One of the stranger policy ideas to emerge ahead of the 2020 presidential election is Democrats’ newfound insistence that our tax dollars be used to support their candidates.
First there was H.R.1, Democrats’ flagship legislation in the 116th Congress. As I previously reported, this bill would (among many, many other awful provisions):
…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.
More recently, the radical taxpayer-funded campaign idea received a major endorsement from Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). NBC News reports:
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan … to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls “Democracy Dollars” that they can donate to federal candidates for office.
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. [Emphasis added]
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”?
(Side note: ever notice how Democrats always name things the exact opposite of what they are? Exhibit A: The Affordable Care Act. Exhibit B: The leading pro-censorship group on the left is called “Free Press.”)
The “Democracy Dollars” branding would be laughable if this idea wasn’t being pushed with such intensity. I thought Senator Gillibrand was supposed to be one of the “moderates” in the 2020 Democratic primary.
When H.R. 1 came up for a vote in the House, every single House Democrat voted in favor of this bill. That, coupled with Senator Gillibrand’s embrace of this concept, reveals how serious the Left is about enacting this power grab.
While H.R.1 is dead on arrival in the Senate, it is scary to think Democrats would actually embrace this enormous attack on free speech if they held all the levers of power.
For these reasons I hope that as the 2020 primary progresses, reporters will put candidates on the record as to whether they support proposals such as Senator Gillibrand’s. Americans should know if presidential candidates would support such blatant attempts to silence free speech and inhibit the ability of Americans to engage politically in accordance with their conscience.