The donors thing I can kinda see (though it goes against the "any American can be POTUS" spiel) but the pledge that the losers MUST support the winner? That's some totalitarian shit right there. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...rs-trump-desantis_uk_647aed25e4b045ce2488d6e6
The thing with the fundraising requirement is that because it's based on the number of donors rather than amount raised, the rich don't have a lot of extra sway. And it's probably reasonable to say that if a person can't inspire 40,000 supporters nationwide to give $1, they're not a viable candidate. The problem from the campaigns' standpoint is that it can push them into wildly inefficient fundraising strategies, pouring so much money into online ads aimed at getting lots of small-dollar donations that they actually spend more than they take in. (I gave $10 to Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign at exactly this stage, and it was in response to a "get her into the debates" appeal.) The "support the winner" pledge would put Liz Cheney, in particular, in an awkward position if she were to run. Others, like Asa Hutchinson, aren't wild about it, but Cheney has actually stated on the record that she will not support Trump if he's the 2024 nominee. Signing the pledge would completely destroy her brand as the "Principled Republican," and that brand is really all she has. Could she run an insurgent campaign, saying "I won't be in the debates because I'm standing on principle"? Or does this make it more likely that she'll wait in the wings, try to get someone else nominated, and then run as an independent if Trump gets the nomination again?
Or they can do exactly what Trump would have done/still might do, pledge to support the winner to get into the debates and then, you know, not. The GOP is the party of liars. This one seems small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Pretty sure the Dems did the donor quantity requirement thing last time too.
