CNN and the Des Moines Register are co-hosting the seventh Democratic debate tonight. But one front-runner won’t be attending this or any debate. His name is Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg has met the four-poll threshold to attend the January debate, but he is forced to sit out because he has vowed not to take campaign contributions. The Democratic National Committee requires a whopping 225,000 unique donors to qualify to get on stage. This rule, however, contravenes the party’s values regarding money in politics.
There was a time, not too long ago, when the most popular candidates, as evident in polls, made it on stage, but those days are long gone. Bloomberg, who has met the polling requirements, decided against taking campaign contributions, reasoning that middle-class and working people should not have to finance a billionaire’s campaign. Instead of getting a pat on the back for keeping money in the pockets of hard-working people, he gets punished for it.
It is quite shocking that the DNC uses the number of donors one has as a valid indicator of success a candidate deserves. A party that is openly opposed to money influencing politics shouldn’t punish those who refuse to take it.
Democratic candidate Andrew Yang has made this idea a major platform of his campaign, vowing to hand out “Democracy Dollars” for Americans to spend on political campaigns and drown out corporate funding. Ironically, money is not Yang’s problem, but the polls are. Yang has long surpassed the 225,000 unique donor requirement, but he has met only one of the four required poll thresholds.
Before dropping out of the race, Cory Booker had also surpassed the donor requirement, but he hadn’t qualified in even one poll. Candidates Yang and Booker showed that simply having enough donors doesn’t necessarily imply any level of popular support. Despite this, the DNC acts as if the donor requirement goes hand in hand with polling and that the donor requirement should be an easy feat for anyone deserving of a spot on stage.
The Democrats fear that money has too much influence on politics. This is partially true, but it is not backed up analytically. Both Yang and Booker have enough donors but not enough votes. This implies that voters are capable of looking past the candidate with the biggest budget and voting for someone they truly support.
Bloomberg is the only candidate to reach the polling requirements and not the donor requirements for the January debate. It is likely he could surpass the donor requirements if he were to accept contributions, but it begs the question regarding the DNC’s stance on money and politics. Should Bloomberg have to take people’s money, which he does not need to compete on the national stage?
We live in a twisted world where those who fund themselves with money they earned are looked upon as greedy and evil, whereas those who take contributions from the people who need the money the most are praised and rewarded. Bloomberg is in a no-win situation. Having a campaign publicly funded while also being the 14th-richest person in the world is not a good look, but it is the only way for him to adequately spread his message to the masses.
Now, being publicly funded is not an evil concept and is quite beneficial in maintaining democracy. Going even further, Yang’s “Democracy Dollars” might prove to be effective if ever implemented. Despite this, requiring a campaign to be publicly funded simply isn’t just. By requiring arbitrary donor requirements, the DNC is essentially limiting a candidate such as Bloomberg who has the public support required to make it on stage.
One of the major criticisms of candidates such as Biden and Buttigieg is that they have too many billionaire donors. The public fear that they will, in turn, owe wealthy political favors in return for their money and support. Bloomberg only has one billionaire donor: himself. He will owe nothing to anyone except his voters, and that should not be frowned on by the DNC.
Alex Blecker is a writer based in Atlanta.
