Is it Ethical for Newsom to Contribute to the Campaign of Crist to defeat DeSantis?

[Steve R.]

Assuming that one is using their (personal) money, it is legitimate part of the democratic process to contribute to the campaign of someone that you support. But things are never that simple. At a certain undefined point, an ethical line is crossed. In this case, the optics behind Newsom helping Crist are abominable. Not that they are specifically illegal, but that one state governor is interfering in the democratic process of another state.

Both the Republicans and Democrats (at the national level) use their respective "piggy banks" to aid their candidates. But in this particular case, Newsom who is a sitting governor appears to be using his "piggy bank" (source undisclosed) to influence an election in Florida. Newsom, by the simple fact that he is a sitting governor, projects an image of the State of California attempting to interfere in Florida's democratic process. That would seem to imply that Democrats are attempting to frustrate an open democratic process to occur in Florida. That is quite contrary to the Democratic party never ending claims that they are the protectors of democratic processes. To avoid the optics of interference, the only public statement that Newsom should be making would be along the lines that it is up to the voters of Floriday to make their own decision.

Gavin Newsom pledges $100K to help Charlie Crist defeat Ron DeSantis | CNN Politics

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending money across the country to help Rep. Charlie Crist defeat Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis this November.

www.cnn.com

PS: As an associated example of a person with a massive amount of wealth having an ability to tilt an election.

Study: Zuckerberg Masks Pro-Democrat Tilt Of 2020 Election ‘Zuck Bucks’

The $332 million that Mark Zuckerberg and his wife provided to help run the 2020 elections was distributed on a highly partisan basis.

thefederalist.com

 

[AngelSpeaks]

IMO, if you live in that area and are eligible to vote, then you can but to donate to influence the election for another district, city, county, state? NO! It should not be allowed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ever since SCOTUS opened the door for corporate donations to campaigns, it has been more or less moot to worry about campaign donations.

If we can vote "against" someone - like I voted for Trump when Hillary was the other choice - then I don't see any conflicts. AND I'm a firm believer in the idea that spending money on any political purpose is better than having it sit idle in a bank account. Money is one of those concepts that works best when it is working actively. I.e. money in circulation is generally GOOD money. Money in savings is only good if the investment is one that actively uses the money while you AREN'T using it.

 

[Steve R.]

Ever since SCOTUS opened the door for corporate donations to campaigns, it has been more or less moot to worry about campaign donations.

If we can vote "against" someone - like I voted for Trump when Hillary was the other choice - then I don't see any conflicts. AND I'm a firm believer in the idea that spending money on any political purpose is better than having it sit idle in a bank account. Money is one of those concepts that works best when it is working actively. I.e. money in circulation is generally GOOD money. Money in savings is only good if the investment is one that actively uses the money while you AREN'T using it.

Society, to function effectively, depends on the citizens being ethical and law abiding, besides some other criteria. When a politician asserts that they are upholding democracy, they need to "walk the walk". As @AngelSpeaks noted, if you are eligible to vote in a district, it is OK to donate; but if you are outside of that district you should not donate. Not donating requires ethical constraint. This becomes extremely complicated with national and statewide elections were the voter is eligible to vote for people outside of his/her district, but who would represent them. Florida is outside of Newsom's California jurisdiction.

In the case of Newsom, he may not be breaking the law, but his actions are unethical since he seeking he is seeking to interfere in another "family's squabble". I don't think any family would want an outsider to invite themselves into their personal argument so that one person wins and the other loses. Undisclosed is another ethical concern: Is Newsom using his personal money or is he using money that the citizens of California gave him to work on California issues? Should Newsom be using California citizen donations, should that be considered an inappropriate action. (Note that I am avoiding using the word "illegal".)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'll concede that using CA campaign contributions against a non-CA candidate is at best highly questionable. But in distinction, using one's personal wealth has already been decided to be legal. I don't agree with the case where that was decided because I don't think general corporations should be allowed to contribute at all. The ONLY corporations that should be allowed to spend money for or against someone's campaign are the formal Political Action corporations (non-profit). But SCOTUS says no, you can't stop the others.

