, and regulatory processes are similarly ill-conceived.

In addition to our concerns about Title VI, the FPA also includes a number of troubling, substantive changes to campaign finance law. Most notably, we reiterate the concerns previously expressed in 2010 by many of the signatories below regarding the “DISCLOSE Act,” included in Title IV, Subtitle B. 5 The DISCLOSE Act is unnecessary, burdensome, and would stifle constitutionally protected political speech.

Similarly, the “Stand by Every Ad Act” included in Title IV, Subtitle D would make disclaimer regulation more complex, have a chilling effect on speech, and provide little or no information that is not already available to the public under the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) and existing Commission regulations. Indeed, in many cases, it would mislead the public as to the sources of an ad’s funding.

Subtitles F and G of Title IV aim to affirmatively clear the way for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission to become involved in campaign finance regulation. This is contrary to the design of the FECA, which gives the FEC primary civil enforcement responsibilities and exclusive authority for administering and interpreting the Act.6 These other agencies do not have expertise in campaign finance law. Attempting to use the IRS for campaign enforcement led to the scandal of 2013, which tarnished that agency’s reputation and public confidence in its operations. Inviting other non-expert agencies into campaign finance enforcement would create a likelihood of inconsistent interpretations and applications of the laws and increase the complexity of a regulatory system already famous for its intricacy.

Based on our collective decades of experience at the FEC, we believe that these, and several other provisions of Titles IV and VI not specifically addressed here, would complicate the law and hinder grassroots political speech and activism, with little or no benefit to public accountability, transparency, understanding of public policy, or reduction in corruption.7

Given these concerns, we are disturbed by recent news reports that House Leadership plans to bring H.R. 1 directly to the floor, bypassing committee consideration. We urge members of Congress in both chambers to deliberately and carefully consider this complex, nearly 800-page legislation, with special attention paid to the bill’s harmful impact on First Amendment speech and association rights.

Most importantly, we believe that Title VI, by shifting the Commission from a bipartisan, six-member body to a five-member body subject to partisan control, would be highly detrimental to the agency’s credibility. It would lead to more partisanship in enforcement and in regulatory matters, shattering public confidence in the decisions of the FEC. The Commission depends on bipartisan support and universal regard for the fairness of its actions. The FPA frustrates these goals with likely ruinous effect on our political system.

Thomas J. Josefiak (1985-1991) Darryl R. Wold (1998-2002) David M. Mason (1998-2008) Bradley A. Smith (2000-2005) Michael E. Toner (2002-2007) Hans A. von Spakovsky (2006-2007) Matthew S. Petersen (2008-2019) Caroline C. Hunter (2008-2020) Lee E. Goodman (2013-2018)

The retired FEC commissioners are essentially telling Nancy and company that they are on the right track to destroy public trust in elections, which is precisely their primary aim, their secondary aim is to assure control of elected positions if they fail at  destroying the country by civil war, which is their primary goal. 

The Congress was not elected. The primaries were near universally hacked and the elections proper had their counts and ballots manipulated. The goal of the CCP in intruding into the US electoral system has been and remains to weaken and destabilize, socially, institutionally, judicially, economically and politically. With their complete coup of the last election, the CCP is now heading straight to the destruction of cohesion by making a structure that must result in either civil war or a one party rule which they believe they would control. The CCP is joined in the effort by the Dem party progressive wing and its establishment wing which they had bribed to the tune of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars EACH over 2 decades. The disappearance of $4 Trillion of Chinese dollar reserves over 2 decades did not all go into ports and belt and road investment, a large chunk of it went to bribing companies and officials in all countries UN and NGOs from top to bottom, with or without local partners. 

Dem Admin and Congress' goal in this session is to make sure the US collapses either by a war against someone other than China, civil war, or communist "great leap forward" plans for broad economic destruction such as the green new deal, universal income and bungled central bank management. There is hardly a pretense that it is otherwise. These goals are broadly in line with corporate WEF "great reset" goals which had been closely coordinated with the CCP. 

BTW, if you want to know how much Barr cost them, it was $7mil. The transfer transaction was captured electronically by NSA and co. and leaked, but the records at the IRS Treasury and FBI that flagged them were deleted. They (Mil intel) are still fishing to identify who did it. 

The former FEC chiefs are commendable in shedding light for the public, but would have been far more effective if they had gotten Congress' fear antennae perked up by saying the opposite.  

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2021 at 1:46 PM, Symmetry said:

*crickets*

Losers finally want this thread to die? 

Embarrassed?

Nobody gives a rat's rear end what the Eejit thinks

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The retired FEC commissioners are essentially telling Nancy and company that they are on the right track to destroy public trust in elections, which is precisely their primary aim, their secondary aim is to assure control of elected positions if they fail at  destroying the country by civil war, which is their primary goal. 

