Yang’s plan to give 10 families $1,000 a month greeted by giggles
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang said in a memorable moment during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that his campaign plans to randomly select 10 families from all over the country and give them $1,000 a month. He directed viewers to his campaign website, which said in white block text, “WIN $1,000 A MONTH,” and below, in parentheses, “No strings attached.”
The “promotion period,” according to the campaign website, started Thursday at 8 p.m. and ends at 11:59 p.m Sept. 19.
News of Mr. Yang’s plan elicited giggles from his opponents, GIFs and jokes galore on social media, and several legitimate concerns on legality.
The “promotion,” which his campaign teased under the banner #YangsDebateSurprise ahead of Thursday’s debate, is part of a pilot program for his trademark proposal for a universal basic income, called the Freedom Dividend. The policy would give every American over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a month, no matter their employment status.
“We have to get our country working for us again instead of the other way around,” said Mr. Yang, a Washington outsider whose campaign has outlasted two governors, a senator and two members of the House. “It’s time to trust ourselves more than our politicians.”
Mr. Yang has already been paying $1,000 a month to three families, one in Iowa, another in New Hampshire and a third in Florida. After inquiries from reporters about the legality of the payouts, Mr. Yang, who funded the contributions, reported them as gifts on his campaign finance reports. It’s unclear how the expansion of the plan would work.
On the debate stage, Mr. Yang’s announcement was met with titters from several other candidates. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who spoke after Mr. Yang, said, “It’s original, I’ll give you that.”
On Twitter, Mr. Yang’s plan was likened to “sweepstakes” — a kind of contest that people can enter free with the hopes of earning a grand prize.
Some, like celebrity lawyer and Donald Trump foe Michael Avenatti, criticized the move as a “stunt.” Others tweeted GIFs of Oprah, comparing the entrepreneur to the media executive known for giving out free prizes on her television shows.
Alexis Ohanian Sr., cofounder of the social platform Reddit, tweeted his support for the plan, writing, “Hey @AndrewYang, I like this idea so much I’ll do it personally for those 10 people if you can’t.”
Several conservative leaders, including the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, suggested that Mr. Yang’s plan is illegal.
The Federal Election Commission, an agency that regulates campaign finance law, bans the use of campaign funds for “personal use,” which includes expenses for a home mortgage or rent, clothing purchases, country club membership, a vacation or household food items. It is defined as funds that would be used regardless of whether that candidate was running for office or not.
A spokesman for Mr. Yang’s campaign said payments would be made at random to those who sign up for it on the campaign website, and that the payments are considered a campaign expense because they are “being made to further the goals of the campaign.” The campaign said it consulted with legal counsel, who approved the proposal.
But some campaign finance lawyers said they have concerns. The crux of the issue seems to boil down to language in the FEC’s rules, which prohibits the personal use of campaign funds by “any person.” The 10 people who stand to receive Mr. Yang’s dividends are likely to spend this money for personal purposes, potentially placing Mr. Yang’s plan in violation of the rules.
The personal-use prohibition has a dual purpose: to prevent corruption and to protect donors’ money from “going to line anybody else’s pocket other than for services provided to the campaign,” said Adav Noti, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now chief of staff of the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for greater restrictions in campaign finance.
“To maintain donors’ faith in the system, it’s important that they have some reasonable level of certainty that their money — especially small donor money, but all money — is getting used” for a campaign purpose, Mr. Noti said.