Monthly Archives: August 2021

This article was written exclusively for Investing.com.

, , and other cryptocurrencies made a substantial comeback from their lows following the steep correction that occurred after the April and May peaks. Bitcoin dropped from $65,520 on Apr. 14 to a low of $28,800 in late June or over 56%. Ethereum reached its peak at $4,406.50 in mid-May and fell to a low of $1697.75 in late June, a decline of nearly 61.5%.

The market cap of the entire asset class of over 11,180 digital tokens more than halved from around the $2.5 trillion level.

While prices plunged, the speculative frenzy in the cryptocurrency asset class continues to attract new participants each day. On Sunday, Aug. 8, Bitcoin was back above the $43,800 level, with Ethereum at just over $3000 per token. The market cap for the entire class was nearly $1.775 trillion.

Stories of incredible wealth creation from those with the foresight to turn a $1 investment in Bitcoin at five cents in 2010 into over $2 million is a powerful catalyst. Moreover, technology companies continue to embrace the libertarian form of money, with Squares (NYSE:) Jack Dorsey leading the way.

At the recent B-word conference, the CEO of both SQ and Twitter (NYSE:) called cryptocurrency the internets form of money. As more businesses begin accepting tokens for payment, governments are not likely to stand by idly.

Governments have repeatedly challenged cryptos because of their nefarious uses. However, it is control of the money supply that is at the root of their concerns.

Control of the purse strings is the most significant factor in retaining power. Surrendering the money supply to any libertarian currency diminishes control.

The status quo means governments can expand or contract the money supply with the push of a button. The ideological divide between governments and a form of money that transcends borders creates a vast gulf.

Governments embrace Blockchain as it represents the technological evolution of finance. The speed and efficiency of fintech have broad appeal. However, the digital currencies themselves pose a massive threat to power.

China appears to be the first government to issue a digital form of its currency, the yuan. In preparation, the Chinese have cracked down on Bitcoin and other cryptos. It will not be long before the US and Europe roll out digital dollars and euro. Washington DC and the EU are more than likely to follow Chinas lead to retain control of the money supply and hold onto financial power.

Post-2008, in the aftermath of the financial markets crash, the stage was set for cross-border regulatory cooperation. Given the move towards globalism under the Biden administration, we are likely to see regulators in the US, UK, and EU work together to establish a framework for cryptocurrency regulation.

While they will present this as a regulatory environment to protect investors, traders, and the sanctity of money, the underlying factor will be control and maintenance of the monetary status quo.

I expect that fintech will bifurcate into two regulatory protocols. One will cover government-issued digital currencies and could include so-called stablecoins that reflect hard asset values.

These are likely to be the blue chips that will face a more lenient regulatory landscape as control will continue to come from governments, treasuries, central banks, and monetary authorities.

Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, could face far more regulatory hurdles to mitigate their threat to established power bases.

One of the most potent tools governments have at their disposal is taxation. A sign that cryptocurrencies are already in the US governments crosshairs are two competing crypto tax amendments in the Senates infrastructure legislation. The taxation comes down to defining the role of a broker in cryptocurrencies.

Ironically, Senators initially looked to impose stricter rules on taxing cryptocurrencies to help fund the infrastructure bill. The Wyden-Toomey-Lummis amendment would narrow the broker definition to exclude miners and validators, hardware and software makers, and protocol developers from the designation. The amendment would seek to keep the crypto business and market from moving overseas to less restrictive jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the Portman-Warner-Sinema amendment would only protect proof of work (PoW) miners from the newly proposed reporting requirement. The amendment would not make proof of stake (PoS) developers, operators, validators, or liquidity providers from the reporting requirements.

The bottom line: strict taxation is on the horizon in some form. Taxation is the most significant device governments can use to maintain a grip on the asset class and exert control.