The Congress was not elected. The primaries were near universally hacked and the elections proper had their counts and ballots manipulated. The goal of the CCP in intruding into the US electoral system has been and remains to weaken and destabilize, socially, institutionally, judicially, economically and politically. With their complete coup of the last election, the CCP is now heading straight to the destruction of cohesion by making a structure that must result in either civil war or a one party rule which they believe they would control. The CCP is joined in the effort by the Dem party progressive wing and its establishment wing which they had bribed to the tune of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars EACH over 2 decades. The disappearance of $4 Trillion of Chinese dollar reserves over 2 decades did not all go into ports and belt and road investment, a large chunk of it went to bribing companies and officials in all countries UN and NGOs from top to bottom, with or without local partners. 

Dem Admin and Congress' goal in this session is to make sure the US collapses either by a war against someone other than China, civil war, or communist "great leap forward" plans for broad economic destruction such as the green new deal, universal income and bungled central bank management. There is hardly a pretense that it is otherwise. These goals are broadly in line with corporate WEF "great reset" goals which had been closely coordinated with the CCP. 

BTW, if you want to know how much Barr cost them, it was $7mil. The transfer transaction was captured electronically by NSA and co. and leaked, but the records at the IRS Treasury and FBI that flagged them were deleted. They (Mil intel) are still fishing to identify who did it. 

The former FEC chiefs are commendable in shedding light for the public, but would have been far more effective if they had gotten Congress' fear antennae perked up by saying the opposite.  

Nicely summarized Insane things in HR1 Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Nobody gives a rat's rear end what the Eejit thinks

Has all your chatter done anything?

If anyone listed to you surely something would have resulted.  Evidence is a beach, you flotsam out at sea.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Nicely summarized Insane things in HR1 Bill

You and 0R0 need a room. 0R0 is never right about anything yet you agree with him.

Look at posts from March 2020 for fun...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Symmetry said:

You and 0R0 need a room. 0R0 is never right about anything yet you agree with him.

Look at posts from March 2020 for fun...

You continue to act as if you have ever accomplished anything. Nothing could be further from the truth, you aren't a winner, you have no prescience, you just join the evil when it comes your way, imagining somehow that the evil will reward you. News flash. It won't. I see right through you, your sock puppets, your empty vapid life. I called everything that was going to happen before it did, @0R0 identifies the steps needed to save America, not necessarily those that will be taken. He's right, you're wrong, you'll still be a know nothing, do nothing CANADIAN pretending you deserve a seat at the adult's table. You don't. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You continue to act as if you have ever accomplished anything. Nothing could be further from the truth, you aren't a winner, you have no prescience, you just join the evil when it comes your way, imagining somehow that the evil will reward you. News flash. It won't. I see right through you, your sock puppets, your empty vapid life. I called everything that was going to happen before it did, @0R0 identifies the steps needed to save America, not necessarily those that will be taken. He's right, you're wrong, you'll still be a know nothing, do nothing CANADIAN pretending you deserve a seat at the adult's table. You don't. 

0R0 leads the way in spreading covid misinformation and traitorism.

Don't be sore that everything doesn't go YOUR way. Odd that you mock me when everything goes MY way.

You are bragging that you were right in your prediction you would lose. Is that a self-fulfilling prophecy, or just being completely powerless?

I choose to win, and do.

PS Oil prices are rising.  Good for those Alberta folks I imagine. Letting you know for a friend.

 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No winning when anyone (losers) voted for Trump just a lot of losing.

Trump Has Now Officially Lost All Of His Postelection Challenges In The Supreme Court

Trump argued a case he’d filed in Wisconsin wasn’t moot even after Biden took office. The Supreme Court refused to hear it.

Picture of Zoe Tillman Zoe Tillman BuzzFeed News Reporter

Reporting From

Washington, DC

Last updated on March 8, 2021, at 2:29 p.m. ET

Posted on March 8, 2021, at 10:52 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Former president Donald Trump has officially lost all of his postelection legal challenges in the US Supreme Court, after the court announced Monday that the justices had refused to take up his final case out of Wisconsin.

Trump and his Republican allies lost more than 60 lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging President Joe Biden’s wins in Wisconsin and a handful of other key states. They petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a small number of these cases, and the justices either rejected them right away or didn’t take any action before Biden was sworn in on Jan. 20, a clear sign that they wouldn’t interfere.

Even after leaving office, Trump continued to press a case he’d brought against state election officials in Wisconsin. He filed a brief on Feb. 9 that argued the fight wasn’t moot now that Biden was in the White House because the challenges he’d raised to how the state expanded absentee and mail-in voting during the pandemic could come up again in the future; a federal appeals court had tossed the case on Dec. 24, finding Trump’s legal arguments lacking and also concluding that he’d waited too long to file the case in the first place.

The justices didn’t address any of Trump’s arguments — either on the substance of the challenge or his arguments for keeping it alive after Biden took office — in Monday’s order, simply including it on a long list of cases that they were declining to hear. The court also denied a petition filed by conservative attorney L. Lin Wood Jr. asking the justices to take up an election challenge he’d filed in support of Trump in Georgia and lost in the lower courts; Wood was banned from Twitter in January after using the platform to promote the Jan. 6 insurrection and promote election conspiracy theories.