To my way of thinking, the rights of free speech and freedom of the press were intended to preserve the ability to inform the voters of issues and to expose relevant facts about each candidate. A corporation is not a "real" person; e.g. cannot vote, and therefore should be out of the loop of politics altogether. The individuals who work for the corporation, if citizens, CAN vote - once each - so no citizen's rights have been trampled. But a corporation cannot be a citizen.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It is totally wrong for non-voters to be able to make campaign contributions whether they be individuals from different precincts or corporations of any type. That Supreme Court decision ranks right up there with Dred Scott in the damage it did. Campaign contributions for Federal elections should be capped by individual at relatively small amounts such as $5,000 per candidate and $20,000 per year to all candidates and limits of $1,000 and $5,000 for State and local elections combined. And maybe $5,000 to the DNC or RNC but that comes out of the total. No bundling. All money comes from specific individuals and must be reported on personal tax returns and the IRS needs to reconcile the numbers.

Look at what FaceBook did to swing the 2020 election. Zuckerberg single handedly probably swung enough votes to to tilt the election even if his dropboxes had not been used illegally to stuff the ballot box once you consider the outright banning of POTUS and as many of his supporters as they could find from FB along with suppressing any allegations of malfeasance directed at Biden and his family. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. PERIOD.

I would also like to see changes to the voter eligibility laws. For example, we are very close to the tipping point of having more voters who don't pay income tax than those who do. I would love to see the law changed to prevent anyone who received government assistance (not SS because that is your own money coming back to you) during the previous year or who's children receive assistance not be able to vote in Federal elections. Even extending that to Federal employees (except for the military) would be OK in my book. They all have too much of a vested interest in voting to steal money from me and reassign it to themselves.

All this unaccounted for money corrupts the system. Funds unused by a politician during a campaign should be refunded proportionally or contributed to pay down the national debt if the refund would be less than $20. Politicians should not be able to keep their campaign chests once the election is decided and all campaign debts are satisfied. If relatives are paid with campaign funds, there should be a statement to that effect visible at the bottom of every video or at the end of every speech or written ad. It is important that the people donating to Ilan knows she is paying her husband's company with their donations.

 

[jpl458]

Ever since SCOTUS opened the door for corporate donations to campaigns, it has been more or less moot to worry about campaign donations.

If we can vote "against" someone - like I voted for Trump when Hillary was the other choice - then I don't see any conflicts. AND I'm a firm believer in the idea that spending money on any political purpose is better than having it sit idle in a bank account. Money is one of those concepts that works best when it is working actively. I.e. money in circulation is generally GOOD money. Money in savings is only good if the investment is one that actively uses the money while you AREN'T using it.

Investors and stock people call it the"velocity of money". BTW, I think SCOTUS was wrong.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Is it Ethical for Newsom to Contribute to the Campaign of Crist to defeat DeSantis?​

Ethical and Newsome do not belong in the same sentence.

 

[jpl458]

Ethical and Newsome do not belong in the same sentence.

How about ethical and Tucker?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I believe we call that an oxymoron.

How about ethical and Tucker?

Please offer CONCRETE examples of some unethical practice Tucker engages in. Contrast that with talking heads from other networks who NEVER engage in the same behavior. If you are going to accuse him of taking donations and then allowing/producing favorable pieces, I would point you to the NYT who takes paid ads disguised as news stories so that readers cannot tell they are ads.

You are always entitled to your opinion and I might even agree with you but offering an unsubstantiated opinion isn't fact and isn't going to convince anyone. Look at all the actual LIES we have been subjected to regarding Trump these last 7 years. No need to even think about the COVID LIES that resulted in the deaths of millions of people around the world.

 

[jpl458]

How about the "I hate Trump" emails he sent referenced in court filings, and saying that Trump lost the election, but denying that on the air. That is not news, it's propaganda.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So, he is not entitled to his own opinion but you are entitled to criticize him on hearsay evidence for voicing his opinion in private Once Murdoch told his talking heads to stop talking about the possibility that the election was stolen, they stopped. Except for Lou Dobbs who was fired because Lou actually believed the evidence he was shown. Please keep in mind the full court press organized by the left and the media that Trump was nuts and a loose cannon and was not going to vacate the White House, they were going to have to come for him with guns, etc, etc. etc. and later that he organized an "armed" "insurrection" because he asked for the election to not be accepted until the voting could be confirmed. Now we are seeing that LIE exposed through Tucker and eventually by the release and hopefully compensation to all the people who were treated as political prisoners'. The rioters who broke doors and windows can rot for all I care. ALL the actual evidence of the steal at that time had been suppressed and Dominion was rapidly wiping the hard drives of all its machines so no evidence could ever be found. Even today after multiple lawsuits have been heard and evidence found of cheating and states asking to withdraw their electors, you don't know about it because it is suppressed. Haven't you learned anything from the Twitter papers?

