“Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand jumped into the Democratic presidential policy race Wednesday with a “clean elections” plan that would provide a voter-driven public option for campaign financing.
The New York Democrat’s first policy rollout aims to reduce the influence of special-interest money in politics, an issue that’s grown in significance for Democratic primary voters — and one that Gillibrand argues is an essential step toward enacting other policy changes.
Under Gillibrand’s plan, eligible voters could opt into her “Democracy Dollars” program and register for vouchers, provided by the Federal Elections Commission, to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle. Each participant would get $200 for each type of federal contest: House, Senate and presidential elections.
But there would be limits on both donors and candidates in order to use the public voucher program. Voters could contribute only to candidates in their state — including House candidates outside their district but within their state. In order to accept the public money, candidates would have to restrict themselves to accepting only donations of $200 or less. Currently, the maximum individual donation candidates can take in per election is $2,800 ($5,600 for both a primary and a general).
“To get anything done in Washington, we have to address the money and greed that corrupts politicians and prevents progress on issues like gun violence prevention, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and addressing climate change,” Gillibrand said in a statement released with her proposal. …”
Suddenly, I like what I am hearing from Kirsten Gillibrand.
Actually, this was Andrew Yang’s idea and it is one of the primary reasons that I am supporting his campaign, but I am glad to see this idea of democracy dollars being adopted by other candidates. We need the Yang Bucks to make populism viable in American politics.
After our bitter experience with Blompf selling out to the GOP donor class, the first question that I have as a disaffected populist voter for any candidate running for the presidency in 2020 is what will you do to eliminate the power and influence of big donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers over public policy and stop all of these wealthy people from buying our elections?
I don’t care about your phony “positions” on the issues anymore. None of Blompf’s positions were real anyway. As soon as he won the 2016 election, he sold all the policies to the GOP donor class and had Jared Kushner bring Gary Cohn into the White House to run the American economy. Blompf hasn’t done much of anything as president that reflects the “positions” he ran on in 2016.
Did anyone have any idea in the 2018 midterms that the GOP was actually running on anti-BDS legislation, Golan Heights annexation, prosecuting Julian Assange, expanding the H-2B visa program, overthrowing the Venezuelan government, banning bump stocks, criminal justice reform and declaring the Iranian military a terrorist organization? No, Blompf and the GOP ran in 2018 on fearmongering about Antifa, repealing birthright citizenship, social media censorship, the caravans and all of these other issues which were forgotten literally the moment the dust settled after the midterms.
In both the 2016 and 2018 elections, the GOP ran on one agenda for the masses and pivoted to the donor agenda while in office. What can Jared do for the US Chamber of Commerce? Expand legal immigration. What can Jared do for Sheldon Adelson? Allow Israel to annex the Golan Heights. What can Jared do for the Koch Brothers? Pass criminal justice reform. The only people who ultimately matter to the GOP after campaign season is over are the ultra wealthy, not the “forgotten man.”
There is a greater chance that I will vote for Kirsten Gillibrand in 2020 than Blompf. It is highly unlikely because of her record on all these other issues, but I know for a fact now that Blompf is a con artist who duped his populist voters and sold them out to his fellow billionaires. In hindsight, one of the biggest mistakes that I made in 2016 was attaching too much importance to “positions” on issues and not nearly enough to character. Blompf’s gambling and whoremongering was a more significant insight into how he would perform his role as president than I had imagined.
“Do not destroy our self respect; do not overtax our manliness. Do not walk in a field and tread on a caterpillar or the poor creature will turn on your boot and try to sting you.”
– William Lownes Yancey
I think some other countries have public financing of elections. I tend to agree.Conservative Inc is exactly what they are. Run for the Corporation
Public financing just means the left get to choose which candidates gets funded, since they are attracted to government service like flies on you know what.
Isn’t financing for candidates out of date since social media was invented? Why can’t we use auomation to eliminate corruption in politics?
Why can’t candidates get on something like a public version of Twitter, that has first amendment protections. and the candidate who gets the most followers wins? If you make it so people can’t get on it, unless they prove their identity and ban all advertising on it, then who has the most money would not matter.
Presidential elections are like Christmas for the mainstream media. Every four years a billion dollars is raised and given to the mainstream media so candidates can get their message out.
For what reason is this practice still necessary in the age of social media?
How disruptive and devastating do the elites believe AI will be? For them to be scrambling to get out in front of this is very unusual as they are typically very reactive.
It is a very dangerous time for them, too soon to eliminate people and too far advanced to hide what is happening. The AI in the labs now are performing feats that have to be considered god-like.
The AI that beat the world champion at “Asian chess” Go in 2016 had human trainers who “coached” it. The version in 2017 beat the 2016 version into a pulp – WITH NO SUPERVISION.