Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Electoral

Democratic2020 US House of Representatives2018 US House of RepresentativesCongressional District 2Tennessee

Renee Hoyos

 

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

Renee Hoyos’ policy on campaign finance

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should there be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor?

  ChatGPTYes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors

Renee Hoyos’ answer is based on the following data:

Party influence

Democratic Party Answer: Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: “Democrats denounced it as an assault on democracy and a sop to billionaires when the Supreme Court issued a ruling two years ago...” ‐nytimes.com

ChatGPT

Very strongly agree

Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors

This statement aligns well with the Democratic party's stance on campaign finance reform, which seeks to limit the influence of wealthy donors on politicians. It is likely that Hoyos would strongly agree with this statement. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

Renee Hoyos, as a Democratic candidate, is likely to support campaign finance reform, which includes limiting the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor. However, without specific statements from Hoyos on this issue, the score is not a full 5. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, and ban all political donations and publicly fund elections

While many Democrats support campaign finance reform, not all support the idea of banning all political donations and publicly funding elections. Without specific statements from Hoyos on this issue, it's difficult to determine her exact stance. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, as long as all donations are public knowledge

While transparency in campaign finance is generally supported by Democrats, this answer suggests no limits on donation amounts, which is likely at odds with Hoyos' stance on campaign finance reform. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Given her party's stance on campaign finance reform, it is unlikely that Hoyos would support unlimited donations from a single donor. However, without specific statements from Hoyos on this issue, the score is not a full -5. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, this is a violation of free speech

This statement is in direct opposition to the Democratic party's stance on campaign finance reform. It is highly unlikely that Hoyos would view limits on campaign donations as a violation of free speech. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Candidate’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

Updated 17hrs ago

Party’s support base

Democratic Party Voters’ Answer: Yes

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 7,381 voters that identify as Democratic.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

Active 5mins ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3hrs3H

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  179 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4hrs4H

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies

Active 2hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3hrs3H

Trump Slams Zelensky As "Foolish" Over Russian Missile Strike

President-elect Donald Trump went out of his way to criticize Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over his decision to fire missiles into Russia, characterizing it as a “foolish decision” and even “the most dangerous” geopolitical development in recent days.Trump has met with Zelensky twice since winning the 2024 election. After speaking with the war leader in Paris last week, Trump declared that “He wants to make peace.”“He thinks it’s time, and [Vladimir] Putin should think it’s time because he’s lost — when you lose 700,000 people, it’s time. It’s not going to end until there’s a peace,” he continued.In his “Person of the Year” interview with Time, however, Trump took a detour from a question about Iran to blast Zelensky.“Iran recently plotted to have you assassinated. What are the chances of going to war with Iran during your next term?” asked Trump’s interlocutor.“Anything can happen. Anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation,” replied Trump before turning his attention to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.Elsewhere in the interview, Trump was asked if he would “commit to protecting Ukrainian sovereignty?”“I would like to see Ukraine—okay, ready? You have to go back a little bit further. It would have never happened if I were president. Would have never happened—” he answered.After being pressed about whether he would “abandon Ukraine,” Trump said, “I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon. You understand what that means, right?”

▲  188 replies