https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/democrats-...ee-speech/

Even the Democrat's now, in house ACLU, opposes this bill.

"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...."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39712.html

Democrat in favor of regulating free speech argues here.

Lots of high sounding words, but "where's the beef?" Typical hollow argument with no details.