HR1: House Passes Democrat Bill Targeting US Election Systems

This is Jay Sekulow, H.R.

1, a bill passed by the House Democrats targeting the election system. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hi, everybody.

It's called H.R. 1. Interestingly entitled, For the People Act, it passed by the House of Representatives in a vote of 220 to 210. So now it goes to the United States Senate. There was only one Democrat that voted against the bill. The bill would basically would codify some of the election issues that we were concerned with, especially the constitutional issues of states deciding what their election laws should be rather than the federal government mandating it, which is the Constitution allows the states to determine under the election clause and the electors clause of the Constitution they're allowed to do that.

Now, here's the interesting thing. It would create automatic voter registration across the United States. It allows felons who have served their sentence to vote, expands early voting and enhances absentee voting by what they call simplifying the process.

We'll get into the particulars on all of these. Requires more online political ad disclosures, forces all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. That whole disclosure of donors issue has always been troubling to me because of the First Amendment principle of anonymous donors, and that's freedom of association. But there's also another troubling provision, and that is pointed out in the Committee on the House Administration. This is by the Republicans, and their number 10 is weaponizes the IRS. Here's what it does. It permits the agency, and this is so troubling, permits the agency to investigate and consider the political and policy persuasions of organizations before granting tax exempt status.

Let me tell you something. We have an injunction against the IRS on exactly that point that we went to federal court and obtained, and that the IRS consented to. And they're going to try to undo that consent provision, Andy, by passing a new bill. Yeah, it puts us back in the position that we were in when we fought and conquered the IRS, if I might say, in getting them away from trying to target conservative organizations, pro-life organizations, organizations that supported traditional values. And they had targeted us, Jay, remember? And they had put us in a position where they were wanting to know what our political and religious affiliations and beliefs were. And we got them to apologize, to withdraw that.

People lost their jobs. This was not a Cincinnati-only office aberration, as they claimed. It was, in fact, centered in Washington, D.C. And now this bill would put us back in the position that the IRS was in with its power before we won that injunction. So let's go right to Washington, D.C., because obviously, look, we're already looking at possible constitutional challenges to this, which that one I just read you about the IRS looking at the political, and very vaguely, of course, the investigating. It allows the agency to investigate, that should scare everybody, and consider the political and policy persuasions of organizations before granting taxes and status. You mean like if they're pro-life? Or conservative? Or believe in particular views on religious liberty? That's going to be a basis upon which the IRS can say, you know, we're going to deny your tax exemption. And what does that have to do with election laws? So this is the problem. Let's go to Washington, D.C. right now. We point out the problem to find out what the solution's going to be.

What is happening, fan? Well, Jay, there are going to be a litany of those challenges. There are going to be other constitutional provisions, including the forced disclosure of groups that advocate on issues. You'd have to disclose members and donors. Of course, that'd be problematic. Jay, I would sum it up like this.

Here's the solution. We know that a bunch of states in the 2020 election took measures that proved to be problematic. This would be a D.C. takeover of elections. And, Jay, it would force all states, not some states, all states to adopt those troubling measures. The tactic, Jay, the response that we have to make, we have to defeat this in the United States Senate.

Plain and simple. That's the tactic. Well, that's the plan. But this is going to require litigation, I suspect, if it passes. So here's what we're going to — look, we're looking at election laws across the board. Just make sure they're in compliance with the Constitution. We have a team of lawyers at the ACLU, Jay, working on that.

But let me tell you what this means. Codifying this codifies problems and constitutional problems with that. We're going to talk more about that when we come back from the break. That's the reason you should support the ACLJ.

We're not just talking about it here on air. We're taking action. ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Support the Work Now matching challenge campaign. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. This HR1, they're calling it For the People Act, but you know, our producers said, you know, is it for the people or is it for the politicians? And I think that's right. You read one of the provisions, it's definitely for the politicians. So a major piece of the legislation sets up a new financing mechanism for congressional and Presidential elections.

Ready for this one? The legislation would establish a, and I like matching challenges, but this is a little bit different because this is your taxpayer money going to the government, six to one match for each grassroots contribution to a candidate up to $200. So for example, if you donated $200 to Nancy Pelosi, or a Republican for that matter, it would get a $1,200 match in federal funds, in public funds for contribution now totaling $1,400. How's that going to be paid for, by the way, you'd like to know? The public match program be funded by a new 4.7, this stuff is so insane, I mean, a 4.75 surcharge on criminal and civil penalties and settlements that corporations pay to the US government. Andy, I'm laughing because we've done these cases.

