of voters receiving calls falsely informing them that they could vote via telephone. (13) In the 2016 elections, there were reports of students receiving fliers stating that in order to vote in a local precinct, they had to pay to change their driver’s license and re-register vehicles in the city in which the precinct was located. (14) Those responsible for these and similar efforts should be held accountable, and civil and criminal penalties should be available to punish anyone who seeks to keep voters away from the polls by providing false information. (15) Moreover, the Federal Government should help correct such false information in order to assist voters in exercising their right to vote without confusion and to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. (16) The Federal Government has a compelling interest in protecting voters from confusion and undue influence and in preserving the integrity of its election process . Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 199 (1992). (17) The First Amendment does not preclude the regulation of some intentionally false speech, even if it is political in nature. As the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized, [t]hat speech is used as a tool for political ends does not automatically bring it under the protective mantle of the Constitution. For the use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. … Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection. . Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). 3. Prohibition on deceptive practices in Federal elections (a) Prohibition Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes ( 52 U.S.C. 10101(b) ) is amended— (1) by striking No person and inserting the following: (1) In general No person