If the potential for retaliatory violence or economic boycott weren't so great -- that's precisely what Rep. Castro was seeking to do to small donors to Trump --the paeons of praise heaped upon him by so many commentators, also victims of Trump derangement syndrome, as no more than risible. But what's going on here is sinister and ugly in the extreme. At this time when the nation is reeling from two mass murders, one of which by a White Supremist, this is no time for such incredible irresponsibility. First, the notion, accepted as Holy Writ, by many on the left that Trump's "rhetoric" was literally the match that lit the fire is such a false, over-determined conclusion it beggars the imagination. This is especially the case given that his MISQUOTED remarks in Charlottesville (duly cited as fact by Michelle Goldberg in this paper in her predictably shrill opinion piece) are most often cited as an example of his supposed identification with the extreme Right. His remarks are invariably quoted ONLY IN PART by his haters -- leaving out his strong condemnation of White Supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc. Now Rep. Castro pours gasoline at a raging fire in a community that was the target of a White Supremacist hater. The issue isn't what the First Amendment may or may not allow; the issue is showing good judgment in volatile situations. By putting this information out, Rep. Castro will be directly responsible for any violence that befalls these Trump donors. Shameful.
151
@ Dr. Svetistephen Well said! Thank you!
44
Yes it was.
29
What garbage. Castro's tweet was intended to cause people who dislike Trump to react. Why else put their names and where they work in a tweet. What other point could there be? Was this some sort of civics lesson? No. Castro was trying to incite people to react against the donors and their workplaces.
Sure, it's public information but you have to dig to get it then you have to dig to get the workplace info. There was no other reason to do this than to incite people to harass these people -- if it was just informational why not publish the names of dem donors as well?
57
This is not "doxxing" its telling the truth about those who buy our elections. Its a shame that they protray themselves as vixtims (doxees? doxxettes?). They should at least stand for their political convictions except that they dont have any except chasing Benjamin Franklin (you know, the one in your pocket).
18
I wish another Castro would doxx Trump's tax returns. If, and only IF, the fellow has paid his dues and done nothing wrong he should be very happy the world will know how "honest" he is....yeah, right he-he-he
10
GOP is forever crying “fool” whenever opponents land a punch. It brings to mind the class bully who goes crying to the teacher whenever somebody kneels down behind him and another kid pushes him over backwards, causing him to look pathetic—and be laughed at, roundly.
Never fear, GOP—in many ways you’ve got the teacher in your pocket now. (By teacher I mean US Supremes).
18
Well! The previous NY Times (Trump’s Opponents Want to Name His Big Donors. His Supporters Say It’s Harassment.) article just let others call it "doxxing"! I guess that's different? Scare quotes count?
4
republicans,...complaining that enablers of their hate are disclosed.
Yet Putin's meddling in our Nations elections are ignored AND denied.
As usual, republican hypocrisy is wretched, disgusting and nauseous.
28
My favorite bumper sticker was one I saw on a beat-up pickup truck: DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK.
So many people are writing in who seem to have the firm belief that a Trump donor has much to be ashamed of, is someone who supports the mass shooting of Hispanics, or is someone who is ashamed to have his name out in public as a Trump donor, etc., etc., and that is as far as their thinking goes. Consequences be damned. In the context of our heated political climate, most reasonable people can understand that a threat of violence can be more easily incited during times such as these in which alternative-voice speakers are disinvited to college campuses for fear of violence, families are harassed in restaurants, and people with differing viewpoints are physically beaten. Not so Congressman Joachin Castro whose clear intention was not to represent all San Antonians in his district, but rather to set one group of San Antonians in his district against another, the ever-present leftist theme of identity politics, meant to divide and conquer “the other,” in full display. People who donate to the Trump campaign believe he is doing what Americans want him to do: secure our borders, strengthen our economy, review and bolster our contracts and treaties, have the back of our law enforcement communities and military veterans, and support our active-duty men and women in uniform.
27
Look, to support Trump, you are either a bigot yourself, or you don't mind that he is.
And those who don't mind his bigotry are not implicated by it.
So white people think it's okay to be a racist as long as the economy is good.
That is white supremacy. So yes, if you support Trump, you qualify.
23
The term "doxxing" is jargon and deserves a definition when used. Your own use of quotes implies that you recognize that it's jargon.
4
He was wrong to do it and should apologize. Then move on.
98
Call it what you will, it's self-serving given his role as his brother's campaign manager.
As such, it's evidence of poor judgement, which his constituents should factor into their decisions if he runs for re-election.
42
I wonder if anyone has thought about the impact on the people who work for these companies and how a move, designed to boost Julian Castro's campaign can hurt the very people he claims to want to help.
I'm all in favor of pressuring advertisers to pull their support from reprehensible programs on Fox, but I'm not for exposing people who's political views I don't agree with in this way, targeting people in restaurants, or other tactics that have recently come into favor.
Mr. Castro is responsible for the harassment just as Trump is responsible for the hateful chants at his campaign rallies. Shame on him.
25
There is irony in Republicans claiming that publicizing public information about Trump donors is harassment. Though I doubt Republicans have the moral capacity to appreciate the irony.
25
I would think that Joaquin Castro's tweet will effectively doom his brother's campaign, this on the theory that the brothers have been advertised as being so much alike that one brother's filthy doxing action (and that's what it was no matter what the writer claims) will certainly be thought as being a mirror image of what the other brother would do or approve of doing. Nossel can use all the justifications she wants to, but fair-minded people will recognize the act for what it was, and if Trump forces had pulled such really nasty act, you can bet your life that the Times would not be printing her article in defense of them.
By the way, I'm just an ignorant fellow, I guess, but I really wish the Times would throw in a one-sentence explanation of exactly what PEN America is, or stands for. I'm afraid my knowledge of acronyms is limited to the first 1,000 or so used in daily newspaper reporting and political conversation.
I know I can go into the Internet and search it out, but based on Mr. Castro's divulgence of all those contributors' names, I must assume that this is something that neither PEN America or the New York Times feels I should have to do. Like Mr. Castro, they should be willing nd eager to do it for me.
22
Till now Joaquin Castro has not faced real competition in reelection from Texas 23rd Congressional District. Then there is the open secret of his desire to run against John Cornyn for the U.S. Senate.
Some of those donors Castro doxed had previously contributed to his and brother Julian's campaigns. Just might happen those donors might support challengers in the Democratic Party's primaries.
Joaquin's enduring problem is not that he published publicly available donor information. His amateurish misstep was that he labeled those San Antonio contributors as abettors of hate and bigotry. People who support political careers will remember, I do believe.
25
I believe this very controversy is a litmus test of each reader’s inner set of ethics.
26
It seems the purpose of revealing donor names was to ensure that corruption was not occuring, not to 'shame' donors.
We do in fact temper Freedom of Speech, when it leads to harassment. With regards to 'shaming' donors, the Supreme Court in Brown vs Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1981) affirmed that "evidence of private and Government hostility toward the SWP and its members establishes a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients will subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals." While this was for a minor political party, dynamics and danger have changed in 2020.
In the internet age, where names, addresses, family can easily be found, Mr. Castro's attempt at shaming is really nothing more than doxing by another name.
Shame on Mr. Castro and his defenders.
31
I thought the whole idea of transparency was transparency.
30
I suppose it A -OK for Democrats to do it but not Republicans. No wonder why who are so bitterly divided.
30
It’s not doxxing when the left does it.
47
@W Smith
No, It's not doxxing when it's Not doxxing.
Since when is informing folks where their money is really going to "doxxing"?
20
It's not doxing when it's publicly available information
15
It’s not doxxing when it’s not doxxing.
11
Publish all the names.
17
When it takes 14 paragraphs to justify an act...
42
Trump is guilty of online harassment daily! Impeach him for that!
28
If a republican had done this, The NY Times would be highly offended and the condemnation would be legion. Just sayin’
51
Republicans love their dirty tricks, but cry like babies when a trick is played on them. Boo. How.
31
Excuses! Excuses! Excuses!
16
If it walks and quacks like a dox, it’s a dox!
28
You go Juaquin!
13
What is "doxxing"?
1
When Trump does something that results in private citizens being attacked and threatened we, rightfully, denounce him for being awful.
Joaquin Castro is proof that the country is changing. The Democrats are attacking people who disagree with them politically. They accuse the President of being a traitor. They attack the children of people they disagree with.
This is the new normal. I wish I could blame Trump but I think about parties are using obscene language to describe their political opponents.
19
Not only is this flat out hypocrisy, it is an attempt to throttle information basic to an informed nation.
Are not all honest principled Americans in favor of honest transparent politics?
As per usual Republicans want two sets of rules; they cheat while Dems struggle to maintain principled integrity.
Over and over we watch Republicans cheat and steal often in the clear light of day while at the same time they howl when someone, like a Democrat, publicizes public information.
22
Mr Castro is a politician who seems not to understand that there are limits to what you can or should do in a political campaign. He has no place in public life and should resign and disappear right now.
33
So are these donors ashamed that they donated to Trump? If they are the solution is easy--don’t donate to Trump.
25
Call it what you will, Castro's attempt to smear Trump donors was reprehensible and irresponsible. They were not meant to inform. They were meant to punish.
38
@Paul Stenquist And I doubt that Rep. Castro considered that in this political climate whether the doxxing would stop at online harassment as the author of this piece seems to assume.
When all Trump voters are labeled as white supremacists, expect some unhinged individual on the left to obtain the addresses and personal phone numbers and proceed to harass in person, and perhaps not be so careful about the consequences.
Disclaimer: I no longer live in Maryland.
15
The goal of this self-serving opinion is to mask the intent of Mr. Castro’s tweet which was “likely to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass or offend another.” Similarly, refraining from patronizing a business is a form of harassment. Joaquin Castro can and should be held responsible. Donating to a political campaign should not be an invitation to harass those who disagree with you.
28
I just love it when the GOP cries foul, foaming at the mouth, over anything the opposition does to thwart their agenda, as if they are innocents being unjustly abused here. Look who's calling the kettle black—again, and again, and again. It only shines a light on their decadent moral hypocrisy when it comes to playing deceitful and dirty politics, taken to new heights, that is a disservice to the country while lying and shaming anyone who crosses their path. It's a perversion, yet they are rarely called out by the mainstream media, other than an occasional columnist, because it's intimidated by the Republican autobot bullies. It's time to call a spade a spade. Bravo to Mr. Castro for pulling back the curtain.
29
Funny how Mr Castro can’t be held account for what people do yet any Republican, especially the President always is.
Just because you say it isn’t doxxing does not make it so.
More hypocrisy.
I’d like to see the castros publicly thank everyone that they accepted donations from and the names of their employers so I can decide what company’s is like to boycott.
If you all willing to shame why not reward as well ?
28
It is good to see another BDS Movement take hold. It is the only effective tool left in the hands of the individual. Voting is too often ineffective in the face of big money.
6
"....listing the names and employers of 44 residents of the San Antonio area who had contributed up to the legal limit to the Trump campaign. "
"Democracy depends upon the ability of politicians, journalists and citizens to draw attention to what they consider misdeeds"
If you list the names and employers of those that finance Israel's occupation of the West Bank, you can be arrested and charged with a criminal offence.
The hypocrisy astounds.
11
In the new politics that is America, enriched Republicans and their toadies now call the shots (pun intended). Our country as it was is no longer. Weep for the freedom that was.
5
Let’s get this straight. Republicans can insult, intimidate and harass any individual or group they want in the name of free speech but when Mr Castro simply tweeted the name of business and big donors to Trump the whining begins.
Sounds like they can dish it out but can’t take it. Very thin skinned. If you want to support a racist president, I have the right to not spend money at your business.
23
The definition of "doxxing" is clear.
What Castro did was doxxing.
Saying it wasn't won't change the truth.
dox
/däks/
verbINFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.
"hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures"
25
Some of us put Trump and his supporters, the Republican "party"politicians in the same camp as the white supremacist hate groups represented on WEB sites like The Daily Stormer. We do this because they are not proactively making every effort to halt the epidemic release of such racism, xenophobia, and related regressive fascism in our nation.
Through their silence they are cooperating. Trump takes it further, with his two faced rhetoric, saying one thing on tweets and behind closed doors, while reading other things his political handlers write for him
To understand the details of this more fully, I recommend a recent Time Magazine article entitled "Republicans Want a White Republic."
What the Daily Stormer does is wrong in that it releases focused attacks on individuals that are not merely disclosing publicly available records. Public citizens, like Castro, through even legal means, are attempting to disclose those we advocate or support organizations or people who advocate for racism, hate, fascism, etc. I recommend Rachel Maddow's August 9th, 2019 show for a good primer.
What Castro did was basically tell the people of El Paso who in their town backs someone who through his words insights racism and the false narrative that our nation is being "invaded" by hoards of Latinos and that we have an "infestation".
I have no trouble recommending that those who are against racism and fascism in our nation google: "These are Tucker Carlson’s leading advertisers"
11
Are you kidding me?!?! Even the remote suggestion that donors to Trump are above scrutiny and/or shaming is ludicrous. The man has this country on the edge of a Civil War as he skips above being held accountable for anything because our politics are so toxic and most of the operatives are so vile and institutions so polluted that civility, decency, and integrity, the most important ingredients of what makes democracy work are under full scale assault. Enough! Racists are racists. Criminals are criminals. Support or association with either makes that supporter one in the same. If they wade in that territory they need to own it.
16
Are they angry they've been exposed as supporting an inept "president"? Or are they just embarrassed at having their own lack of scruples brought to attention. As 45 said after Rep. Cummings' home was burglarized, "too bad".
14
Such a disingenuous article. Really stretching a number of definitions to make this work...
"In our heated public discourse, the simple act of “naming names” of people who hold certain controversial positions"
Nice to see that supporting a President of the United States qualifies as controversial. Note how this was a fundraiser, not people spouting specific positions. This kind of idiocy is going to get Trump elected again- it's a basket of deplorables argument all over again. When are liberals going to learn you can't win by alienating half the country by calling them racist.
27
Did not DJTrump doxx Lindsey G when he gave out Lindsey's cell phone number?
9
What Castro did was likely not criminal, but it was far from high minded or ethical. It’s also important to point out that at its core dozing does not necessarily mean the disclosure of “secret” private information such as a phone number or social security number. It can be simply removing someone’s online anonymity in a way that could likely subject them to real world insult or injury. By that token, there’s definitely information that could be freely found online, much like political contributions that Castro would most likely not want to see be made public - like the home addresses of his family members (freely available even pre internet thanks to phone books).
Furthermore, Castro clearly intended for his followers to take some action based on his tweets. Does anyone really believe that he would tweet that and then want people not to act on the information. He clearly intended to chill protected free speech by inciting harassment against those whose politics and speech he does not agree with. Where does this stop? How about a list of donors to the anti-Semite Ilhan Omar? Or how about a list of donors to CAIR or the BDS movement? Would liberals cheer transparency in that case?
It’s also incredibly ironic to see how many of the NYT posters claiming Castro did the right thing are posting under obvious pseudonyms...
32
Of course it is.
9
This is public information and knowledge of contributors to both parties should be available to inform our decisions.
For example : several months ago the NYTimes published the names of people in Congress receiving the largest contributions from the NRA. (Please republish this useful information).
Senators McCain and Burr were the largest recipients. Burr heads the Senate Intelligence Committee. In a period when White Nationalists are proving to be a bigger danger in the USA than ISIS will Burr look into taking guns away (RedFlag ) from adherents to those groups.?
8
Hi Susanne,
You know that elected officials have a responsibility to use their pulpit responsibly. Apparently, you do not choose to chastise Mr. Castro for not being responsible. That reflects very poor judgement, and I trust your Board will take note of that.
14
......"Twitter duly exploded, accusing Mr. Castro of “doxxing” donors and warning that his post would incite a deluge of phone calls, vitriol and threats against those named. "
And that is exactly what happened. Castro's tweet wasnt technically, doxxing, it was worse...it was an attempt to attach white nationalist rhetoric to Trump supporters, accusing the president and all who support him as racists, just as the media has been doing for weeks now. Good luck with that. Ill see you at the polls.
21
I wonder if The New York Times would take the same position if a conservative politician decided to post the identities and addresses of donors to Planned Parenthood.
29
Come on, NYT. This is incredibly disingenuous. He absolutely knew people would mob those he outed on social media, and potentially in real life. If the shoe was on the other foot, you’d cry “white supremacy”.
Weaponizing political outrage is sacrificing long-term success for short-term gains. You might get someone fired today, but you’ll set the stage for for your political adversaries tomorrow. Keep this up, and you’ll get four more years of Trump for sure.
27
picky. picky, picky.....you've got a president of the US who demeans, insults, belittles, and, in essence, incites with every tweet, every comment, every breath.... and you're attacking Castro? you're gonna need a bigger stick than the one you're holding ..
17
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
2
Remember the old adage,
"Don't do anything in private that you wouldn't want to appear on the front page of the New York Times?"
11
Interesting how many of those in support of editorial do so anonymously.
20
Perhaps the newspaper of record should publish all donations above $1000 to political candidates on a daily or weekly basis.
6
No more Bill Miller BBQ for me.
3
Back when Trump and Lindsey Graham were enemies, Trump doxed Graham by revealing Graham's cell phone number on live TV.
What's sauce for the goose . . . heh, heh.
7
It certainly isn't what the alt-right troll armies do to harass journalists. These obvious attempts to shut down the free press by far right extremists is what deserves scrutiny.
7
Yes, it is.
9
To drain the swamp we need to know who the creatures in the lagoon are.
3
Penultimate paragraph - 'proceed caution' should be proceed with caution, please
If money is speech, and if we live in a nation where we are all created equal, why are the rich so much more "equal" than those who are poor? It's not "one man, one vote" in America, it is "$$$$$, ¢" since the Supreme Court foisted Citizens United on us.
9
Thank you, Mr. Castro for the sunshine.
6
It seems Mr. Castro suggests that people boycott supporters and corporations that support a tyrannical and immoral regime. Obviously he must be using antisemitic tropes.
4
What's the big deal, it's public information as it should be.
OpenSecrets.org
14
Of course it was not doxxing.
He is a Democrat, after all.
15
djt, and in fact, most of the people in leadership positions in the GOP lie INTENTIONALLY to the entire nation EVERY DAY and that is protected speech under the first amendment.
how do you think they passed the last tax cut for their biggest campaign donors? the POTUS, VP, speaker of the house and senate majority leader lied about the intent and content of the bill EVERY time they spoke about it to the ENTIRE NATION.
if the distributing the PUBLIC RECORD is a problem for the people who's names appear in the PUBLIC RECORD - so be it.
it's time for every american to speak the TRUTH - all the time.
4
I am horrified by this article and the most liked comments. The next thing I suspect I will hear from this great newspaper is to eliminate the secret ballot. Do you realize how much you sound like Mao's cultural revolution? Think right or we're coming to get you.
This from the same "paper of record" that seems to want to drum " hands up don't shoot" into the record despite all of the evidence .
26
Who comes up with these non-specific, nonsensical, and utterly ridiculous words (“doxxing”) to describe things for which there is already a perfectly good vocabulary in place? And why does the NYT perpetuate them?
That said, there may be nothing wrong or illegal about what Mr. Castro did, but I suspect this only further contributes to the polarization of US political discourse, and I’m sure us liberals will be none too thrilled when the Right weaponizes this same tactic against us.
12
It's July 4th,
you give a bunch of kids firecrackers
what do you think is going to happen.
Mr. Castro knew exactly what he was doing and
why he was doing it and what would happen after he did it.
Shameful defense of a shameless act.
28
I have no criticism of most of this article's contents, as far as it goes, but the article is completely off point.
The publishing of the names was not harassment itself, and not even public shaming as you wrongly suggest, but it was clearly intended by Castro that the donors be known so they can be harassed. The simple act of disclosure was enough - a dog whistle if you will - he did not have to "urge".
This article is one massive deflection discussing subjects scarcely relevant to Castro's unwise move.
7:01 AM Sat
13
So targeting people for harassment and abuse is ok as long as it is done by and not to leftist dems. I think the snowflakes are pushing their hatred for the President so hard that a conservative uprising will be required to squash them.
20
When Trump released Linsey Graham’s private phone number was a bigger offense. Is that Phoxxxing?
6
OK, it was not doxing. Remember, when payback time comes we'll reserve the right to respond in kind. Free speech gives wide berth so beware. The high walls and well-armed guards that the libs hide behind won't be enough for us to shine the light of day on them and their pranks. In the words of the Stylistics—"payback is a dog!"