This is, what are they talking about? I mean, you know, you're going to pay for it by taxing settlements, this is what it says, high taxpayer settlements with the federal government. In other words, if I've got a tax case against the United, if I'm in the US Attorney's office, and I've got a tax case against a corporate taxpayer, and I make a lot of money for the United States government as a consequence of a fine or a penalty that is imposed upon this taxpayer, could be a corporation, could be an individual. That money, instead of going to the Treasury to fund what should be government operations, COVID relief, other things like that, is going to go to Nancy Pelosi, as you mentioned, or for that matter, any person's political campaign as a six to one challenge contribution.

Yeah, it's a match. It's unbelievable. Why would I work to get a settlement for the United States in a tax case, knowing that that's where the money is going to go? I wouldn't. Well, why would you, you're taxing, the whole thing, this tells you how wrong this is. But Harry, from a policy perspective, what this does, when you look at it in total, it allows for censorship based on content, it allows for examinations of organizations based on viewpoint, which these are all unconstitutional, and it puts in a mechanism on funding that borders on the absurd.

Absolutely. In addition to which, of course, it expands the likelihood, the probability of fraud. And so this is called the People Act of 2021 H.R.1. It's actually, I'm sorry, it says for the People Act of 2021. It's actually for the politicians, the elitists and the globalists. This is designed to permanently entrench the Democrats and the left wing in power. It is nothing less than a permanent power grab. And the American citizenry, if they do not defeat this bill, and if they are unable to claw back the claws of this bill in the legislation, the American people should get ready for 1984.

Let me ask you this, Wes. I'm just, from a perspective, I'm trying to think, an ordinary citizen seeing this would think that basically what's happened is the issues that developed during the last election. And some of those were just statutory issues and constitutional issues as well. But it's like we're redoing the, we're federalizing the entire system here. Yeah, you're centralizing elections in Washington, D.C. Keep in mind, this is a government that can't run a railroad, they can't manage the post office, and they definitely can't balance their own budget. And yet we want them to control the elections.

This is really what it comes down to, Jay, is a power grab. And they're using the pandemic and the things that happened that were unique last November. They're using that to increase government control and to negatively impact states' rights and individual freedoms, things that were questionable that are routinely done in places like California. And in some states, those things are illegal.

They're now trying to codify them into law. Fan, let's talk about the realities of, is this going anywhere? What's going to happen? How do you see it moving?

And timeframe? Sure. This is the strategy that's going to happen in Washington, D.C. for the rest of this term, I think, Jay. I mean, the House has made it clear that they are going to throw everything on every issue against the wall to see what sticks. They're going to rush it out of the House. They're going to rush it over to the Senate. And then the Senate will be the first place that there's actual debate on this.

So, Jay, it's cleared the House. It's moving towards the Senate. Once the Senate finally gets through this COVID stimulus bill, which is another issue altogether, they may very well turn to this. They could turn to it as early as next week, Jay.

It's not on the calendar at this point. But look, all of these issues that you're talking about with Andy and Wes and Harry, they're all going to have to come front and center in the United States Senate. One thing I would add, Jay, it's not just centralization of the power over elections. It's centralization and enshrinement of the most troubling provisions that happened during the 2020 election. It's taking vote-by-mail and public financing and same-day registration and making every state do that, whether they're prepared for it or not. Jay, the other thing it does, it redraws congressional district lines. And who gets to do that?

A federal government entity. It even takes the ability to draw district lines away from the states. That's how draconian it is. Let me play this from Eric Swalwell, because I think this kind of, I normally would not quote Eric Swalwell, but this kind of sums up where they're trying to go with this.

Take a listen. If they're cheaters, we're not cheaters. And we try to be the good guys. We try to do what's right.

They're out there cheating every day and celebrating their cheating. How do we beat that? Yeah, until someone finds a way to clone one million Stacey Abrams, we're not going to beat that. And so that's why H.R.

1 is so important. And that's why I really hope the Senate, if they cannot find 10 Republicans, recognize that what the Republicans are doing right now is an existential threat to democracy, if they're able to get away with that. And we do nothing with respect to the For the People Act. This isn't the For the People Act.

Okay, let's stop calling it. It's not the For the People Act. It's for the politicians. And it's for the politicians that are left of center. Because do you think that the IRS is going to say, oh, this group's too far right? Yes. Are they too far left?

What is too far left? Do you think they're going to go after liberal organizations? Why do we want to give the IRS the power again after we just beat them in court?

It took us four years to litigate this. You realize what they're trying to do here, Harry, is they're trying to undo our IRS win through legislation. Absolutely.

No question. And they are trying to undo the possibility that a future President Trump or someone like him could ever be elected. So if you look at the Democrats, particularly individuals like Eric Swalwell, everything is an existential threat to politicians. And essentially, they're saying, if we don't get our way, we are simply going to take over the mechanisms of government. The American people's right to a republican form of government will essentially be taken away.

