Harris campaign now accepts Bitcoin

[Davidvictorson]

The linked article cires that a Political Action Committee (PAC) called "Future Forward" which supports the Democratic Party and presidential nominee Kalama Harris, are the ones who are accepting cryptocurrency donations. This should not be confused as the party or campaign itself is accepting cryptocurrency donations. A PAC is essentially a tax exempt organisation which can support political parties. The PAC's choice to accept cryptocurrency does not represent the Democratic parties beliefs or support for cryptocurrency.

As someone who lives outside of the US, it is easy to read the headlines and jump into conclusion just as the topic title. Anyways, I tell people not to believe everything they read on the internet. I don't know if there would be any negative repercussions if Harris openly accepts bitcoin or not. The Political Action Committee (PAC) accepting bitcoin "on her behalf" could just mean that they want to be inclusive however, Harris doesn't want to be directly involved in it for whatever reason. I do not know US politics a lot therefore I may be wrong. Whatever the case may be I can say for sure that no one knows what the hearts and minds of the presidential candidates towards bitcoin are until either one of them is elected into office. But I can tell you for sure that, anyone who still has Gary Gensler hold his position after taking office is definitely not for the crypto community.

[JollyGood]

Is she doing this because she needs more donations to help her campaign funding or is she only doing this because she saw how Trump is pro bitcoin and it helped his campaign and she wants to gain that market share?

As a guess, it probably is her needing donations.

Like Cameron and Tyler said a couple of weeks back, if she wants to be pro Bitcoin and pro Crypto she doesnt need to wait until she wins the election. She can take a stand now and fire Gary Gensler who is bad for the crypto industry. However its been a couple of weeks and not action really taken.

Which shows she is just doing this to buy votes and nothing more.

She was already in a position where she could have helped Bitcoin become more mainstream but she did not. She was vice President for four years, did she ever make a single comment crypto? If she did it would be interesting to know what it was.

Now her campaign is accepting Bitcoin but it is probably purely to convert to fiat. Having said that, it is still a momentous and historic moment as far as Bitcoin is concerned but we have no idea whether this will bring about any change in policy if she wins the election.

[ChiBitCTy]

Well this is good to see.  I mean I wont' rule out this possibility but I would think that if your campaign accepts bitcoin that when you're in office you would have to be "pro-bitcoin" for having done so.  It would be pretty hypocritical doing otherwise, not that politicians are in love with doing hypocritical things, but you would just hope that that is what they are signalling here.  Personally whether the candidate was for or "against" bitcoin, it wouldn't have any bearing on whether I'd vote for them or not.

[Ale88]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Are you sure about that? Her position about cryptocurrencies is not clear since she never mentioned them but in general her party is strongly against it. In this case it would be free money so of course they are going to accept them but what after that? It even looks like she wants to make Gary Gensler as the new Treasury Secretary, I mean, come on, for real?

[Fiatless]

As someone who lives outside of the US, it is easy to read the headlines and jump into conclusion just as the topic title. Anyways, I tell people not to believe everything they read on the internet. I don't know if there would be any negative repercussions if Harris openly accepts bitcoin or not. The Political Action Committee (PAC) accepting bitcoin "on her behalf" could just mean that they want to be inclusive however, Harris doesn't want to be directly involved in it for whatever reason. I do not know US politics a lot therefore I may be wrong. Whatever the case may be I can say for sure that no one knows what the hearts and minds of the presidential candidates towards bitcoin are until either one of them is elected into office. But I can tell you for sure that, anyone who still has Gary Gensler hold his position after taking office is definitely not for the crypto community.

Her decision not to be directly involved in crypto is worrisome. She had not said anything about the sector, we only hear crpto through her aides. The PAC is nothing but a fundraising organisation for the support of Harris. They have raised about $169 million, so it is clear that the Democratic candidate just want the money. We wouldn't know if these organizations, made up of about 88 corporate leaders, have a secret deal with Kamala Harris. But for now she has openly promised nothing, so don't expect anything different from the current administration from Harris. 