Under the umbrella of paying for infrastructure, the IRS and other government agencies would have the power to control money flows with complete transparency. Moreover, cross-border cooperation could be a silver bullet that drives the market away from cryptos toward government-issued digital currencies and stable coins that reflect the value of regulated assets.

Libertarian ideology shifts power from the state to individuals. Libertarians believe in free markets where prices come from transparent transactions without government interference. Ironically, many believe that libertarianism is a right-wing doctrine.

When it comes to money, it decreases the governments role. However, socially, libertarianism can also appeal to the political left. Right and left political ideologies embrace different forms of libertarianism.

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, neither the government nor proponents of the burgeoning asset class will be pleased with the outcome. In the US and Europe, the growth of technology companies that have created oligarchies sets the stage for an epic battle over the future of the money supply.

Government officials are on one side, with Jack Dorsey, Tesla's (NASDAQ:) Elon Musk, Amazon's (NASDAQ:) Jeff Bezos, and other titans embracing a fintech world that transcends government control on the other.

Both sides have vested interests. The governments will do anything to preserve their hold on power. The crypto market and technology companies seek to return power to individuals, but they stand to be financial benefactors.

The bottom line: regulations are on the horizon, and they are likely to create a class system where digital currencies and stablecoins are not subject to the same treatment as cryptos.

Two competing payment systems could become mutually exclusive, creating lots of volatility and an epic financial battle for control. Governments may have the right to taxation, regulations, and armies of agents at their disposal. However, the technology sector has know-how and skills that dwarf the capabilities of those looking to maintain the status quo.

Speculative interest is currently fueling the libertarian asset class, which is why Chinese regulators have put their foot down. China is an authoritarian system, making it easy to suppress anything that is not in the governments interest.

Expect the US and Europe to try to do the same. However, in social democracies, that task is far from easy.

Source: CQG

The monthly chart of , above, shows that the speculative frenzy is likely to continue. Nearly 11,200 cryptocurrencieswith more coming to the market each dayis another sign that the asset class has rising appeal. Moreover, the existence of Bitcoin and means the cat is already out of the bag, and the US and Europe will now seek to tax and regulate from a weakened position.

Many agree that Blockchain is the future of the payments system. However, the form of money is an issue that will continue to stoke controversy for years to come.

Read the original:
Cryptocurrency Regulations On The Horizon; Expect 2 Sets Of Protocols - Investing.com India

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulRepublicans are the 21st-century Know-Nothing Party CDC: Unvaccinated more than twice as likely to get COVID-19 reinfection Senate in talks to quickly pass infrastructure bill MORE (R-Ky.) has been suspended from YouTube for a week over a video claiming that masks are ineffective against COVID-19.

In a statement to The Hill, a YouTube spokesperson said theplatform "removed content from Senator Pauls channel for including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19, in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies."

"This resulted in a first strike on the channel, which means it cant upload content for a week, per our longstanding three strikes policy. We apply our policies consistently across the platform, regardless of speaker or political views, and we make exceptions for videos that have additional context such as countervailing views from local health authorities," the spokesperson added.

If there is another policy violation during the 90-day period, Paul's channel will receive a second strike, and he will not be able to upload for two weeks.

Paul said in a statementthatthis kind of censorship is very dangerous, incredibly anti-free speech, and truly anti-progress of science, which involves skepticism and argumentation to arrive at the truth.

As a libertarian leaning Senator, I think private companies have the right to ban me if they want to, so in this case Ill just channel that frustration into ensuring the public knows YouTube is acting as an arm of government and censoring their users for contradicting the government, Paul added.

The move comes a week afterYouTube removed a video ofPaul being interviewed by a Newsmax journalist on wearing masks during the pandemic.

YouTube said at the time that it removed the video for falsely claiming that masks were ineffective against COVID-19.

But the video that led to the suspension was Pauls response to theYouTube removing the earlier video, his office said.

In that second video, Paul claimed that two different studies showed that surgical masks and cloth masks didnt protect against the coronavirus.

Paul madehis response video available on Rumble.