Trump and his allies had used postelection legal challenges to promote lies about widespread voter fraud, and they denounced the judicial system, including the Supreme Court, as biased when they repeatedly lost. Judges at every level — including some who were nominated by Trump — concluded that these cases were either procedurally deficient or, after reviewing the evidence, meritless. The only case Republicans won, in Pennsylvania state court, involved a small number of absentee ballots that arrived in Pennsylvania after Election Day and were nowhere near enough to change the results.

Trump had said in September that he was "counting" on the Supreme Court to "look at the ballots" given the expansion of mail-in voting nationwide, but the high court repeatedly refused to entertain Trump and his supporters’ last-ditch efforts to challenge Biden’s win. The justices in December swiftly rejected a Trump-backed attempt by the Texas attorney general’s office to sue four states that Biden had won, as well as a challenge brought by Pennsylvania Republicans. On Jan. 11 — less than a week after a mob of hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol and briefly stopped lawmakers from certifying Biden’s victory — the justices issued a set of orders denying requests by Trump and other Republican challengers to act on petitions challenging lower court losses before Inauguration Day.

A handful of cases remained active even after Biden took office, and on Feb. 22 the Supreme Court issued a round of orders officially refusing to hear cases that Trump had brought in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (he filed multiple cases in that state), as well as other Republican-backed challenges in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Symmetry said:

You and 0R0 need a room. 0R0 is never right about anything yet you agree with him.

Look at posts from March 2020 for fun...

if you are getting a down vote from the low IQ posters on this site you must be doing something right.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

if you are getting a down vote from the low IQ posters on this site you must be doing something right.

Says the Eejit sock puppet 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Symmetry said:

0R0 leads the way in spreading covid misinformation and traitorism.

Don't be sore that everything doesn't go YOUR way. Odd that you mock me when everything goes MY way.

You are bragging that you were right in your prediction you would lose. Is that a self-fulfilling prophecy, or just being completely powerless?

I choose to win, and do.

PS Oil prices are rising.  Good for those Alberta folks I imagine. Letting you know for a friend.

 

You don't have any friends, but you do have sock puppets, so there's that. And I guess Rosy Palm qualifies as your girlfriend

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally!  They've found a label for my condition.  I want equal unequal attention and rights to the wrong I've been made to suffer at the hands of racists, er, at the hands of someone, that's for sure.

image.png.444c40364f5240f448de7635d113b4a2.png

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 3/9/2021 at 5:41 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Finally!  They've found a label for my condition.  I want equal unequal attention and rights to the wrong I've been made to suffer at the hands of racists, er, at the hands of someone, that's for sure.

image.png.444c40364f5240f448de7635d113b4a2.png

You're broke, big surprise.

Common for Trump fans to scapegoat their failures on others. "It's the demoncrats that made me broke! Or immigrants, the gays, or environmentalism."  In reality it is just you, the failure. 

Once you realize this you will have greater success, take ownership of your situation.

Or live in backwards land where the losers mock the winners.

 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we are going to see a piecemeal election review throughout the country. 

https://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2021/03/05/dominion-gets-caught-shorting-gop-candidates

Arizona election board in Maricopa apparently set up the ballots on a truck container and arranged to have them stolen and shredded. 

Their ridiculous action of audit avoidance is not  going to help them, as their actions are on the electronic record and in context of overturning an election, the actual crime is treason, not just fraud. The jurisdiction is both civil and military. The military court allows NSA surveillance data and subsequent chain of investigation into evidence. Thus their contacts with the co conspirators who shredded the ballots for them will be followed up and they will be put in jail. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/breaking-exclusive-ballots-arizonas-maricopa-county-found-shredded-dumpster-days-senate-audit-begin/

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Looks like we are going to see a piecemeal election review throughout the country. 

https://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2021/03/05/dominion-gets-caught-shorting-gop-candidates

Arizona election board in Maricopa apparently set up the ballots on a truck container and arranged to have them stolen and shredded. 

Their ridiculous action of audit avoidance is not  going to help them, as their actions are on the electronic record and in context of overturning an election, the actual crime is treason, not just fraud. The jurisdiction is both civil and military. The military court allows NSA surveillance data and subsequent chain of investigation into evidence. Thus their contacts with the co conspirators who shredded the ballots for them will be followed up and they will be put in jail. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/breaking-exclusive-ballots-arizonas-maricopa-county-found-shredded-dumpster-days-senate-audit-begin/

Keep the hope, keep the fantasy alive.

Let's see how long that "news" of Dominion getting caught stays up before they issue a retraction.

"Gateway pundit" is just another name for wrong or Ward.   Just look a their banner for clear bias - it's a cult website. Facts do not matter to them.

 

biased.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.