4
When you buy a house, your information and how much you paid is on the grand list for all to see. Is that town doxxing you? If you donate to a politician you should know that information is public record, and by someone pulling together and sharing it, which is done ALL THE TIME by interested parties, isn’t doxxing. Get over it you ‘snowflakes’. By donating to a white supremist, be prepared for backlash.
12
"While harassment is rightfully illegal, public shaming is not." And where is that line, who defines it, monitors it and sets punishment when it is violated? Is it something akin to Justice Potter Stewart's comment on obscenity, "I know it when I see it"? Mr. Castro had a reason for publishing the names of Trump supporters. It certainly wasn't done because he wished to help the President. It's expected that any candidate running for office will have to confront past actions and account for them publicly, they knew that when they threw their hat in the ring. Mr. Castro went beyond that, he publicly disclosed information about private individuals in an effort to stop the reelection of the President. He gave fodder to the radical Democrats which they used to harass Trump donors and boycott their businesses. The boundaries of private and personal lives was breached.
The telltale of this being doxxing are not Mr. Castros own words; “Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump, fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.”; its the publication of not only donors names but their employers as well. Why is that necessary if it weren't to be used for harassment purposes?
Politics is a nasty game and the Democrats are no less to blame for it than the Republians.
12
Why else would the law require that donors be identified if not so the public knows who's giving money to whom? This kind of public disclosure was done all the time in California in 2008 when conservatives repealed the same-sex marriage law there. Businesses catering to the LGBTQ community were outed for giving money to support Prop 8, and rightfully so.
4
Enabling Latino people to make decisions
about where they spend their hard earned dollars
so they are not inadvertently contributing to the financial dollars being spent on advertisements
putting a target on their backs.
Why would anyone consider this unreasonable?
You are a hop, step and a jump away from DT declaring himself a white nationalist if he is re-elected in 2020.
5
Why did Rep. Castro provide the employers? Names plus employers may well provide enough information to allow online harassment of the individuals. It also comes across to me (an opponent of Donald Trump) as an invitation to the employers to fire the employees, which I believe is an unfair tactic. I would support revealing donor names in the case of influential people who are a nexus of donations (and who would have the means to defend themselves), but the maximum donation is low enough that at least some of the people on Rep. Castro's list may well not be such influential donors. Perhaps they are just people who are enthusiastic in what Rep. Castro and I agree is a very misguided cause.
9
Trump and his enablers made a HUGE deal out of the people who worked on Mueller's investigation, their party affiliation, and their political donations. And the two FBI agents who had an affair?
Their political donations were made public.
And Andrew McCabe's WIFE? Trump tried to smear her from here to kingdom come.
Joaquin Castro's revelations may or may not have been prudent.
But significant political donations from people or their businesses are all in the political arena. As the power of our vote is weakened
more and more, we need to take law-abiding actions wherever we can so that 'we the people' continue to have a voice and an influence over our democracy.
5
If "money" is a form of free speech, then so is providing publicly available information in regards to a publicly funded political campaign. Whatever positive or negative conclusions people draw from your publicly available donation is irrelevant.
If Castro had released, say, 30,000 emails, now THAT would be doxxing.
Goose, meet gander.
4
If you support a racist politician with donations in order to get that politician elected, you are a racist by association. If people do not want to support your business endeavor because they see you as a racist, that is called freedom, not harassment.
Personally, I would not support anyone that supports djt or his party.
6
For those interested, I suggest taking a look at this _public_ source of information. ALL donations should be listed here, but there is also a lot of dark money floating around in the system, alas. But this is at least a start.
https://www.fec.gov/data/
5
Castro should have known better.
7
Public shaming is a serious problem, and a tactic that's become a tool of the left. In a country in which we had always respected the right to have a varying opinion, we now find ourselves hiding. You're a Republican? Then you must be a racist xenophobe. It reminds me of Bolshevism, where complete acceptance of communist dogma was the only way to escape a labor camp, or even a firing squad. The time for a more respectful public discourse is not, thought I'm not sure how that can happen with platform's like Twitter. Perhaps the NYT and other media can ignore the online rantings. They may lose a few headlines, but it would be good for the country.
18
I am proud of who I support and don't shy away from my beliefs. I don't have to hide because I care; I love the planet earth; I love the people around me and I am proud of my actions (I have my fair share of mistakes but none with bad purpose) and prefer to have health care for all (not just liberals) and I don't mind paying fair tax. (I would rather prefer to pay 25K/year to Medicare for coverage of my family of 4 vs paying 25K/year to Aetna).
2
Sharing this information was reprehensible. Just as Trump has done it making politics into even more of a blood sport, instead of a well reasoned discussion about what is best for our country.
Yes, the donor information is publicly available in a database, but in the Internet age there is publicly available and publicly researched and broadcast.
If it is now OK to shame people for their political donations, then we have some follow on baby steps that should also be OK:
1. Campaigns can try to starve opponents of contributions by identifying those that are "out-of-step" with their neighbors; liberals in conservative areas and conservatives in liberal areas, so that their neighbors with the opposite views know just who they are.
2. Small money donors can now be targeted for shaming, just as easily as big money donors using automated software.
3. All your public Facebook friends and family can be contacted each time you make a donation that doesn't agree with their views.
I'm sure others in Silicon Valley and the former Cambridge Analytica folks can come up with many more.
Shaming another American who have not injected themselves into the public debate for their political views is not a good idea.
All he has done is further coarsen an already coarse public debate and to make exposure of private individuals and private lives an acceptable practice.
America should not be an "us against them", but this is just another example of trying to push people apart.
26
The real moral of this story is that we need stronger campaign finance disclosure laws given that the right is expressing such outrage and surprise that such information could be made public in the first place. As Justice Brandeis said sunlight is the best disinfectant. Speaking to the core issue of our political disfunction today he also said “we must make a choice, we may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” We continue to fail to deal with the systemic influence of dark money in our politics at our peril.
3
Mr. Castro has clearly taken a page from Joe McCarthy. He created a list of private people, whose political affiliation and support he finds unacceptable, and he waved it in front of the masses, clearly to ostracize them. He also intended to intimidate anyone who might want to support Trump in the future.
The question is the same: Mr. Castro, have you no sense of decency?
39
@LKC Frankly, there is a bit of a difference between speaking truth to power and individuals having access to publicly available information so they can choose where their hard-earned dollars are spent. and a government sanctioned congressional committee that targets and vilifies individuals for their beliefs, basically destroying their lives.
12
@LKC Oh, please. It is not at all the same.
1
What Castro did was out of the Repub playbook, but it was unwise. The same tactic will be used against Planned Parenthood supporters -- and with violence in mind, although of course that will supposedly not be encouraged. Wider use of the tactic will result in communities be ever more divided.
Maybe this was going to happen anyway, and Mr. Castro's tweet was just one small step. Still, it's troubling.
16
The very word "doxxing" gives this incident a sort of fake, comic quality. Using invented words doesn't make a claim more valid. I had to look up "doxxing" as I had never heard it. And, that's because it's not a word. There are several useful and meaningful words that describe the practice: broadcasting, releasing, announcing, leaking, issuing, are a few and are real words that describe the practice. Somehow events are minimized when fabricated terms are used to talk about them. Serious subjects deserve to be treated seriously, not by using whimsical labels.
4
I don’t like the word either and agree that the same could be said with older words, but “doxxing” is in the Merriam-Webster’s now. Language changes as new generations use them and even “static” languages that are pressured to not change, have to adapt eventually.
2
I'm sure every one of Trump's donors expect they will gain something either directly or indirectly. It's fair they earn recognition in the real world. It's fair for people to patronize or boycott establishments for any reason. It's equally fair to organize and synthesize public information. It can't be squelched because it could be consequential. Trump is consequential.
I am appalled at the thought that my tax dollars go to fund Trump's weekly golf trips to his private club or his political rallies. I can't help that. I can help whether or not I provide so much profit to a business they can donate to Trump to maintain their world view. I can help if I invest in socially responsible stocks. Why not socially responsible businesses?
8
The ownership of a townhouse at 217 C Street Northeast, less than a block from the Hart Senate Office building, is also a matter of public record.
Anyone interested in learning more can do their own research, because I don't want to be accused of doxxing any powerful Republicans who helped elevate Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
5
You're overthinking this one. The information is public record. End of story. Making a campaign contribution is the same thing as putting a tithe in the church basket. Everyone can see you doing it. If you don't want the community knowing you wrote Trump a check for $2,800, don't write Trump a check for $2,800. Campaign donations are not a private transaction.
19
The irony here is that Republicans have long advocated lifting limits on donations but requiring full transparency. It appears Mr. Castro has, in a modest way, illustrated how the Republican plan might work. I'm guessing they're reevaluating the idea right now.
9
You cannot call money free speech and then complain when someone within earshot hears your speech and reports it.
16
Whether or not it's "doxxing" comes down to semantics.
Regardless - it's inappropriate. Democrats need to get out of the "everyone who voted for Trump is evil" rut. That sounds suspiciously like "deplorables," and we all know how that turned out.
30
Of course. Corporate millions are "free speech"; talking about it is terrorism. Did everybody else miss the memo when we entered Oceania?
4
Right out of the Republican playbook. Good on you Mr. Castro, 'bout time! You did the right thing and people froth because they know it!
6
Where do you want to the draw line?
Perhaps a bible-carrying, anti-LGBT advocate should publish a list of business owners donating to Buttigieg.
Then the religious crowd can boycott their businesses for supporting someone with Buttigieg's sexual orientation.
How does that sound to Democrats who are on here sounding off so proudly of Joaquin Castro? Oh, it's OK. It's all public information anyway, right?
23
The far-left faction of the Democrats are being shown to be the fascists they are, and more and more Americans throughout the country are seeing it, plain and clear. Congressman Castro used poor judgement in weaponizing his tweet in the current heated political environment. House Ethics violations against Castro are now being investigated.
27
Yes, the information is public but no,
it was not meant to be used to attempt to shame people for exercising their first amendment rights in a way that Democrats simply don’t like. The intolerant left’s strategy is to try to suppress political activity on the right by using its fellow travelers in the US media (with the lone exception of Fox News) to label anyone who supports Trump (i.e. almost 63 million fellow Americans) as unquestionably racist. Once the term racist has been leveled thousands of times by the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Huffpo, ABC, NBC, CBS, WAPO, etc, the politicians jump in and act as if donating to the President is tantamount to joining the Klan.
I don’t think this “virtual civil war” strategy is going to produce the desired results for democrats because the smears are so vicious, unfair, and sustained that a siege mentality is inevitably being created on the right. Many people don’t appreciate insufferably entitled and controlling virtue signalers standing on high and telling them how they’re allowed to vote and whom they’re allowed to support.
Q: Is it smart to induce a huge population within your own country to fear for its reputation, its ability to make a living and support a family, and its ability to freely practice constitutional rights? The left is playing with fire with this strategy and I doubt any of us know how all of this will unfold.
28
That’s not doxxing. It’s called brigading i.e inviting a follower pile on. It’s often used wittingly or unwittingly to direct direct harassment towards people the person on social media dislikes.
8
"Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around."
https://reason.com/2019/08/07/rep-joaquin-castros-doxxing-of-trump-donors-in-his-district-has-flipped-the-campaign-finance-discourse-on-its-head/
6
Maybe it wasn’t “penal code doxing” or “true doxing,” but rationalization aside, it certainly was doxing.
17
Proud one day, shameful the next.
2
Scalia....Citizens United ...The Federalist Society.....Koch ........ We are living through a “contextual” redefinition of our freedoms and increasingly ambiguous responsibilities surrounding those freedoms. We have codified into law....Corporations are people. Speech is money. So, the Corporations and people who have the most money can buy the most speech. Bring on the internet, cable tv, the press and let the money speak. Consequences or responsibility for that speech? Go back to Scalia law #1, use your money to buy enough politicians to buy back your “freedom” to vote.
2
Yes it was doxxing.
19
@Boomlet
One has to have a secret or private information not widely known in the context in order to be revealed or 'doxed'. One who chats online as "aintmisbehavin23" or some such who is outed as Fred Rogers on Chantilly Lane is said to be doxed. Trumper true, factually wrong in substance and biased in intent.
2
It is just plain wrong though
18
So, during the 2015 / 2016 Republican presidential campaign, when Trump made Lindsey Graham's cell phone number public, he was doxxing his future lap dog?
Interesting.
6
Joaquin Castro said his list of Trump donors was intended as a “lament,” but he didn’t list the name of the El Paso shooting victims. Instead, he put the names of 43 Anglos and one Asian on a target list for San Antonio’s one million Hispanic residents.
15
@William Case "...he put the names of 43 Anglos and one Asian on a target list for San Antonio’s one million Hispanic residents."
Somehow, not buying someone's products isn't *quite* the kind of targeting that is affecting Texas' Hispanics this week. Nor is it of equal magnitude.
6
Mr. Castro actions were rather pubescent. Like what an irate boy-friend does to shame his ex after she dumped him. We know they don’t work. I can understand Mr. Castor's helpless desperation. However, Mr. Castro misjudgment ended up motivating Trump Campaign donors even more. And happy Mr. Trump made a record haul at the Hamptons today. By the time the next years’ Presidential Elections, I wouldn’t be shocked if the Democrats get destitute enough to cast Voodoo spells and Witchcraft hexes on Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s success and their own loss of power make it hard to bare, make Democrats impetuous, very disturbed and even psychotic. This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome does to you; a collapse of your better-judgment and the instantaneous disintegration of your personhood─
I have seen it happy to many others, besides poor Mr. Castro.
12
It was incredibly distasteful. The other issue with taking social stances as a company is it makes some people feel good, but usually has negative ramifications.
See P&Gs 8 billion dollar write down of Gillette and subsequent 'manly' commercial after its 'toxic masculinity' commercial while other product groups had sales increases despite price increases (Q2, 2019)
See Dick's double-digit losses in hunting/electronics departments and -3.9% store growth after banning guns.
See Yeti's -15% stock loss while the rest of the market blows up.
Homosexuals keep going to the baker in Colorado, he keeps denying them and is in business.
Gibson's bakery crushing liberal Oberlin in Ohio over its smear campaigns to the tune of $44 million.
All reporting absent from the NYT, because it's easier to just talk about the stances than the financial results down the road and how it has been a massive negative except Nike.
However, these are smaller mom and pops, like a roofing company. Do we really think anyone is going to financially ruin them in Texas? If anything, if I'm a company giving, I'm going to just put it under a shell company with zero connection to me and obfuscate the campaign donating process further. Unintended consequences for Castro, but he was ‘woking’ on Twitter at the time.
14
In a hothouse environment, I find the New York Times brand of support for all things Democrat, to be troubling.
People are actually going to buy this argument.
Yes! Bravo! The information was public. But no where in this article does it state the obvious: Castro did this to intimidate trump supporters at least, or to harass them at worst. To hide behind the veil of “ what??? It’s public info, is intellectually dishonest.
In a world where being a “liar” bothers people so incredibly much ( moral crisis!!), pretending not to comprehend the intent here is hardly admirable.
26
Regardless of the legality, the intent was malicious in nature. Hard to believe the NYT would support this position by running this piece.
17
Is it doxxing?
It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.
7
What this "opinion" really says:
"Joaquin Castro’s Tweet Was Not Doxxing because the victims were Republicans."
20
We should reveal every large presidential donor that promotes hate and violence.
2
You mean to tell me that those donors are not proud to support a criminal administration that demonizes minorities, puts children in cages, allows the Russians to interfere in our elections, and does everything it can to destroy the environment?
4
I hope this allowable discourse extends to criticism for the publishers, editorial staff, and reporters of the NYT, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and those public figures supporting heretofore radical leftist positions which have of late become their positions. I did not see home or work addresses on the NO-NO list. Look for me and others to visit you at home and workplace when you upset us with your latest distortions. I would hope, but not expect, that you will serve tea.
12
Mr Castro lacks decorum and frankly all he is looking for is to acquire some form of relevance.
11
"House Republicans ........are citing the incident as grounds to demand new limitations on campaign disclosure requirements."
Mr. Castro exposes what the politicians want to hide.
The USA was once a democracy. Now leaders and legislators are bought by the wealthy and government policies are determined in their best interests. There is no longer government for the people by the people. It is government by the corporations for the corporations.
2
This is a reasonable perspective. The real problem is that we live in a world where being revealed to be a supporter of a sitting president could be considered "a controversial position." This is the result of absurdly biased, unbalanced and inaccurate coverage of the president. For example, there simply isn't any evidence to suggest that the long running scourge of mass shootings is related in any way to the president, but this is exactly the message implied by the coverage. The msm is driven by the bottom line, not its commitment to courageous journalism.
12
Great heads up. Time to go online and Google companies that support Trump so I can avoid them.
5
We all have a responsibility to know who is contributing to the campaigns. Thank you Joaquin Castro.
9
So where can I get a full list of all donors to all candidates, given that this is meant to be public information?
2
@Hjb So I guess the other half of the country will do the same to all business associated with Democrats? Hey Castro thanks for nothing
11
As a liberal, I am proud of the support and perfectly willing to let anyone that wants to know which candidates I support. Why are the conservatives upset? Are they ashamed of something?
5
Sheesh! Is there no end to the chutzpah! Not only does the Pluto-Corporatocracy rig the system (Citizens Divided) so they can (legally?) purchase their very own lapdog Congress Critters, but they want to do it in the dark confines of their K Street wine cellars, so we, the hoi polloi, can't know either the purchaser or the purchased!
Q: Is Exxon restructuring their workforce because of cheap oil?
A: Yes, they had to lay off 25 Congresspersons!
3
I would like to know the names of every business who has donated to trump so I can boycott. Boycotts can be far more effective than campaigns. It seems obvious to me that’s what the intention of this tweet was.
4
You know, we could short circuit this whole brouhaha if, like most of the rest of the sane nations in the developed word, we had public funding of all elections, with no organizational donations allowed--no religious organizations, corporations, unions, or 503 whatevers (these do not vote, only individuals do) and a VERY low--like three-digit--limit on contributions to any individual campaign.
But heaven forbid we should consider that, because money is speech in the United States. This is a conflation that is hardly necessary, or even for the most part philosophically defensible; you have the right to support the candidates of your choice with words and declaration--that is speech--but with tons of cash? That is basically licensed bribery, and most other nations know it.
As it stands now, it's impossible for any representative to really represent anyone but the rich oligarchs who give mega bucks in return for the influence over government. That does not result in a democracy, or even a republic.
(And any suggestion that any donation should not be a matter of public record is absurd and contradictory on its face.)
12
I stand with Ms. Nossel both in her articulate distinction between "doxxing de jure" and "doxxing de facto," and in her elegant illustration of the latter.
If it is legal to announce to a person's neighbors in Kentucky or Missouri that he has donated to, for example, a local Pro-Choice candidate, then it must be equally legal to announce to a person's neighbors in El Paso that he has donated to Donald Trump. I mean it's not like anybody is going to start smashing windows, and if it's just boycotting, divesting, etc., people are within their rights to make that choice.
Justice is not always pleasant. A spanking behind the wood shed is classically preceded by "Son, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you." I can't say I really felt Ms. Nossel's pain in her essay, but I'm sure it's there.
In closing I would thank Ms. Nossel for the publicly useful information which she, too, has provided. Had I not read her essay, I would not have known this significant detail about the Castro campaign.
3
Just listing the names and amounts is not a problem. Bravo to him.
But it is a problem if the donations alone were the reason he made special note of “two establishments, accusing their owners of fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders’.”
We should especially see the names of larger donors. Who were the people who just gave $12million to Trump?
Who are the large donors to any of the candidates?
Most important: what corporations and PACS are donating, and to whom, and how much?
3
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
- Plato
349
@Cwnidog. Trump passing out Lindsey Grahams cell number? Plus, Warren supporters would not be shamed anyway, as her politics is not based on denigrating over half the country. THAT is the root of the shaming. People supporting Trump must means the whole 'disgraceful' buffet of narcissism and hate.
25
@T. Schwartz: Exactly.
14
Isn’t the reason we have SECRET,PRIVATE ballots, so that we can not be shamed or harassed into voting in a way don’t want to?
11
@Rmsd1
Política donations cannot be secret or private! Just votes. Money doesn’t buy everything.
3
Are the Republicans now saying they want Citizens United overturned. Are they willing to end full disclosure in exchange for strict campaign finance regulations? Or do they just want to keep it as is and allow millionaires and billionaires to bribe Republicans with full disclosure. Please choose.