Why? Because we are going to hand over elections, as Swalwell points out, to Stacey Abrams and individuals like her who may engage in voter harvesting. And that is not, that is inconsistent, I should say, with democracy. So one Democrat fan, Benny Thompson of Mississippi, said that he votes no, he voted no. He said, my constituents oppose the redistricting portion of the bill as well as the section on public finances, which is this you give $200 and the government matches it to $1,400 or to $1,200.

I always listen and vote in the interest of my constituents. Is he the only Democrat that voted no? He's the only Democrat that voted no, but actually, Jay, his vote is pretty instructive here. His concern on redistricting actually has to do with districts that are controlled by black members of Congress.

He thinks that if you pull away the redistricting requirements from authority from states and bring it to the federal government, it's going to be more difficult for the African American community to control states. And then on the public financing provision, I mean, Jay, we've mentioned this in passing, but I think it's worth using a real life example. Let's say Harry decides to run for Congress.

Harry, I don't recommend it, but let's say you do. And you convince Wes to give you, true, true, but let's say he convinces Wes to give him $200 to run for Congress. Jay, that means that you and Andy and I and the rest of the taxpayers have to throw together $1,200 to contribute to that.

It's a six to one match. It basically is public financing of elections. Harry, you might get elected, but we're the ones that are going to pay for it.

I would support Harry. I'd give him the $1,200. I'd give him the $2,400, whatever the limit is. But actually it says the public, the funding of this is actually going to be, I'm going back to Andy on this, on this new 4.75% surcharge tax. I mean, this is, have you ever heard of such a thing on a civil or criminal case? I come up with a settlement of a civil or a criminal case. I've settled the IRS case for your audit for $152,000. There's going to be a tax on that, right?

Yes. And that tax on the settlement, I can't imagine sitting at a bargaining table trying to resolve a case and saying, in addition to the $150,000 or a million dollars that you're going to have to pay, you also have to pay a tax of 4.75% in order for we meet to finance Harry Hutchison's political campaign. I've got a great idea. They do like the cars companies do. You know they go for, for this week only, we're waiving fees, handling and taxes. So maybe that's what they're going to do. We'll have like, especially if you could settle your criminal tax case this week, you're not going to have to pay the 4.75%.

If you settle your civil case this week, we're not going to charge you 4.75%. You know what? Let me tell you something. Coming up next though, the good news is Mike Pompeo is joining us and we're going to talk about some international issues. We'll talk about a little of this too, I think.

It is the four year anniversary of Pastor John Saul in China and still in prison. We're going to talk to Secretary Pompeo about that. We've got a lot of other topics we want to do as well.

Share this with your friends right now. Mike Pompeo coming up to join us. We'll be back with more, but don't forget support the work of the ACLJ. You can do that at ACLJ.org. We're in actually what's called a matching challenge and how that works, unlike the government's proposal or the Congress's proposal is this. Our donors got together and said we would like to match gifts up to certain amounts of money. So you can do that. It's called voluntary, no assessments.

You give a donation. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. We're going to get back to HR1 in a moment. I may have been asked, Secretary Pompeo, a little bit about that, but we are joined on the phone by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs and former Secretary of State and the former Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo. Mr. Secretary, always great to have you.

I know you're traveling today, but we're glad you're able to talk with us. I have a question for you early up here, and that actually relates to China. And it's because this is the four-year anniversary of Pastor John Saw, who is... He was green card status in the United States. He wasn't a citizen, but he was allowed to be here. He was here for a number of years, but did a ministry work in China and has still been held by the Chinese. Your office worked diligently. We did get him moved eventually to a better facility. But the Chinese government on these persecution cases, and that's what these are with these Christian pastors, they're pretty unrelenting. We did good in getting a lot of these out with your help, of course. What's your feeling on what the Chinese government's doing here?

Well, Jay, it's great to be with you again. That particular case is particularly heart-rending, but every time a Christian pastor is detained or harassed or held inappropriately, the faith is diminished. The Chinese Communist Party is hard at this.

They don't want people to be able to practice their faith when Christian leaders simply express their love of Jesus and want to preach to their flocks inside of China. You see the kind of thing they have done. We worked hard on this for four years. We made some real progress, Jay.

The ACLJ was enormously helpful in that progress. But as you can see from the ongoing situation, there's still an awful lot more work to do in the United States. I hope under this administration must continue to be a force for good in trying to make sure that religious freedom can be expressed.

When people go to China simply for that purpose, they cannot be detained. Let me turn our attention to Israel. I am convinced that because of your efforts in the Middle East and the administration's efforts that you were leading in the State Department, that what we've seen is having a really positive lingering effect even on this administration. Yesterday, when the ICC prosecutor announced that, in fact, not only did she have the jurisdiction when the court issued that ridiculous ruling a couple of weeks back, but she said she was actually opening the investigation of Israel.