[Marvell1]

... But I can tell you for sure that, anyone who still has Gary Gensler hold his position after taking office is definitely not for the crypto community.

While this news has not been confirmed, it is rumored that Harris wants Gary to be Treasury Secretary if she wins the election. This news alone coupled with the fact that Harris has never expressed or stated support for cryptocurrencies during her campaign. That suggests she will continue to be as hostile to cryptocurrencies as Biden if elected.

Meanwhile, if Trump wins, Gary's political career will also end when his term as SEC chairman ends in 2025.
We can't be sure whether Trump is actually pro-crypto or not until the election is over, but given his promises and statements about crypto, we should bet more on him than Harris.



https://en.bitcoinsistemi.com/breaking-kamala-harris-is-allegedly-considering-sec-chairman-gary-gensler-as-us-treasury-secretary-if-she-wins-the-election/

[mamesso]

Kalama Harris is taking a stand against the party that nominated her for president because under President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party has been largely less supportive of crypto than the Republican Party. Now he is doing everything he can to smooth his ambition to become president, including accepting donations in the form of Bitcoin for his own campaign.

The donation received by Kamala Harris in the form of Bitcoin will not have much impact on the wider adoption of Bitcoin because most of the Donors who donated Bitcoin had already known and stored Bitcoin before donations in the form of crypto were opened. It seems that Kamala Harris is starting to take the path that Donald Trump took before, now both candidates are using Bitcoin as a support to smooth their ambitions.

[Xcode7]

Kalama Harris is taking a stand against the party that nominated her for president because under President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party has been largely less supportive of crypto than the Republican Party. Now he is doing everything he can to smooth his ambition to become president, including accepting donations in the form of Bitcoin for his own campaign.

The donation received by Kamala Harris in the form of Bitcoin will not have much impact on the wider adoption of Bitcoin because most of the Donors who donated Bitcoin had already known and stored Bitcoin before donations in the form of crypto were opened. It seems that Kamala Harris is starting to take the path that Donald Trump took before, now both candidates are using Bitcoin as a support to smooth their ambitions.

It is part of Harris' trick to attract the sympathy of people who support Crypto or at least she minimizes the reduction in her vote, I think politics like this to attract sympathy is commonplace.

However, for what Harris and Donald Trump did if both of them did not lie about their support for Bitcoin, it would be a turning point or have a big impact on the adoption of Bitcoin which will be followed by other countries in the future, I still think positively that this is a good signal for Bitcoin in the future.

[nutildah]

While this news has not been confirmed, it is rumored that Harris wants Gary to be Treasury Secretary if she wins the election.

It's all rumors by unnamed sources.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gary-gensler-treasury-secretary-story-172945081.html

...the story is filled with red flags that any decent editor would immediately mark up with red ink. For example: “Those rumors corroborate what top Republicans have also told the Reporter on the record.” Rumors don’t corroborate anything. And there’s nothing close to a quote from someone close to the Harris camp; the “likely” in the headline all comes from those Senate staffers.

CoinDesk ignored the “story” because it didn’t meet our standards. It contained no on-the-record reporting and nothing from the people who were said to be doing the thing it said they were doing (nominating Gensler).

What's not a rumor is that major democrat donors are calling for the ousting of Gensler in 2025.

This news alone coupled with the fact that Harris has never expressed or stated support for cryptocurrencies during her campaign. That suggests she will continue to be as hostile to cryptocurrencies as Biden if elected.

As "hostile as Biden"? Bitcoin reached all-time highs under Biden, and local lows under Trump. I don't think a president's viewpoint on anything particularly matters as they are not the ones writing or approving legislation.

[hd49728]

Kalama Harris is taking a stand against the party that nominated her for president because under President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party has been largely less supportive of crypto than the Republican Party. Now he is doing everything he can to smooth his ambition to become president, including accepting donations in the form of Bitcoin for his own campaign.

