Kirsten Gillibrand’s presidential campaign is a total dud. She has yet to even break 1 percent in the polls. Now she’s advancing a stupid idea to stay in the news cycle.
She wants to give Americans “Democracy Dollars” which they could use to donate to political campaigns.
NBC News reports:
‘Democracy Dollars’: Gillibrand’s plan to give every voter $600 to donate to campaigns
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan on Wednesday to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls “Democracy Dollars” that they can donate to federal candidates for office.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News to discuss the roll out of her first major 2020 policy initiative, Gillibrand said her “Clean Elections Plan” would help reduce the influence of big money in politics.
“If you want to accomplish anything that the American people want us to accomplish — whether it’s healthcare as a right, better public schools, better economy — you have to take on the greed and corruption that determine everything in Washington,” she said.
Under Gillibrand’s plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices.
So the government takes money from taxpayers, then gives it back to them so they can give it back to politicians? That makes no sense. It could also make things worse.
The Washington Examiner reports:
Hate campaign spending? Gillibrand’s ‘democracy dollars’ would put it on steroids
Presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has a new plan to tackle money in politics: Create a subsidy for political candidates so lavish that they can raise “exponentially higher” amounts.
Dumping billions of tax dollars into partisan political campaigns is a proposal only a politician could love. Yet it underscores an ugly reality of efforts to improve campaigns. Politicians aren’t interested in reforms that make it harder for them to be a politician.
Instead, Gillibrand proposes a program to give every voter up to $600 in government money each election cycle. The vouchers could be contributed in increments as small as $10 to candidates for the House, Senate, and the presidency.
These seemingly modest amounts could add up fast and dwarf current campaign spending.
This is nothing more than a stunt by a flailing campaign.
Gillibrand is going nowhere fast.