To a US Senator: support the Freedom to Vote Act and DISCLOSE Act

Personalize. If your state has been particularly affected by post-Shelby voting changes or by dark-money political spending, mention it. The bills have been close to passage multiple times; constituent pressure on senators on the Senate Rules Committee and Judiciary Committee carries particular weight.

Dear Senator [Last Name],

I’m writing as a constituent in [city/town] to ask you to support the Freedom to Vote Act and the DISCLOSE Act, and to advance both for floor consideration this session.

The case for federal action on voting access and dark-money disclosure is well-established. Since the Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act preclearance in 2013, dozens of states have enacted voting restrictions that would previously have required federal review. Roughly half of all federal political spending now flows through entities that disclose little or nothing about their donors.

The Freedom to Vote Act would establish federal standards for voting access:

1. Automatic voter registration where eligible citizens are registered when interacting with state agencies, unless they opt out.
2. Same-day registration, allowing eligible voters to register at the polling place on Election Day.
3. Multi-day, multi-mode voting that doesn’t force everyone into a single Tuesday.
4. Federal standards for redistricting, including bans on partisan and racial gerrymandering with judicial enforcement.
5. Donor disclosure for major political spending, addressing the dark-money problem the DISCLOSE Act targets directly.

The DISCLOSE Act, separately or as part of the Freedom to Vote Act, would require organizations spending over $10,000 on federal political activity to disclose donors above a threshold — a structural reform that survives Citizens United (which expressly upheld disclosure regimes) and addresses the most concentrated unaccountable spending in US politics.

[Personalize: connect to specific concerns about voting access or political spending in your state. Examples: “Voters in [state] have faced [specific recent restriction]”; “Recent elections in [state] saw [substantial dark-money spending pattern]”; “The 2020 changes to mail voting in [state] have produced [specific effect]”.]

Both bills have had floor votes in prior sessions; both have stalled on Senate procedural grounds. I’m asking you to support the substantive provisions, to support the procedural movement required to advance them, and to resist the framing that these are partisan reforms — the underlying provisions enjoy broad public support across party lines, including in many states whose legislatures have moved in the opposite direction.

I’d appreciate knowing your position and what procedural paths you see as plausible.

Thank you for representing our state.

Sincerely,

[Your name] [Your address]