This strategic change hardly help Kamala Harris to convince people in the USA. because recent months, after horrific completely verdicts against Donald Trump, the assassi* to Trump, and other things, there are more and more information, documents, videos in the past which reflected root policy approach of Kamala Harris on many aspects over the years, revealed by the community.

Are these things good for her propaganda in very last months till the President Election in November?

Not good at all.

The donation received by Kamala Harris in the form of Bitcoin will not have much impact on the wider adoption of Bitcoin because most of the Donors who donated Bitcoin had already known and stored Bitcoin before donations in the form of crypto were opened. It seems that Kamala Harris is starting to take the path that Donald Trump took before, now both candidates are using Bitcoin as a support to smooth their ambitions.

I don't care much about this donation method from Kamala team, because Bitcoin adoption has grown up very steadily over years since 2009 and this small strategic change from a single politician for her own benefit, won't increase Bitcoin adoption too much or I can say nearly no impact.

[JollyGood]

It could be Trump or Harris making various appointments if they are elected but without a shadow of doubt they will have to deal with the banking giants that are still operating a model of financial operation using fiat that is now severely outdated. If the old relics of the financial system apply enough pressure on the candidates when one of them gets in office, they will probably easily sway any momentum towards their own agenda and away from crypto.

I believe most of these announcements during a presidential campaign are symbolic and are designed for attention and deflection. Whether they have any meaning can only be assessed on merit and that is after the new president takes office.

[LogitechMouse]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Well, nothing surprising because: LINK

In the United States alone, about 67 million residents own at least one type of cryptocurrency, and approximately 22% of the adult population in America owns Bitcoin.

And we know that in an election, every vote counts. This might be posted last year, but at least you got the point that there are many people in the US that are involved into Bitcoin, and joining them could give her an edge and might get some votes coming from them if she will also accepts Bitcoin for donations. Another political strategy coming from a politician which isn't rare.

Whatever these 2 candidates will be doing that's related to Bitcoin, the winners will be us because what they're doing will just increase the adoption of Bitcoin in the long run. I wonder if they will make something significant with regards to Bitcoin when one of them become the president.

[tranthidung]

Whatever these 2 candidates will be doing that's related to Bitcoin, the winners will be us because what they're doing will just increase the adoption of Bitcoin in the long run. I wonder if they will make something significant with regards to Bitcoin when one of them become the president.

If a nominee only say lies to buy votes from us, that nominee will let his or her promise goes to void when he or she becomes an Elected President. Who is such nominee, you can decide with information you have and information extrapolation by yourself.

Politicians are liars because they break many promises but some politicians will do something from their promises for their citizens. It's the main point why you pick one nominee for your vote and refuse to vote for another.

I strongly disagree that both nominee will help Bitcoin adoption and if you saw what SEC. and Gensler did recent years or even last year to this cryptocurrency market, you can pick a good nominee for your vote.

If you are the USA citizen, use your vote; if you are not, you can consider it as your thinking only.

[JollyGood]

I agree with this because both nominees will use any means available to them as they try to become president but after they are actually in office, we will probably see many changes from they way they conducted themselves as presidential hopefuls. At present their statements have little value.

One other thing to consider is no matter what Gensler is planning with the SEC, it was reported Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse stated Gensler was going to replaced therefore circumstances seem to be changing all the time.

I strongly disagree that both nominee will help Bitcoin adoption and if you saw what SEC. and Gensler did recent years or even last year to this cryptocurrency market, you can pick a good nominee for your vote.

[SickDayIn]

The linked article cires that a Political Action Committee (PAC) called "Future Forward" which supports the Democratic Party and presidential nominee Kalama Harris, are the ones who are accepting cryptocurrency donations. This should not be confused as the party or campaign itself is accepting cryptocurrency donations. A PAC is essentially a tax exempt organisation which can support political parties. The PAC's choice to accept cryptocurrency does not represent the Democratic parties beliefs or support for cryptocurrency.