Earlier this week, Twitter took similar action against Rep. Marjorie Taylor GreeneMarjorie Taylor GreeneGOP efforts to downplay danger of Capitol riot increase The Memo: What now for anti-Trump Republicans? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's meeting with Trump 'soon' in Florida MORE (R-Ga.), suspending her for seven daysafter she tweetedthat vaccines are failing.

Updated at 10:15 a.m.

Visit link:
Rand Paul suspended one week by YouTube over COVID-19 mask claims | TheHill - The Hill

My father, of blessed memory, a stalwart civil libertarian who cut his teeth as a lawyer defending people accused of being communists by McCarthyite goons, used to say, Your rights end where my nose begins.

The aphorism seems particularly apt at a time when one of the greatest collective threats we face is a pathogen transmitted through the air into our nasal passages.

Anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers claim their rights, their freedom, is being violated by requiring them to don a mask or get a shot.

Former Vice President Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceThe Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by AT&T - Rafael Nadal spotted around D.C. during Citi Open Pence urges young conservatives to get COVID-19 vaccine Virginia couple gets home detention in Jan. 6 case MORE encouraged this ludicrous line of reasoning last year when he responded to a reporter who asked about maskless people at Trump rallies by asserting a nonexistent constitutional right: Even in a health crisis, the American people dont forfeit our constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court actually decided this issue more than a century ago when Cambridge, Mass., Pastor Henning Jacobson argued that a state law requiring him to be vaccinated against smallpox was unconstitutional. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held mandatory vaccination laws were, in fact, wholly constitutional.

As Justice John Harlan wrote, in every well-ordered society, charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members, the rights of the individual, in respect of his liberty, may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

Further, wrote Harlan, liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.

In other words, my father was correct the rights of anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers end where everyone elses noses begin.

There is no freedom to seriously endanger, no right to infect, others.

If some refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated, the rest of us have the right to keep them away from our nasal passages at work, at school, in stores and elsewhere.

A majority of Americans agree.

Just as COVID-19s scourge was beginning in early March 2020, we had the privilege of working with a great team to defeat Maines Question 1, which would have made it easier for people to evade vaccinations (obviously before there was a COVID-19 vaccine). Seventy-three percent of Mainers voted for strong vaccine requirements. That included majorities in every county in the state.

More recent polls confirm widespread public support for both vaccination and mask mandates.

In a Morning Consult/Politico survey, 68 percent favored federal government officials making it mandatory to wear face masks in public spaces, with 32 percent opposed.

Last weeks Yahoo News/YouGov poll found a lesser but still clear majority, 55 percent, in favor of making it mandatory to wear masks in public, while 45 percent opposed.

On the other end of the spectrum, a Hill/Harris X survey asked about a mask mandate if COVID-19 cases spiked in your area. Seventy-four percent favored the requirement in those circumstances, while 24 percent were opposed.

Americans also favor a vaccine mandate. A Covid States Project survey in June and July pegged approval for government requiring everyone to get a COVID-19 vaccination at 64 percent, with 45 percent of Republicans supporting such action. Seventy percent of Americans approve of a vaccine requirement for air travel.

More than 60 percent support vaccine mandates for federal workers (including members of Congress), teachers, police officers and those working in health care, according to a YouGov survey last week.

Americans recognize our obligation to protect each other and the need for rules and restrictions to accomplish that objective. They know my father was right: Our rights end at the nasal passages of our fellow Americans.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for more than 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.

See the original post:
Mellman: Your rights and my nose | TheHill - The Hill

Many scientific findings continue to be disputed by politicians and parts of the public long after a scholarly consensus has been established. For example, nearly a third of Americans still do not accept that fossil fuel emissions cause climate change, even though the scientific community settled on a consensus that they do decades ago.

