After regaining power in 2019, among the first symbolic gestures of the radical leftist faction led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was to draft HR 1—the original For the People Act, as it was euphemistically known—promoting what many considered to be outlandish changes to election laws.
But that widely panned effort could soon become a reality with Democrats, who now control much of the federal government, prioritizing the effort to consolidate their power and establish permanent majorities, Fox News reported.
The shockingly audacious series of so-called reforms outlines plans for widespread online-, automatic- and day-of voter registration, all of which would make screening and verification of voter eligibility much more difficult.
It also would codify the controversial efforts to increase mail-in voting that were begun last year under the auspices of the coronavirus pandemic—although, inexplicably, they were being pushed by the Left well before the public health threat.
The resolution further raises the possibility a federal ban on states’ voter ID requirements.
Moreover, it could:
- eliminate the need to provide a complete Social Security number when registering
- restore of voting rights for all convicted felons
- advance statehood for Washington, DC
- lower the voting age to 16
Although the effect would be to introduce massive new potential for corruption, the Democrats’ official talking points claimed the bill was intended to “clean up corruption” in politics.
Underscoring the lopsided, partisan nature of the legislation, every House Democrat has signed on to co-sponsor it, boasted Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., the chair of the Democracy Reform Task Force.
“House Democrats are united in our steadfast commitment to advance transformational anti-corruption and clean election reforms by swiftly passing HR 1,” Sarbanes said in a statement Monday.
“Our historic reform effort will end decades of dysfunction in Washington, return power to the people and build a more just, equitable and prosperous country for all Americans,” he said.
The radical Left, as it grows increasingly Orwellian, has frequently appropriated words like “anti-corruption” and “equitable” to reflect the opposite of their intended denotation.
Even though some of the proposals might, on paper, appear to be in the best interest of safeguarding elections, the bill’s clearly corrupt intentions cast further aspersions on proposals such as its campaign-finance reforms, which would claim to shed light on the dark money donations that have overtaken the political climate.
Democrats—who long criticized dark money and demanded an end to it, have become the largest beneficiaries of it in recent cycles. That often includes finding ways to circumvent the existing transparency laws by breaking large donations into smaller ones through aggregators like Act Blue.
Some major Democrat donors also skirted the laws by publicly contributing to indirect efforts to elect their chosen candidates such as the millions given by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to pay the salaries of poll-workers in Democrat-heavy districts and to establish (dubiously legal) ballot drop-off repositories.
But donor transparency may be even more alarming in light of the shocking efforts recently to “cancel” conservative donors through blacklists, boycotts, activist pressure campaigns and even threats of violence, none of which the Democrat-backed laws are likely to address.