Californian regulator will review on May 19 the ban on donations in cryptocurren

[MARK21]

I have found this somewhat interesting news for our North American friends which states that a California state regulator could be studying the possibility of annulling the ban on donations of cryptocurrencies to political campaigns that has been in force since 2018.

Communications director for the California Fair Political Practices Commission Jay Wierenga says:

"This has been on our radar since the end of last year"

According to its May 2022 agenda, the California Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC, has scheduled a "pre-debate" on Thursday about the use of cryptocurrency for political campaign contributions in the state.

Upon further investigation, I have seen that Aarika Rhodes, an elementary school teacher running to represent California's 32nd congressional district, currently held by Democrat Brad Sherman, has openly asked her supporters to donate Bitcoin via the Lighting Network. :

"Our campaign has officially adopted Lighting for contributions.

This revolutionary technology creates accessibility and looks to the future. I am delighted to offer this option to our fans in all 50 states."

This was mentioned through her Twitter.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AarikaRhodes/status/1465712231216136208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Unfortunately I found the news in Spanish, but nothing that our beloved translator can do.

Source (Spanish): https://es.cointelegraph.com/news/california-regulator-will-revisit-long-running-ban-on-crypto-donations-on-may-19

[Ale88]

I have found this somewhat interesting news for our North American friends which states that a California state regulator could be studying the possibility of annulling the ban on donations of cryptocurrencies to political campaigns that has been in force since 2018.

I didn't even know there was this type of ban, reading the articles the concerns were about exceeding the donation limits and/or getting donations from abroad, are we really sure that with dollars people who actually want to do something like that can't? 

[ChiBitCTy]

I didn’t even realize there was such a ban on cryptocurrency donations in California. California is actually one of the last states that I would expect to have such a ban, I could certainly see this in New York who’s crazy about all things finance and regulations. I hope they remove the ban they sure as shit should.

[DapanasFruit]

From what I understand, states run by Democrats are more inclined to be non-friendly on Bitcoin in particular and cryptocurrency in general. Contrasts that with states under the influence of politicians in the Republican side and you can see that they are more open to cryptocurrency like Texas and Florida. In fact, am not going to be surprised if soon these Democratic areas will be banning Bitcoin and crypto altogether including the mining of them.

[CryptoSable]

I also found the news
It's not just on their radar hopefully

[cabron]

From what I understand, states run by Democrats are more inclined to be non-friendly on Bitcoin in particular and cryptocurrency in general. Contrasts that with states under the influence of politicians in the Republican side and you can see that they are more open to cryptocurrency like Texas and Florida. In fact, am not going to be surprised if soon these Democratic areas will be banning Bitcoin and crypto altogether including the mining of them.

And she's running against a Demo, its expected to happen. They are not necessarily against BTC, as long as an individual is fighting against them and exposing how long they are in the position but had not contributed good to the people, a Demo like Sherman will find a way to put off her fight.

California state regulator or that California Fair Political Practices Commission will always on the side of the Demo as long as the sitting president is a Demo.

[avikz]

It seems Aarika doesn't have any other agenda for the state. Such an immature behavior. This is nonsense! I am sure California state government has a lot other important things to do.

Does anyone know the crypto donations volume till date. I am sure it wouldn't be a huge amount and thus no impact on the market. But such non sense newbies will put the reputation of cryptos at risk!

[dezoel]

This is simply for political donations. Many nations do not have this idea, hence why it is a strange thing for most people. Normally politicians in other nations are getting some money from the taxpayers, because governments try to keep the politicians well fed enough to not make them corrupted, just so they wouldn't be bribed like American ones (not like this works neither).

So all in all I would guess that there is a case to be made about politicians not getting donations via crypto is a good thing, in fact they shouldn't get donations from anything, they should be paid by the party and that would be a lot better if you ask me so that they wouldn't really focus on bribery as much and get paid by billionaires.

[OgNasty]

I was surprised there was ever a ban on cryptocurrency donations.  Sounds like the first politicians who pushed this ban were probably not interested in crypto, but now that they see there is actual money there, they're running to open the floodgates.  I can only imagine how much money people like Nancy Pelosi will be worth once they don't even have to worry about laundering their money or making illegal stock trades for millions and can just anonymously accept funds for whatever evil she has planned next.  Downright scary to be honest, but hey, at least now Nancy and those like her will be able to hide their hundreds of millions in ill-gotten gains and can go back to pretending their money comes from salary and not corruption.  

[Fortify]

I have found this somewhat interesting news for our North American friends which states that a California state regulator could be studying the possibility of annulling the ban on donations of cryptocurrencies to political campaigns that has been in force since 2018.

Communications director for the California Fair Political Practices Commission Jay Wierenga says:

"This has been on our radar since the end of last year"

According to its May 2022 agenda, the California Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC, has scheduled a "pre-debate" on Thursday about the use of cryptocurrency for political campaign contributions in the state.

Upon further investigation, I have seen that Aarika Rhodes, an elementary school teacher running to represent California's 32nd congressional district, currently held by Democrat Brad Sherman, has openly asked her supporters to donate Bitcoin via the Lighting Network. :

"Our campaign has officially adopted Lighting for contributions.

This revolutionary technology creates accessibility and looks to the future. I am delighted to offer this option to our fans in all 50 states."

This was mentioned through her Twitter.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AarikaRhodes/status/1465712231216136208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Unfortunately I found the news in Spanish, but nothing that our beloved translator can do.

Source (Spanish): https://es.cointelegraph.com/news/california-regulator-will-revisit-long-running-ban-on-crypto-donations-on-may-19

At first I was shocked that donations, which I typically associate with charity related purposes, would be the target of any new regulation when there are so many other things that could be addressed first. Now I see it will purely be targeting political related donations which is definitely a good thing. All political donations should be banned quite frankly because they have been heavily abused in recent years and they are the scourge of a truly democratic society. They have been consistently abused since the law banning companies from making political donations was repealed and they are used by nefarious forces to get strategic politicians in who will favor ingrained business interests over the greater good of the public.

