Midterms are Approaching Fast, We Ask the Question “Are Bitcoin Donations Really Worth It?”
With the Midterms Fast Approaching, We Ask the Question “Are Bitcoin Donations Really Worth It?”
While different American states have varying policies in regards to crypto donations, in 2014, the U.S Federal Election Commission voted in favor of allowing politicians to source their donations via digital assets (such as Bitcoin, Ethereum).
In this regard, California, a state known for its digital innovation, recently banned any political donations via alt-coins last month. In relation to this move, California Commissioner Frank Cardenas, had the following words :
“Hardly a day passes that there isn’t some other indication that there is someone out there who wishes us ill, foreign and or domestic.”
He then went on to expound on the various risks associated with cryptocurrencies. For example, Cardenas spoke about the anonymous nature of Bitcoin and how it can be used to launder money as well as facilitate other illegal activities. Finally, Cardenas rounded off his concerns by saying that for the time being, allowing crypto donations are “not worth the risk”.
More On The Matter
Recently, Scott Duekeke, Director of cyber threats at DarkTower, testified in front of a Senate committee (in June) for a hearing labelled “Protecting Our Elections: Examining Shell Companies and Virtual Currencies as Avenues for Foreign Interference.”
In relation to the issue of crypto donations being accepted by various individuals running for office, he added:
“The greatest emerging threat of foreign funds reaching the coffers of political candidates, or to be used to fund other influence operations, are the increasing number and liquidity of privacy coins.”
In a similar vein, another market analyst by the name of Joseph Argiro, said that regulators should decide on a few cryptocurrencies that politicians can accept their donations via. For example, Argiro said “privacy coins” such as Monero should be banned from being a legitimate donation avenue since it eliminates the possibility of monitoring the amount of funds that have been received by a particular individual (at any given time).
Who Does the Onus Lie With On This Issue?
As mentioned earlier, tracking donations made via crypto means can be extremely difficult. In this regard, the Centre for Public Integrity released a study saying that in such a case “the onus should be on the candidate” to reveal his altcoin donations.
For example, earlier this year, Republican candidate, Austin Petersen, was the recipient of the world’s largest Bitcoin donation to date. However, due to the amount exceeding the maximum federal contribution limit, Peterson returned the entire sum of money to the donor.
With the midterm elections fast approaching, we can expect at least some crypto donations to pop up here and there. However, with the US government clamping down on this burgeoning market domain, it feels as though such donations will not be significant this time around. Hopefully, moving forward, the world’s three billion-plus crypto user base is given the opportunity to use their alt-asset holdings within the global political arena.