Chamber of Commerce Urges Senators to Reject Voting Rights Bill

[TomCADem]

Source: Bloomberg

The legislation would make it significantly easier to vote, limit gerrymandering of congressional districts, require third-party groups to reveal secret donors and reform an election watchdog, among other changes. It passed the House, 220 to 210, last month as Republican lawmakers in several states advanced legislation that would impose new rules and restrictions on voting. Proponents of those revisions argue they are necessary to deter voter fraud.

The bill, known as S 1 in the Senate, is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in that chamber, as most Republicans oppose it.

In the letter, which was reported earlier Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, the Chamber said it “believes it is crucial to democracy to bring more people into the political process. Significant portions of S. 1 are clearly intended to have precisely the opposite effect – pushing certain voices, representing large segments of the electorate and U.S. economy, out of the political process altogether.”

It cited as examples changes to campaign finance law that the Chamber said would impose restrictions on advocating for and against candidates, and a provision that would “transform” the Federal Election Commission “from a non-partisan agency comprised of three commissioners from each party into an overtly partisan enforcement tool controlled by a majority of commissioners from the political party then in power.”

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/chamber-of-commerce-urges-senators-to-reject-voting-rights-bill

---

God forbid that corporations and billionaires have to disclose how much money they dumping into SuperPACs.

[PSPS]

1. LOL "certain voices, representing large segments of the electorate and U.S. economy"

"Significant portions of S. 1 are clearly intended to have precisely the opposite effect – pushing certain voices, representing large segments of the electorate and U.S. economy, out of the political process altogether."

Translation: "Significant portions of S. 1 are clearly intended to have precisely the opposite effect – pushing certain voices, representing large donations which paid for public policy tailored specifically to benefit them at the expense of 99.9% of the population, out of the political process altogether."

[sop]

2. They should change their name to "Chamber of Monopoly"

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Sure, b/c businesses just flourish in a fascist dictatorship.

[cstanleytech]

4. Manchin is the key and if he wont budge on the filibuster over this then we need to really consider

finding someone to replace him in the Senate that will work with our party when we really need them to.

[Lonestarblue]

5. If the Chamber is against it, it must be a good bill.

[Tommymac]

6. Fuck The Chamber. Send them an email to tell them they lost your tourism/business $$$$

I just sent an email to several smaller chapters telling them that we will NEVER visit or do business in the rural Rethug areas they represent because their National Chapter is for VOTER SUPRESSION and is un democratic and imho totalitarian/authoritarian leaning.

Word it as you want. Me, I tend to let my anger and sarcasm out without cursing in these.

[Ford_Prefect]

7. If we billed the Chamber for lost revenue..... how would they pay up?

[DallasNE]

8. Chamber Response Is Illogical

First they tout if being "crucial to democracy to bring more people into the political process" then make an unsupported claim "precisely the opposite effect" would occur. Then then pivot to the transparency features of the legislation as why it would have the opposite effect when the two are not related in any manner. The Constitution guarantees the right to meet your accuser except when it comes to dark money corruption saying that must remain off-limits.