The Democrat-favoring "fact checker" websites are hard at work spinning for H.R. 1, the shameless attempt to federalize elections under the banner of "voting rights."
On Thursday, Alayna Treene of the Washington-insider website Axios reported the National Republican Senatorial Committee will launch a "seven-figure ad campaign...targeting Democrats' effort to expand voting." The GOP is focused on four vulnerable Senators up in 2022: Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.
Here's the Georgia one:
Treene then suggested the ads weren't honest:
Details: The ads, which will begin airing on Monday, focus on what the GOP says are the most unpopular aspects of the bill, according to their internal polling.
- They slam the bill as a Democratic "power grab" that would "eliminate voter ID laws," implement automatic voter-registration and "force taxpayers to fund" campaigns.
- Fact check: The bill doesn't necessarily "ban" voter ID laws, but it provides workarounds for voters without identification. It also wouldn’t fund campaigns, but it would match donations less than $200 6-to-1.
Wait. What? Who is flunking basic logic here: It "wouldn't fund campaigns," but it....matches donations, in other words, "funds campaigns"?
Her link goes to Newsweek.com, fact-checking an ad by Congressman Mark Walker from Twitter:
Tired of seeing campaign ads? Well, if enacted, #HR1 will take your money and give it to politicians so they can run TV ads.
— Mark Walker (@RepMarkWalker) March 2, 2021
New year, same legislation put forth by the House Dems that puts politicians and their campaigns over people.pic.twitter.com/Np6R4demAX
Newsweek explains there is currently public funding of presidential campaigns but not congressional campaigns:
HR-1 seeks to change that by establishing a public financing system for those races in the hopes of giving more "average" Americans a more even playing field, according to the text of the bill. The bill seeks to fund a 6-to-1 small donation matching program exclusively through the Freedom from Influence Fund, which, unlike funding that has been used for presidential campaigns for decades, is not necessarily taken directly from everyday taxpayers.
According to the latest draft of HR-1, the Freedom from Influence Fund accumulates money from a 2.75 percent surcharge on criminal and civil penalties, as well as settlements from corporations, corporate officers and, to a much lesser extent, individual tax code violators in upper-income brackets.
HR-1 also would create public funding through a pilot program in three states to provide $25 vouchers for eligible voters to optionally give money to candidates.
The 6-to-1 ratio, which is similar to one used for New York's elections, would apply only to donations of $200 or less, including vouchers, and candidates are eligible only if they have raised at least $50,000 in small-dollar donations from at least 1,000 donors. They would not be allowed to accept contributions larger than $1,000.
Newsweek bizarrely ruled Walker was "Mostly False," because the plan is "not taking money from a broad pool of tax dollars," but from penalties and surcharges! So maybe "you" won't fund it. The government will be funding congressional campaigns but somehow it's....not, because the tax isn't from a "broad pool."
Then there's the notion it doesn't "ban" voter ID requirements, it "provides workarounds." Treene turned to Amy Sherman of PolitiFact warning of some obscure Facebook page opposing HR 1.
The bill calls state voter ID laws "excessively onerous."
The bill says that if a state has a requirement for an individual to present an ID to cast a ballot, the state shall permit the individual to present to election officials a sworn written statement under penalty of perjury attesting to the individual’s identity and that they are eligible to vote.
In other words, a written promise -- "honestly, I'm who I say I am!" But liberal journalists and "fact checkers" want to shame their opponents out of claiming this "bans" voter ID requirements, when it only eviscerates them.
PS: Treene is a big fan of Trump-trashing "fact checker" Daniel Dale of CNN. He's "incredibly impressive."
