Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Kirsten Gillibrand wants to give everyone 600 'Democracy Dollars'

2020 contender Kirsten Gillibrand, currently polling negligibly in a crowded presidential primary field, has released a policy proposal that’s making waves today: give every eligible citizen a taxpayer-subsidized 600 “Democracy Dollars” to donate towards political candidates, with $200 each designated for the presidential race, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This, she says, is a move towards “clean elections,” because “every American’s voice should be as loud as the Koch Brothers.’”

Let’s examine that. Very few Americans give more than $200 towards presidential candidates (with a maximum allowable donation of $2,700). And the ones who do tend to be disproportionately richer. But Gillibrand’s proposal is a terrible way to level the field and to undo the problems that money in politics creates.

Why? First, it would simply multiply the amount of money in politics by an order of magnitude, with effects that wouldn’t be good for the political system at large, but would be good for ad buyers and PR flacks and political operatives. It was reported in 2017 that election watchdog Open Secrets put the final total pricetag of America’s 2016 political races for the presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives at roughly $6.5bn.

More

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Give me $600 and I'll keep it. Is that like buying my vote.

Anonymous said...


Guess she short on cash, ideas, integrity, the list goes on.

Anonymous said...

Every time the government "gives" me money, they take it back at tax time.

Anonymous said...

Gillibrand is going to flame out shortly and hopefully the GOP will knock her off in the next election cycle. She is passe with nothing to offer and frankly she has exposed herself which I think has turned voters off. bye bye...

Anonymous said...

She is one stupid B...H AKA A DEM.

Anonymous said...

How is that not bribery ?

Anonymous said...

I can tell none of you read the whole article...