H.R. 1 – The Intimidate Conservatives Bill

A group of over 100 conservative leaders and organizations, including ConservativeHQ.com, has released a letter analyzing the unconstitutional and deleterious effects on political participation of H.R. 1 and S.1, the Democrats’ bill to intimidate conservatives.

H.R. 1 and S. 1 would dramatically alter the First Amendment protections that Americans have enjoyed since the founding of our country. It would institute sweeping new burdens on their constitutionally protected rights to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for the causes they support. In particular, H.R. 1 and S. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable regulatory standards on the ability of individual Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. This bill would also violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters and stringently and excessively regulate political speech on the Internet.

As the letter points out, our Founding Fathers used pen names to encourage independence from Great Britain. Nearly 200 years later, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the state of Alabama from demanding the supporter list of the NAACP, citing concerns about retribution against the group’s members and financial backers. And earlier last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a California regulation forcing charities to hand over their supporter lists to the government.

Clearly, the purpose of H.R.1 and S.1 is to legalize exactly the kind of intimidation the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional in the Alabama versus the NAACP case.

If passed, H.R.1 and S.1 the government would be in the business of:

Subjecting citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations to harassment and intimidation by making their personal information available in a searchable government database. This mandate focuses public attention on the individuals and donors who support causes instead of on the messages communicated by those organizations, exacerbating the politics of division and personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse. This would have a considerable chilling effect on civic engagement and free speech.

Policing speech by Americans about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising that bears no relation to an election. This will subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.

Indiscriminately regulating groups that incidentally or occasionally advocate on federal judicial nominations and require those groups to broadly expose their donors, even if those citizens had nothing to do with the groups’ speech about judicial nominees.

Forcing groups to publicly identify their supporters on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what the law would consider (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose not to give to nonprofit groups.

Increasing regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting (and failing) to address the threat of Russian propaganda.

Expanding the universe of regulated online political speech by Americans beyond paid advertising to include communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and email messages.

Deterring American citizens from serving their country through political appointments by forcing them to disclose their donations to causes they have supported in the past.

Our elections will not be more honest, more informed, or more secure from foreign interference if we sacrifice the privacy of American citizens. But our democracy will be weakened if voices are eliminated from public debate through intimidation and overregulation.

Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell Republican Representatives and Senators you are speaking on behalf of the millions of Americans who cherish and rely on the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment and intimidation, tell them you demand they oppose H.R. 1 and S. 1, the deceptively named “For the People Act.”

  • H.R. 1
  • S. 1
  • First Amendment
  • Free Speech
  • Political Speech
  • Donor lists
  • Charities
  • NAACP v. Alabama
  • Nonprofit organizations
  • Online advertising
  • For the People Act
  • Mail-in voting
  • Voter ID
  • Voter integrity
  • Speech regulation
  • intimidation


By George Rasley

Read Original Article on ConservativeHQ.org

See text of the letter below analyzing the unconstitutional and deleterious effects on political participation of H.R. 1 and S.1, the Democrats’ bill to intimidate conservatives below:

February 1, 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,

On behalf of the millions of Americans who cherish and rely on the right to support causes we believe in without fear of harassment and intimidation, we, the undersigned individuals and organizations, ask you to reject H.R. 1 and S. 1, the deceptively named “For the People Act.”

Nonprofit organizations serve a vital role in encouraging free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Privately supporting causes — and the organizations advancing those causes — is a fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers used pen names to encourage independence from Great Britain. Nearly 200 years later, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the state of Alabama from demanding the supporter list of the NAACP, citing concerns about retribution against the group’s members and financial backers. And last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a California regulation forcing charities to hand over their supporter lists to the government.