8
@Frank Roseavelt
Republicans would like the existing campaign finance laws to be enforced. We want to see Hillary [or whoever is designated to fall on his sword] in jail for using campaign donations to buy "intelligence" from Steele. It is a crime to spend campaign funds on foreign operatives. We also want to see her or her designee in jail for fraudulently reporting to the FEC that the millions were spent on legal fees. We also want the millions spent to be subject to FCPA tripling and remitted to the federal government. After that, Hillary or her designee should be tried for conspiring with foreign agents to fix the election. Even though she lost.
4
Steele was hired by by Paul Singer not Hilary.
3
As others have pointed out, this information is made publicly available by the federal government at fec.gov, as required by law. And until we get money out of politics by reforming campaign finance laws and publicly financing campaigns, this is the way it should be.
Go ahead - look up my contributions. I'm privileged to have disposable income that allows me to contribute to candidates and proud to of the candidates that I support.
Rochelle Rudnick
7
@Rochelle
It would be inflammatory if your donation were published with a note that you are “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”
7
@ebmem
Do you dispute that Trump is fueling a campaign of hate?
2
Republicans should be asking themselves why they are concerned that people will know who their president's supporters are. If their president is so toxic that supporting him is bad for your business, perhaps they need to run someone else.
9
@Glenn, It is not over who the Presidents supporters are in fact most of us who support the President and the Republican Party do so for a variety of reasons mostly economic and ideological.
The reason we are very careful about announcing the fact or advertising it with bumper stickers and the like is that the liberal end of the spectrum is so angry and hate filled that all we would be doing is asking for a personal confrontation or as I have seen damage to personal property.
So when we see Democratic leadership participating in this type of behavior it adds credence to the concerns.
6
What he did was 100% legal
DOnor names have been a matter of public record for decades. Mr Castro simply brought the names to light in a public format
The GOP is mad because they didnt think of it first
7
It’s not “legal” vs not. It’s just creepy.
10
@Ben
Republicans make arguments about political opponents. They do not make inflammatory comments about supporters or donors to the opposition like that are “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”
This will probably be too nuanced a distinction for a Democrat to grasp, but there is a difference between making the false assertion that Trump is a racist and making the false assertion that everyone who supports Trump is a racist.
If you look at the current political gang of Democrats who are running for the presidency it is possible for a rational person to be opposed to the open borders Democrats appear to be advocating. It is possible to believe that it is a mistake to forgive the student loan of a Harvard trained lawyer or MD who is earning $200,000 per year so that the first woman of color to be a Harvard Law professor can be paid $375,000 to teach 90 hours per year of classes.
A moral, rational, thinking citizen can make a personal decision to support Trump without being a hate monger. It is not a good strategy for a Democrat politician to assert that anyone not supporting him or her is deplorable or “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”
Making that assertion is both counterproductive and an incitement to hatred, which wackos all along the political spectrum will respond to with violence. Leftists reacted with violence to Republican Congressmen, McConnell and in Ohio, a racist in Texas.
7
The hypocritical way the media covers this across the aisle mudslinging is amazing. It's no longer what sticks to the wall/a two-way street but two one-way streets in opposite directions.
8:36A CDT
8/10/19
5
Context reveals meaning. The names come on the heels of two massacres in a state (in)famous for guns and vigilantism.
14
@Anony
Democrats are picketing McConnell's home and threatening to put a knife in his heart. A Sanders/Warren supporter shot up a mall in Ohio. A Sanders supporter shot up a Republican House baseball team practicing for a charity match. BLM supporters have assassinated police officers. Democrats in NYC are dumping water on police officers. Democrats picketed the home of the FCC head and threatened his children. Maxine suggests her supporters harass anyone wearing a MAGA hat. She applauds the restaurateur who evicted a member of Trump's cabinet from her restaurant.
Castro posts a list of names and asserts they are “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”
Trump says illegal aliens are invading the country. Eighty percent of the American electorate wants immigration reform and an end to illegal "immigration."
We have heard not a single word of criticism from Democrat leadership condemning the violence caused by Democrats or incited by Democrats. Instead, they fuel violence by claiming that 80% of the population is racist.
Texas was a Democrat stronghold until 2000.
9
Seems kind of like the NRA arguments: it's not the gun, it's who pulls the trigger.
3
Make the govt give each candidate x amount of$ to spend. No more. End private donations.
10
All these donations refer directly to a very dangerous law, Citizens United. That ill-fated law, penned by the Supreme Court, made numerous big contributions opaque and allows big donors a much bigger avenue to influence the Legislature and the Presidency. This functions as a platform that the very wealthy and big Corporations have much greater power to pursue their personal agendas than is necessary and usurps the will of all citizens.
2
Somehow I find it hard to believe that, if Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the names and personal information of a few dozen top Warren supporters with implicit or explicit encouragement to his followers to harass those individuals, boycott their businesses, etc., we’d be seeing such a full-throated defense of the practice from The NY Times set. Just because Castro is not guilty of ‘online harassment’ as defined by the Texas penal code doesn’t make it savory conduct. To the contrary, It’s yet another incremental degradation of our political culture. I’d encourage the author and Times readers to have the courage to call it out as such even when the perpetrators share your political views.
482
@John Your analogy fails because all Castro tweeted was the names, not "personal information". And those names are a matter of public record.
307
@John Somehow I recall that the determination of guilt or innocence involves the perpetrator's awareness of the likely result of his or her action. When Republicans doxx it's usually with the near certainty that their actions will result in death threats, harassment or even attempted murder. Non-Republicans don't have that expectation, is all.
128
Harassment is never, never ok, while boycotting certainly is.
I just hope and pray that there is little or no harassment in this case.
56
I've often said it was about his enablers, not him. No king serves for long without willing sycophants. It's the enablers who are ruining our Democracy.
4
The key to this article is that harassment is illegal, shaming is not. Republicans harass people, Liberal/Democrats shame them. Easy.
6
The question is: Why is it worse to talk about something than to do it?
2
let's be honest, the intent was to "out" them. To rip away their privacy.
Just like the SoulCycle boycott, the intent was to let the dogs loose, let the mob harassment begin.
Castro had negative intent toward those individuals.
call it doxing, or not; It is low and mean, no matter your label.
I expect more from my progressive friends; let's keep our hearts and our minds open. Let's be willing to respect those with different political views.
21
I disagree. In this country, we really vote with our dollars. If any business out there has a financial connection to this president, I want to know so I can boycott. Boycotts are often more productive than elections.
4
I think people are missing the import or humor if you will in this entire situation:
supporting Donald Trump, even for people who give him money is such a black mark they want no one to know about it.
Just take a moment and think about what sort of person does something like that. Think about the lack of morals. Think about their defining characteristics.
I'm supporting Pete Buttigieg and I don't care who knows it. In fact, I some what advertise it in a heavily conservative area.
I don't put it on Facebook or Twitter because I don't use either of those tools.
8
What!? If you're embarrassed about a donation to a candidate, don't make one. It's Public Information and the Public Has the Right to Know. Get rid of the Citizens United decision so we know where the Big Money is coming from. Better yet Ban all donations above $1000.
10
This guy and his antics are one of the reasons the Dems will lose in 2020 and we will have another 4 years of Trump. Why do Dems always feel they have to get in the gutter with Republicans.
10
Doxxing has a commonly accepted definition. It is reprehensible at least, illegal at worst.
Mr. Castro has a remedy available: The courts. Anybody who publicly accused Mr. Castro of doxxing should be sued for slander.
Dan Kravitz
2
Because of the very corrupting effects purposely achieved by the “Citizens United” decision to deliver the political control of the country to the corporations and the very wealthy, who can since that “legal” decision buy their own politicians, the only resource left to everybody else to protect their interests is to be informed of “who buys who,” and it is absolutely necessary the disclosure of of all wealthy donors to all the politicians who have been put for sale by unethical “justices.”
3
What complete and utter hypocrisy. So Castro did not specifically incite violence against the people he named, so he’s completely innocent? But if someone else (you know who) speaks out against a person, he is shredded for inciting violence against that person? Why should anyone be “shamed” for their political affiliation? So now have we become the country that people can be bullied, silenced, punished for having an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours? Shameful. But of course, only shameful behavior from the right is called out. The left can do as they please, no consequences.
8
I’m not sure what to call it, it feels more like a junior high school argument. Like when someone places their finger two inches from your nose and says, “I’m not touching you!” People like David Letterman declared that the New York Muslim community has the legal “right” to build their community center at ground zero. Joaquin has the “right” of free speech in sending out his black list of Trump donors. Why? Because HE knows they all deserve it. The question is merely, “Should he have done it?” The answer of most Americans outside the brainwashed left is, “No!” It was a weak, cheap act. Period. From a party that continuously attacks Trump’s decorum on a daily basis, show some self-awareness.
17
Hosannas and laurels to TX Rep. Joaquin Castro for documenting by Tweet huge donations to Donald Trump running for re-election 2020. President Trump has received far more donations from his people than is legal. Rep.Joaquin Castro of Texas has every right to list San Antonians' contributions to Trump's campaign.
The president's Texan donors have fueled and stoked Trump's belligerent tweets against Hispanic immigrants. The mass shootings last weekend in El Paso and Dayton of Latinos and people of color by young white supremacists was the poison fruit of the poison Trump tree. How much longer can we be lead by a racist president who governs by Tweet against his own people and country?
3
Mr. Castro should be congratulated for airing out the racist stink that is hiding in his backyard. And I admire his resolve, if only because if this country is going to right its course, cooperate with our neighbors, and work to save the planet, a good many difficult tasks are in store for us. Thank you Rep. Castro.
2
Darn those public records!
The grievance of big money Trump donors against public disclosure is similar to the complaint of sex offenders having to register.... Shame.
1
It’s completely inappropriate for an elected public official — presumably with a large following on social media — to be listing the names and places of employment of 40 fellow citizens (some of whom are probably his own constituents) and accusing them of “supporting a campaign of hate” simply by making donations to a political opponent. It doesn’t matter if it’s public information. This is the immediate aftermath of two horrible mass shootings, when emotions are running high. “Public shaming” — which the author of this piece condones, along with the New York Times — is not OK. It is not acceptable political discourse. It is the opposite of acceptable political discourse. Moreover, characterizing this as mere public shaming, as if we are all members of a small community simply exerting little loving guidance on one of our own, is completely disingenuous. The tweet expressly and recklessly linked the named individuals with a “campaign of hate,” and that in the aftermath of a horrible crime. It’s obvious that this creates a real possibility of serious adverse consequences for those individuals and businesses. One might even reasonably surmise that was the real purpose of the tweet. That’s not OK. And for it to come from an elected public servant is nothing short of disgraceful. I suspect that would be obvious to the author of this piece (and the NYT) if the targets were anyone other than supporters of the current President.
13
@JMM Well put!
5
This is all public knowledge. How is it any different from having your name attached to comments online? Don't these donors know that their names are part of the public record? It is called transparency. Don't we want that? Republicans are trying to make an issue out of nothing...again.
3
Making donations already on the public record more readily available to consumers who may wish to legally boycott establishments owned by these billionaires is not doxxing. Where is and was the Republican outrage over then candidate Trump’s incitement to violence of NRA supporters directed at his opponent Hillary Clinton? That is a true example of doxxing by the immoral man these donors and Republican sycophants are enabling. Castro’s efforts are part of a solution to the catastrophic white supremacist terrorism now gripping our country.
7
Nossel is splitting hairs.
Castro's intentions were clear as day.
18
In a separate article it said that Trump was a at $12M fundraiser this weekend in the Hamptons or something — I’d much rather know who was there!
1
Posting a list of names of people and accusing them of “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders’” is disgusting. Admit it. Eighty percent of Americans want an end to illegal "immigration" and there is nothing racist about it. Illegal immigration is an invasion and supporting it is abandonment of the rule of law. Legal immigration is welcomed.
Wouldn't have been anti-violence to make a statement that the Democrats picketing McConnell's home and suggesting someone put a knife in his throat are disgusting?
It is expected that politicians will criticize each other. What leftists are incapable of comprehending is that criticizing the supporters of a political opponent is not the equivalent. Hillary lost because of her deplorables comment. Castro and his brother are taking a hit for criticizing Trump contributors several of whom contributed to both of the Castro's campaigns.
If Democrats want to stop hatred and violence leadership needs to criticize the disgusting behavior of BLM and Antifa, the Democrats who throw Trump cabinet members out of their restaurants, the Maxine Waters who tell her supporters to harass people wearing MAGA hats as well as the Democrats who are threatening McConnell.
The RNC did not pay Republicans to disrupt Hillary campaign events. There was no violence at Hillary events because Trump supporters didn't waste their time attending her events. Democrats did incite violence at Trump events.
12
Nossel make a clear and compelling argument for public access to as much public information as possible. The decline of print media (newspapers) has left an information vacuum at a time when we desperately need information about the capital (money) behind our political leaders. Cries to tighten campaign finance information would only serve those buyers of influence. To call this doxxing is disingenuous at best. Castro, because he knows the power of information, was just helping share what any voter, journalist, politics groupie, aspirant politician or (like me) routine writer of letters to the editor can freely get from the FEC website, or VoteSmart.org and OpenSecrets.org. His motive? No idea, but just one possible: Knowledge is power. As those who would attempt to limit or deny it well know. Thank god for reporters, and Mr. Castro.
"There is rich irony in Republican self-righteousness about public attacks on people’s political donations. Prominent Republicans routinely assert that the billionaire George Soros, a major donor to progressive candidates and causes, secretly controls the Democratic Party. Mr. Trump & his supporters spent over a year publicly smearing members of Robert Mueller’s team as “13 angry Democrats,” based on their voter registrations or political giving, or both. NYT. 8. August" ...what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
1
Directing the general public to public records isn't "doxxing". It's education.
2
Why am I not surprised that the NYT and a lot of its readers support Doxing if it feeds their daily storyline against Trump.
But apparently some of those Doxxed by Senor Castro are experiencing long lines at their places of business as supporters rally on their behalf.
I'd say this attempt to embarrass Trump Supporters has backfired and will only contribute to Trumps numbers rising in the polls.
Surprisingly even MSNBC condemned the Doxing.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/08/07/msnbc-to-joaquin-castro-publishing-names-and-shaming-trump-supporters-in-el-paso-is-pretty-gross-n2551324
"Here in San Antonio it has resulted in some unintended consequences. One of the companies he fixed is Bill Miller's Barbeque. The lines were out the door, and the drive up lanes were several times longer than usual. So, thank you Joaquin, we show you don't matter."
14
The commentator writes "Mr. Castro cannot be held legally responsible for others’ harassing conduct that he did not urge." Yet I am sure that she, together with the NYT and the majority of the Democratic presidential candidates do not use the same standard for the President, blaming him for the El Paso tragedy, yet curiously not even mentioning that the Dayton shooter was a fan of Elizabeth Warren.
12
Assuming there is equivalence between Trump on the one hand laughing at rallies when someone shouts “shoot them” about immigrants or liberals or whatever, and someone releasing a publicly available list of his rich contributors on the other hand (no, there is no equivalence of course), since Trump has no inclination to curtail his behavior then those who have a right to oppose him have the right to use any lawful means to do so.
As Nat Hentoff - my all-time favorite liberal - was often fond of pointing out in his Village Voice columns --
The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of others which you consider to be insulting, disgusting abhorrent and reprehensible -- which certainly works in this case --
However --
Liberals beware -- because that ideal is a two-way street and works both ways and in both directions --
Which means when you find yourself on the receiving end of this type of vitriol -- remember -- it's "Protected Speech" as well...
9
Yes, you have freedom of speech. But, you don’t have freedom from its consequences.
4
$2,800.
That’s the maximum amount an individual can donate to Trump’s re-election campaign.
This weekend’s much publicized Trump fundraiser in the Hamptons has an “admission charge” of $250,000.
Please NYT, find out where the money goes.
1
Trump uses Twitter every day to harass and intimidate people! Do any of his donors care about that?
4
Mr. Castro had the right to tweet the names as much as the people who donated to Trump have the right to donate. If you don't want to be outed on Twitter, don't donate to a racist.
1
Hate crimes just happened multiple times. Invoking hatred right at that moment is worse than any of those hate crimes.
3
The only reason he posted this information is to have these people harassed for exercising their constitutional rights. And they have been. It’s not illegal but in this political climate it’s certainly dangerous. The fact that you defend Castro shows you don’t care. I hope you don’t get hateful calls like the donors that were doxxed.
12
When this happens in political reverse (and you know it will) the world will be waiting to read your same defense.
9
Curious how the Republicans suddenly care but when candidate trump released the cell number of a Congress person....nothing.
1
Hurrah for Mr. Castro. We deserve to know about the blood money going to dump's campaign. I for one would like to boycott any local establishment engaging in taking healthcare from women; putting kids and moms in concentration camps; demonizing people of color; bankrupting students; and squeezing the elderly. Have at it. Every blue elected official should be tweeting and emailing their constituents these lists.
2
Too clever by half. Does no one see the real issue here? He listed these names "in the wake of the El Paso shootings," suggesting that donors supported the shootings. If you don't see the problem, I suggest you are the problem.
9
The House wants to investigate?! That’s the most depressing part of this story.
Right on Joaquin !
1
I don't see the big deal at all. I have no problem saying and posting who I gave money too and even how much. If you are ashamed or want to keep it a secret then you need to do some sole searching.
2
Disclosure is the future written large
If you don't want to be known, do not act
We are here to freely make our mark
Secrecy distorts and conceals fact
And how many times a week does the president abuse fellow citizens via tweets with no consequence?
1
By the very definition of the word, it was doxing. Own it.
6
Sounds like a lot of Trump supporters are on the down low.
Of course it’s not doxxing...the fact that I feel compelled to leave this comment seems ludicrous. If you make a donation to a political campaign...ANY CAMPAIGN...expect that to become public information....PERIOD...Why does this require discourse? And whatever the ramifications are, be prepared to accept them. And answer to them.
1
tl;dr: He’s on our side; that’s all we care about.
This is Trump’s home-field advantage. This is not how you beat Trump.
Ms. Nossel is being disingenuous at best, and delusional at worst. Rep. Castro's Tweet did indeed include public information, but honestly, he saved his more partisan and perhaps more unhinged supporters time and effort by publicizing it via Twitter. He clearly meant to intimidate those Trump supporters (some of whom had also donated to him and his brother) into ending their support. In an era where #MassacreMitch trends on Twitter and protestors in front of the Majority Leader's home threaten to kill him, it is reasonable for supporters of Republicans to worry about their safety. It is also reasonable to assume that Mr. Castro, who is no idiot, knew this to be the case when he most clearly doxxed these people. Democracy Dies by Doxxing, to paraphrase one of the Times' competitors.
9
Exactly who cares? This is war. The Michelle "high Road" is not a strategy worth even contemplating. Dems need to let it rip and rip hard.
1
If what Joaquin Castro tweeted is described as doxing, how can one describe DJT's tweets?
I propose the following:
Malicious, poisonous, pernicious, vengeful, vitriolic, spiteful, nasty, vindictive ........
I urge others to add to this list.
Why would someone give a 'maximum contribution' to someone if they are not proud of people knowing about it?
1
What he did is no different from what our President does regularly. So....if you have no issue with Mr. Castro doing this then can we assume that you are consistent in that you approve of the President calling out Latinos, etc. he doesn’t call for violence there either...rather, he just names the perpetrators of the illegal immigration he’s attempting to address.
The information in Castro's list is information that's publicly available on the FEC website:
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/
The list is to draw attention to business owners in San Antonio - who donate to trump - and who employ Hispanics and whose customers are Hispanic.
It's essential information.
We should not vote for any person of either party who doxxes regular citizens. If you make your livelihood from politics, fine. Doxxers should be doxxed.
3
This can't be considered harassment at all. If anything, we should be doing this sort of thing more. If Trump's supporters are ashamed that they're donating big money to a white supremacist president, whose racist and violent rhetoric is driving unstable people to murder, then they should stop giving him money.
1
I saw Tulsi Gabbard’s Hindu wedding on You Tube. It was beautiful like her. She along with Sanders and Warren are the only true progressives running for the Democratic nomination. The superdelegates are already planning a second ballot where they will decide the nominee. Opportunists like Buttigieg are already reaching out to them. I can understand much of the vitriol against Trump but it will be a sad day when you find that your only choice is a phony centrist and a traitor to the Progressive cause.
The NYT and Washington Post should post the top 100 donors of every candidate running for a federal office.
This entire incident revealed to me how much more work the press needs to do to keep our elections open and transparent. Castro did your job for you. Thank him.
True. I try not to look at the replies, just like I never read the comments when I wrote for the Huffington Post (I think they later disabled comments because it was getting bad). There are a lot of hate-filled people out there.