[Uang_kartal]

~Snip~
At first I was shocked that donations, which I typically associate with charity related purposes, would be the target of any new regulation when there are so many other things that could be addressed first. Now I see it will purely be targeting political related donations which is definitely a good thing. All political donations should be banned quite frankly because they have been heavily abused in recent years and they are the scourge of a truly democratic society. They have been consistently abused since the law banning companies from making political donations was repealed and they are used by nefarious forces to get strategic politicians in who will favor ingrained business interests over the greater good of the public.

I have checked the source of the twitter shared by the OP, this is a new variant in receiving in the political, educational and maybe other public facilities. I think this is a form of public concern for development. California, one of the cities in America, may be cancel the previous tradition. Crypto curency is a universal thing that is supported with high liquidity for the funds raised. I agree with you @Fortify a few months ago I heard that some countries have even implemented, both for humanity, the continuity of religion, places of worship and this effective for channeling funds from anyone who sends and holders of crypto.
but speaking of democracy, evil and efforts that get out of the habit and something good (concerning many people) are not exemplary and not worthy of being continued. Like a cryptocurency saga like a scope, it depends on the owner to be what in its implementation .
if it hurts some parties and is not good, it will be bad for this cryptocurency and this is what makes countries that have not legalized cryptocurrencies will review.
In every event, anyone has the right to access all conveniences and crypto is the solution.

[kryptqnick]

The decision to revisit the ban sounds like a result of lobbyism to me, to be honest. After all, it was about donations to political parties, so the idea was to ensure transparency of who is sponsoring a certain party, and with cryptos, I think, it was supposed it would be harder to do that. That being said, I don't know how financing parties happens in the US, but in my country shady parties are often allegedly financed by the public, but then investigations usually show the people who generously donate are themselves very poor and far from politics, suggesting they are only straw sponsors, not the real ones. So perhaps the ban doesn't make much sense after all.

[NotATether]

I didnt even realize there was such a ban on cryptocurrency donations in California. California is actually one of the last states that I would expect to have such a ban, I could certainly see this in New York whos crazy about all things finance and regulations. I hope they remove the ban they sure as shit should.

Well, I'm actually not surprised by that at all.

California is one of those reactionary states which pioneers radical new regulations (not too long ago they legalized weed, for example), and in the sphere of cryptocurrencies I have observed that while they are hardly like New York which wants to control finance, they tend to pass bills which intend to stop sketchy stuff before they happen (abuse of campaign funds maybe? I don't believe regulators track that yet for cryptocurrencies).

The 2018 bill must be of that kind then, but I wouldn't bet on any progress being made at the hearing (as I said in other places, the current sentiment towards crypto is too negative at the moment).

[Sterbens]

What needs to be done by the Aarika Rhodes camp is to refer to the initial policy whether the rule was only made after they said they received donations or before. If the ban was made after Aarika Rhodes said he could accept Bitcoin donations, it would mean that the opposition is trying to hinder democracy. Where this can be said as an action in the interests of the opposition who wants to destroy the democratic electoral process.

[Ale88]

Sounds like the first politicians who pushed this ban were probably not interested in crypto

I'm not sure that's the actual reason, I feel like somebody pushed for this very specific type of ban for personal (or his party) reasons, political reasons of course because they were afraid they could lose. In this case it's cryptocurrencies but it could have been even gold if some people could donate in that way.

[Gyfts]

Sounds like the first politicians who pushed this ban were probably not interested in crypto

I'm not sure that's the actual reason, I feel like somebody pushed for this very specific type of ban for personal (or his party) reasons, political reasons of course because they were afraid they could lose. In this case it's cryptocurrencies but it could have been even gold if some people could donate in that way.

If it is correct that the ban was made in 2018, my speculation is that it could have been done for transparency reasons. It seems easy enough for a political campaign to register crypto donations and keep a log of such transactions to a campaign, but it might be difficult to monitor the donors to ensure they don't contribute past the legal cap. Donating with fiat presumably has a lot more verification steps involved on behalf of the donor, with crypto lacking those steps.

[Haunebu]

Just like some of the posters above, I am surprised to hear about this sort of stuff happening in California too having lived there myself(San Jose) for a couple of years.

I feel that the politicians who are against this ban have their own ulterior motives behind trying hard to revoke it, but the reversal could help the cryptocurrency market in a positive way which is what matters more in my opinion.

[cr1776]

From what I understand, states run by Democrats are more inclined to be non-friendly on Bitcoin in particular and cryptocurrency in general. Contrasts that with states under the influence of politicians in the Republican side and you can see that they are more open to cryptocurrency like Texas and Florida. In fact, am not going to be surprised if soon these Democratic areas will be banning Bitcoin and crypto altogether including the mining of them.

To have free speech one must be able to publicize it and that needs money.  The US Founders understood this.  Hence the same people who want to shut down speech because it is "hate speech" or "violence" want to shut down money.  If they can shut down money, they can have some success on shutting up their political opponents.

When, per the fascists, silence is violence and speech is violence what can one do?

[rjefferson]

It’s honestly so weird that the government always tries to work against something that could literally push our society forward.

But then again, they have their own business/agenda to run 

[hatshepsut93]

Lightning transactions are much more anonymous that on-chain Bitcoin transactions, and allowing anonymous donations is a very bad idea, it's a very easy loophole for corruption. Maybe it could be solved by requiring some KYC, but is all this extra work worth it? What are the benefits of political donations through Lightning, as opposed to existing methods?