[ad_1]
The Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, said that he would do something unprecedented in Thursday's debate, and he did – he announced that he was offering between $ 1,000 and 10 random families for one year. The idea reflects his proposal to give every American adult $ 1,000 a month, which he calls the "dividend of freedom".
But observers of the debate quickly posed the question of whether it is legal for a presidential candidate to give money to potential voters. Yang had already offered money from his pocket to prove that his plan would improve people's lives, but that money would come from the coffers of his campaign.
Ed O-Keefe, of CBS News, asked Yang, after the debate, if he was checking with an election lawyer, which said, "Oh yes, of course, we have this whole army. of lawyers who signed it But I want everyone to think For a moment, we live in a world where a billionaire can spend more than 10 million dollars to go to the electoral scene and everyone thinks that this is entirely appropriate, but then I literally give money to Americans all over the country to do whatever they want to love to help improve their lives, and that seems problematic. "
Deborah Hellman, a law professor at the University of Virginia Law School, who wrote about campaign finance law, said she did not think the offer was illegal because she was not asking for implicitly or explicitly anything in return.
"I think Yang's proposal is not illegal because it does not suggest that he will give money to voters in exchange for their votes, either explicitly or implicitly," he said. Hellman. "The proposal may seem problematic, but we fear that voters will feel grateful to Yang and vote for him for that reason."
But the Supreme Court, she noted, made it clear that the ingratiation was not corruption.
"In my opinion, we should be more worried about the debt of gratitude that elected politicians may feel towards high net worth individuals who make a significant contribution to their campaigns or spend significant sums to support their campaigns," added Mr. Hellman.
Campaign fundraising expert Rick Hasen, who teaches campaign finance at the University of California at Irvine Law School, also tweeted Thursday night that Yang's tactics did not seem to violate campaign finance laws.
"I do not see any legal problem as long as it is not related to the vote or the inscription", Hasen tweetedadding, "I do not see this as a personal use for the candidate.It is a form of campaign advertising."
Yang, an entrepreneur, says his plan to provide a universal basic income would allow people to pursue careers and take care of their families without fear of putting food on the table. It has become the central pillar of his unusual candidacy, which is doing pretty well to bring him to the debate on Thursday.
Yang's approach paid off for someone who was virtually unknown before running for president. Yang spoke for the shortest possible time on stage Thursday night, but was the most prominent trend on Twitter during the debate.
[ad_2]
Source link