When Senator Klobuchar announced the May 11th markup of S1 in the Senate, few believed the Senate Democrats would actually make the For the People Act stronger, and the Democrats did not disappoint. The key aspect of HR1/S1, preventing the 1% or billionaires from buying elections (and the resulting undue representation they receive), has been proven to be "a winning message," even with conservatives, as this recent reporting shows.
Preventing the 1% or billionaires from buying elections could have been doubled down on by the Democrats and used as club to beat the Republicans into submission on the issue or be used to perhaps beat the Republican party in elections for a generation. Of course, it would be ideal if the Republicans would fall in line with the democratic principles America was founded on and come together on this issue rather than be the main culprits of selling out our democracy to billionaires.
So, the big question becomes, why are the Democrats so weak on the issue that could bring their party dominance and help unite the country? And maybe even more important, what happens to democracy reform moving forward if this weak bill that does little to prevent billionaires from buying elections is signed by the President?
Thus, We the People must ask whether the For the People Act would actually lead to bigger and greater reform to truly prevent billionaires from buying elections in the future, or whether the bill is damaging to this most critical objective. The big fear is that if the bill does not do enough to prevent billionaires from buying elections, the public will be disillusioned and erroneously conclude that ending the dominance of big money in politics is not the answer for America. The fear is that a weak bill will be blowing We the People's chance at restoring our democracy, that a weak bill would lead to a widespread belief that democracy reform is not the meta solution. The question is whether the For the People Act as it stands would either be a roadblock to a more effective bill in the future, or might this weak reform lead to stronger reform that would truly end the dominance of big money in politics?
In terms of democracy reform uniting the country, while the US is still struggling with its racist roots and far too many racist people who were emboldened by the former President, the divisiveness that our country faces has quite a bit to do with billionaires buying out our elections. The extent and severity of the divisiveness in America actually benefits the 1% billionaire class, where the divide-and-conquer strategy has been employed similarly as in past ages. If we were to conquer the money issue, we could therefore solve America's divisiveness problem in a major way by preventing the 1% from amplifying the racist ideology that is critical to their grip on government in dividing We the People.
To conclude, it is obvious that the Democrats should fall in-line with democracy and bring true reform that will unite the country. Otherwise, the swing-issue voting (SIV) strategy combined with effective reform will be used by voters to replace representatives, including many Democrats. History has proven the effectiveness of SIV, together with true reform to prevent billionaires from buying elections, We the People can peacefully win-back our government.