That is not news, it's propaganda.

Don't you think it might be just a wee bit hypocritical to criticise Tucker for doing what his boss, who already fired one of the other anchors for not towing the line, told him to do which was keep his mouth shut about election fraud. It is quite possible that at that time, Tucker believed the white wall of hatred directed at Trump. I know lots of people who did. You don't criticise any of the CNN, MSNBC, etc anchors for repeating known LIES about Trump and COVID. The only "news" we get from them is actual propaganda that has been pre-approved by the state.

I still haven't seen actual emails. I did try to find some yesterday but all I saw were a bunch of redactions. So, all the "evidence" I have seen is remarks like yours - hearsay of hearsay. Tucker has made it clear over the years that he is not a Trump fan. Maybe you didn't know that. Hannity writing an email such as the "one" attributed to Tucker would be more of a surprise since he has always claimed to be a Fan and I would consider it to be hypocritical. Tucker criticizes the left for their lies about Trump but he avoids making criticisms of Trump directly. Tucker is not without his bias' but he is more likely to get away with criticizing the "state" than others due to his popularity. He does criticise Trump but very carefully.

 

[jpl458]

We have divergent views. Lets let it go at that.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Yes we do

 

[jpl458]

Good chatting with you.

 

[moke123]

Even today after multiple lawsuits have been heard and evidence found of cheating and states asking to withdraw their electors, you don't know about it because it is suppressed.

If it was suppressed how do you know about it?

 

[AngelSpeaks]

If it was suppressed how do you know about it?

Main stream media suppressed it but other outlets didn't.

 

[jpl458]

By Mainstream media do you mean ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and why would they do that if they are in competition with one another. Why would they work together. Is someone/something secretly in charge of mainstream media? Are there 2 kinds of media, mainstream and non-mainstream? Im curious about networks, not bloggers.

 

[Steve R.]

Suppression exists!

Bokhari: The Post-2016 Censorship of ‘Disinformation’ — a Vast, Tangled Web

Thanks to leaks, lawsuits, the Twitter Files, and congressional inquiry, the sheer size and complexity of the "disinformation" industry is starting to be exposed.

www.breitbart.com

"Thanks to leaks, lawsuits, the Twitter Files, and congressional inquiry, the sheer size and complexity of the “disinformation” industry is starting to be exposed."

There are signs that the tide is turning against the censorship complex. The pausing of the DHS “Disinformation Board” and its leader, Nina Jankowicz, the failure of Joe Biden’s pro-censorship FCC nominee Gigi Sohn to secure a Senate confirmation, and ongoing lawsuits from red states against the federal government over the latter’s involvement in censorship are creating a significant counterweight to the “disinformation” regime.

Nevertheless, the post-2016 empire of disinformation censorship remains vast and well-funded, and extends far beyond the federal government. Its influence can be felt in virtually every tech company, academic institution, and government agency. There are now hundreds of “disinformation” watchdogs like NewsGuard and GDI, which work tirelessly to suppress non-progressive viewpoints, and harm the business models that support them. To unravel, expose, and neuter this regime, Republicans must commit at least the same amount of time and resources that their opponents spent in creating it.

Matt Taibbi calls out 'Censorship-Industrial Complex' in latest Twitter Files

Substack writer Matt Taibbi published a lengthy Twitter thread about the censorship ecosystem ahead of his testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee.

www.foxnews.com

 

[moke123]

The ‘Twitter Files’ Is What It Claims to Expose

The purported exposé of Twitter’s political bias is itself an attempt to weaponize control of Twitter for political purposes.

nymag.com

The Twitter Files provide limited evidence that the social-media platform’s former management sometimes enforced its terms of service in inconsistent and politically biased ways. The project offers overwhelming evidence that Twitter’s current management is using the platform to promote tendentious, partisan narratives and conservative misinformation. In that sense, Taibbi and Weiss have performed revelatory journalism.