Research into why people reject scientific facts has identified peoples political worldviews as the principal predictor variable. People with a libertarian or conservative worldview are more likely to reject climate change and evolution and are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

What explains this propensity for rejection of science by some of the political right? Are there intrinsic attributes of the scientific enterprise that are uniquely challenging to people with conservative or libertarian worldviews? Or is the association merely the result of conflicting imperatives between scientific findings and their economic implications? In the case of climate change, for example, any mitigation necessarily entails interference with current economic practice.

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the first possibility that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking. We focused on two aspects of science: the often tacit norms and principles that guide the scientific enterprise, and the history of how scientific progress has led us to understand that human beings are not the centre of the universe.

Sociologist Robert Merton famously proposed norms for the conduct of science in 1942. The norm of communism (different from the political philosophy of communism) holds that the results of scientific research should be the common property of the scientific community. Universalism postulates that knowledge should transcend racial, class, national or political barriers. Disinteredness mandates that scientists should conduct research for the benefit of the scientific enterprise rather than for personal gain.

These norms sit uneasily with strands of standard contemporary conservative thought. Conservatism is typically associated with nationalism and patriotism, at the expense of embracing cooperative internationalism. And the notion of disinterestedness may not mesh well with conservative emphasis on property rights.

Science has enabled us to explain the world around us but that may create further tensions especially with religious conservatism. The idea that humans are exceptional is at the core of traditional Judeo-Christian thought, which sees the human as an imago Dei, an image of God, that is clearly separate from other beings and nature itself.

Against this human exceptionalism, the over-arching outcome of centuries of research since the scientific revolution has been a diminution of the status of human beings. We now recognise our planet to be a rather small and insignificant object in a universe full of an untold number of galaxies, rather than the centre of all creation.

We tested how those two over-arching attributes of science its intrinsic norms and its historical effect on how humans see themselves might relate to conservative thought and acceptance of scientific facts in two large-scale studies. Each involved a representative sample of around 1,000 US residents.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism. Conservatism, on the other hand, is skeptical of that possibility and leans more towards the idea that improvement comes from the individual implying a lesser role for the malleability of intelligence.

The fact that individual differences in intelligence are related to genetic differences, with current estimates of heritability hovering around 50%, is therefore potentially challenging to liberals but might be endorsed by conservatives.

The two studies differed slightly in how we measured political views and peoples endorsement of the norms of science, but the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change. This suggests that people who embrace the scientific enterprise as a whole are also more likely to accept specific scientific findings.

We found limited support for the possibility that belief in human exceptionalism would predispose people to be more sceptical in their acceptance of scientific propositions. Exceptionalism had little direct effect on scientific attitudes. Therefore, our study provided no evidence for the conjecture that the long history of science in displacing humans from the centre of the world contributes to conversatives uneasiness with science.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought in this case the belief that people can be improved are in potential conflict with the evidence.

The two studies help explain why conservatives are more likely to reject scientific findings than liberals. This rejection is not only dictated by political interests clashing with a specific body of scientific knowledge (such as human-caused climate change), but it appears to represent a deeper tension between conservatism and the spirit in which science is commonly conducted.

Read the rest here:
Many conservatives have a difficult relationship with science we wanted to find out why - The Conversation UK

Kyle Wingfield| Savannah Morning News

A look at shifts in Savannah's neighborhoods and housing market

Savannah Morning News reporter Zoe Nicholson talks about the changes she's been told about in local neighborhoods and what gentrification looks like.

Savannah Morning News

This is a column by Kyle Wingfield, president and CEO of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, a Libertarian-leaning think tank.

Government has not covered itself in glory during the pandemic. Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the eviction moratorium. Lawlessness, disregard for property rights, failure to deliver on government programs its all here.

The federal government has imposed several different bans on landlords evicting tenants for failure to pay rent during this pandemic. Congress and both the Trump and Biden administrations have all enacted constitutionally dubious moratoriums. Theres lots of blame to go around.