1
How about having one standard for dangerous speech?
1
She doesn't want to suppress speech? Fine, she should be calling out Castro, not defending him. Why does Ms. Nossel think he did this - so that people could send the donors Xmas cards? Fascism is fascism left or right. He's involved in it. She approves it. It's disgusting.
7
The infantile Castro should be ordered to post bonds covering the possible damages and injuries created by this action.
The irony will be when one of his Democratic Party donors is the one seeing his vehicle or house set afire, since the doxxing was so reckless.
2
If you’re afraid to stand up and be counted then don’t!
The first question of the night for the September Debates must be directed to Julian Castro... do you agree with what your brother did, and why?
4
“ Democracy depends on the ability of politicians, journalists and citizens to draw attention to what they consider misdeeds.”
Misdeed - noun: a wicked or illegal act.
Doxxing - search for and publish private or identifying information about a particular individual(s) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
Now, does Mr. Castro’s act fall under one of the definitions of “doxxing”?
Ms. Dossel does us no favor by insinuating that something that is quite obvious is not what it seems to be. You be the judge.
Make it personal. Put yourself in as the victim. What then would you think of the intentions of the perpetrator? And of the opinion of Ms. Dossel?
4
Call it what you want, the intend is the same, and as a US Congressman he should be censured.
I remember when they called Ronald Reagan a racist. GW was constantly called a racist. He wept when asked the question in an interview. John McCain was called a racist, when he passed he somehow became a Liberal hero. Very strange. And of course Mitt Romney was called a racist, he was mocked relentlessly when a family photo was published.
I also vividly remember the day the nuns told us if Barry Goldwater was elected President, we would have to go to school on Saturdays. Later, in life I was always told Goldwater was a racist. When I decided to investigate I found a man who’s father was a Jewish immigrant, tried to install gay rights in the military, was perhaps our last great bi-partisan Senator, and was anything but a racist
6
Can we stop going out of our way to be cruel to each other?
4
@Mick F Yes, it would be nice to go back to disagreeing without being vilified. That would go a long way toward making America great again.
3
Indeed. I hope the Times reporter(s) who were indignantly tweeting about this in an exercise of false equivalency, and (sanctimonious, it just be said) “balance,” are reading this piece, too.
Democrats have to resort to the mob when they have no logical arguments.
Called others names and calling out the mob are the tactics of people of no substance.
When you have to try and shut up your opponents because your own ideas are so hard to sell you know you have lost.
9
Why should I contribute to your wealth when you will use that wealth to support causes or people whose positions I find abhorrent?
All of this information is available publicly. Just google "Sunlight Foundation" and "open secrets.org." That said, we should all be careful about inciting reactionaries, no matter what side of the political aisle they're on.
If it makes you angry and embarrassed and you feel threatened when people find out what politicians you support (which is publically available info for all who donate and when there has been no call to harass you), maybe you should be questioning your political choices.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with whom you are choosing to support and what that says about you. If that's something you want to hide, maybe you need to think about why.
Doxxing or not, do we really need more “explosions of nastiness” as the article mentions.
2
The Times is just wrong about this. This was obviously meant to incite everything up to and including violence against these people. Puts Joaquin Castro in the same league with Trump.
5
“Crossing the line is pretty simple!” It’s not “...but it’s not illegal!” It’s when you make a decision to do something that is ethnically and morally just plain wrong, and if the tables were turned, you’d be very resentful.
5
It would be interesting for the NYT and other
MSM to publicly publish, who and how much they contribute to current presidential candidates. We know for certain (almost) that not one dime ever goes to a republican, and certainly not Trump! Their political ideology is utterly and positively biased. Your readers deserve to have this information.
4
Go back and read the NYT article about St John the Evangelist San Diego and the helpful people who were just putting out information and see how that turned out.
2
Ridiculous. Of course it was.
7
Thank you Rep Castro, you did the right thing. We should know the names of people who would rather support a racist in order to pay less in taxes. These people are deplorables, only out for themselves. They are not citizens or Christians. They also can be called racists. Name and shame. As another comment stated, if you support someone or something, shouldn't you be proud of that? If you aren't, why are you supporting him?
I'm all for transparency with regard to people who are elected to represent us. That transparency includes the people who give the candidates money. Those who give, especially the wealthy ones, usually expect something in return, like appointments, or policies favorable to their businesses. I would call that very useful information to the electorate when thinking about a candidate.
I wish we had more Joaquin Castros. At least one in each State. That would make us informed consumers and wide-eyed voters.
America is starved for transparency and sick of manipulation. The internet has helped and has helped but also helped disinformation too. Millennial leadership might be able to explore public policy to support true information.
If you contribute more than $1000 to a political candidate, that should be public info...no ifs or buts.
If these donors pledged the maximum amount allowed to support a candidate, there is little chance of fthem feeling shamed.
I do think tweeting names in the aftermath of shootings for political gain, is far more shameful than helpful,
1
If a bus company president is supporting a candidate who is calling for more public busses, shouldn’t the public know this?
You should tell one of your colleagues, Maggie Haberman. She appears confused on the issue.
2
Castro did not openly or explicitly invite people to harass trump donors. But he knew what he was doing was certainly making it much easier for people in his own district to harass others IN HIS OWN DISTRICT. This was clearly an implicit invitation to harass and bully people in his own district who just happen to hold a political view different from his own. If people think this is acceptable then they have become no different from the "racist white supremacists" we claim to abhor. But as usual the denial arguements will all be based on the (unspoken?) attitude that they hold the higher moral ground over trumpists and so that makes it ok. Eyes wide shut people. So much for wokeness.
6
For decades after the second World War, my parents refused to buy from German companies which had used slave labor during the war, including Krups, VW, Bosch and others. It was important to be principled; it was a way to not support companies who had used such practices to enrich themselves.
This seems like a corollary of that practice; not enriching those who would support our President, who does not disavow violence against people of color and immigrants, whose own language (when not on teleprompter) encourages violence and hatred. It makes sense to boycott those who directly enrich and support this President and work for his re-election. They are complicit.
3
This was totally meant to embarrass and target those individuals. I think where I give money politically or philanthropically should be entirely anonymous no matter the amount. My identity to the NAACP or the ACLU is protected by the Supreme Court in this way and my political free speech/donation should be as well. Darker money please. Also re this and Stephen Ross: you really want a culture war in this way? You want conservatives and moderates to boycott/call out Hollywood, arts institutions ,cultural institutions run by donating Democrats? Be careful what you wish for. If all that cultural / philanthropic money turns away, what then?
9
I do not think it a bad thing to expect campaign donors to put their mouth where their money is. A pertinent question is why, if they feel strongly enough about a candidate to contribute their money to his cause, do they not feel strongly enough to be vocal in their support. Hidden money is a political toxin.
7
If naming and shaming is the intent, beware that it might backfire.
True that some donors might be driven away by fear of a public affiliation, but potential voters might see a long list of well regarded or successful individuals as an indication that Trump isn't as bad as he seems.
A la "If X thinks that Trump is worth a check, then that's good enough for me!"
4
It is interesting that the second amendment has the phrase "well regulated" while the first amendment does not, yet the republican defenders of the second amendment only want to regulate the first amendment.
1
The Republican Supreme Court has declared in several cases (most notably Citizens United) that there is no corrupt effect of big-dollar campaign contributions BECAUSE there is full public disclosure. Republicans have been fine with this assuming that most voters are far too busy and/or lazy to look up who is giving, who is receiving and generally who is being bribed by whom. Now they're in panic mode and whining as the nation is learning which millionaires and billionaires own the Republicans.
2
If the Supreme Court has ruled that money equals speech, then the quoting of that speech cannot by any logical twist constitute a breach of the first amendment. When legally documented, the giving of money to support a public cause or candidate cannot be squelched by the giver. Donors have engaged in a form of public speech. This IS the flip side of Citizens United. As of now those who wish to tip the scales of government with money have the right to do so; the rest of us have the right to expose their efforts. They enjoy no impunity from the spotlight. When Republicans in Congress demand that Castro be investigated, Democrats ought to spotlight the GOP's hypocritical efforts to silence one side of the very speech they fought too secure.
I'm just amazed that anybody would spend hard earned money on Trump. But maybe it's not hard earned. And if they do, own it, as the law states.
I find it somewhat ironic that Citizens United found that campaign donations were protected as political free speech, but, in this case, these donors want their contributions, i.e. their "political free speech", to be secret.
Isn't "free speech" all about public declarations and taking a stand in front of everyone?
If these donors (well, really Republicans) really find it disturbing that their "free speech" is public, maybe they should start with getting Citizens United overturned. Or don't donate. Or have the courage of their convictions.
7
Thank you Representative Castro for your tweet.
For all of the people who did not understand your true character ( or more specifically the lack of character ), it should be very clear, now.
I know the purpose of releasing the names of these donors was to enable the public to send them their best wishes, their support for their businesses and families, Christmas cards, etc.
Certainly, nobody would send death threats or threats of violence to them or their families, boycott their businesses, or wish any harm at all to them.
How about tweeting the names of all your donors ? I am sure they will be as pleased as they are honored.
If the House of Representatives had any courage ( which they don't ), they should censure you.
3
First, it’s already public information. Second, if the donors are fearful of being identified as Trump supporters, that tells you everything you need to know about Trump.
3
I know some people who won’t go to a neighborhood bar because it’s a “49er bar” and they are Raiders fans. Is that boycott unacceptable? What about someone who posts online a list of the top 20 “49er bars”? (I have seen such a list.) Could that be considered inviting Raider fans to boycott those bars? Wouldn’t it take something far more sinister, like calling for graffitiing the bars, to rise anywhere near the level of a crime?
This stuff is about something a lot more trivial than the direction our country is heading following the next federal elections, where the value of solid information is a lot more important.
1
I would not be ashamed or afraid of harassement if someone listed me as donor to Warren or any other normal politician. On the other hand I would be quite indignant if someone falsely listed me as a donor to Trump.
Giving money to Trump's campaign implicitly assume you approve of who he is and what he does and I do find that objectionable. To me it indicates a lack of moral compass, and the fact that so many reacted viciously of Castro's listing indicates that these people are not unaware that being a Trump supporter is not something to be proud of.
6
The problem is that no trump supporters have gone around shaming a warren supporter. Yet there are many instances of left leaning supporters shaming investors, donors, and administration officials in public. Look at yesterday’s NYT reporting of the soul cycle issue.
Would you shame or doxx your physician or dentist, because they contribute to a causes you don’t agree with. Or you mani/pedi tech or who ever.
Would you switch to a different provider because of their politics?
Do you research EVERY investment you own to vet it?
How many BDSsupporters, have medical devices or technology which has helped them , or a loved one? Will they have that medical, technology removed, or treatment forgone?
Let people do what they want with their expendable $, your actions only weaken our union.
5
Not only was it not doxxing, it was EXACTLY the remedy the conservatives on the Supreme Court urged people to use in place of restricting campaign donations. That was the whole point of Citizens United! "No, No we cannot limit campaign donations because they are speech" the 5 conservatives argued. "The solution is having that speech be transparent so that people know where politicians are getting money from. That way the 'marketplace of ideas' will control campaign spending, rather that rules and regulations mucking everything up." And now that this exact remedy is working in the way they intended it to? "No, no, we can't have conservatives being called out for donating to politicians; it's harassment." What they want is unlimited, unknowable amounts of dark money flowing from billionaires to conservative politicians to enact policies that benefit them. That's the only marketplace the funders of the Republican Party are interested in, and they are electing politicians and appointing judges to make it a reality. When people keep showing you who they are, believe them.
7
Instead of providing the names of those donors, I think Mr. Castro and the public would have been better served if he explained how one would go about finding these legally obtainable donor lists. Granted a tweet like that would not have garnered the media attention that this has. Mr. Castro may have had to hammer the point home time and again to encourage all of us to see who is funding campaigns.
5
This is a slippery slope, I’m afraid. While Mr Castro’s twitter post was not doxxing it still feels wrong. If he had posted the means for people to look up the info themselves or had posted the names of a donors business only if they were the owner of the company, it might not feel this way. But as it was done, there is the unspoken invitation to take an action against individual people. Why else post the names? While I do believe that public shaming of businesses and companies who do wrong is a useful tool, particularly when it takes the form of a boycott, there is nothing wrong or with donating to a politician you support, no matter how vile the opposition believes them to be. This may not have crossed a legal line, but it did cross a moral one.
13
@RJ
RJ, While I agree with the first part of your comment, the middle section bring a question to mind :"...public shaming shaming of businesses and companies...".
Exactly whom decides "who do wrongs", and when the tactic is "a useful tool"? Are you suggesting that Mr. Trump would rate as an individual whom makes the decision; of course those that think as you do would be allowed and those of a different opinion would be of a lesser likelihood.
Human nature is a prime factor in most decisions, and politicians are out to get elected. Castro is his brother's campaign manager; what would be his motivations, in your mind, in this kerfuffle- good, bad, or political?
Good day.
1
@RJ
It "feels wrong"? Feelings matter?
My wife is a political fundraiser, and has been for nearly three decades. As such, I know a little bit about campaign finance law.
Bottom line is this: any contribution to a political campaign in excess of $100 has to be tabulated and reported to the FEC’s website. This has to be done every three months.
Anyone can then go to the FEC’s website, and find the info on any contributors. It’s all publicly available and has been for years.
7
@Bill Seng
Really?
So Antifa or the Aryan Brotherhood can download this for free?
Might be important to them to know the political affiliations of their neighbors.
3
When my borther ran for Village Justice in 2018, his opponent, the incumbent, tried to hide his affiliation with the GOP by running in one of NY's independent parties. My brother noted in one of the debates that the incumbent donated to Trump. He found the information in public records. My brother won his election. Did the disclosure make a difference? Who knows? To paraphrase the 19th century Irish pol: "Politics ain't been bag", or to quote President Truman - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
4
It’s weird in the Internet age, people get so upset about public information. There’s all kinds of publicity available data. Why is it rude to admit you know something?
6
The issue isn't one of doxxing but rather one of incitement to violence.
To imply that anyone who supports President Trump is “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’” is clearly intended to incite to actions. There are still laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater.
And for the record crossing into the country illegally by the 10's and 100's of thousands is an invasion.
The left leaning press uses Orwellian Newspeak all the time which may well contribute to the breakdown in an ability of the left to hear the right and their concerns in general. So in that regard Castro's utterances are typical.
16
Where are the billionaire victims of gun violence by the left?
I’ll wait...
1
Strange that this action is criminal or at least offensive when the same behavior from the current president is just fine and is to be congratulated. Hypocrisy is thy name.
Knowledge of donors to any politician ought be public information available without hassle and widely publicized. It is important to know so that possible motives and expectations of both parties can be assessed. Only the crooks and the ashamed want this information hidden.
10
Same people capable of seeing the citizenship question for what it is (it’s just information!) can’t see this for what it is.
Democrats who claim to be for participating in politics- read democracy- sure thwart democracy with these tactics.
Jim Crow laws were outed decades ago as wrongheaded. Why does Ny Times and it’s readers, sacrifice long term progress and principles in order to avoid flagging improper behavior.
I’ve grown accustomed to seeing liberal rationale that can find “ why it’s different “. But this type of antic is not hard to replicate, and if you don’t see what’s wrong with it on Aug 10, 2019- the “ evolution” argument might be hard to incorporate this time around. People held accountable for things done 35- 235 years ago. Yes- if you’re a Democrat you might be able to evolve in 1 year. But why not just see the truth today?
7
There is no right to privacy for political donations.
If you feel threatened, keep your bribe money to yourself.
@Kat
I’m not saying it’s illegal.
But the intent is clear.
May I ask you if you can explain why Democrats opposed the citizenship question on the census?
My understanding they saw it to be intimidating. By law, the census can not share information with other agencies. So it’s all protected. Legal. Yet - Democrats could connect dots there. Why not here? Inconvenient?
Elevate your principles to apply to situations that aren’t partisan. Not only is it the right thing to do in this environment- it’s simply honest.
4
Isn't "doxxing" some form of shaming? If so, it is impossible to shame someone incapable of feeling shame. Cases in point: the Trump family, McConnell, GOP donors and enablers, etc.
4
Is this a primary or a high school student council election. It's difficult to tell at times.
6
Why wouldn't you want people to know how much you love your candidate?
What is it that would make you ashamed of that love?
How is it that a broadcast revealing your love would be construed as negative?
When did the support and love of a candidate require protection?
Where has our collective mind gone?
9
@Guy Walker
In case you didn't notice that when you vote, the ballots are cast in secret. Should everyone's vote be made public ?
Some of us value something called privacy, which we have a right to .
It is possible to love a candidate without wearing a hat, having a bumper sticker, or broadcasting one's support.
4
I refuse to even discuss social media harassment until the President's own online harassment is called out by the Repubs and Trump TV - which is also guilty of harassment. (how many retractions, lame apologies, and hosts on sudden 'scheduled" vacations have they had to make over the years?!)
Trump uses Twitter as nothing but a means to harass and demean and incite. Even when he's apparently trying to be positive, he's insulting...
Nope. Until the Repubs grow a few dozen, and condemn Trump's daily harassment...this subject is off the table...
9
The GOP is fine with Russian assistance in elections. They don’t care what the Saudi Prince does, even if he murders a WaPo journo. But, exposing the name of public campaign donors? I guess we have found a line that can’t be crossed.
9
Simply put, a member of the federal government has published this list as a way to harass and intimidate private citizens, in order to influence them to bend to his viewpoint. This is totally unacceptable, and to defend the action by parsing the definition of a word smacks of hypocrisy, especially when one looks at the way the far left leaves behind the traditional meanings of the insults they hurl at conservatives.
6
Private citizens have been doing this for years. Why aren’t our elected officials allowed to do so, as well? But those in glass houses...Rep Castro should be prepared for the blowback, as well as a list of HIS donors, being exposed as well.
The Venn Diagram of intersection shows, in some ways, the hypocrisy of some of these donations - how the rich cover all bases for future consideration.
However Rep Castro made a point of limiting his list to those who gave the maximum donation - and it reminds us how horrific Citizens United is to our democracy - so much money lining their pockets. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and especially Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion should hang their heads in shame
1
Sitting Congressman outing Trump supporters and a new movie coming out glorifying hunting deplorables and the stage is set for an explosive reaction in the next few months. Who will be held to account when it does? Sow the Wind, you Reap the Whirlwind. Stop it now.
5
Republicans with faux outrage once again trying to game the system for self benefit. The party that happily publishes private emails obtained illegally from foreign sources now objects to the publication of taxpayer funded information freely available on a government website. I guess the donors to the GOP don't want people to know that they back candidates like Trump. I'd be ashamed of myself too if I were willing to put money towards the candidacy of a racist, misogynistic know-nothing or one of his myriad Congressional enablers.
2
Ms. Nossel. To prove your commitment to protected speech, please tweet out the names and personal information of a few dozen donors to Planned Parenthood in say....Alabama.
8
Women’s healthcare is always a target.
Please go after the Viagra contributors.
A few months ago. New York City's voter rolls were published on line by the Board of Elections. These are public records but usually are hard to obtain unless you pay for them. Within days a public outcry from liberal progressive politicians demanding their removal got the posting taken down.
Lets be honest, many public records are hard to find. Try to go and see a public trial in NYC. They are hidden behind closed doors with limited signage.
If you are registered to vote, your address is public record but I don't see the addresses of the Times' editorial staff regularly tweeted.
4
Trump disgusts me. That said, it was wrong for Castro to have done this. The clear intent was to set these donors up for harassment. I would hope that we are better than that. If Trump did it you'd be all over him.
8
Common sense says. If you wouldn’t want your financial support of a candidate to become public then don’t support the candidate.
14
What’s right and what’s legal aren’t necessarily the same thing and intent matters to me. Given that the information provided is all public record, readily available, and therefore deemed to be acceptable, leads me to conclude that there was really no need to publish the list of campaign donors at all. The intention was, at best, to publicly “shame and humiliate” those on the list and, at worst, to incite retaliation against those whose political views aren’t in accord with ones own. As I note the phrase “shame and humiliation “ not only coming into common use, but being advocated as a strategy to silence the opposition, I can’t help but think this country is heading toward a “Cultural Revolution” of our own making.
14
@EGR: With Trump, his demand of one-sided absolute loyalty or you're fired, his big threatening mouth and his twitterhappy finger, we're already in the midst of such a "Cultural Revolution". His words come from the Oval Office and carry moe weight than any other American's - as we've seen in El Paso.
1
@EGR: With Trump, his demand of one-sided absolute loyalty or you're fired, his big threatening mouth and his twitterhappy finger, we're already in the midst of such a "Cultural Revolution". His words come from the Oval Office and carry more weight than any other American's - as we've seen in El Paso.
If McConnell's packed Supreme Court can equate bribery with speech, American citizens can respond by making public the bribery offered up by powerful doners. Our Constitution and our political system cannot survive the rampant corruption of the GOP. Citizens must step up. Thank you Joaquin, for showing us one path to our own salvation.
11
@Julie
I find your expressed intense bias both amusing and sad. I certainly agree with you that corruption is rampant among GOP politicians. But you write as though it is not equally rampant among Democrat politicians.
The last place that Diogenes would ever find an honest person is among politicians of any party or independent.
6
I absolutely believe that Joaquin Castro's speech in this matter must be protected. However, the author, Suzanne Nossel, is certainly wrong in her headline conclusion that this was not doxxing.
Wikipedia describes "doxxing" as:
"doxxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying information) about an individual or organization.
The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media"
Juaquin Castro's speech fits that description exactly.
8
Only if you consider someone’s name a private identifier. Doxxing which is not necessarily illegal is disseminating the additional identifiers particular to a person beyond his or her legal name which is public. It is the address, phone number, social security card etc which comprise the deeper and more ‘private’ documenting part.
3
@Suburban Cowboy
I don't believe "doxxing" should be illegal ever. Only if false information is published should it be illegal....and it is, it is called libel. But Castro's published speech was "doxxing".
1
Donations are public information, and should remain so as we need to know who owns our politicians.
By all means publish the names of people who donate to representatives who could care less who dies as long as guns get sold and re-sold daily.
Don't publish the donor's addresses, or their children's names and ages and locations, or their telephone numbers, or their e-mail addresses or their social security and credit card numbers or they license plate and type of car they drive. That is harassment.
Don't want to be known as a donor to a certain party or candidate? Don't donate.
8
I think the definition of harassment and doxxing should be looked at closely. During this politically charged time, revealing this (albeit public) information would LIKELY cause harm given the circumstances, and therefore should not have been done.
17
Read Brandenburg v Ohio to know the law.
So, they proudly donate to this deplorable President's reelection campaign knowing that the donor lists are public information. But the enablers object to any name publicity? As Trump would say " sad"!
5
Thank you, Mr. Castro. You showed the courage that no one else had to show this data.
Don’t stop
9
There's rich irony that everyone in the comments supporting this action is doing so behind the anonymity of an account user name instead of using their real name.
15
All the misinformed barristers and Times commentators here so righteous in their hatred of Trump may wish to review the actual laws and the factual history of the cases surrounding confidentiality and political contributions. It was in the midst of the civil rights movement that Bates v. City of Little Rock and NAACP v Alabama established the right not only to public association but also to privacy in that association. Come on people - we've got to be better than Fox News. Shallow thinking serves no one well.
12
@TJ
You might want to reread Citizens United.
2
It is wonderful that he did this. Free speech must be attributable to someone. You have to understand it is speech and someone says it.
So I guess the next step is for Republican operatives to send lists of small Democratic donors to private businesses in Red areas or where the owner is a known Republican.
Or maybe they can save time and simply identify all his Democratic employees for him.
Is this what we want?
11
If you haven't done anything wrong, then you should have nothing to fear.
This is why I always wonder why women who dress scantily or show their legs and faces in public are shocked by leering and catcalling. With their behavior, they are basically asking for it.
And it's the same reason why we need to keep an open database of those with criminal records, poor behavior in schools, and bad credit. I would endorse going even farther though, by adopting China's social credit system. As a conservative Muslim, I don't agree with how it is being used against the Uigher minority, but I think we could make the same system work better here.
Not knowing where a person stands can result in all sorts of mismatches and poor choices. For instance, I once made the mistake of hiring a BLM activist for an administrative position. When her performance and absenteeism became a problem - her attitude was a problem almost from the beginning - our HR person brought me a report on her social media activity, and we let her go.
Now we insist on screening every prospective new hire's social media history. It is a good program! This practice has allowed us to maintain a hiring program that results in close cultural fit, worker happiness, and low turnover.
So while I may not agree with Mr. Castro's politics, I most certainly do agree with this column! We should all do more to be more personally accountable to the positions we hold!
7
@Cane
Thank you, this is the best post of the bunch. Imagine the efficiency gains to be realized if business can apply AI to more comprehensive donor lists.
A moderate Biden contributor could fit in the accounting department, but not a more liberal Warren donor.
Or maybe combining this with facial recognition software would be even more useful: eg a Sanders donor is ok, but someone so involved as to attend his rallies might be a time waster.
And, of course, a Trump supporter might be too polarizing for sales, but would fit on the factory floor.
The best news is that this is all publicly available and free.
3
Some activities are legal but wrong. This is one of them.
13
There is NOTHING wrong when you pass along information that is already publicly available.
2
Ok, we once had an actual real president who was very wise.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
The donors are public record. This is true for all the Presidential candidates. I predict we will soon see members of the opposite parties tweeting the names of donors to Democratic presidential candidates.
I am sure it will not be considered harassment then.
Online harassment to share information that is in the public record? No, no and no.
1
I’m not convinced of this. By this token, posting the names and locations of Latino-oriented shopping malls on a right-wing website wouldn't be dangerous because it wasn't accompanied by a specific threat of violence. Essentially both sides are escalating the situation and using legalistic arguments to defend their positions; where does it end?
14
Perhaps the NYT and other newspapers should consider regularly printing this information for all public donations ordered by amount. The information is public and it seems there is interest by the public.
3
@RonR [ordered by amount. ]
It should be alphabetical. That would make it easier for me to learn who I should stop talking to.
1
Thank you Ms. Nossel for clarifying the difference between informing and harassing. In this political climate where the lines are so blurred because it is hitting us daily when we read the news online, one cannot help but ask ourselves: when a Republican campaign informs us, the People, of such disclosure, the Democratic campaign has to clean up, justify and even acknowledge defeat. When a Democratic campaign discloses such a list as Mr. Castro did, the Republican cry babies scream harassment, not fair, but will NOT clean up, justify or acknowledge defeat. Interesting to see how every time those same Republicans see their poll numbers go down they attack, bully and resist to such sly tactics. The apple does not fall too far from the tree, doesn't it when one has a bully for president.
2
It's ironic the donors feel shamed and claim to publish public information is 'doxing'.
What is the source of their shame and embarrassment?
The fact they supported the incumbent president?
I would agree it is shameful, greed-driven, and unfeeling, but that's because I find the sitting President to be the same. Why are they feeling negative about being on a list which shows they support the man who is intent on accelerating the demise of the very planet we live upon.
We cannot speak about our children or their children with any certainty that they will live full lives, but people continue to be so shortsighted they would rather create startups to make money off of the misery and shortages of the people forced to live on a semi-inhabitable planet and donate to those who will enable them. They should feel shame.
2
The donors don’t feel shamed; they feel threatened.
3
Why would anyone be concerned about their being outed as a contributor to a candidates campaign? They support a person but are ashamed of it? Interesting world we live in.
5
@Paul Lief: It may not be shame but protection.
I am Jewish and live in an area where most of my neighbors are Orthodox Jews. My views on the State of Israel are at odds with those of my neighbors.
Should my views become public, not only would I be shunned, but so would my children and grandchildren. If my name had to appear on this post, I would not have made it. Such is the chilling effect of publicity on public discourse.
3
This is a bad rationalization for bullying. What is worse is that the ONLY reason Julian Castro did this is because his twin is running for the Democratic primary, and not doing all that great. People donate money to campaigns, they've done it for a long time and not just to Republicans. If this situation was reversed, there would be howls of protest. We have laws to make it transparent, or at least as much as possible. But that doesn't mean bully people who are exercising their free speech rights, which is what donating is considered.
10
Trump Republican’s have made their grand bargain with the devil and enjoy whatever gains that come of it yet the sun still shines and the light of knowledge will not conceal them in anonymity. It is just a hint of the spiritual and moral reckoning that awaits them if they should ever again have a conscience.
2
"the simple act of “naming names” of people who hold certain controversial positions "?
These are individual Americans who have a right to privacy.
They have a right not to be named in a twitter stream for simply exercising their right to donate to candidates.
awful
10
@Yes To Progress This information is PUBLIC RECORD! He didn't release any information that wasn't publicly available, all he did was put it in one place and call attention to it.
And, also, when it comes to political donations, you actually DO NOT have the right to privacy. If spending money is the same thing as speech, as SCOTUS ruled back in 2010, then we have the right to know who is speaking on behalf of a candidate. And if you're ashamed of your speech, then maybe you should re-evaluate the person you are supporting.
It is your right to donate to whatever candidate you want, and it is my right to know who is donating to which candidate, and how much.
3
What's the problem? If Trump supporters are so proud of their leader that they give the limit they should also be proud to have their names on it...out in public.
3
Transparency is good and their should be more of it.
3
Thanks to Mr. Castro for making us aware of this public information in an efficient manner. I personAlly will not spend one penny with Trump-supporting enterprises. I don't knowingly support despoilers of the environment, exploiters of the public, or criminal enterprises either.
But the list can be used by Trump supporters as well. They flocked to anti-LBGTQ enterprises like Hobby Lobby, Cracker Barrel, and Chick-fil-A, so why would this be any different? I'm pretty sure there will be a surge of MAGA-head support for these Trumpster-toadies. So why are these Trump "investors" whining?
4
Don't donate to Donald Trump if you think it's bad to be known for donating to Donald Trump. In general, don't do things that would embarrass you if they became known. If your actions became known, it's because you did them. Mr. Castro didn't make them up, he merely reported them.
6
No one would have cared if he sent the tweet a month ago. Why do all these excuse op-ed's leave out the timing (and the intention)?
3
Considering how the English language is constantly reinvented by the GOP in order to win elections, is it really that surprising Trump et al would misuse the term Doxxing in order to score political points?
2
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee' -Nietzsche
This episode encapsulates why everything related to politics, left and right, has become toxic for me in the Trump era. I really need to stay away from the news.
3
The entire Republican machine strenuously objecting to the outing of these large Trump donors is little more than an attempt to deflect from the culpability Trump and all who support him have for the mass murders in El Paso.
While I can understand why a Trump supporter would be embarrassed to be outed, they have no right to privacy when they help fund the evil that he fosters.
1
The bottom line on this is that the President’s supporters are ashamed that they are supporting him?
4
We can start informing people about politicians and their families and supporters. If you have a bone to pick with your governor or senator or representative of the local state legislator, it's entirely reasonable to look into who their spouse and parents and children are. Perhaps their brothers and sisters and mediocre and nephews. And if they have a sexual partner, that person too.
Reporters and members of the media are equally of interest.
All of these people are the likeliest people to be given gifts by people hoping to influence them. So, their information should be freely, and easily, available to all. Yes, there are hazards. The occasional gun nut, lack of privacy, possibly being punished for having an inconvenient relative...
2
When a person is as divisive and hateful as Donald Trump, I need to know who supports him. I don’t trust these people nor do I want to associate with them. I feel they have a fatal moral failing to put their faith in him.I certainly don’t want to spend money at their businesses so they can turn around and donate to him. I never felt like this about any other elected official. But then Trump is not any other elected official.
2
"True doxxing involves the disclosure of private or sensitive personal information, like...cellphone numbers..."
Like Donald Trump giving out Sen. Lindsey Graham's personal phone number? Why wasn't Trump ever held to account for this?
And speaking of personal information, does it comfort everyone that Trump will soon have a DNI that will be his personal toady?
4
There should be a name next to every dollar given to any candidate. Citizens United deemed it public speech. If you are ashamed or angered at being found out, maybe you need to reconsider what you publicly say with your money as you would your words.
3
So here's a thought. Maybe we should make it a law to publicly list the names of donors on line and in news papers. They should be listed on the candidates web site daily. After all what, why would anyone be ashamed to be listed if that is what they believe in. If you do not wish to be named then do not donate.
1
The best government money can buy.
1
What Mr. Castro did was pass judgment on the named donors. That is more than simply publicizing names. So if those few are “fueling a campaign of hate,” then so are the almost 50% of American voters who elected Donald, and will probably vote for him again.
Not pointing out the obvious is a curious oversight by the author, though perhaps not surprising as she ends her piece with her own judgment of Americans who will vote for Donald by suggesting they are “...people who bear personal responsibility for the ills of our public life.”
Self righteousness is as corrosive as hate.
5
So all these donors need do to remain anonymous is instead redirect their money to PAC’s.
2
Thank you for this. Now, while donor information may be public, it is not often known or readily accessible to the public like the tweeting (remember the true doxxing by the President in publicly revealing Mitch McConnell's private phone number).
I would suggest that type of donor information should be known about every elected official. Should we, the constituents, not know who is funding our elected representatives? Don't we deserve to know if their votes represents the interests of constituents or corporations,(lobbyists) or wealthy donors? This is not a partisan issue, it is a democratic (small d) issue.
We get far too little reporting or easily/readily available information on where the money is coming from, who pays for the luxury trips and why did they vote for that (something that may not have anything to do with their constituents (or adversely impact them).
We should know. This is what democracy should look like.
1
I believe Mr. Castro's intent is to make these people public targets for people that listen to the likes of Maxine Waters who have call for democrats to "Get up in the faces " of political rivals which means to instill fear, disrupt, and possibly harm them.
Not exactly civil discourse to me.
How about discuss issues and win elections to get your way?
9
@Bob
Then there were all the town hall meetings about Obama-care and all the Tea Party people shouting and people claiming the government was going to pull the plug on granny.
And today listen to Fox News and our president and tell us about civil discourse.
Matthew 7:5
First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
1
While Mr. Casto’s tweet may have been legal and protected free speech, it was certainly dangerous, ill-conceived and wrong. It was doxxing. What he fails to understand is that his job is to protect all of his constituents, including those with whom he disagrees. Taking his political disagreements to a personal level, against his own citizens, displays immaturity and dangerously poor judgment.
8
What Mr. Castro did was to disseminate information that was a matter of public record. It’s no different from local newspapers printing addresses and prices of area real estate transactions.
3
@Jim K.
So your local rep should disseminate arrest records, divorce records and the like?
2
Castro facilitated making the names public, associated with his own negative public commentary. He was in a position to assure pressure might be applied to donors, essentially proven by the comments here. Double-talk all you want, this was bullying, pure and simple. Castro has shown he is unfit for a leadership role, if leadership is meant to encourage discourse from all sides.
5
If we boycott a business because of the politicians they support through large donations, we are also using the moniker "money is speech". Withholding our money from a business by boycotting it, is speech too, big time.
If that business can prop up a tyrant for President, we can withhold money or our purchasing power to that business. Perhaps this is the way that Americans can finally fight Citizens United, staying away from business’s who donate money to politicians who don’t really care about Americans and their needs.
3
Public information and public dispersal of that info are related but separated by degrees of public knowledge. Not only are ones political donations a matter of public record but so too are real estate transactions, property tax info, driver licenses and driving history and a multitude of other actions we have with government. This includes public employee tenure and wages. All of it researchable to varying degrees. That does not equate to open dissemination. It does not equate to broadcast via social media. It does not equate to public shaming (whatever that is). Once released in this way, there is no calling it back should an end user decide to harass or threaten the person who is identified. And keep in mind, that the information and how it might be presented represents a sharply double edged sword. Not so long ago, there were some who called for food stamp users to be identified when using those benefits. Some called for a signal at the checkout to identify those using public benefits so that the taxpayer might know who of their neighbors were receiving welfare and to deter the use of the card to purchase items which any bystander might object. It’s a seemingly absurd idea but the biggest defense in the online pages of the NYT was that while a public use, people shouldn’t be identified nor shamed for exercising a right. That the use of this information might be abused.
6
Ms. Nossel
"True doxxing involves the disclosure of private or sensitive personal information, like Social Security numbers, cellphone numbers and names of children’s schools."
Well - no - there is no 'true' doxxing - there is only 'doxxing'
And I don't know anyone who spells it like that - but I understand that some folks do
Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents) or doxxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying information) about an individual or organization.
And - yes - it is abhorrent anti-normative behavior that if the Trumpster carried out then there would be a liberal collective uprising of shaming.
13
@SteveRR What private or identifying information was revealed? Everything he revealed was publicly available to anyone.
1
@Samuel
There is a surfeit of public information available on all of us - via the three levels of government, via FB, Twitter and the many other varieties of social media.
Your address, your house price and so much more is 'publicly available' - you would be OK with someone scraping those from the records and blasting them out to a few tens of thousands twitter followers?
I know I certainly would not be.
We have social norms - and just because the Trumpster violates them does not mean they disappear. But maybe that is just me?
1
The Citizens United provisions include identification of donors. I detest the decision, but, now it is the law. If publishing names of donors is considered shameful, then either don't contribute or, better yet, repeal Citizens United by a required constitutional amendment.
10
"Democracy depends upon the ability of politicians, journalists and citizens to draw attention to what they consider misdeeds".
So now it is a "misdeed" to contribute to the political campaign of someone who shares his/her democratic views?
7
@tim k: It is certainly not a “misdeed” to contribute to your preferred political party or its followers/candidates. However, if YOU are uncomfortable with people knowing that you made this contribution, what does that say about your decision? As they say, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. It’s like people who are so obsessed with their “right to privacy” - it makes you wonder what in the world they have to hide.
1
Hey if the Roberts Supreme Court is going to open the flood gates for corporate money something has to be done. Wealthy donors like the Koch brothers and Rex Seinfield obviously seek to buy- influence elections up and down the ballot for their own reasons. There is a thin sheen of civic mindeness but they mostly seem to want to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto everyone else, weaken enviornmental protections, or otherwise influence govenement policy for their own benefit. Details of contributions for campaign finance allows voters to connect the dots to the quid pro quo expected of the candidates.
9
The information is public record. But Castro, a sitting representative of all citizens in his Texas district, selected a group he saw as deplorable and walked them out to be shamed in town square. He should be removed for breach of trust and misuse of his office.
14
@Alberto Abrizzi
Cool. So we get to remove Trump too, right?
1
Why should they be shamed? Did they do, in your opinion, something shameful that they tried to hide?
Trump certainly spars with his attackers. A feisty fellow he is. Much criticism toward him is warranted and, as we learned, much is fabricated. But if he publishes names of ordinary citizens to target, embarrass and put at risk, as Castro’s intent was, sure! This isn’t Trump vs Castro, it’s a question of how officials we elect behave, and what they owe all citizens.
To call Castro's Tweet "public shaming" reveals the awareness of Republicans that these donors cannot proudly stand by their support for Trump's politics but secretly do feel ashamed. Had someone at the time publicized that I donated to Obama's election and reelection campaigns, I wouldn't have felt ashamed. Small or big donors to political campaigns have to take on the responsibility for their actions when they give money to a candidate.
11
Castro's Tweets distributed information that by law is part of the public record. If Nossel mentioned that she mentioned it so subtly that I missed it.
Castro is guilty of shining sunlight on people who do not seem to be proud of their involvement in politics.
His critics are trying to help Trump's donors hide in the shadows.
9
The public has the right to know who contributes to political campaigns because the public as consumers can use their power of the purse to protest such contributions. Business people should know that when they contribute to a campaign that the contributions often go into advertisements that debase a particular candidate. Campaign finance information is available but most often John Q. Public does not take the opportunity to look it up. It can be informative about the candidate and his/her donors. It seems that these people who are so upset with Mr.Castro do not like the fact that he made the info public. He was not being malicious or confrontational unlike a certain occupier of the oval office! This is no excuse to want to disrupt the present flow of information from the public. What about all the "dark" money that we do not know about which candidates use?
5
I believe that public naming of donors to ANY politician must be protected speech. But while such speech must be protected, Joaquin's doing so was an effort to shame and he certainly should have expected (and probably intended) that some of those who read his posting would act against the interests of the people he named (hopefully action done in a legal manner).
Therefore, Joaquin's speech must be protected, but he deserves response in a legal manner from the public that is against his interests, just as he intended the response from the public to be against the interests of those he publicly named.
The author of this column, Suzanne Nossel, wrote the following: "While harassment is rightfully illegal, public shaming is not." Such phraseology is very manipulative and misleading, and commonly committed in the realm of politics.
First, because the word "harassment" has a very bad connotation but is difficult to clearly identify and define. Calling something "harassment" is really little more than an opinion which can neither be proved nor disproved.
Second, because it is NOT at all clear that harassment should be illegal. Not everything which is objectionable should be illegal. Indeed, sometimes making an objectionable behavior illegal causes a result that is more objectionable than the behavior made illegal. Suppressing the objectionable speech of Joaquin Castro here in question would be a case in point.
1
While I am as liberal as the next person and cannot wait for a change in 2020
“Mr. Castro cannot be held legally responsible for others’ harassing conduct that he did not urge”
That logic holds true for a the ridiculous things the current president says and what his supporters act on.
Politicians should understand that the 280 characters they have in a tweet does not convey the nuance and accuracy of their message. And maybe it would be better if they just didn’t tweet at all
9
Revealing donors' names is perfectly acceptable, as long as all donors' names are revealed. The Castros revelation was clearly a move to harm selected individuals whom they decided to target for ideological reason.
Nomen est omen.
10
The list of donors is publicly available. He just named those who supported Trump, but you are free to look up the donors of other candidates and an once their names as well.
6
They donated to the Trump circus. They should be proud of their efforts...why so embarrassed?
Lists of donors to political campaigns, how the campaign spends the money, and who gets which contracts from the state after the election are all "good" (needed) IMO. When I observe some of the stuff (talking buses, bus is turning) that I know cost the public and are some sort of payback to someone-- I just want to follow the $$.
In a consumer economy ("growth" -- I guess that means profits are generated obviously by selling and more.) I was happy with the revelation that spending your $$ at SoulCycle and Equinox aided Trump -- he expects something for the double tax reduction (business and personal)for the rich.
Unless a recession starts affecting poorer Americans the guy will win a second term.
Mr. Castro was certainly Doxxing those individuals by his use of a campaign communication tweet, and it worked, they have have been harrassed and businesses boycotted. Everything else said about this situation is backing into justification for Mr. Castro's misused of campaign communication. Bashing Trump supporters is a sport and it will turn back on Democrats when Trump's organization does it Democratic supporters in Trump districts.
17
@Mkm With or without Mr. Castro's doxxing Trump supports will "Turn their back on Democrats." Trump and his supporters use AK 47s while Democrats use BB guns. And Mr. Castro's tweet is factual, a quaint notion" to Trump and his sycophants whose tweets are often lies and overtly incendiary.
1
If you or your corporate "alter-ego" (that is defined as a "person" by the Supremes) makes a donation of any size, it should be public information. Why not?
If you contribute to a politician or a cause, why would you be ashamed to make that public?
It's just like tax returns. If you want to have responsibility in public life, you should display them. Because there is nothing to hide, right?
We citizens have a right to know who is funding candidates. We have right to know where their money comes from. It reveals a lot about motivation - of givers and receivers.
Transparency is the enemy of corruption.
15
A candidate creating a hit list which triggers extremists to harass law abiding Americans and folk try to claim it's not a problem? Sure the information exists if you know where and how to look, but those so triggered are unlikely to do so. To equate Castro's offense with doxxing is quite reasonable. Of course had Trump listed legal limit donors to Democrat campaigns then most folk here would be up in arms and screaming about criminal misconduct. Politics has gone tribal.
22
On the other hand, if the Dems tweeted that Trump should be send back to the country of his origen, his supporters would cry foul with no end.
2
@John Smythe: I am a regular contributor to Democratic candidates and causes. If someone publishes my name and contribution history, I have absolutely no problem with that. It’s information that is, rightfully, in the public realm. What I cannot understand is why Trump contributors would have an issue with the same thing being done with their information - after all, he’s their guy, isn’t he? What’s this “public shaming” nonsense? If you are contributing to someone’s cause, shouldn’t you be proud of it? If you are doing it, but don’t want anyone else to know, that’s a sign that all is not well somewhere in the process. Kind of like trying to hide something from your mother - it always comes out in the end.
2
It is a sad day when we know so much about our neighbors. We use this information to form opinions about them without even bothering to knowing them. I discovered that I am surrounded by republicans. In this day and age, that encourages me to think of them as Trump supporters. We should discourage this sort of curiosity.
In a similar vein, a man was arrested for saying that OAC should be shot on Facebook. I've said as much about Mitch McConnell myself yet this man is now being charged. Andrew Jackson frequently suggested as much and offered to do the business personally. I may not agree with what this man said but it is free speech and should be defended no matter what the revulsion in doing so.
Let us not be afraid of being attacked or even persecuted by the police for speaking our mind. If that is what we have come to, I am willing to fight for my right to be free. How about you?
1
What Mr. Castro did was totally fine. The information is public, legal and on line. I don't appreciate that salaries, pensions, voting preferences and affiliations, court appearances and other persona data are on line. However, they are! So let the Trump donors join the rest of us.
12
Should your neighbors daughters shoplifting arrest be culled from the public record and used to criticize her parents for their poor job raising her? Or to approach her job and tell management that you won’t patronize a business whose employees are untrustworthy? It’s one thing for info to be publicly available. It’s quite another, especially in this digital age, to broadcast it far and wide.
3
I think the author is right about the core distinction: doxxing as a specific practice involves revealing private or difficult to obtain information about a person, though it is foolish to believe that, in this day and age, these sorts of lists aren't invitations to people to dig for those things. But she muddies the water by saying some other things that aren't so clearcut. Why is "public shaming" of non-public figures not the same basic thing as a harrassment campaign? Is the distinction supposed to be that, so long as you don't write horrible things and send it directly to that target's mailbox, you can say the same terrible things about them in the online world for everyone else to read, and that's somehow better and less personally destructive? The modern left seems these days to often wind up defending two very similar looking things by saying one is "punching up" and the other is "punching down." If the target is justified, then somehow you're allowed to do almost anything. Myself, I am inclined to think that we ought to be consistent either way: either putting out ilsts of your opponents and hoping for your followers to make them suffer for their oppsing beliefs is okay or it isn't, for both sides. And the defense that Castro did not call for any specific action against the names on his list was the same defense many alt right people used in defense of their online attacks on indivduals they clearly meant to suffer by bringing their names into the public sphere.
5
How about limiting the total amount anyone, a person or a corporation, can donate to a candidate or a party throughout an election cycle to 10$?
10
The McCarthyites (on either side) would still be able to use donor records to “out” those supporting candidates and/or policies they disagree with.
1
Apparently, these Trump donor's do not have the courage of their convictions. The question is not about whether this is an act of doxxing but rather why people who devote a considerable amount of money to a presidential candidate don't want that information to be known.
The logical conclusion of these "snowflakes" (to use right-wing parlance) is that they should be able to give all the money they want to anyone they want anonymously. Can't we all agree that doing so would not be conducive to a healthy democracy?
The slippage in language noted here is dangerous, if not Orwellian, and must be challenged. Sunlighting information and boycotting are two of the main strategies of the less powerful to participate in political discourse with the capitalist class who possess the means to participate in virtually any way they wish. But, such methods are not only legal, they are ethical. In fact, arguably it is unethical to patronize companies directly engaged in the support of individuals whose actions harm one's nation.
15
I wonder what reaction would have been if Castro had simply Tweeted out his disappointment with a link to an actual campaign contributions report instead of spotlighting names himself. People can experience harassment or other negative consequences when someone with a large social media audience shines a light on them. Amplified attention can also lead to positive consequences. Each of us has an obligation to use our respective platforms in an ethical manner.
8
It seems that while money is speech, the well-to-do would rather that we not be allowed to know who's talking.
18
The Supreme Court knowingly took away a majority-rule America when it decided to hand our country over to the very rich with Citizen’s United.
We have seen our voices ignored on gun control, women’s rights, tax cuts and healthcare. That decision single handedly gave open season for a select few whose ONLY agenda is to make more money and secure more power to gain control over all policy decisions in the United States. No longer does our government do what the most people want or what is good for the most. That decision effectively turned our government into a corporation where the bottom line is what’s good for the shareholders. And the CEOs (elected officials) walk away with millions in benefits even if everyone else goes bankrupt.
The wink, wink when they made that awful decision was that everything would be transparent. That way EVERYONE would know where the ads were coming from, where the support was coming from. Now we know.
It’s not harassment, it’s the glorious Citizen’s United. Corporations are people? Well, people are still people too.
And some people might feel like they need a shower for more reasons after a Soul Cycle or Equinox workout because they’ve been duped into the spiritual and gay friendly environments that are actually supporting a misogynist, racist, President and a gay-UNFRIENDLY VP.
22
It is right and proper to call out people who publicly advocate a political position, they've invited a public discussion. However, if someone donates to a cause or campaign, it's because they want someone else to be the public advocate. The point of representative democracy is to have public representatives advocating for the private views of their constituents.
Yes, private money can corrupt the system. But what Castro did had nothing to do with the corrupting influence of private money. It was about shaming people who quietly support a man who most of us find reprehensible.
While donor information is publicly available, it is not publicized and is therefore effectively private. If the availability of public information is the line to be honored, then doxxing should be fine because information on home addresses and phone numbers is often public information.
In the end, Castro and those who support his outing of Trump donors are asking us to judge people based on their private beliefs. That's a dangerous and slippery slope.
Do you really want to limit your circle of activities and commerce to people who believe the same things you do? If so, you couldn't walk out your front door without running into a service or product provided by someone with personal views you find hideous. Let's keep essentially private info essentially private and judge people based on how they present themselves to us directly and openly. That is the only way to run a civil society.
15
How can something be effectively private if it in in fact public and the ability to broadcast it via the internet exists ? Perhaps twenty years ago with media gatekeepers in newspapers and television and considerably less toxic and divided politics that was the situation. However, to pretend so today is an anachronistic folly or a Luddite’s lament.
5
Your beliefs become public when you donate. End of story. There is no place to hide. Live with. Because they sell a product or service to people who do not support what they do, does not give them the right to privacy when the they donate to a public figure.
7
I agree. In the same way, your beliefs become public when you attend a public political rally.
1
This sounds like something Big Brother might say, "Money is Speech, but Words are not Speech." Of course, the subject is the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. The predicate is what critics of a public official publishing a public record are saying. In the aftermath of the El Paso massacre with the clear connection between the shooter's words, his stated aim to murder Hispanics ("Mexicans"), and Donald Trump's own identical words, it is time not just for Hispanics to speak out in condemnation of those who support an openly racist president, but for all Americans to do so. Trump supporters can't it have both ways--hiding behind the 2nd amendment to justify the endless epidemic of preventable gun massacres, but condemning those who use their 1st amendment rights to call them out for the blood they now have on their hands.
9
You got that right on the Bill of Rights. As citizens or political activists, one cannot cherry pick amendments. The US Constitution is a complete document. Although I would say the First Amendment is first for a good reason. In the case of the shooter and Trump, if you have actually read the internet post rather than the reported interpretations, you will read the shooter says a great many things against the US labor system and globalization, he tears apart the venal politics of both parties and he laments climate change. He explains his hateful side and his criminal intentions. That proves his malice. He also avows his views were formed separately before Trump. So there are commonalities in parallel, but actually the gunman was much more erudite and clear about his position than what is reported in the media. I absolutely condemn his racism and his actions. Nothing of his behavior is suitable to our country. However, his writing online looked like an amateur’s foray inside a right wing think tank.
2
If you fear having others know what you've done for example donating to Donald Trump's campaign then maybe it's the wrong thing to do. As Louis Brandeis once said "Sunlight is the best disinfectent" and as Kristen Gillibrand recently said she would "Clorox the oval office" I suspect the offices of some of Trump's largest donors, sycophants, and at least half of his current and former cabinet members will need some serious cleaning.
7
newt gingrich: all significant contributions should be reported publicly on the Internet in real-time, which would make for a far more transparent and accountable campaign finance system than we have today.
charles krauthammer: "Open the floodgates, and let the monies, big and small, check and balance each other. And let transparency be the safeguard against corruption."
charlie changed his tune before he died, when he realized transparency would actually happen.
6
There's nothing shameful about my political donations. I would be happy for anyone to know about them. Why would someone be ashamed of their political donations and others knowing about them, unless they feel they are donations that shouldn't have been made?
12
How should your employer react when a major customer with a divergent view from yours declines to do business with them company due to your support of certain politicians or causes? How many layers removed from leading the company should ones views still matter. There have been lukewarm calls for a boycott of Home Depot because one of its three original founders is a supporter of conservative causes. A man who hasn’t had an official role at the company in more than a decade. Who has not been involved in day-to-day operations in several decades. Should a boycott ensue, what about the early investors who allowed the three founders to run with their idea? Or the quarter million employees who work there today who would be affected by a downturn in business?
6
@Joe Who said anything about shame, the issue is fear and what Leftists do to those they believe are the enemy. Would you want to be harassed, threatened or violently assaulted because others believe you've supported the wrong kind of candidate?
2
If you want to make the argument that disclosing the names and businesses of Trump supporters isn't doxxing due to it being public knowledge, fine. That doesn't mean Joaquin Castro was acting in good faith, however. Castro made this post in the wake of a national tragedy, as his fellow Democrats were claiming that Trump is directly responsible for these acts of violence. Anyone who has ever spent five minutes on social media knows how volatile a site such as Twitter can be, and tensions were exceptionally high when Castro tweeted out the list of local Trump supporters. To act like Castro did this as an act of "transparency," and that he did not anticipate or intend for an onslaught of harassment against the people named upon releasing it, is deliberately obtuse. We don't have to like Donald Trump to see this as the obvious power play that it was.
34
Talk about snowflakes. This information is in the public record as, given the role of money (as speech) in our political system it should be. If supporters of a candidate wish to remain anonymous our system provides for that -- keep quiet and make use of your secret ballot. If you wish to give money that is your right as is your right to speak up in a public forum. But political speech is, and should be, public. The Courts have held that political contributions are a form of free speech and those contributions should be part of the public record. There should be no controversy in any of this.
17
Very good point that political contributions are legally treated as speech
3
The public has been asking for the media to list these names: but it took Castro to do a reporters job. What are Trump donors afraid of? This is public information, and it should be made public. Period.
13
@et.al.nyc What are Trump donors afraid of? They're afraid of the violence and intimidation shown by so many Leftists.
4
What was Mr. Castro's end goal in releasing those names? Certainly not to change anyone's mind, but just to publicly shame and deepen the entrenchment of American society? Can anyone honestly believe that boycotting/shaming someone is going to change the way they vote?
As Jon Ronson wrote in his brilliant book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed": "There is nothing I dislike more in the world than people who care more about ideology than they do about people."
21
@Michael If you do not want your name in public, don't give.
In the age of the telegraph and yellow newspapers, Mark Twain quipped: A lie is halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”. Today in our internet age, a version of such would be: ‘Exposure of information, true or false, is in full orbit of the Earth before privacy can put on its robe’.
5
It was meant to be harmful, no question about it. He just did not specify what kind of harm, and so unleashes a public response to be interpreted by each individual (some: we should boycott, others: they should be attacked publicly, lose their jobs, friends, anything and everything!).
I have never voted for or supported Trump, but know many who do. But in this climate of division, Castro's action just incites more antagonism. Part of the problem is that supporting a candidate used to mean their party, which holds many platforms, some of which you may agree with and some you don't. You vote for the candidate (the party) that has more positions you side with. We used to have more tolerance to allow individuals to agree to disagree and not demonize their political choices. Now the left is as rabidly going after Trump supporters as the far right used to demonize the left.
28
Very well said. I detest Trump, but Castro et al. are trying to make supporting him illegitimate, instead of putting in the work to figure out why people might support him
4
@Favs Public information is PUBLIC
1
Mr. Castro's tweets are apparently facts, which seem to incite anger, from many Republicans. This seems to be why Republicans have suppressed scientific articles about Climate change and other forms of pollution (often to public lands) and has forbidden the CDC from conducting any studies on the increase in suicide and/or domestic violence when there is a gun in a home. The Republicans will defend the Second Amendment without fail regardless of how many people die, but seem to take a back seat when defending the First Amendment.
14
Castro's tweets are closest to the highly effective practice of shunning in the Amish community in which those community members who have breached the boundaries of appropriate behavior as judged by their peers are dealt with as if they do not exist. They are not engaged in conversation or commerce; they are not referenced in speech or writing. And those shunned do get the message, even if it is an anti-message.
Now if we could just shun 45...
8
Exposing donors is in the books. It is called the Citizen’s United ruling in 2010. If donors are upset about their being named as such for whomever, the question then becomes ‘why’?
11
You speak of protected speech, but there is no surer way to undermine free speech than to pillory people in the public square because they have contributed to the political opposition.
There can only be one purpose in naming specific supporters, exposing them to retribution.
This is the kind of behavior I would expect from Donald Trump.
13
There is no better way to continue to undermine this democracy and the lousy intentions of the monied class than to keep secret the flow of money behind curtains and by hushed whispers in our shared system of government of ALL the people. Would you like the salaries of your public officials and the minutes of city council meetings and the budgets of your states to be kept under wraps ? I would guess not in those cases, Hence we can say without threatening, anyone who chooses to participate in the financing of public office campaigns knows already the law and should stand tall for his beliefs when he speaks with his checkbook.
13
Doxxing was Trump did to Lindsey Graham. Sadly, it "worked". Graham now is subservient to Trump.
Disclosing information is fine. I am not sure I would engage in the amplification of some information in the play politics mold. But really, republicans getting offended by tweets that might not have been "prudent and decorous"?
Reality can overruns science fiction beyond any comprehension.
9
Campaign donations are public information and should be. Transparency is vital to checking influence peddling.
Next should be full disclosure of donations to these representative private 'charitable' foundations usually run by relatives.
13
One must consider Brandenburg v. Ohio to understand where free speech is essentially positioned legally today. Provided the speech shall not likely incite imminent danger then it is more abstract and expressed thought rather than threat to safety and thus is protected communication in verbal, symbol or active form.
2
I agree with this article, but on the other hand, a political campaign which resorts to such tactics is one in which its candidate must be regarded with deep suspicion. What else are Julián Castro and his brother capable of? Why are they mining this vein instead of telling us all the wonderful things the Secretary would do in office? If elected, would his administration use its inherited lodestone of data on the American public in the same fashion? These are the serious questions that should be asked of Secretary Castro and his campaign.
13
@David Godinez Maybe you are not listening to them.
Castro listing names of donors is one small thing; I do not agree that just because the names are public it is right for a politician to do it.
Listing the individual's names was not meant to be nice, and the author of this published rationalization (public information) is not arguing for "free speech".
The listing of workplaces (employers) of the individuals was not a small thing; it was was dirty politics, no matter who was the author of the underlying action (Castro, or say Trump).
17
And where, pray tell, is politics not played dirty ?
@Kenneth Galloway OMG! Someone made public information public!
Dirty Tricks!
Why wasn't he even handed in broadcasting the names of donors to other campaigns?
6
You are as free as he is to search and publish any of the same sort of information readily available legally. Go right ahead and exercise your constitutional entitlement.
The entire point of the First Amendment free speech is that everything ought to be heard - the good, the bad, the ugly - and with the education and life experience we all accumulate, we can find our way through the thicket of words and decide for ourselves which are most reflective, which are true, which words matter most.
The First Amendment's free speech guarantee demonstrated the Founders' ultimate trust in reason, education, experience, common sense and in the public voice, to find what works best for the majority, as determined by the majority.
The First Amendment demands much of us, but it gives far more than it demands, by forcing us to confront our ideas, thoughts, beliefs and so hopefully, testing them against other ideas, thoughts and beliefs to find the most "true" (in the larger sense of the word) or at least the most workable, for the times in which we live.
3
This is precisely what the composers of the US Constitution had in mind when they left the First Amendment so free of constricts. They envisioned Milton, Locke and Voltaire’s candid milieu of ideas and trenchant strength of mind. The capacity of critical thought to prevail over immoral speech and simple-minded reasoning. They were not paternalistic in their belief that the state must govern expressed thoughts by law prescribing permissible speech. Alas, in our triggered and trigger happy nation, the notion of us all sorting the idiocy of some statements by the general population is no longer our faith. We default to knee-jerk penal responses rather than rebutting and disgracing the hot air of others.
Instead of defending Castro against absurd right wing attacks, why not criticize the right wing trolls fro their fundamentally un-American and Fascist views?
8
@Bill Wolfe
Always reassuring to know there’s a leftist out there defining what is ‘un-American’ thought...
3
It's doxing.
17
@Raz No, it is not.
2
It's war. Dox 'em.
5
@Matthew If it's war then shouldn't all Leftists expect to be named and shamed? Doesn't doxxing work both ways?
2
What's problem, people? Ashamed of your donations to a racist President?
12
There's nothing wrong with the truth. Illegal immigrants and their children should be doxed. information as to people's choices of religion and sexuality and ethnicity and race should also be publishable information. Let information freedom ring!
1
I think the source of every single campaign dollar should be part of the public record and the primary source of the funds easily discovered. The individuals, corporations and other groups influencing elections should have their identity revealed for everyone to see. There is nothing unreasonable in that.
At the moment, however, Trump supporters see this as harassment because they know that Trump is a cruel and mean spirited man with little regard for others. They don't want to be associated with his blatant racism, stupidity and cruelty but want to get him relected. It's really that simple.
9
Since 2016 and the election of Donald J. Trump, I feel as if I am harassed on a daily basis by his tweets. Actually, it started when Trump decided to challenge President Barack Obama's citizenship and his right to sit in the Oval Office.
Trump and company are masters of harassment. He has set the bar high and it has become a matter of personal survival for many of us who feel "he" has no right to hold the office of the presidency because of his hateful speech and unpatriotic actions towards people that don't support or agree with him.
No Mr. Castro, you must keep up the war against the hate that has infected our government since Trump "invaded" our minds. As they say, all's fair in love and war and we non basers are fighting a war for the preservation of our republic.
6
I don't like what Joaquin Castro did. The donor information he tweeted was publicly available. That's true. But Castro inferred the donors gave money because they're racists. That's speculation and a very ugly one to toss at people without evidence.
As much as I dislike Trump, I'm willing to give his supporters latitude that they may have varied reasons for supporting the guy.
22
@sk
About that inference “without evidence” that Trump supporters are racist, 52% of Trump voters told Pew that black people are either lazy or stupid. I think we’re rather a long way past inference.
Upset by Trump Republicans over Representative Castro’s entirely factual, limited, prima facie harmless, and legally protected tweet is nothing less than a darkly cynical, but typical, diversionary tactic by these well-conditioned supporters of the very individual who played an incitement role in causing the El Paso gun carnage. They all need to look in the mirror and, if capable of any self-reflection and fundamental honesty, ask themselves whom should their anger, disgust, and criticism be directed at. I certainly won’t hold my breath.
5
Not a Trump fan (and, besides, I'm Canadian) but what the world needs now (and I mean the world!) is for the Democrats to pull together and come up with a vision rather than a constant finger-point.
16
This is a cheap rationalization. Given today's toxic political environment, Castro knows full well that kind of response his doxxing will elicit. Saying that what he did is not doxxing is disingenuous.
We all need to take a step back. The reason normal people have lost their minds over Trump and Election 2020 is because we have allowed the federal government to have way too much power and too much influence over our lives. If Trump and the federal government were properly restrained, it would not matter who sat in the Oval Office.
11
@David Ricardo It was not doxxing. Sorry you little fee fees were hurt by the public information.
Why wouldn't a Mexican American with a lot of Twitter followers want to call out the donors to Donald Trump after yet another Trump inspired mass murder of innocents? Trump has shamelessly tried to use bigotry to gain support from the most vile portions of our society. If someone wants to name the names of his donors without a conscience or point out that murders are the result of these peoples support, well good. I'll never set foot into a, Equinox or Soulcycle again. Keep more names coming.
6
Much as I despise Trump, donating to his campaign is not a "misdeed". Nor does donating mean you want to engagd in "rough tumble" behavior.
I'm all for free speech. Castro is engaging in some iffy stuff to boost his brother's visibility.
21
@Talbot My goodness, stand by your man if you gave him money!
Name them. Shame them. Stop doing business with them. This is a battle against racism, hate, and xenophobia for the soul of this country. The only issue Trump has been consistent on is xenophobia. We know that.nhis donors know that. So, funding Trump is funding hate. Full stop.
6
Campaign donations are public information. Anyone can find out who donates to trump or any other politician. Why are these Trump supporters so ashamed? I donated to Obama and Elizabeth Warren, if anyone wanted to publish that I would be fine with it.
7
What sort of nation has the USA become that the legal release of public campaign information by Joaquin Castro would even become a political issue? This is very disturbing. The Republicans have zero legal or moral credibility regarding this matter. They need to shut up and be quiet, to quote one of their own.
6
Nonsense--he was harassing people. There is now a Federal Election Commission investigation into his conduct.
15
@Jonathan
An FEC investigation? That would be downright Orwellian. All he did was print the public record. When they investigate you for that we don't need any more evidence that the Republic is dead.
But by the way, @Jonathan, maybe you want to stop making stuff up. This is the Times, not Fox. There’s no FEC investigation. There’s only a complaint.
2
While I wake up every morning hoping that Donald Trump has resigned, I don’t think this revealing of that list is ok. It just sets up a tit for tat situation. And the dangers to a list of Democratic supporters is far greater than those on a Republican donor list. How naive.
6
What does it say about a person who donates to a politician, but doesn’t want others to know? Why are these Republican donors trying to hide their support of the man who fomented racial hatred which resulted in the El Paso massacre? Why do they love that Scotus in Citizens United made corporations into people, but hate the fact that disclosure of donors was included? Why do Republicans publicly revile Democratic donors, like George Soros, but complain when their own names are made public?
The answer to all of these questions is clear. These Republican donors are hypocrites who support a vile presidency, but don’t want the attendant publicity. They want to remain in the dark. Well Trumpers, you can’t have it both ways. People have a right to know who’s pulling the levers that incite racial hatred. People have the right to boycott businesses run by those people.
Let’s boycott Fox advertisers, Koch Industries, Soul Cycle, states like Missouri and Georgia that deny a woman’s right to choose, Trump properties, companies that support the abuse of immigrants, and any businesses who use our money to invest in people and policies that disgrace our nation.
11
Two words : Citizens United. If corporations have “ free speech “ as in Money, then by God, Real Citizens MUST have actual free speech.
Name them, Shame them.
7
Remember all the companies, that the GOP wanted boycotts for negative publicity and all the dirty tricks employed. All this falls under the Freedom of Speech. As usual, hypocrites.
4
You cannot make this nice, this is a despicable act that at best will be regarded as a stunt by a 1 or 2% candidate.
However, at worst, imagine a squad mercilessly killing these people, a mad mob rushing an exercise gym and causing panic to ensue and hurt and maim the innocent.
This is a terrible political stunt. This man has proven he is not ready for the BIG leagues.
15
The semantics are unimportant. This is just another in a long line of dirty tricks--like the Russia Investigation. It demonstrates the depths to which Democrats are prepared to sink in order to gain power.
10
Good to see that this is the best you can do - "technically not doxxing." Castro's act was a despicable act by a despicable man. The clear intent of his tweet was to bring harm to people (and their families) for the crime of disagreeing with his politics. If any violence befalls these people for exercising their right to support the candidate of their choice, I hope the very easily locatable Castro suffers his just deserves.
12
It's pretty simple: Trump supporters want the benefit of a white nationalist president, but they want to evade any of the consequences that come with that. That's what they feel they're entitled to, even though that information is public, and its public nature was championed by none other than Justice Antonin Scalia in 2010, their hero.
And the right justifies this by attributing violence that hasn't even happened, nor was even implied, to liberals--only six days after a right-winger massacred 22 in a Walmart 20 minutes after he posted his right-wing, Trump-quoting manifesto. And only two years after right-wingers rioted in Charlottesville; and less than a year after a right-winger massacred nearly a dozen in a Pittsburgh temple; a few months after another right-winger massacred 50 in a New Zealand mosque; a synagogue attack in California; riots by fascist Trump supporters in Portland, Berkeley and New York, etc.
The right wants to be able to victimize their fellow Americans, but they don't want to be found out or held accountable for it. It's not complicated.
Good work, Rep. Castro.
8
It would have been far more effective to reveal the names and addresses of gun manufacturing CEOs and board members. They're the ones whom the public should send messages to.
3
Go right ahead and do it.
Sorry, the purpose of Mr. Castro's was obviously malicious. He has succeeded in demonstrating that Republicans aren't the only ones who play dirty.
12
There is so much about the Trump presidency that is absurd but we’ve reached a new level of crazy when simply tweeting his already publicly disclosed supporters is somehow considered a bad act.
Do you realize the level of insanity we’ve reached. Trump, the loudest crudest voice of them all, disparages entire races, cities, countries, members of Congress, members of his own party, private citizens, heads of state and on and on. He mocks sexual assault survivors, his supporters roar with laughter. He’s ok with white nationalists, believes Putin over the CIA and FBI, has a bromance with Kim, but naming his supporters is a dangerous act?
Trump’s behavior is so inappropriate all day long, day after day, month after month, year after year that he has corrupted the very sanity of the country.
I’m seriously worried about our ability to survive him. Make America America again!
6
So the entire argument can be summed up as it is not doxxing because he is a democrat?
The intent was intimidation.
The worse part of the Trump Era is how the entire political establishment has followed him into the muck. Good luck getting yourself out of that pit.
12
Should he have done it? Probably not. A better course would have been to tell people in tweets, etc. where exactly to go online to look it up for themselves.
Is it a crime? Is it "doxxing"? No, and no.
1
Republicans have used voter ID laws, corporate donations, limited early voting, shortened poll hours, and gerrymandering plus other raw political power to suppress people from voting. Turn about is fair play, because we know that Donald Trump doesn't like facts. Cry me a river!
3
By the definition of doxing given here, Donald Trump and the Republicans have done it in spades and then some.
Putting forth publicly available information is not a form of harassment.
If you must know, all corporations make political donations, some even publicly. You can check this out for yourself online as I have done recently.
1
This type of thing makes me less willing to donate to political campaigns. I donated in the past to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; will I give any money to the next candidate, if by doing so, I'm putting myself at risk of being harassed by an army of online trolls? I admit that it will give me pause.
12
Sadly, we are in a time when we rationalize and accept bad or dishonable behavior because the offender is on 'our side.'
Outing people, screaming at people in restaurants, paying people to yell at senators as they enter elevators, kicking people out of restaurants, banging pots outside a senators' home in the middle of the night, disrespcting our police... on and on... isn't anyone sick of it? Isn't anyone embarrased by it?
13
Republicans and right-wingers do a far worse version of this "information attack" all the time. Remember Hillary's emails, stolen by the Russians and released at Trump's behest?
All their whining is because someone struck back for a change.
3
This is a great service to voters.
Thank you
We must take the chaff with the grain if we want our free speech clause to survive trump and Mcconnells Freedom Caucus bigots.
It is imperative we take initiative and dig deep this election to see who controls trump and the rest on both sides of the failing two party system gerrymandered into place and aided and abetted by secrecy and illegality.
2
As someone who has been doxxed and subsequently harassed by strangers on social media for my (liberal) political views, I understand the feeling of dread and panic that some of these Trump supporters might be experiencing right now. The “mob” of furious, vindictive keyboard warriors can be quite horrible when it descends on you.
Mob justice is generally bad, dangerous, and leads to chaos—but it’s what people resort to when they are feeling powerless. Many of us sense that we are powerless in the face of Trump’s ongoing nightmare of a presidency, but it’s not just him. We don’t trust our political system itself. We sense that no election is truly free anymore, now that corporations and uber-wealthy individuals can buy politicians—Democrat or Republican, all but a rare few accept money from corporations.
We need to address campaign finance reform—now. But for “Citizens United” and its Orwellian declaration that money=speech, none of this mess would be happening.
Also worth reiterating the point that that this episode was not doxxing, since all of the information Castro revealed was already publicly available—as required by “Citizens United”.
2
Of course it was...the intent of doxxing is to shame, harass, embarrass or worse, cause physical harm. This OBVIOUSLY meets the intent criteria.
10
Doxxing or not on this there is a den of equity that is not under the Federal Election Commission's jurisdiction. It relates to of all things the taxation of non profits; it is the most odd of tax loopholes.
The tax code defines but does not define a "social welfare organization" and in some cases it's good for the goose but not good for the gander and vice versa.
It is the source for "dark money" it is the source for the "issue odds" run by vaguely described groups, eg., "Citizens United" etc. that allows bundling of money, really big money, but no disclosure required.
The law is at Title 26 to the US Code and is found at 501 c 4. It along with the Supreme Court Citizens United decision allowed Mitt Romney to assert from the Iowa soapbox that "Corporations are people too ..."
For more see the Frontline piece at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-rules-that-govern-501c4s
To me, it gives credence that if the law presupposes this, then as Dicken's character noted, "then the law is an ars."
1
All political donations should be made public, whether by an individual, a corporation, or a PAC.
1
To freely support whom I wish as a PRIVATE citizen, without fear of a PUBLIC official holding me up to scrutiny, should be sacrosanct.
So also should my right as a PRIVATE citizen to know the actions of PUBLIC officials, since they are presumably acting on my behalf.
In short, Rep. Castro has taken a huge step toward reversing these, placing the PRIVATE citizen at the mercy of the PUBLIC servant. Not good times.
41
And as a private citizen, I think I have the right to know who publicly contributes to a public campaign for a candidate for public office. And when I contribute publicly, I am always proud of my contribution to a candidate I believe is best, and am not afraid to let everyone know about it.
59
@Harry -- Political donations are a matter of public record, period. If you make a political contribution, there can therefore be no expectation of privacy.
68
@Harry
But this is publicly available information.
9
"But sharing data as basic as a name and affiliation, unaccompanied by any suggestion, much less threat, of action against those individuals is not harassment"
Trump doesn't specifically call for action/violence against undocumented Latino immigrants but what he has said is routinely called a dog whistle which encourages people like the El Paso shooter to take action.
In today's volatile political climate publishing the names of Trump donors exposes them to harassment - and harm from the likes of Antifa. Castro may have wanted boycotts but he must know there are people who will go far beyond that.
38
@HurryHarry
Ah, the dreaded Antifa. How many small Republican donors have groups self-identifying as Antifa attacked?
I do not agree with the Antifa principle that violence against fascists is needed, but I do see the dangers in history and the present from stimulating hate and fear of foreigners.
It's a variation of that, "We have to fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here." Fascism was appealing before WWII because there were many people with a sense of grievance, there were economic dislocations and suffering and people thought the government response was inadequate.
2
@HurryHarry
Castro didn’t want boycotts—25% of the people in his list are retired.
He wanted harassment.
2
@HurryHarry
Oh, so you think “Antifa” are going to visit these donors and “attack” them?
You do realize that the info Castro provided is public info already?
Do you think there’s actually an “Antifa” organization?
Have you ever seen or heard of any “Antifa” doing anything besides attending public events where avowed white supremacists are likely to engage in violence?
Have you seen any lately? Or are you like many Trump acolytes, who see “Antifa” around every corner? Because someone out there, website or “news” source, has been stoking your fear, and you haven’t actually taken the time and effort to do the research to see if those “dire threats” are even real?
The only “harassment “ that these donors will be subjected to is well deserved derision from the general public, and maybe some business-hurting boycotts, again, well deserved.
1
If you have to say something isn’t doxxing it probably is. Campaign contributions are public record but exist in relative obscurity. A good deal of information on all of us is publicly available - look hard enough and you’ll find addresses, phone numbers, etc. But deliberately seeking out this information and publishing it with the intent to harass private citizens is doxxing. It’s not that complicated.
37
@XLER
You don't have to look that hard. All I did was make a Google search for Dunkin' Donuts without specifying political affiliation and it came up anyway.
How much they donated in they last few years and to which party. It appears that they practice in a pattern of 40/60 % in alternate years for each party.
11
He is not harassing. I’m glad to know who Trump’s supporters. I think I have a right to know.
12
He didn’t call for any kind of harassment, nor any kind of boycott. All Castro did was identify donors from public documents. That’s not doxxing. This information is legally public and nobody should be making a political donation with the hope of keeping it a secret.
2
I was raised to believe that America was special because we believed in democracy; we’re entitled to support whichever politicians we prefer, and above all else power was transferred peacefully.
The “Democratic” party (it’s ironic now) has ceaselessly worked to overturn and prematurely terminate the presidency of Donald Trump throughout the duration of his presidency. It’s more than just a shame - it shows dangerous structural cracks in our government and society.
57
@Jon Democracy means that we support whoever is duly elected ... but it also means that whoever is duly elected supports _all_ the people -- not just those who voted for him. Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that he regards himself as President of the People Who Voted for Him ... not of all the people. He has respected the implicit contract between the voters and the elected official and so he is not entitled to have the voters respect that contract either.
150
@Jon
that is true but the president (from before taking office) made it clear that he did not respect or intend to support the structural integrity of our government or society. he has missed few opportunities to confirm his intent and commitment.
our commitment to our ideals is not a suicide pact; as has been said.
59
@Jon
What are you defending? This article is not about Trump. It is about the meaning of "doxxing" and whether this pertained to the release by Joaquin Castro of the names and employers of top local donors to Trump's campaign. This is First Amendment subtlety, and has nothing to do with Trump himself. It would equally pertain to any controversial public figure.
47
What Mr. Castro did is disgraceful and abhorrent. Would Ms. Nossel be writing this same article if the names and work addresses of contributors to "the Squad" were released? I doubt it. Not only does this practice make people think twice about contributing to their choice of candidate, it invites unwarranted attacks and, in the world in which we now live, it creates a very possible threat to one's physical safety. It stifles democracy, not promote it.
Ms. Nossel states that Castro exercised his free speech. He did not, for his actions served no legitimate purpose. He divulged the names AND WORK ADDRESSES of people who neither want public scrutiny nor the invasion of privacy that this act invariably creates. I would like to ask Mr. Castro what his intentions were when he did this. Was it to educate the public about an important issue? No. It was done to invite crazies to upset the lives of American citizens who did nothing more than support an elected official and to adversely affect future donations. The sooner he drops out of the race the better.
59
If this is really a free country, a democracy, then no one should have to fear that their support of any candidate should put them in danger. I am very, very liberal, but I have neighbors with Trump flags and signs in their yards, and I feel they have a perfect right to broadcast their choice. Just as I have a perfect right to disagree with them. That’s how it’s supposed to work, isn’t it?
29
@Romeo Salta The article clearly states his tweet did NOT provide pone numbers or addresses. Regardless, this is all public information available to any and all who can perform a simple google search. It's not like Castro exposed any of the millions of dollars in dark money run through shell companies into superpacs.
21
I contribute to my Congresswoman’s campaign. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’m not the slightest bit ashamed. In fact I urge my neighbors to contribute.
13
If we are concerned that broadcasting the truth (public records on campaign contributions) will lead to harassment, then we must surely be more concerned about broadcasting lies ( “send them back where they came from”) that lead to harassment. If the latter is protected speech, surely the former must be considered more worthy of such protection.
5
It’s not more worthy-it’s public. Lies are lies; public and private ones. Stand by your man or woman if you contribute to their campaign or issue. Your POV here is a contradiction.
The key is how the public information is used. Here in Nassau County, property tax info is at your fingertips. The price paid, past, current and future taxes, improvements made, tax payment history. It’s all right there. Including failed and successful tax challenges. As it should be. But that doesn’t mean that I should publicly denounce those whose taxes are substantially lower than someone else’s because they legally exercised the right to challenge their assessment. Or appear in front of that property, their home, to express any displeasure with the taxes they pay or the square footage of their home or the improvements they have done. Two zone central air, 5 bedrooms and 3 1/2 baths for three people? A 200 square foot deck! A substantial tax exemption for military service! They should be ashamed of themselves.
The reason you don’t go and protest it might be: A. You don’t have the courage. B. You don’t have the conviction. In other words, that buried pubic information is not a storm brewing.
2
@Suburban Cowboy
The question. Is how much public information should be widely broadcast to the public and in what manner. Should I be able to show up at your place of employment and harangue your employer for providing a wage to someone who parked blocking a fire hydrant two years ago (maybe you’re a menace to society) or who visited a cousin in the local jail after he was arrested for drug possession (maybe you’re a fellow druggie) or you signed a petition to stop Walmart from building a new store (you cost my dad that managers promotion that would have allowed me to go to the best college I was admitted to vs the state school we could afford)?
There’s a simple and democracy-preserving solution to this problem. Public financing of political campaigns. And while we're at it, limiting the period for public advertising by candidates.
Let’s protect democracy and encourage our elected officials to focus on why we elect them: governing.
7
Sharing data to shame (and apparently intimidate) people for exercising constitutional rights is pretty low, even if not criminal. Good luck with that strategy. The Castros are done, even after the El Paso shooting -- an event that might have bolstered Julian's flagging campaign. Not now.
11
all political money should be public and listed all the time, or else just barred - public funding of elections is the only way to go.
9
What's up, doxx?
Let's define two endpoints on the scale. At one end is Alex Jones, telling a blatant lie about the school shooting parents, while providing personal information about them. That clearly had the intent to incite threats and harrassment, which it did. It also had a personal profit motive. The ethicless and neckless Mr. Jones was rightly punished therefor, and will likely lose a great deal of money in court.
