WASHINGTON, D.C.—Now that House Democrats’ scheme to rig the election system in their favor through H.R. 1 has been exposed, support for the Democrat Politician Protection Act is scarce while opposition grows.

From Secretaries of State to free speech and privacy advocates, Americans everywhere are expressing their absolute resistance to this government takeover of elections, infringement of First Amendment rights, and creation of taxpayer funded campaigns.

Read below to see what Secretaries of State, free speech advocates, and conservative groups are saying about H.R. 1. 

Groups Key Voting NO on H.R. 1:

Faith and Freedom Coalition, Executive Director Timothy Head:

“A vote for this bill is a vote to undermine the constitutionally protected free speech and association rights of every American. H.R. 1 would have a chilling effect on political participation and would further empower an unelected bureaucracy to target and harass faith-based organizations in an effort to silence them.”

Family Research Council, Vice President for Government Affairs David Christensen:

“If the goal is to encourage transparency in the political or policy debates of our time, or provide further transparency in campaign activities, Congress should block this bill. Indeed, H.R. 1 will have the opposite effect and stifle both campaign and non-campaign related speech. The main purpose behind this bill would seem to be the upcoming election – for its sponsors must be aware that it contains provisions restricting free speech such as those struck down by the Supreme Court. Supporters know that the courts may eventually overturn H.R. 1, but not before the next election day. By then, the damage to free speech will have already been done.”

American Civil Liberties Union:

“…certain aspects of H.R. 1 would too greatly impinge upon the freedoms of speech and association, and we cannot support those provisions, or allow the House to vote without voicing our opposition to them. For those reasons the ACLU opposes H.R. 1 and urges you to vote “no” on passage of the bill.”

Groups Opposing H.R. 1: 

Republican National Lawyers Association:

“More broadly, this legislation, far from protecting the people, would protect the interests of established politicians and lawyers by vastly expanding the federal government’s power over elections, regulating political speech, and creating new rights of action that would clog the court system.

“Instead of increasing the American people’s confidence in our political and electoral systems, H.R. 1 would decrease it while lining the pockets of politicians and lawyers. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1.”

People United for Privacy, Policy Director Heather Lauer:

“No one deserves to have their private information exposed and to be threatened with harassment or violence because of their opinions. H.R. 1 is dangerous and will erode the very rights that protect and strengthen our democracy – freedom of speech and freedom for Americans to support causes they believe in.”

Joint letter from 16 Secretaries of State from across the United States:

“H.R. 1 constitutes an unwise and unconstitutional intrusion into our authority to administer the election process. It is unneeded and will impose substantial costs on state and local government. We do not need more unnecessary, expensive, burdensome, and unfunded federal mandates that endanger the integrity of our elections.”

Institute for Free Speech, President David Keating:

“H.R. 1 would institute sweeping new limitations on speech about campaigns and public affairs. It does so in a very complex, vague, and unintuitive manner. The measure’s provisions are so complex and open to so many possible interpretations that the Institute’s views on the bill may well understate the chill this legislation might place on speech.

“Importantly, these restrictions would reach far beyond campaign speech to regulate discussion of legislative issues and public affairs. For advocacy groups, unions, and trade associations, several of the limits proposed in H.R. 1 would operate as a total ban on speech.”