'This community is not prepared': Eviction moratorium extension delays inevitable pain for tenants, landlords

Stick with me as we go through the history:

The CARES Act of March 2020 imposed a 120-day eviction moratorium on landlords who accept federal assistance programs or loans. When that ban ended and Congress failed to enact a new one, then-President Donald Trump ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to weigh whether a new moratorium was reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.

The CDC turned to the Public Health Service Act, which allows the secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human being, and wait for it other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.

Theres quite a distance between ordering pest extermination and forbidding private property owners from evicting non-paying tenants. What couldnt the secretary do under the umbrella of other measures? Worse, the CDCs moratorium applied to all landlords, not just those involved in federal programs.

Resource Guide: What to know if you're facing eviction in Chatham County

That moratorium was to expire Dec. 31, 2020. Once again, Congress stepped in and approved a one-month extension. Once again, Congress declined to go further.

Once again, the CDC did so anyway. A few extensions later, and landlords were looking at July 31 before the moratorium would be lifted.

A group of plaintiffs sought an earlier end, and won in federal court. But when they asked the Supreme Court to enforce the order, it declined to do so.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the tie-breaking vote. He explained he was acting out of practicality, since the ban was already set to end, but there were limits to his forbearance: "In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.

Fast-forward to Aug. 3. After weeks of Congress failing to act and administration officials admitting they had no legal authority to do so, President Joe Biden announced a new extension anyway, in counties with "substantial and high levels" of community transmission.

He acknowledged that the bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that its not likely to pass constitutional muster. … (and) the Court has already ruled on the present eviction moratorium.

But, he continued, at a minimum, by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while were getting that $45 billion out to people who are, in fact, behind in the rent and dont have the money.

In other words, the wheels of justice grind slowly, and he knows it.

More from Kyle Wingfield: Back to school issues renew calls for lawmakers to expand school choice options

But what about that $45 billion Biden mentioned? Thats the real kicker to this saga.

Its the amount Congress has appropriated for emergency rental assistance. You know, the kind of thing that might have helped any out-of-work tenants (versus those simply taking advantage of the moratorium) stay current on their rent, and kept landlords from having to borrow or fall behind in their own debts.

Its the kind of thing that could have obviated the need for a moratorium. But more than seven months after Congress approved the first $25 billion, much of the money has yet to be distributed.

So to recap, we have a Congress that has only intermittently decided to ban evictions, and two presidents who have done so despite lacking clear legal authority. We have a Congress that has approved tens of billions in rent assistance, but a governing apparatus nationwide that has proven incapable of distributing it with any efficiency or urgency.

And were supposed to give more power to this government?

Continue reading here:
How inefficient is the federal government? Check out the eviction moratorium saga - Savannah Morning News

During the past four-plus decades that Kathi Wright has lived in Loveland, she has seen city councils come and go. That time includes 13 years spent as a staff member of the city of Loveland.

Wright is one of nine on Lovelands most recent council a regularly quarrelsome group, in which she and councilor Richard Ball occupy a shifting middle ground between the conservative majority and a left-leaning minority.

Kathi Wright

Ive watched cycles of council that work well together and cycles that dont, Wright said. I really think the next four years are going to be one of the positive cycles.

The Nebraska native and former executive director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Larimer County has announced she will run for a second four-year term representing Ward II on the City Council this fall.

One challenger, Doug Luithly, has already declared his candidacy for the seat. Wright represents the citys west-central ward along with Andrea Samson, who was elected in 2019.

The main thing Ill continue to do is bring positive, constructive leadership, Wright said. Ive had so many people ask me to stay in there, speaking about the need for balance and that they need me to stay on. I think my decision was just based on people whose opinions I value greatly.

When asked what she considered to be the highlights of her past four years of service, Wright mentioned the rollout of the Pulse municipal broadband utility; the citys Connect Loveland plan, Big Thompson River Corridor Master Plan and two-year communications road map; completion of the 37th Street bridge over Dry Creek; and the partnership to provide services for the homeless through Homeward Alliance.