H.R. 1 and S. 1 would dramatically alter the First Amendment protections that Americans have enjoyed since the founding of our country. It would institute sweeping new burdens on their constitutionally protected rights to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for the causes they support. In particular, H.R. 1 and S. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable regulatory standards on the ability of individual Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. This bill would also violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters and stringently and excessively regulate political speech on the Internet. More specifically, H.R. 1 and S. 1 include numerous, sweeping provisions that would violate the First Amendment rights of Americans by:

• Subjecting citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations to harassment and intimidation by making their personal information available in a searchable government database. This mandate focuses public attention on the individuals and donors who support causes instead of on the messages communicated by those organizations, exacerbating the politics of division and personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse. This would have a considerable chilling effect on civic engagement and free speech.
• Policing speech by Americans about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising that bears no relation to an election. This will subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
• Indiscriminately regulating groups that incidentally or occasionally advocate on federal judicial nominations and require those groups to broadly expose their donors, even if those citizens had nothing to do with the groups’ speech about judicial nominees.
• Forcing groups to publicly identify their supporters on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what the law would consider (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose not to give to nonprofit groups.
• Increasing regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting (and failing) to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
• Expanding the universe of regulated online political speech by Americans beyond paid advertising to include communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and email messages.
• Deterring American citizens from serving their country through political appointments by forcing them to disclose their donations to causes they have supported in the past.

Our elections will not be more honest, more informed, or more secure from foreign interference if we sacrifice the privacy of American citizens. But our democracy will be weakened if voices are eliminated from public debate through intimidation and overregulation.

As a Member of Congress, you have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. H.R. 1 and S. 1 propose multiple violations of our First Amendment rights. On behalf of the millions of American citizens our organizations represent, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1 and S. 1.

Sincerely,
See PDF Below for Signatures

See PDF of letter analyzing the unconstitutional and deleterious effects on political participation of H.R. 1 and S.1, the Democrats’ bill to intimidate conservatives below:

Page 1 / 7
Zoom 100%
Page 1 / 7
Zoom 100%

(H. R. 1, H.R. 1, H.R.1, HR 1, HR1,hr 1,hr1)

The Thinking Conservative
The Thinking Conservativehttps://www.thethinkingconservative.com/
The goal of THE THINKING CONSERVATIVE is to help us educate ourselves on conservative topics of importance to our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. We do this by sharing conservative opinions on all kinds of subjects, from all types of people, and all kinds of media, in a way that will challenge our perceptions and help us to make educated choices.

Columns

Tariffs Will Make America Rich Again

The US won World War II because we could outproduce our enemies, Peter Navarro explained, and the American “arsenal of democracy” permitted the Allies to triumph.

America’s sport export

The popularity of baseball in Japan and Korea contrasts to a shrinking American audience where the average age of your MLB fan is a 57-year-old Caucasian man. 

The Black Conservative Manifesto, 2025

Black conservatives present this manifesto to the Black community and the nation as a blueprint for progress and improvement. 

 CIA Looked for the Ark of the Covenant?

The CIA's Project Sunstreak assembled people gifted in psychoenergetics to do “remote viewing” in an attempt to locate the Ark of the Covenant.

The Greek Bailout Revisited – Miscalculated and Misconceived

A body of opinion exists which accepts the premise that the basic rationale behind Greece’s 3 bailouts was either miscalculated or badly misconceived.

News

US Deports 17 Accused Terrorist Gang Members to El Salvador, Rubio Says

U.S. officials transferred 17 accused Tren de Aragua and MS-13 terrorist gang members to El Salvador on Mar. 30, Sec. of State Marco Rubio confirmed.

Why Eggs Are Cheaper in Mexico and Canada

Canada and Mexico have active federal measures to control the price of eggs, while the United States does not.

Top FDA Vaccine Official Peter Marks Resigns From Agency

Dr. Peter Marks, who was involved in Operation Warp Speed to produce COVID-19 vaccines, submitted his resignation citing Sec. RFK Jr's initiatives.

Wisconsin AG Petitions State Supreme Court to Block Musk’s $1 Million Payments

Wisconsin’s AG submitted emergency petition to prevent Musk from paying $1 million to two random Wisconsinites who signed petition against activist judges.

University of Minnesota Says ICE Detained International Graduate Student

Leaders from the University of Minnesota said in a statement this week that an international graduate student is being detained by ICE.

Social Security Commissioner Corrects Record on Local Office Closures

“Recent reports in the media that the Social Security Administration (SSA) is permanently closing local field offices are false,” the agency said.

US to Upgrade Military Command in Japan to Deter China: Hegseth

Def. Sec. Hegseth said Japan is indispensable to combatting Chinese aggression in the South Pacific and plans will enhance U.S. military command there.
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

MAGA Business Central