The current State Department, the current Secretary of State came out and condemned the ICC, said they're standing with Israel on this and that Palestine is not a state, the Palestinian territories are not a state, and that the ICC has no jurisdiction here and that they will continue to support Israel. Now, I say that it's surprising because most of us did not expect that. My thought is, Mr. Secretary, is that it's hard to ignore, even if you're a different political party, the success that you all have had, we all had working together in the Middle East, even with the Golan Heights recognition, with the capital Jerusalem, but then the Abraham Accords. What do you think motivated the actually positive statement on the situation with the ICC here? Gee, I was really heartened to see that.

I personally took this mission on. You know the Hague, you know the International Criminal Court, you've been there yourself. This is an enormous challenge to the world where they attempt to assert jurisdiction over Americans, this case trying to come after Israel for actions that they have taken.

I was heartened to see this administration take a stance that was pretty close to the work that we had done. And this woman, Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor who made the announcement yesterday, is corrupt. She wants to use her role to line her own pockets. We sanctioned her in our administration. I hope this administration won't relieve those sanctions on her personally and will continue to make sure that the ICC doesn't assert jurisdiction in places it ought not.

Certainly with respect to Israel and of course with respect to the young men and women who are serving in the United States military that they continue to threaten to go after for the lawful actions they took in Afghanistan. You know, which is another case we talked about at length yesterday. That's when I appeared at the hearing. I participated in the trial on that, on the one involving the US soldiers in Afghanistan.

It's interesting progressives, Mike, are already saying how outraged they are on Secretary Blinken's statements. Rashida Tlaib said, No one is above the law of the International Criminal Court as the authority and duty to independently and partially investigate and the US should not interfere with its ability to do so. And of course she focused on alleged human rights and war crimes that were conducted by allegedly Israel. But the point is, and the point of the Secretary of State and the point that you've made is that there was no jurisdiction for this court in the first place because Israel is not subject to the Rome Statute.

Which is what creates the ICC. It's a crazy notion that an elected official in the United States of America would want to cede American sovereignty in this way to hand over to a renegade court that has no capacity to be controlled by the United States and which we have not consented to have our people held accountable to. But any elected official would say, No, that's okay. They can come after Americans and we think that would be alright or they can come after our friends and allies in Israel and that would be alright.

It is a crazy notion. It's one that frankly, I'm glad there is a broad bipartisan consensus in most quarters. I just regret that the progressive end of the Democrat Party wants to hand over American sovereignty in this way. So I want to now turn quickly to Iran because since you were on the air earlier this week with us, there's been another move. The Iranians are issuing very strong statements saying that the United States will be brought to its knees. They're praising, of course, the change of administrations and we've now had these, you know, additional proxy attacks and that whatever that attack that President Biden launched in the middle of the desert somewhere. What do we do to contain the Iranians here?

So we had the right end of the stick on this. Our policy was right. Your point about the statements this week, those were from President Hassan Rouhani, right, who said that we will kneel before the great nation of Iran. This is the man who Secretary Kerry, when he was in office, said was the moderate, was the reasonable person inside of Iran. This is a murderous regime. This is a regime that's intent on the destruction of Israel. I saw Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments yesterday.

He was exactly right. The United States has a responsibility to continue to put pressure on the Iranian regime. And if we head down this path, Jay, that it looks like we're headed down towards appeasing Iran, this will decrease security for the United States of America. It will decrease security for our friends in Israel and the entire Middle East. All the work that we did to build out a stable coalition to push back against Iran is likely to be undermined. Let me do this really quickly.

We've got about a minute and 15 seconds here. You tweeted about borders. You said stronger borders and preserving the 2A building, strong families in every community, liberals pretend to care about children while kids in the Democratic-led inner city struggle.

What's your view on this new immigration battle that's going to come right to the border again? It is indecent to think that having an open borders policy is good for kids anywhere in the world. It's certainly not good for the United States, but I saw some of these cases firsthand, Jay, where these young people are trafficked across our border, trafficked through Guatemala and El Salvador and through Mexico.

I think that upends their lives. Many of them are treated as slaves and our human traffickers prey on them. We ought not be encouraging this. Our policy has to be that we're going to secure our borders and we're going to have a lawful, reasonable immigration policy that we're going to enforce with enormous vigor. Secretary Mike Pompeo, Senior Counsel ACLJ for Global Affairs, thanks for being with us. Safe travels and appreciate your insights as always. Thanks for being part of the team. Thank you, Jay. So long. Have a good day. All right, folks, let me put this into perspective for you here with this one minute we have before the end of this broadcast. By the way, we're here for an entire 30 more minutes. You don't want to miss that.

You go to ACLJ.org. We're streaming it there on Facebook, on YouTube, on a lot of different social media platforms. You can get it, Rumble, others. We encourage you to do it.

