U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren will hold no political fundraising events with pricey admission fees to collect cash to fuel her bid for the Democratic nomination for president, she announced Monday morning, becoming the first candidate to formally swear-off the traditional means of campaign funding.
With as many as two dozen Democrats expected to vie for the chance to take on President Donald Trump in the November 2020 election, the ability to raise funds could become critical for lesser-known contenders trying to break through the crowd.
Democrats have grown increasingly critical that corporations and the wealthy hold too much sway over U.S. elections, and several who are running to be the party’s nominee say they have refused to take corporate money.
Warren, who launched her campaign earlier this month, already promised not to take money from lobbyists or political action committees established by corporations. Monday’s announcement takes the pledge a step farther.
Instead of fundraisers with large entry fees, Warren will have to depend mainly on contributions collected online or from supporters willing to chip in smaller donations, known as “grassroots” supporters.
She will hold no fundraising dinners or cocktail parties, her campaign said.
“That means no fancy receptions or big money fundraisers only with people who can write the big checks,” Warren said in an email to campaign supporters on Monday morning, according to a draft seen by Reuters.
Traditionally, presidential candidates have used fundraising events to tap donors capable of writing larger checks. This year, candidates are allowed to accept two $2,800 checks from an individual donor, one to be used during the primary and another if they compete in the general election.
Wealthy supporters are often willing to write large donation checks in exchange for access to the candidate.
Since party nominees have typically hosted expensive fundraisers to help others in their party, if Warren wins the nomination her rejection of fundraisers could curb the spending power of other Democratic candidates for congressional offices.
Warren acknowledged the potential for opposition within her own party.
“There are some Democrats who are so deeply afraid of losing to Donald Trump that they don’t want to risk saying or doing anything different at all,” she wrote to supporters.
Reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Daniel Wallis
Bill Barr slammed by ex-FBI official for ignoring the right-wing ‘Boogaloo Bois’ infiltrating protests
Attorney General Bill Barr was slammed by the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Saturday for misleading Americans about the source of violence at the protests over the killing of George Floyd while in police custody.
"There's evidence developing, Brian, that the organization we're seeing of the most violent protesters is coming from a couple of disturbing places," both, by the way, there's disparate in terms in being from the right or the left. here's what those who monitor these groups and sites are seeing.
"We're seeing a far-right group, one group for example known as the Boogaloo Bois, who on their private Facebook page and social media outlets are calling for violence, calling for people to show up," Frank Figliuzzi told MSNBC's Brian Williams.
Trump is the ‘greatest troll in the history of the internet’ and Twitter needs to ‘pull the plug’: NYT columnist
President Donald Trump would face an existential crisis if Twitter were to enforce it's own rules and hold him accountable -- and one New York Times columnist wants to see it happen.
"C’mon, @Jack. You can do it," Maureen Dowd wrote, referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey with his username on the platform.
She urged Dorsey to "just pull the plug on him."
"You could answer the existential question of whether @realDonaldTrump even exists if he doesn’t exist on Twitter. I tweet, therefore I am. Dorsey meets Descartes," she explained. "All it would take is one sweet click to force the greatest troll in the history of the internet to meet his maker."
Justice Roberts took ‘clear swipe’ at Kavanaugh in opinion siding with liberals in religion case: report
On Friday night, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, holding that California Gov. Gavin Newsom's restrictions on church gatherings are not a violation of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts crossed over to join with the liberals for a 5-4 split.
But the ruling was dramatic in a key way. As court watcher Mark Joseph Stern wrote for Slate, Justice Brett Kavanaugh "falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case" in his dissent — and was so dishonest that Roberts went out of his way to rebuke him in the Court opinion.