There already sort of is one in the US for candidates who exceed a certain threshold of the vote. It comes with spending limits that could be exceeded by a lot by raising money outside it, so parties stopped taking it. Plus tax payers have to opt into doing it, and the rates of people doing so have dropped over time
If you've ever filed US income taxes and seen the question
"Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund"
the biggest reason being that the Supreme Court overturned a prior law to stop super pacs from having unlimited spending in Citizen United. Sure, maybe Congress could pass the same law again only for the court to overturn it 6-3
You have to fix the Supreme Court for that. It'd be difficult to regulate spending in primaries either because money is "free speech" according to them
Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money, but until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter. Plus there being more small donors is good news since it helps campaigns be less reliant on big money
Not mentioned in the article, but Trafalgar, who is notorious for heavily skewing republican is also saying voters think Harris won the debate by a large margin
During the debate, he doubled down on his full page ad calling for the execution of the central park five. Despite everything since then that's come out strongly showing they were innocent
Removing the minimum wage exception to tips does help with that. Part of the reason why tips are inventived
Plus taxes on tips as they exist already has quite a number of assumptions that tipping will always exist. For instance, assumptions of a minimum 8% tip rate for reporting. Which will be withheld from pay from at least that assumption (which you can get back if you earn less by filling)
Most of them are not pro-hamas at all and are instead against what Israel has done. Those are distinct things
Do you think unconstitutionally deporting US citizens based on their speech will lead to anything good? It'd almost certainly be extended to anything else as an excuse to remove other dissent on any area - not just gaza
Headline undersells how he did this during the 90's during the Don't Ask Don't Tell era. Was not nearly as socially or politically acceptable then as it is now in the US to do that
There already sort of is one in the US for candidates who exceed a certain threshold of the vote. It comes with spending limits that could be exceeded by a lot by raising money outside it, so parties stopped taking it. Plus tax payers have to opt into doing it, and the rates of people doing so have dropped over time
If you've ever filed US income taxes and seen the question
"Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund"
That's what it's referring to