Of course, a lot of the radio stations carry the full hour and Sirius XM does as well. But let me tell you something. We're talking about these issues, but we're taking action on these issues. And we were able to hire the former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, the former Director of National Intelligence, Rick Grenell, because of your support for the ACLJ.

You not only keep this broadcast on the air, you keep us engaged in the fight. So what I'm going to ask you to do is support the work of the ACLJ in our matching challenge campaign. Any amount you donate, we have someone that's going to match that.

So go to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org and make that donation today. And literally, if you donate $20, we get $40. If you donate $40, it's $80. $80 is $160.

That's the way it works. So I encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org. We're going to be back with more, including your calls.

800-684-3110 in just a moment. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

We're gonna need us. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow. Well, if you're just joining us now, we're talking about H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act, which our producers are labeling for the politicians. And Harry Hutchinson, I think, is going to take it a step further than that, Harry. It's called For the People. It's this new election reform, so to speak. It's called For the People Act of 2021. We're saying it's for the politicians. You take it a step further.

Absolutely. This law is designed to entrench Nancy Pelosi. She will become the chief voter registration officer for the entire United States. Essentially, what we are talking about is a congressional takeover of elections designed to entrench Democratic incumbents. So for instance, among other things, they are going to, with this bill, encourage election fraud, no verification for purposes of registration. They are going to advance an insecure absentee voting process. Again, this encourages fraud and it basically reduces election integrity and election security. They are also prepared to allow children, and I mean that, to vote.

So individuals who perhaps spend their time skateboarding in the morning can go and determine who is going to be the next President of the United States. And they are going to then also extort, in my opinion, public funds to finance elections. And there's even more.

The hits keep coming. They are going to then unleash felon voting on every single jurisdiction in the United States. And that's supposed to be controlled by the states.

Absolutely. That's what the Constitution says. So essentially what they are trying to do at the end of the day is to dismantle federalism and essentially dismantle the states. They essentially want national voting rules. They also want to eliminate the power and the authority of states. And so what they will ultimately push, if they're successful here, is tying future regulations to compliance with federal directives so that governors of states, state legislative officers will in fact be bureaucrats who are pushing the federal agenda.

So this is a redo then of the federal election law basically is what we're saying. So we like to talk about what we're doing about it. So let's let our audience know and our members know what exactly we're doing about this right now.

Yeah. Preparing a background on all of these provisions that Harry's talking about, Jay, and we're going to be telling senators from both Republican and Democrat states that this takes control away from their states. Jay, they're supposed to represent the people. So even if you liked the outcome of this last election, I don't think anybody can with a straight face say that it was a flawless election. But if you do think it was a flawless election, then you're going to absolutely love this bill because it takes the way that the election was conducted and it enshrines it in federal law. So Jay, we're going to go to every single Senate office as this is debated and we are going to explain to them how this takes away control from their state and from their voters. And again, Jay, it redraws congressional district lines at a federal level.

Is there any member of Congress that you want that to happen? None. Wes, what's your thought when you just look at this? Then Andy, when we come back from the break, we're going to get into this position with the IRS. I have never seen this much government overreach in my life.

I don't think. This is one of the most sacred and important institutions in America, our elections, and they are going about this. We have come such a long way from what the constitution provided the federal government to do, interstate commerce and national defense. And we have come a long way since then, but this just blows my mind. It's not only a partisan vote that put this in place, not one Republican voted for it. It is a partisan bill. It sure is. I think what Harry said is absolutely correct.

It entrenches them. All right, here's what we're going to do. Next segment of the broadcast, we're going to tell you how we're going to deal with this. Here's what I want you to do. Share this feed.

If you're listening or watching on Facebook or YouTube or any of the other social media platforms we're on, share this right now. I'm going to give you the step-by-step of what we're going to do, and we're going to talk about this IRS provision, folks. We're prepared to litigate. If that becomes law, we're litigating this. We already litigated it and won. We have to do it again. And don't forget, support the work of the ACLJ and our matching challenge campaign. You do that at ACLJ.org. Share this feed with your friends right now in a special video coming up.

Take a look. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Hey, John, well, it's called For the People Act, but it's actually for the politicians, and it's actually for the politicians left of center and way left of center. It's an entrenchment bill.

I want to talk, focus on one aspect of it. They want to unleash the Internal Revenue Service to permit the agency to investigate and consider the political and policy persuasions of organizations before granting tax exempt status. Let me read that again.

This is the summary. Consider the political and policy persuasions of organizations before granting tax exempt status. What does that mean exactly? Does that mean if you're pro-life or you're conservative or you believe in religious liberty or Christian values or the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country that you now don't qualify because they can investigate that? And by the way, they did. So let's not act like this is in some vacuum somewhere that hasn't ever happened.

