Last week, Andrew Yang became the latest Democratic presidential candidate to endorse one of the craziest policies to emerge this election cycle: “Democracy Dollars.” The premise behind “Democracy Dollars” is that taxpayer funding should be redistributed to political candidates — regardless of whether or not you agree with them — as this would create a more moral political system. Yang’s campaign sent out an email touting this proposal stating:
The voice of the people is now drowned out by corporate money and special interests. That is what we must reverse.
A Democracy Dollars proposal that puts $100 into every voter’s pocket each year to contribute to campaigns and candidates would be an extremely effective way to overcome corporate lobbyists and mega-donors. It would washout lobbyist cash by a factor of 8-to-1 and restore the power of our democracy into the people’s hands.
Yang is not the first Democratic presidential candidate to endorse this proposal. Former candidate Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) also put out a “Democracy Dollars” plan. My take on her proposal goes ditto for Yang:
Under Senator Gillibrand’s plan, your tax dollars would subsidize candidates you don’t agree with via taxpayer funding she refers to as “Democracy Dollars.” How does forcing people to fund politicians they disagree with constitute “democracy”?
Congressional Democrats also made a play to siphon your tax dollars to support their candidates in their signature “H.R. 1” legislation. I reported:
…perhaps the single worst provision is that it would use your tax dollars to fund candidates you don’t agree with or whose policy stances you may be morally opposed to. This is done via a six-to-one match of federal dollars for campaign contributions of less than $200. Democrats are confident they can exploit this to their advantage due to their robust online infrastructure for soliciting small-dollar donations. A $100 donation to a progressive candidate could suddenly become a $600 one — paid for by your tax dollars.[…]
Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has thankfully promised Americans that he won’t let this bill get through the Senate, it is extremely disappointing that House Democrats would vote in lockstep to support this vindictive and unconstitutional bill. [Author’s note: not a single House Democrat voted against this bill when it came up for a vote.] It is scary to think of what this could mean if Democrats were to hold all the levers of power. This bill would destroy our freedom of speech in America — but liberals know that once they silence our speech, they win.
As revealed above, Democrats’ are totally serious when it comes to using your tax dollars to fund their campaigns. This is now a mainstream economic policy issue for the Left — and conservatives need to be vigilant in pushing back on it.
Democrats may find it immoral that lobbyists and corporations can make contributions to politicians, but unquestionably more immoral would be forcing someone to subsidize a candidate that they completely disagree with as a matter of conscience. Much like how Yang’s “Freedom Dividend” does not support freedom, “Democracy Dollars” does not support democracy — it erodes it by diminishing the power of people to make decisions over which politicians to financially support.
On a final note, Andrew Yang’s two biggest campaign proposals are a $1,000 a month “Freedom Dividend” and a $100 a year in “Democracy Dollars.” My challenge to the Yang campaign — step up your game. Put forward a serious economic proposal outside of handing out “free” money. A campaign that touts itself for “math” ought to know there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore