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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[jpl458]

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

 

[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.

 

[jpl458]

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

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

Who's the mastermind and leader of this vast, draconian network of suppression?

 

[Steve R.]

The New York Times has been lying to the public now for years. The prior Twitter management censored conservative thought to "steal" an election. The Time's article cited, blatantly ignores the prior Twitter management's censorship. The Times, in the interests of good journalism, should be congratulating the current Twitter management for exposing the corruption of the prior Twitter management team. Alas the Times seems to be just interested in continuing to act as the propaganda arm for the Democratic Party.

The Times. as one example of journalistic abuse, finally acknowledged the existence of the Hunter laptop after the evidence became irrefutable that it was real after the election was won by suppressing the truth. The Times by suppressing the truth before the election, fraudulently tilted the election in favor of Biden.

MSN

Who's the mastermind and leader of this vast, draconian network of suppression?

We will never know. You may want to take a look at Hillary Clinton and company. They seem to have started the Russian Collusion Hoax. Hillary and company also cheated to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. So there is dirty history here.

 

[jpl458]

The New York Times has been lying to the public now for years. The prior Twitter management censored conservative thought to "steal" an election. The Time's article cited, blatantly ignores the prior Twitter management's censorship. The Times, in the interests of good journalism, should be congratulating the current Twitter management for exposing the corruption of the prior Twitter management team. Alas the Times seems to be just interested in continuing to act as the propaganda arm for the Democratic Party.

The Times. as one example of journalistic abuse, finally acknowledged the existence of the Hunter laptop after the evidence became irrefutable that it was real after the election was won by suppressing the truth. The Times by suppressing the truth before the election, fraudulently tilted the election in favor of Biden.

MSN

We will never know. You may want to take a look at Hillary Clinton and company. They seem to have started the Russian Collusion Hoax. Hillary and company also cheated to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. So there is dirty history here.

The operative word being "seem" to have started the Russian hoax. And how exactly did Hillary cheat? Have you read the news? In Fox depositions Rupert admitted they lied about the election in order to save viewership. If you want to read factual, balanced news, read the Christian Science Monitor. It has been regarded as the most neutral, unbiased news organization around. for a long, long time.

 

[moke123]

Here's an article about media interfering in elections and there's even documentation from the very media company to back it up.

Fox defamation lawsuit reveals how Murdoch worked with Republican leaders to set programming | Fortune

Fox became actively involved in politics instead of simply reporting or offering opinions about it.

fortune.com