It did happen. The problem was we caught them and we sued them in federal court, in multiple jurisdictions. We got an injunction that the IRS had to finally consent to so that they can't do exactly this.

Consider the political and policy positions and persuasions of organizations before granting tax exempt status. We did a movie called Targeting Us. It's available at ACLJfilms.com or Amazon Prime. You should watch it tonight or this weekend.

I encourage you to do that. We may even play it as a special in the days ahead on Facebook and some of our other platforms because it's that important. But Andy, we went to federal court, fought long and hard to obtain a victory against the IRS for targeting conservative and pro-life groups and pro-liberty groups, and what we got for it now is you have a change in Congress and they're trying to undo exactly what we put in place. Well, that's exactly right. What we fought for.

For four years. That's correct, Jay. The IRS is a dangerous, potentially dangerous organization. It exists to collect taxes and to levy penalties and things of that nature.

But it was weaponized and it was weaponized and it was a bolo list. Be on the lookout. In other words, if your organization smelled right wing or if it had patriot in it or if it had 9-11 in it or if it had something in it that suggested Christian values or if it had something in it that suggested traditional views and viewpoints as we take, then watch that organization and make them suffer for it. Make them suffer for it in the sense of withholding tax exempt status. Send them letters and questionnaires after questionnaires. Extend the deadlines for them getting responses.

Don't give them tax exempt status. We found out about that. It was not an isolated instance in one office of the IRS. It was pervasive coming from the home base in Washington, D.C. We called their hand on it from Lois Lerner, from the very top, from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue all the way down and toppled the IRS.

That's right. That's what we did. We toppled the IRS. We made them be enjoined in federal court and to issue an apology. This so-called Against the People Act, oh, excuse me, For the People Act, undoes, among other things, that's not, this is just one of them, but undoes the victory that we fought so hard, Jay, to gain against the Internal Revenue Service for those of us who believe in traditional conservative Christian values.

All right. We are sending letters and pointing and doing research memorandums against the provisions that we think are unconstitutional to each and every member of the Senate, Republican and Democrat. So Thanh's office is working on that now.

But Thanh, you look at this. And do we have any idea, for instance, where Senator Sinema, Senator Manchin, where they are on this? Yeah, we don't yet, Jay. This is part of what I was getting at earlier when the House of Representatives is doing this intentionally. They're throwing all of these massive bills, you know, the $700-page bill they're considering today, this 900-page bill.

Senators really haven't had a chance to dig in and take a look at it. And Jay, honestly, that makes our work all the more important because we can help inform them on the front end. And I just want to tack this on to the video that you played during the break and the conversation you just had on the panel about that IRS scandal. Jay, one of the things that we're going to be able to do with those senators, all senators really, but especially those who will take an honest look at it, is put real people who have been targeted in real life by the IRS in front of them and say, this is what this bill would accomplish. Do you want a repeat of this? We can tell you how it will end. And by the way, if you do go down this track and if you do approve this and if real people do get targeted, we're going to sue again and we're going to catch them again, do you really want that? Jay, I think that's one of the main ways that we can actually prohibit this from coming into law, but we're going to have to engage it.

No doubt about it. We're taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110, and your comments too and questions that come in by Facebook or YouTube, 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Lisa's calling from Washington State Online 1. Lisa, welcome to the broadcast.

You're on the air. And others, if you want to talk to us, 800-684-3110. Hi. Hello. You know, we're all saying we're looking forward to midterm elections.

Yes, indeed. But now with this H.R. 1, what is our legal insurance against potential fraud that's already happened in general? Let me tell you what we're doing.

We're not going to get into what happened in the past because at this point it's academic. Here's what we have to look for and we have to look to the future. So we have to look at the provisions of this bill and determine which provisions in our view are not constitutional and then challenge those as either violating the elections clause, the electors clause, whatever it might be, freedom of association on those IRS and free speech under the IRS provisions they want to put in. But Harry, it's a constitutional challenge that would have to take place.

I think that is correct. So I think it's important to go back to Thanh's point. We will provide first some analysis and then we will challenge unconstitutional provisions. But we will also seek to inform our listeners who ultimately are voters so that they can get engaged as well. It's very, very important to note, for instance, that the attempt to weaponize the IRS is really a form of censorship, which ties directly into the cancel culture, which has overwhelmed much of Washington, New York City and California. And so essentially it's doubtful that any IRS controlled by the Biden administration will treat other organizations, conservative organizations, Christian organizations fairly. So at the end of the day, that will also provide, at least potentially if the law is passed, another constitutional ground because essentially what is being infringed by this particular provision is the First Amendment, the freedom of organizations to speak. In addition to which, of course, this rule will likely be discriminatorily enforced. I go back to this question or this thought, and Wes, you said this, the overreach here, the power grab here is breathtaking in scope. Not, I mean, the IRS provision alone is enough, but then there's many other aspects of this.

