News Ticker >
[ January 22, 2020 ]

‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Was Overheard in 2017 Discussing With Ally Sean Misko How to Remove...

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Stocks hit NEW RECORDS as earnings fuel gains

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Virginia Democrats Push Legislation to Make Criticism of Government Officials a Criminal Offense

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Top Cop Involved in Failed Muslim Child Rape Gang Investigation Promoted to Chief of Child...

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Another Bernie Staffer Promotes Violence: Kill The Rich, Put Republicans In Camps

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Macron unleashed a childish scandal in Jerusalem, Chirac-style

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Under Trump, America Strongest Since the End of World War II

[ January 22, 2020 ]

WILD IN WILDWOOD: Trump rally in New Jersey has 100K ticket requests for venue that...

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Michigan Democratic Party candidate for House supports boycotting Jews (BDS)

[ January 22, 2020 ]

Texas governor receives Friend of Zion award for support, advocacy

Democrats’ new campaign ‘reforms’ are a war on free speech

16

This is no surprise. The left has always been against the freedom of speech. Leftists cannot defeat their foes in discussion and debate, and so they move to shut them down by force. Look at what the social media giants are doing. Every one of them is owned and operated by Leftists who are working systematically to silence my colleagues and me and everyone else who dares to oppose the Leftist agenda and support President Trump. HR 1 is an attempt to circumvent and destroy the First Amendment, and codify speech restrictions. This has been a long time coming, but if it becomes law, America is finished as a free society.

“Democrats’ new campaign ‘reforms’ are a war on free speech,” by Rich Lowry, New York Post, March 11, 2019:

The same Democrats who can’t abide President Trump’s alleged offenses against the First Amendment passed, as their first priority, a speech-restricting bill opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Trump shouldn’t call the media the ­“enemy of the people” or inveigh against Jeff Bezos for owning The Washington Post, but Nancy Pelosi’s HR 1, enacted in the House last week, is the true affront to the Constitution.

The wide-ranging legislation purports to reform campaign finance with a series of vague, sweeping measures that will act to chill speech when they don’t actively regulate or squelch it. HR 1 is called the For the People Act but would be more aptly titled The Be Careful What You Say, It Might Be Illegal Act.

Progressives can’t abide the notion that people in this country get together to spend money on advocacy outside the purview of the government — in other words, freely promote their favored causes as ­befits a free people living in a free country.

HR 1 cracks the whip. As the Institute for Free Speech points out, the current campaign-finance rules limit expenditures that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or refer to a candidate in public advertising shortly before an election. The idea is to have clear rules, so groups can promote their views without fear of running afoul of federal regulations.

HR 1 blows up this regime. It seeks to regulate any speech at any time that “promotes or supports the candidate, or ­attacks or opposes an opponent of the candidate,” a fuzzy standard that could catch up all manner of non-electoral messages — for example, “Trump’s tariffs are a mistake,” or “Support Trump’s Wall.”

HR 1 also widens the definition of coordination between a group and a candidate to encompass almost any communication. It’d still be permissible to discuss a candidate’s position on an issue, so long as there is no talk “regarding the candidate’s or committee’s campaign advertising, message, strategy, policy, polling, allocation of resources, fundraising or other campaign activities.”

Even if a group doesn’t coordinate with a candidate under this loose standard, it could still be deemed to have coordinated if it were founded by someone who goes on to become a candidate; relies on the professional services of someone who also did work for a candidate; or is run by someone who had conversations about a campaign with the relative of a candidate.

On top of all this, HR 1 goes after the privacy of ­donors to advocacy organizations. It mandates the disclosure of the names and addresses of ­donors giving more than $10,000 to groups that engage in “campaign-related disbursements.” Given our toxic political environment, this would potentially subject the donors to harassment and abuse, and they might not even be aware of or support the communications in question….

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

Pin It on Pinterest