Jennifer Lawrence, a well-known actress, recently shared her thoughts on whether celebrities influence voters. She questioned if her political statements actually make a difference, especially after supporting specific candidates in past elections. Lawrence pointed out that celebrities don't seem to change how people vote, making her wonder if she should keep speaking out on political issues.

Experts agree that celebrity endorsements don't usually sway voters. People's voting decisions are more influenced by their political party, income, background, and major events. However, celebrities can still play a role in politics. They can draw attention to lesser-known candidates and get people excited about voting. For example, Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama in 2007 helped increase his vote count.

Celebrities can also make politics seem more important and relevant, especially to people who aren't usually interested. When Taylor Swift endorsed a candidate in 2018, it sent a message to her fans that paying attention to politics is important. Even if the candidate didn't win, Swift's endorsement led to more people visiting voting websites.

Stars can also encourage their fans to donate to candidates they support, helping with fundraising efforts. A study from Harvard University found that celebrity endorsements can make voting seem trendy and appealing. While Lawrence might not be as vocal about politics in the future, she plans to express her views through her films.

Experts urge people to stay involved in politics, even if they feel disappointed after an election. Politics affects everyone's daily lives, and staying engaged is important for democracy.

Do Celebrities Really Move the Needle on Voting?

House Republicans recently shook things up by voting against a key procedural measure. This vote was meant to advance several bills related to cryptocurrency and a Defense Department funding bill. The move caught many off guard, especially since it was supposed to be a big week for crypto under President Trump's agenda.

Out of 223 votes in favor, 196 were against, with 13 Republicans going against the grain. These Republicans included notable names like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Andy Biggs. Majority Leader Steve Scalise also voted against it, but for procedural reasons, allowing the measure to be revisited later.

So, why did these Republicans vote no? It seems the GENIUS Act, which sets rules for stablecoins, was a big sticking point. Stablecoins are different from other cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. They are tied to real assets, like gold or fiat currency, to keep their value steady. The idea is that for every stablecoin in circulation, there should be an equivalent amount of reserves backing it.

Marjorie Taylor Greene said she voted no because the GENIUS Act didn't align with the president's executive order banning Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). She also mentioned that the House leadership didn't allow amendments, which is a right they believe they have.

Anna Paulina Luna shared similar concerns, worrying that the bill could open a backdoor for CBDCs. She made her thoughts clear on social media, stating she couldn't support anything that might enable CBDCs.

The failure of this vote has put a wrench in the House leaders' plans. They are now planning to bring the vote back up later in the day. The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, which would ban CBDCs, might not get as much bipartisan support as the GENIUS Act. Some members are worried that the anti-CBDC bill won't pass the Senate, so they want the GENIUS Act to include language blocking CBDCs.

CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, like the Federal Reserve. Proponents argue that a centralized dollar could prevent bank bailouts and increase efficiency. However, opponents worry that it could give the Fed too much power or raise privacy concerns.

POLITICAL VOTING

Do Celebrities Really Move the Needle on Voting?

Crypto Chaos: House Republicans Stir the Pot

Continue reading...