There are 15 or 20 things in here that people of all political stripes, independent Democrat, Republican should be very, very concerned about. This bill is massive, it's multi-pronged, it's invasive, and back to the IRS issue, it's not that Nancy Pelosi and her friends in Congress are fans of the IRS. It's not that, it's just that they're anti-traditional values. They're anti-Christian, even though she says she's a Roman Catholic, it's anti-conservative.

That's the whole motivation behind this. It's not that they're pro IRS, they are against individual conservative groups in America and religious groups. But Andy, given the IRS, the ability to investigate and consider before they grant tax-exempt status, the political and policy positions and persuasions of organizations before granting tax-exempt status is completely unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment, it is violative of the injunction that we have against the IRS, it's violative of everything that we have said is constitutionally permissible. They're going to come in and they're going to say, before we determine whether we're going to give you tax-exempt status, we're going to investigate your political and policy persuasions. And that's exactly what we fought against and we won. Now this bill would undo that.

In other words, we'd be put back in the position of being on a be-on-the-lookout list, just like we're criminals. Darrell Bock I am looking for the exact language from the bill on the IRS matter, because we got to rip that apart, fan. That is, I mean, that, among many other things in here, that one, it particularly hits close to home because we got rid of that in the IRS.

John Dickerson Yeah, and the team is looking for that language right now, Jay. Here's the thing, there are several sections that compare to this. We've talked mostly about the one that allows them to consider policy perspectives when considering tax-exempt organizations, but there's also language in there that says, if you run issue ads, which by the way, Jay, is a good thing.

I mean, the American people should have conversation around these issues, but if you run issue ads, you have to disclose donors. So there's a lot of provisions that we're going to go through. We're going to have to do analysis on all of them. But Jay, one thing I just wanted to throw at you and just kind of get your reaction on, because remember just, what was it, a week ago that the White House Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, said that the COVID bill was the most progressive piece of legislation to ever be considered in the United States House? Jay Maybe not. John Dickerson I would say this. Not anymore. Jay Yeah, I think that's probably the second most.

It's certainly not the most. But what we're going to do over the next coming days is we're going to have our teams going through and finding the language in these bills, this particular language, and start drawing what those constitutional challenges would look like, all right? That's what we're going to do. Now, coming up, last segment of the broadcast, you can ask us anything. Our phone lines are open. Every time I say you can ask us anything, Logan says, but you don't mean anything.

He's right. Try to stay on topic. But we can talk about other issues too. 1-800-684-31 said we have a couple lines open.

You can also get your comments and questions in via Facebook and YouTube. We've got Jan on YouTube said, what does the Constitution say about elections and how they're run? It's called the Election Clause. States decide.

We'll be back with more in a moment. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, plan parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched.

A $10 gift becomes $20, a $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. All right, last segment, we're going to take your calls on order 1-800-684-3110. Shockingly, we have one line open.

Well, this rarely happens. There is a line open. Everything else is green and in process, but we got one line open, 800-684-3110.

Let's go in order they've held on. Mark is calling from line one. Mark? Yes. I was asking a question.

Thank you for taking my call and thank you for the work you're doing. My question is, would it not require a constitutional amendment to change the election laws for national elections? You know, Harry, I've thought about, I mean, this is not, this, you cannot do this by statute. It's unconstitutional.

That's why. And you can't undo the election, is a great question by Mark. You can't undo the elections clause and the electors clause by a piece of legislation, the Constitution Supreme. I think generally that is correct, but what the Democrats have done is they've attempted to take a page out of past history in which, for instance, there have been certain changes, but many of those changes, or at least some of the significant ones, as the caller indicates, were done through constitutional amendments. I'm not convinced that the Democrats, particularly the ones that have crafted this bill, really care about the written constitution.

They are not textualists. They believe in a living constitution. They believe in the inevitability of progress. And so I think at the end of the day, they are quite willing to change the rules and then hope that they can find a sympathetic judge or justices who will okay whatever they've done in the past. And this then ties in with the other Democratic initiative, which is to pack the United States Supreme Court. Well, and they found a loophole, Jay, on that section, Article I, Section 4, and I heard a Democratic congressman talk about this because it says, the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. But the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations.

And that's what they're pinning this justification on. We've got another question coming in, and this is the one that's on everybody's mind, and that's Donna from North Carolina. Donna, go ahead. Hi.

Thank you for taking my call. So as I'm listening to you, are you talking about what you're going to do against the parts of the bill, or are you already assuming that the bill is going to pass and getting prepared for that? Great question. So there's two aspects of this. One is quickly, there's the attack the legislation before it's a bill. That's going on right now.

