Image 01 Image 03

Desperate Kirsten Gillibrand Proposes “Free” Money for Political Donations

Desperate Kirsten Gillibrand Proposes “Free” Money for Political Donations

“give every voter up to $600 in what she calls ‘Democracy Dollars’ that they can donate to federal candidates for office”

Kirsten Gillibrand’s 2020 presidential campaign is going nowhere fast. According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, she currently stands at a whopping 0.4 percent. She hasn’t reached the threshold required to appear in debates and is trying pretty much anything to stay relevant.

Her newest ‘Hail Mary’ move is a proposal to give Americans $600 in ‘Democracy Dollars’ which can be used to donate to political campaigns.

Benjy Sarlin reports at NBC News:

‘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.

Politicians appropriating money that came from taxpayers, then redistributing it to people for the purpose of giving money to politicians. What a plan!

Elena Schneider of Politico has more:

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).

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out that this is a case of the solution being worse than the problem:

“Democracy dollars” are a laughably self-absorbed money-laundering mechanism to raid the federal treasury for political campaigning. It imposes more artificial limits and complexity to a system that’s getting corrupted because of those artificial limits and complexities, not in spite of them. If we want corruption out of the system, make all donations to candidates and PACs above $200 instantly transparent and searchable, and evaluate candidates on the money they raise.

Adding further insult, this apparently wasn’t even an original idea. The Andrew Yang campaign claims they have been touting a similar policy with the same name for months:

Last word goes to this guy:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


buckeyeminuteman | May 3, 2019 at 7:07 am

This is laughably the worst idea I have ever heard from a politician. Even from a Democrat.

She has explained the “self licking ice cream cone”.

TX-rifraph | May 3, 2019 at 7:35 am

Aren’t these the same democrats who are opposed to giving vouchers so parents can choose which school to gets the money? Don’t they oppose giving health “insurance” vouchers to people so they can choose the plan that gets the money?

“Money-laundering” as said by Ed Morrissey.

This is similar to the money laundering model they use with public unions.

Larry Flynt might find her to be relevant.

HamiltonNJ | May 3, 2019 at 8:25 am

I thought it said Democracy Doughnuts.
I would be all for that.
Not what Kristen is babbling about…

Now, all she has to do, is figure out how to make sure no one gives any of the money to Orange Man Bad.

So her “first major 2020 policy initiative” is “the government should finance my campaign?”

Well, I give her points for chutzpah. But she loses them for intelligence. Bye bye Kirsten!

    Firewatch in reply to irv. | May 3, 2019 at 9:41 am

    Irv, you are making my life difficult. When I ask a merchant for my free stuff they just smile. Heck, I even had to pay for the motorcycle I bought yesterday. I’m so confused now that I might not vote for Bernie. LOL!

So because no one will contribute to your campaign, you feel the government should give other people’s money away to fund these non-existent donations to your campaign? I can’t decide if “lightweight” or “dumbass” best applies to you here. Probably both. Now go finish your failed run for President and STFU.

inspectorudy | May 3, 2019 at 9:17 am

Gillibrand gives life to the term “Dumb Blonde”.

Here in Minnesota, they have a check box on the income tax form, that if checked, allows you to donate to a political organization of your choice. There is no option available not to donate, so if you leave it blank (no donation), then the tax office can fill in the form the way they choose.

Dear AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and every one of you female Democrats running for President,

You all have made it so embarrassing to be a woman these days. Some of us aren’t desperate bat-shit crazy. Really, we aren’t. Go away.

An actual XX genetic woman

Under Gillibrand’s plan, eligible voters could opt into her “Democracy Dollars” program and register for vouchers

Ooooohh, how racist!

All those voters who can’t manage to scramble up an ID will have no difficulty “registering” for these magic vouchers. Uh-huh.

Perhaps “eligible voters” is code for “registered Democrats”. Though that wouldn’t help much on that “racism” business.

Gillibrand never seems to have quite grasped the whole idea of this “government” thing. And the notion that a whopping $600 will get “big money” out of politics implies that she’s not too good at numbers, either.

Vouchers. Not only is it tax money converted into a form that can only be used on campaigns, it’s likely to be trackable and thus used as a hyper-accurate type of poll. Not only do political donations mean a donator is likely-to-guaranteed to vote, to whom they donate is also a near lock for whom they will vote.

And the proper term should be “Democrat Dollars”; Gillibrand and her ilk don’t care about democracy, only power.

So once I donate to myself, having decided to run for all three races, how do I go about using that money without actually campaigning? Can I just hold “donor events” where I use campaign money to provide swag for donors?

One thing for sure, these leftists sure find ways to spend more taxpayer dollars. And I bet she would also ask to be in charge of doling out these funds and make sure they are “properly” allocated, so long as no voter ID is needed.

Next thing she’ll do, is offer oral sex for votes, a lot that other genius, madonna. But then, word would probably soon get around that she’s not that good at it.

Independence was 1812 | May 4, 2019 at 8:47 pm

If we could repeal the 17th amendment, and give powers back to the states, we wouldn’t have to deal with those of her ilk–those that hate the idea of America, who wish to keep an entire segment of the population in economic slavery, and whose only goal in life is to be on of those in the “D.C. it” crowd.

Independence was 1812 | May 4, 2019 at 8:50 pm

And this isn’t a democracy–it’s a representative republic.