In a perplexing move, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum has devised a unique fundraising strategy: offering $20 gift cards to individuals who donate just one dollar to his presidential campaign. Meanwhile, fellow candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is providing a 10 percent commission to those who bring in donations, and a super PAC supporting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez is offering one donor a year of free college tuition. These tactics highlight how even small contributions are now influencing political campaigns.
These Republican candidates are striving to meet the Republican National Committee’s requirement of 40,000 individual donors, including 200 from each of the 20 states or territories, in order to qualify for primary debates. Despite the RNC’s intention to ensure authentic support and reduce the influence of major donors, these fundraising stunts may have the opposite effect. Candidates are resorting to unconventional methods to create the illusion of substantial backing. After all, securing a spot on the debate stage is crucial for staying viable and attracting significant donors. As the saying goes, “It takes money to make money.”
These innovative approaches reflect a new focus in politics on small-dollar donors, and their legality remains untested. Ann Ravel, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), finds these tactics distasteful but doubts that they directly violate existing statutes or regulations. However, other experts believe that Burgum’s scheme may cross legal boundaries, even if the others are permissible.
Andrew Yang, a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, previously experimented with a similar concept by giving away $120,000 to 10 randomly selected families who signed up on his website. This initiative aimed to promote Yang’s proposal for universal basic income. In contrast, this year’s schemes don’t have a direct policy connection and require individuals to contribute money instead of simply providing their email.
Ramaswamy’s plan allows anyone to collect donations and receive a small portion as a commission. He refers to it as a way to “democratize” the traditional fundraising system and challenge its “oligopoly”. It can be likened to an Uber for campaign finance, combining elements of professional fundraisers and “bundlers” who persuade contacts to contribute. Each donor is limited to $3,300 in individual federal donations for this election cycle.
SOS America PAC, on the other hand, is essentially holding a raffle where one lucky contributor to Suarez’s campaign will receive a free year of college tuition. The winner will have to choose wisely as the $15,000 limit may only cover a full year at certain Florida-based universities. Out-of-state students would only be able to cover a portion of their tuition fees, potentially limiting their choices.
Burgum’s approach is arguably the most unconventional. While campaigns often offer merchandise in exchange for donations, such as bumper stickers, distributing gift cards takes it a step further. It may seem like it should be illegal, but the act of giving a dollar does not obligate anyone to vote for Burgum. Federal law does prohibit “straw donations,” where individuals give money to another person and have them donate it in their name. This law aims to prevent individuals from bypassing the contribution limit and ensure compliance with donor-disclosure requirements. However, Burgum, as a candidate, is exempt from contribution limits and clearly abides by disclosure rules. Legal ambiguity surrounds these activities, as Ravel points out.
While some experts appreciate the creativity in lawful fundraising methods, others remain skeptical. Paul S. Ryan, a campaign-finance lawyer, believes that both Burgum’s gift card distribution and the acceptance of the associated donations violate the plain language of the straw-donor law. This law specifically prohibits making a contribution in someone else’s name or accepting a contribution made in the name of another person. Ryan is concerned that if Burgum’s scheme is allowed, it could set a problematic precedent for candidates to solicit larger donations or involve wealthy friends.
The Republican National Committee may also suffer from this arrangement. Ryan argues that Burgum’s attempt constitutes fraud against the RNC since these donations are not truly unique individual contributions but rather fake straw donations. In his view, the RNC should reject these illegitimate donors.
Neither Burgum’s nor the RNC’s spokespersons responded to requests for comment. The FEC does not comment on specific cases, and its structure and partisan nature have led to frequent deadlock on significant issues in recent years. Ravel doubts whether the FEC would enforce any violations, even if they exist in these cases.
The argument for grassroots donors is more complex than it initially appears. Small-dollar contributions have been linked to increased polarization, as stated by David Byler of The Washington Post. However, if the goal of donor requirements is to empower small donors, a $20 gift card in exchange for a $1 donation achieves the opposite by amplifying the influence of a wealthy candidate who exploits the system.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