Thanh, explain that. And then Andy will talk about the litigation if necessary. Yeah, we're going to do both at the same time. Attacking the bill as it's being considered, Jay, as the attorneys look at the litigation, we will actually take those arguments to the lawmakers themselves, to the senators, and say, you don't have the authority to do this. And then by the way, if there are some provisions where maybe they have some authority to alter some regulations like Wes is talking about, we'll say, this is why it's a bad idea, even if you have the authority to do it. And by the way, we've got the experience to show you how it will end up.

See the tea party scandal that happens. So to answer the caller's question, no, we're not assuming it's going to be passed. In fact, the primary goal here is to make sure that it's never passed. But at the same time, the conversation I know you're about to have, Jay, we'll be ready if it is.

Well, that's what you got to look at because I don't think it can pass, but stranger things have happened. So we have to be ready. So let's explain, Andy, what being ready means. When we were in the break, we were already discussing what lawyers are going to start researching, what provisions that we might possibly challenge here. Being ready means going through the bill page by page, line by line, making sure that we understand what it is that they're trying to do. You know, the bill, the section that deals with the IRS, sticking its nose into tax exempt organizations, political and policy persuasions, which they have no right to do. It's a complicated bill. It's called the repeal of restriction of the use of funds by internal revenue service to bring transparency to political activity of certain nonprofit organizations. We're going to take that language and break it down, which means the IRS is going to determine whether your policy and political persuasions deserve a tax exempt status or not. The IRS is going to make that determination. Then we're going to break it down into simple language and we're going to go into federal district court and we're going to challenge these as being contrary to the Constitution in the case of this First Amendment.

In the case of what Wes said, the Article I, Section 4 provision of the Constitution, which gives the time, place and manner of elections to the legislatures, keep the federal government, to the state legislatures, keep the federal government out of regulating state elections. That's none of their business. Who says that?

The Constitution. You know, Wes, you said earlier, and it's really stuck with me throughout the broadcast, and that was this whole idea of the overreach here. It's so massive. Yeah.

No wonder there. And if that's right, this is now the most progressive bill that they've introduced, which is only the second bill they've introduced because the first one was the most progressive. I'll say that's number two. And we do have a call coming in where a question about that is what happened to the COVID relief bill? We'll get to that in a second, but go ahead.

Yeah. It's huge. It is such a large bill. And they hide a lot of very frightening things in massive pieces of legislation. But thankfully, people have gone and have started reading this and researching it. It is alarming, but it is the most expansive government bill that I can ever remember because it impacts so many aspects of life, voter registration, IDs, the IRS.

You go down the list. It is huge. Yep. Kelly is calling from Nevada on line four. Kelly, welcome to Broadcaster on the Air. Hello.

Thank you so much for taking my call and thank you for all you do. My question was, you know, very similar to an earlier caller mark. You know, it's very alarming because it sounds like that federalizing elections is not necessarily unconstitutional. And is there any recourse if HR1 passes? Well, federalizing elections actually is unconstitutional because the states are given specific authority in the Constitution, in the election clauses, to time, place, and manner of their elections. So it would be unconstitutional. The only way you can deal with it, though, is through court action, Harry. That's what you have to do in a situation like this.

Precisely. And that would be the second step in our process. So our first step, of course, is to oppose the legislation, expose the deficiencies in the legislation. But when and if it's necessary, we are prepared to litigate, and I think we are on firm constitutional grounds for doing so. And I certainly hope that given the current composition of the United States Supreme Court, they will look kindly on our efforts to maintain election integrity and election security.

Essentially, at the end of the day, it's very important to defeat or to invalidate this legislation if we want to keep our republic. Chuck Schumer says, Stan, very quickly here, that they can get this through. Well, they're going to try. I mean, look, the very fact that they labeled it HR1, Jay, says it's their highest priority. So they're literally going to try everything they can to get it through.

All right. Here's what we're going to do. We've got our legislative teams working right now to try to not let it through. That's what you do when you talk to Congress and members of the Senate in this particular case, and talk about what the legal issues are. Then we've got a legal team that's working on what the constitutional challenge would be if it does get through. Once we've analyzed that, we then go to court.

That's how it works. We talk about it, we take action, and that action here is multifaceted. Your support of the American Center for Law and Justice allows us to come to you five days a week on TV, on radio, on social media platforms, all over the country and around the world.

Your support also allows us to get our legislative teams working on defeating this legislation right now, and our litigation teams prepare to go to court if necessary. We're in a matching challenge campaign. Let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org, and any amount you donate to the ACLJ, we're going to get a matching gift for. That means if you donate $40, we get $80, $50, $100.

Someone else is coming in and matching it. A group of our donors, we went to them, they said they want to participate in this match. ACLJ.org. We encourage you to do it today. That's ACLJ.org. Have a great weekend.

We'll talk to you Monday. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.