As someone who lives outside of the US, it is easy to read the headlines and jump into conclusion just as the topic title. Anyways, I tell people not to believe everything they read on the internet. I don't know if there would be any negative repercussions if Harris openly accepts bitcoin or not. The Political Action Committee (PAC) accepting bitcoin "on her behalf" could just mean that they want to be inclusive however, Harris doesn't want to be directly involved in it for whatever reason. I do not know US politics a lot therefore I may be wrong. Whatever the case may be I can say for sure that no one knows what the hearts and minds of the presidential candidates towards bitcoin are until either one of them is elected into office. But I can tell you for sure that, anyone who still has Gary Gensler hold his position after taking office is definitely not for the crypto community.

For sure I understand, makes sense why people might be quick to draw conclusions. I'm not from the USA but I became familiar with PACs after Elon Musk announced he was forming one to support Donald Trump with that $45m per month or whatever it was.

[retreat]

What does accepting Bitcoin donations have to do with accepting Bitcoin? Because there is no guarantee that when she accepts Bitcoin donations it will change her policy in a more positive direction on Bitcoin in the future when she becomes president - it could be worse - because it is not only up to her but also Congress. So there is no need to overstate this because it does not matter at all whether she accepts Bitcoin, gold, or even garbage.

[Ale88]

What does accepting Bitcoin donations have to do with accepting Bitcoin? Because there is no guarantee that when she accepts Bitcoin donations it will change her policy in a more positive direction on Bitcoin in the future when she becomes president - it could be worse - because it is not only up to her but also Congress. So there is no need to overstate this because it does not matter at all whether she accepts Bitcoin, gold, or even garbage.

Of course the two things are not connected but some people love to convince themselves that certain things could be great for the crypto environment. I prefer to stick to the reality of facts, and the facts say that the Democratic Party is extremely against cryptocurrencies, their decisions over the last 4 years should be pretty clear to everyone at this point. And the fact that Harris never mentioned bitcoin once it's another indication that they don't intend changing their view. Probably she doesn't want to expose herself openly telling she's against cryptos because it could backfire so instead she prefers avoiding the topic.

[JollyGood]

This was my view too. For now at least, the presumption has to be that any Bitcoin donations received will be converted to USD$ at the earliest stage and will be banked ready to use at any moment the respective campaigns feel they need funds. Just because any presidential hopeful might be accepting Bitcoin donations now does not mean they will be a crypto friendly president.

What does accepting Bitcoin donations have to do with accepting Bitcoin? Because there is no guarantee that when she accepts Bitcoin donations it will change her policy in a more positive direction on Bitcoin in the future when she becomes president - it could be worse - because it is not only up to her but also Congress. So there is no need to overstate this because it does not matter at all whether she accepts Bitcoin, gold, or even garbage.

[legiteum]

This was my view too. For now at least, the presumption has to be that any Bitcoin donations received will be converted to USD$ at the earliest stage and will be banked ready to use at any moment the respective campaigns feel they need funds. Just because any presidential hopeful might be accepting Bitcoin donations now does not mean they will be a crypto friendly president.

I don't think it indicates a candidate "loves" Bitcoin, but it surely dispels the myth that Harris is somehow "against Bitcoin".

The US has the majority of the worldwide hashrate, we have most of the holders here, Bitcoin has gone up hugely in the last few years, and it's absolutely legal to buy, sell, hold, and basically do almost anything you want that doesn't involve shutting down a children's hospital for ransom.

In other words, the US government is as friendly as it can reasonably be expected to be toward Bitcoin. The ones saying otherwise are just partisans shilling for their party: they are using Bitcoin as an excuse to campaign for the candidate they already want.

[Smartvirus]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Yet another US politics related thread. There isn’t much need to having all these thread here and there on the forum. I mean, I like how both candidates are having to project Bitcoin in all this but, it on the other hand, shows just the length they both are going for support by patronizing the cryptocurrency community. Am tired of seeing it already and hope the polls just come and be done with. Let’s know where all this is headed and the role of politics in cryptocurrency.