She also took pride in her vote to remove a ban on flavored vaping and tobacco products from an anti-youth vaping rule passed by the council in April.

I feel like Im a progressive here, and Im a libertarian there. My vote on tobacco products was libertarian. It was about the liberty of a law-abiding adult to walk into a store a buy a product that they appreciate, she said.

During her second term, Wright hopes to direct more resources toward economic development, adding that she believed the city should double its investment in its Economic Development Department.

She also said she felt the incentives awarded to businesses by the city during her tenure, such as the $250,000 earmarked for Tharp Cabinet Co. in 2018, had a positive impact on Lovelands business community.

As part of the city effort to engage more citizens, she said she would like to see more education offered on the citys budget and how funds are committed currently. She also indicated she may support sending another sales tax question to the voters in the future.

The more I think about what Andrea (Samson) suggested about doing a sales tax just for one project, the more I like it, she said.

Wright said she would also like to see the city work with developers to encourage creative solutions to the problem of Lovelands sparse affordable housing market, such as homes built from hemp or 3D-printed components.

I think we have to get out of the box, encouraging builders and making sure our code is flexible enough to do it, she said.

Other priorities mentioned by Wright included reopening the Pulliam Community Building I want to see Norm (Rehme) dance in that ballroom, she said and bringing infrastructure in downtown Loveland up to date.

Wright has one adult son, Joe. She is a member of the Loveland Rotary Club and a past member and past president of the Loveland Philo Club, and has volunteered with United Way. She has also served on the Garfield Elementary Parent-Teacher Organization/School Accountability Advisory Committee and the Master Plan Committee of the Thompson School District.

The citys municipal election will be Nov. 2.

See original here:
Kathi Wright to run for reelection to Ward II seat on Loveland City Council - Loveland Reporter-Herald

The road to City Hall (photo: Benjamin Kanter/Mayoral Photo Office)

With just three months to go, the November general election is looking increasingly one-sided as Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, the Democratic nominee, has an overwhelming fundraising advantage over Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and several independent candidates in a city where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly seven to one.

Adams, who officially launched his general election campaign last week, has raised more than $5.1 million in private donations as of July 11, the latest campaign finance deadline. He has received more than $8.1 million through the citys campaign finance program, which matches small dollar donations with public funds. That includes an additional $367,000 in matched dollars which he was awarded in the latest round of payments last week. The payment was based on reported contributions through June 11 and Adams is the only mayoral candidate so far to qualify for additional public funds since the primaries concluded.

In total, Adams has spent $11.2 million and has a hefty $2 million on hand.

To qualify for matching funds, mayoral candidates must raise a minimum of $250,000 in eligible contributions from a minimum of 1,000 donors who are city residents. The first $250 of each qualifying contribution is eligible for an 8-to-1 match under new campaign finance rules that both Adams and Sliwa have opted for. Under that option, the maximum individual contribution is capped at $2,000 per donor. A second option has a smaller match ratio (6-to-1 of the first $175 of each donation) and higher contribution limits ($5,100 for mayoral candidates). On Thursday, the Campaign Finance Board (CFB), which oversees the city's voluntary matching funds system, awarded over $1.4 million to 45 qualifying candidates for citywide and local races.

Sliwa, the Republican mayoral nominee, has only raised about $592,000 for his campaign and had spent most of it, as of July 11. He had $62,000 remaining in his coffers. His campaign manager, Robert Hornak, told Gotham Gazette the campaign had hoped to qualify for public funds and believed Sliwa had met the necessary threshold, but the campaign's matching claims were not audited by the CFB in time for the latest dolling of public funds.

Sliwa's campaign has submitted $285,000 in matching fund claims higher than the $250,000 minimum which have to be reviewed by the CFB. He has raised about $373,076 from city residents and $218,758 from outside the city.

"There is absolutely no doubt that we will make it in our August filing," Hornak said over the phone Wednesday. "Our digital fundraising and mail response has been huge in recent weeks, and we'll probably be over by easily $50,000 or $100,000 in matchable contributions in our next filing." The next filing, covering activity from July 12 to August 23, is due August 27.

Sliwas fundraising will also determine whether there will be one or two official debates ahead of the election. By law, the CFB will sponsor an initial public debate for the general election (in partnership with media outlets) as long as two or more candidates in a mayoral race raise and spend $182,150 by October 1, which both Sliwa and Adams have already done. That debate is scheduled for October 20, hosted by WNBC. For the second leading contenders debate, scheduled for October 26, candidates must either qualify for public matching funds by the latest campaign finance deadline prior to the debate, which is October 22, or will have to raise and spend at least $2.25 million by then.

Under CFB rules, if Sliwa doesn't qualify for public funds there would be only one mandatory debate with candidates from the two major parties in October but a second voluntary one could still take place.

There are several independent candidates also competing in the general election but none appear to be running viable campaigns and are unlikely to appear on the debate stage.

Fernando Mateo, who lost to Sliwa in the Republican primary and is now running on the Save Our City Party line, is the only other mayoral candidate who has qualified for matching funds. He has raised $542,000 in private donations and received roughly $2 million in public funds overall. He has spent just under $2.5 million, according to CFB filings, and had about $113,000 left as of July 11.

Mateos fundraising and expenditure qualify him for the debate with Adams, and potentially Sliwa, though it is not clear that he is actively running or if he will terminate his campaign.

"Well, I'm on the ticket. Let's just leave it at that," he told Gotham Gazette on Monday.

Reigniting his campaign for the general election "is something that I am considering," he said. "I haven't ruled it out. I'm just waiting to see how the momentum is going between the two major parties."

The final list of candidates on the ballot will be posted in mid-August, according to Valerie Diaz, a spokesperson for the New York City Board of Elections. A number of other mayoral candidates are reported to be running, including Bill Pepitone on the Conservative Party line, potential Working Families Party candidate Deborah Axt, Libertarian Stacey Prussman, and independents Raja Flores, Quanda Francis, and Cathy Rojas. None of them appear likely to qualify for matching funds or the debate.

If Sliwa fails to qualify in the next round of public payments (due August 27), the CFB and broadcasters could still hold two debates with the two major contenders but participation in the second would be voluntary. Such was the case in the Republican mayoral primary in May where neither Sliwa nor Mateo met the legal criteria to trigger a debate.

A second debate could also be triggered if Mateo, who has raised and spent the requisite thresholds this election cycle, decides to maintain his campaign. "Absolutely, I would participate" in the debates he said, adding, "or I would at least consider participating. Let me put it to you that way."

Adams' campaign did not respond to a Gotham Gazette inquiry about whether he would participate in a voluntary debate with Sliwa.

Whatever debates are put in place by the Campaign Finance Board, Im going to do ads, we have a street team, we are going to do mailings, Adams said on PIX 11 last month in response to accusations from Sliwa that he is blowing off the general election. Im going to continue the flow we had during the Democratic Primary.

You dont win a baseball game in the eighth inning. No premature celebration. We have another inning to go, he said at the launch of his general election campaign on Monday. We have to make sure that our message continues to resonate.

It is unlikely there will be mandatory debates for the other citywide offices, comptroller and public advocate. Only one candidate for comptroller, Democratic nominee and current City Council Member Brad Lander, has received public funds. Republican candidate Daby Carreras, Conservative Party candidate Paul Rodriguez, and Libertarian John Tabacco did not qualify. No public advocate candidate has either. In that race, incumbent Jumaane Williams, a Democrat, will likely face off against Devi Nampiaparampil on the Republican Party line, Anthony Herbert on the Conservative and Independence party lines, and Devin Balkind on the Libertarian line.

Samar Khurshid contributed to this report.

Original post:
The Money Race in the Mayoral General Election - Gotham Gazette