At the other end of the scale, had Mr. Castro simply published publicly available information about Trump donors, without further comment or suggestion, there would be no hint of legal scienter. None.
In sliding back and forth between those endpoints, one has to consider all the facts, both what was suggested (a peacedul economic boycott) or something far worse (Trump's urging violence against rally protestors) One also has to consider the predilections of the audience. An incensed spin gym member is not the same as an incensed Trumper with a gun and a Confederate flag on his truck.
9
Reasonable people can understand these distinctions that you point out, however, the social political climate is distorting and polluting many realities, that the messenger can use as a tool of choice to draw attention to or away from themselves or an agenda they want to promote or attack.
1
Nossel says this was not harassment. Tell that to the families who had to plan with their children how they would handle an attack at their home or work. It seems his scare tactic was fairly effective.
Castro's actions do revive an old argument against the public disclosure of campaign donors. The old fear was that the information would be used to intimidate people in their jobs, both public and private, and this would curtail free speech. That seemed unlikely years ago but as we have seen in recent months, the Left now sees this as fair game.
5
The internet is a menace often out of control and misused.
Trolls can be easily ignored by not responding.
Running for public office in 1992 Marin county taught me a valuable lesson about my fellow Americans.
As soon as I could retire I decamped to a more decent culture in Provence in 2003.
And never looked back!
5
Move along folks, there's nothing to see here. Just a minor fender-bender. Mr. Castro did nothing wrong. Full transparency in our governing processes, including elections, is a minimum floor to maintain. If the donors cited don't like being known, then perhaps they should do something else with their money--like pay taxes?
20
Thank you for this article. Definitions of terms are helpful, and some of us seem to have lost sight of the plain fact that whistleblowing and releasing publicly available information is not a crime. Mr. Castro’s actions were not “nice” perhaps, but raising awareness about our deeply flawed campaign finance laws and practices was, in the best sense of the word, a very American thing to do. Bravo.
16
Picking on Trump’s supporters is not the way to win the White House. Instead go after the man, Trump himself, who is the Don Rickles of our time. His putdown of Biden who he said is not dealing with a full deck, is a master stroke. Even Andrea Mitchel who sees the hit is desperately running to Biden’s defense. So, Democrats, let’s see what you’ve got. So far nothing is working.
7
What is this world coming to? Donors are concerned their identities will be known by others and fear accountability?
Sounds good to me. I hope this becomes commonplace so that the whining about it dies down and the focus is on donors. Anything else is misdirection and distraction.
16
The only antidote to cruelty is kindness. There is a shortage of it these days. It is no excuse that Trump started it. We all have within ourselves the power to be good. That is the positive message that will save our country and get us through hard times. There is light at the end of the tunnel.
5
Kindness yes of course- kindness doesn’t register voters nor take them into the booth to vote.
2
In a democracy, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
19
No, voting for a decent candidate is
As a legal matter you may be right. But , in light of the current and most recent events , it could easily be considered ,by some, a call to arms. We expect better prudence from our elected officials because of their access to publicity.
Mr. Castro knew exactly what he was doing.
20
The Democrats have created an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment in which it is dangerous to come out as a Trump supporter. Most people will take the easy way out because they simply want to get on with their lives but they will turn out in unprecedented numbers at the polls. So the next time you high-five your neighbor, consider the possibility that he may be a secret Trump supporter. Revolutions begin that way.
15
So do counter revolutions, my friend.
8
Dangerous no, revealing, yes.
3
It is difficult to take you seriously.
The massacre in El Paso can be laid at Trump's feet. His incitement to violence at his rallies and his hate speech have excited his followers to a frenzied mob mentality.
The constant drip, drip, drip of vitriol on Fox helped spread the hate and discord in our nation long beforehand. We know Trump supporters are eating this stuff up. So pardon if those who are victimized get angry in response. Sorry to inconvenience you with our righteous indignation. We have long given up believing and hoping that 'the next outrage' will show Trump supporters that this guy is not fit to be president.
Time after time, polls show them clinging to him beyond what any reasonable person would countenance. His racism is there for all to see. And you would have us believe that Trumpers are people of delicate sensibilities. Give me a break.
3
It is not wrong when the good guys do it to the bad guys. It is wrong going the other way.
Or so they say.
12
If I support a candidate, I should be proud of it. If I am proud of it, I should be public about it. If I am not proud of it, I would not want to be public. I might still do the donation, because I would hope to get a benefit from it. That is called bribery.
I don't think donors to causes we don't like (as far as they are legal) should be harassed. But, I should have the right to withdraw my business from such people.
15
With all the attacks Trump makes with his Tweets to American citizens of all walks of life, calling them out individually, you don't see the Right Wing umbrage. He even attacked gold star parents during his campaign. Public information is all Castro put out there. Donors should be proud of who they support.
19
So now Americans are not supposed to use public record information in making a point? Huh? Good journalism depends on accessing public record. Good research depends on accessing public record. And I would argue that being a good citizen depends on accessing public record. It is our defense from misleading soundbites on television and absurd claims made in public forums.
What good is public record if no one accesses it and makes it known to others? We are just supposed to listen to popular rhetoric with no research whatever? We are supposed to be led by whatever charlatan comes down the pike without checking up on who is financing him?
I regularly research my own U.S. senators' donors. There are websites that make that easy to do. I am a Democrat. My senators are Democrats. I am not always happy with the source of their financing, however. Should I keep news that is public record to myself? Baloney. A free country requires a free flow of factual information. And for me to state publicly that my own senator accepted huge amounts of money from private people whose interests coincided with his vote on a bill that is not in keeping with his own party should not be seen as reprehensible. In any event, I won't stop doing it.
Disseminating public information is never harassment. If you don't want people to know you did something, don't do it.
14
This could have been written by Sen. Joe McCarthy. Thank you so much.
1
Castro has learned his manners from Trump. Two wrongs don't make a right. Another example of our loss of public civility.
10
The Trump phenomenon is an out-of-control fire. Tweeting out the names of the donors is revealing the names of those who add fuel to the fire. Maybe the cool waters of exposure administered by firefighters like Joaquin Castro will act like a retardant on the flames. For make no mistake about it, these donors are helping to fuel the hate and discord in this country.
We have to use all tools to douse the flames before it consumes us all. Get rid of the fuel and the fire can be contained.
6
@Dan What is uncivil about posting publicly available information about political donations?
We all have the right to know who is contributing to what.
It's that simple.
13
All political donors, esp. those contributing vast amounts and potentially buying influence, should be a matter of public information. If you are ashamed of who you're supporting - worried it might hurt your business, maybe you're supporting the wrong person.
8
All Joaquin Castro has done is "out" all the hand-wringing Republicans (and Democrats and Independents) who publicly say they "deplore" the Donald Trump administration but who privately are "all in" on the president's re-election. They all seemingly lament the descent of the United States of America into the sewer known as the United States of Acheron under this super-sized swamp creature--and then, like someone slinking out of an adult bookstore back in the day, stashing their treasures under the cover of "respectable" anonymity. They're not fooling anyone.
Anyone who's outraged by this is being hypocritical. There's nothing to see here, folks. Just the long list of those who say one thing in public and another in private. We need to know who these folks are between now and Election Day, '20.
9
Are you kidding me? In this heated environment in which both sides are calling for calm and cooler heads in the midst of two horrible mass shootings, a congressman uses his special powers to out perfectly legal donors to the opposing political party? Are you kidding me? This was clearly irresponsible, it is clearly indicative of the hypocrisy of the left not to call it out as such, and it is precisely, precisely, precisely why the great majority of the American people will never support those who insist on straying so far from our traditional values of fair treatment of others.
19
@John What special powers? It's all publicly available information. You could do the same thing that Castro did.
Castro’s intent was clearly harassment. Fully a quarter of the names Castro listed were noted as “Retired” and another had the notation “Information Requested”. So this was not some call to boycott business donors, it was targeting individuals. And contrary to the author’s assertion, it appeared that all of the donors were accused of “Fueling Hate”.
Castro is not guilty of doxxing, as the information was otherwise available. But the information is available to ensure compliance with campaign finance laws governing individual contributions. Castro is abusing those laws.
Voter intimidation is rightfully a violation of law. Castro engaged in a form of intimidation that is only a short step removed from that.
Fred Wertheimer, a longtime President of Common Cause and a progressive champion of campaign finance reform, has called Castro’s action a “very dangerous game”, and maybe it is literally so.
Castro’s apologists, like this column’s author, are blinded by partisan fervor to the danger and ugliness of Castro’s actions. This is not a partisan issue.
24
If these donors are not ashamed of their actions, then they should not be worried at all. When people are hiding donations so as to covertly aid politicians who they know are racist, etc, then they should not be donating in the first place. If you are not proud of your donations and fear reprisals, then you need to reconsider your actions. I have no sympathy for folks who hide behind privacy laws to do damage to their friends and neighbors. Either have the guts to stand up for your beliefs or don’t donate with the expectations that you can get away with abhorrent deception.
8
I didn’t vote for Trump and never will, but where will this end? How about Congressman Castro list for public shaming on Twitter the people in his constituency who are still talking to these neighbors who donate to Trump? I mean they know now, right? How about moving from these small fry miscreant homemakers and retired people and go on to big fish in Hollywood, search out the Trump supporters there and then outdo the House on Un-American activities committee and create another black list of actors, directors, and writers who can never work again? How about we pass a law that only the Progressive wing of the Democratic party can say who is racist or not and consequently beyond the pale of discussion.
12
So, you’re telling me these guys didn’t want anyone to know that they contributed to the Trump campaign? That’s very interesting. One would think they’d be proud of themselves, and happy that their favorite president’s hate speech is encouraging people to kill each other. Isn’t that what they wanted in the first place? I mean, Trump has a long, long history of inciting violence. He himself has talked about punching teachers as a boy, and he did get sent to New York Military Academy. (P.S.: when Dad says, “I’ve had it with this kid. If he causes trouble one more time, I’m sending him to military school,” that’s where the kid is sent.) And Trump’s never been exactly shy about letting everyone know how self-centered and racist he is. Didn’t these donors realize this? I guess they don’t read anything - like Trump. But I thought that what these donors wanted is a nation full of fear and hate. A place where children are safer locked in cages than going shopping with their families at Walmart. A place where we blame certain groups of people for all our problems, rather than collaborating with them to find solutions. And where we solve our problems with an assault rifle. I’m surprised they don’t want everyone to know that this is the kind of America they want.
9
Granted, there is a direct line from Trump's vicious racist policies, executive orders and tweets to the shooter's willing explanation for why he wreaked carnage in El Paso. Nonetheless, Joaquin, what you've done is very insensitive. Rich donors don't grow on trees.
3
Mr. Castro is inviting a similar response. We shall see what he thinks when it takes place
9
What is wrong with stating the truth about Trump’s rich financial supporters? If they are ashamed of supporting a racist, they should not have made the donation. After all, the Republican dominated Supreme Court said such financial support is a form of political speech. There’s nothing private going on here.... Money is their tiki torch. Light them up so we can see their identities.
FYI, this is what class warfare looks like, so it’s no wonder the wealthy donors are uneasy.
6
Vitriol directed at donors to a man who seeks to dissolve this country out of significance with each breathe is well deserved. Funding and supporting the likes of Trump and Fox News is nothing short of treason and wouldn't be more so if either burned the American flag as a daily ritual. In fact, their actions to undermine, divide and discredit this country with their factless, baseless and extremely thoughtless mandates designed to damage the many for the benefit of a few is virtual flag burning.
4
If Trump or any of his children had done exactly what Castro did, this headline would read "Trump's Tweet Was Unlawful".
11
It is both incredible and very upsetting that Castro is being accused of "online harassment" from the supporters of a man and party whose primary goal is to change our country from a democracy to an autocracy. Mr Castro simply highlighted information that was in the open record. Unlike most major donors of political parties who are proud of their association to political views, the fact that Trump's rich donors want to hide their identities reflects their admission that they know that Trump is morally indefensible but like him anyway....they know that most of America still has a soul and hence they are afraid to be called out.
8
I've donated to Bennet, Booker, Bullock, Buttigieg, Inslee, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, and Yang this cycle. Not at all remotely embarrassed by that. But then, maybe that's because they are all good people that I would be pleased to call friends or neighbors. Trump ... I wouldn't be caught dead on the same side of the Mississippi River with him.
11
Big difference between boycotting a business and personal threats.
11
People can do business with whomever they want, or not, at their option. I see nothing wrong with a person telling a business owner that, for moral and ethical reasons, (s)he won't be spending their dollars there.
It happens everyday when people decline to buy foods made by inhumanely treating animals, or products made from logging rain forests, or clothes made by child labor.
So if a potential customer declines to spend his/her dollar at a business whose owner donates large sums to elect a candidate who supports white supremacy and racism, there is nothing illegal, unfair or wrong about it.
Besides, if somebody is embarrassed to be seen publicly as a big money Trump supporter, then perhaps they should be looking into the mirror and asking themselves why.
Some of Trump's big donors, like Stephen Ross, make a lot of money from their blue state businesses. Maybe they will realize, as their business dwindles, that the tax cut Trump gave them doesn't matter as much if their business is losing money.
8
@Jack SonvilleI
If Steven Ross starts losing money it wii be because our economy tanked and middle and lower income people will suffer most.
To all who want Trump to be out of office:
Stop wishing against the economy. There will be a lot more poor people if your wish comes true.
Try making a positive political argument.
1
@Pono
Your man Trump is not helping the economy by creating a global trade war with China, which is rippling throughout the world. And data has shown that his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations have not led to more investment and jobs for the lower and middle classes you reference. All we got out of it was a record deficit.
Ask the farmers in the midwest--many Trump supporters like you--how they are doing. Ask companies who sell a lot globally. Things are already on their way down for them.
So here is the "positive political argument" you asked for: I am positive the economy will tank if Trump is re-elected.
4
Listing names of ordinary private citizens and especially their employers crosses a line, in my opinion. Because an employer, or anyone else *could* find the information by making an effort, assuming they have the required skills, doesn't mean they would have. And Mr Castro's position as a US Representative makes it much worse. He's supposed to be a public servant and serve all his constituents. As far as public shaming, that's only appropriate in some situations, with very high profile individuals who can't expect as much privacy. Shame is a very destructive emotion and deliberately inflicting it is seldom justified. I do think Mr Castro should be ashamed, for abusing his office and violating the public trust.
13
Political donations, being considered free speech are protected, but that does not guarantee any anonymity. People rightfully should be able to identify the mouth speaking all of this support for a candidate, and by vocally supporting a candidate, you are therefore linked to the actions, good or bad, of the object of your public approval and praise (which is why superpac donations should not be anonymous either).
Whether or not it was a good idea for Castro to do this is more thorny. Personally, I think this type of behavior is well meaning but self destructive to the cohesiveness of democracy. I think calling trump supporters racist is a non-starter to much of the populace, who don't of themselves as racist (regardless of how biased or racist they actually are). I much prefer the strategy of Andrew Yang, who is socially progressive, but does not attack the president or his supporters personally, while emphasizing how his own policies are far superior. Demonizing half the country is not a sustainable option if we want to reduce violence and division in this country and be able to overcome partisan gridlock to actually solve the pressing issues like automation, climate change, and healthcare.
Yes, of course there will be calls to limit campaign disclosure information: people want it to be secret who they support because that's how corruption thrives. I give you money, you scratch my back and the fewer who know about it, the better.
7
Rep. Castro provided the same public information available from fec.gov.
His tweet was entirely legal.
7
@mh, "Legal" don't make it right. Concerning individuals, who they donate to is deserving of the same secrecy as who they vote for.
You don't take issue with the concept of secret ballot, do you?
2
A number of commenters have brought up publishing the names of supporters of Pete Buttigieg, seeming to imply they could suffer harm for supporting a gay man. Go ahead and ID them if you like, it’s public information. I rather suspect those business owners would tell those who wouldn’t patronize them for supporting a gay man, to take their money elsewhere.
4
If this isn't doxing then it was mind-boggling in its irresponsibility. I say this as a life long Democrat, not a Republican. Castro's remarks coming so soon after the El Paso tragedy where tensions are sky-high only serves to raise the temperature in the room not lower it. By publishing Trump contributors names on Twitter he's inviting his supporters to harass them. The people he called out weren’t Koch brother megadonors; they were locals who had given money to the Trump reelection campaign. To have a public official use his Twitter feed to publicize their names makes them targets for harassment...we all know that. Lets put aside our feeling about the GOP for a moment & look at the big picture. If a Republican congressman had done the same thing to Bernie Sanders donors progressives would have had a total meltdown. Critics will say this info is available online. True but most people won't go to the trouble to find it. Castro has intentionally set up residents in HIS DISTRICT for harassment, protests, vandalism & who knows what type of personal safety threats. All because they are Republicans? Critics will say publishing someone's name is not "doxxing" them. Doxxing involves publishing their contact info and address. But that's absurd. Are we children? The listings are there for demonizing donors. How is this posturing responsible leadership, let alone not inciting violence by subtly blaming private citizens for this tragedy? We can do better than this. My God, we have to.
17
What rich irony that billionaire Republicans are complaining about being called out.
7
What struck me is how there is such tender concern over the possibility that someone might get the idea to do more than boycott a business or snub someone socially. Mr Castro did not incite anyone to do anything more. Yet even now the president and his representatives continue to refer to immigrants and Hispanics as posing an imminent physical threat to Americans. They constantly dehumanize Latinos. How does the discomfort and worry of these fat cat donors even begin to compare to how Latinos are feeling right now? How is it that not a single article points this out. I am not implying a tit for tat revenge. I am pointing out that we all live in a dangerous world. The difference is that Trump has made it so much more dangerous for already vulnerable groups. Mr Castro is fighting against that danger and if it makes some donor uncomfortable then welcome to the world we all live in.
8
If campaign donations are a form of speech, then let this speech be tested in the marketplace of ideas. Let the speech be heard; by all means, publicize it. Speech can earn praise, or it can earn condemnation. To compete in the marketplace of ideas, you have to be willing to be held accountable for what you say. If you can't bear the risk of social opprobrium, keep your mouth (or your wallet) shut.
6
If "money is speech" as SCOTUS oddly claims, then donors can 'speak', but claiming such 'speech' is and should be anonymous is just silly, given that foreigners are by law not allowed to contribute. When they use the megaphone of maximum contributions, they can and should be identified.
As such, they are properly subject to public outing by political opponents for their contributions. The fact that they may wish they wish their $$$ spent were kept private does not change the facts that elections are a public process. They seek to influence public policies, and that is a public matter.
5
Protected speech or not, how can anyone justify an elected official's vicious attack on his own constituents? How?
12
Your talking about Trump, right?
I completely agree with @pono. His actions were intended to cause harm and were done with malice. The clear intent was to get his followers to harass political donors. This is not only a threat to the donors, but to our democracy because it may tend to cause donors to abstain from supporting candidates if they might be publicly shamed and attacked.
9
Making pubic information about private individuals the subject of a tweet wasn’t taking the high moral road, by any means. However, if a donor is that afraid of retribution for supporting a candidate, it’s a good time to ask the motive for the donation. It’s getting harder and harder to ignore the current President’s lack of respect for fellow Americans; is that really worth financial support? A donation to his candidacy is a statement of putting profits before people.
2
@Citizen Morals and laws apply to all parties, not just to the people you do not agree with. Otherwise, democracy does not function.
The greater threat is corporate donors bribing our officials will also get special treatment to hide said bribes so they can do whatever they please without any consequence.
3
'While harassment is rightfully illegal, public shaming is not. Democracy depends upon the ability of politicians, journalists and citizens to draw attention to what they consider misdeeds."
So why then do you pass laws that disable just that? Why is it criminal in some states to draw attention to other "misdeeds"? Look at the BDS movement drawing attention to the violation of Palestinian legal and human rights.
Boycotting is an individual freedom that should never be suppressed. Boycott the persons and corporations that support Trump's misdeeds. Boycott the persons and corporations that support Netanyahu's misdeeds. Boycott the persons and corporations that support MBS' misdeeds.
4
Why is it that nobody pontificating on the subject of free (not "appropriate") speech seems to have read the Constitution on the subject: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...." It says nothing about private limitations on speech.
2
Joseph McCarthy did not break the law either.
But like McCarthy, Joaquin Castro has shown himself to be a bully and coward.
He is not picking on some mega donors looking to influence policy, or others thrusting themselves into the fundraising game. He is attacking individuals who made legally allowable individual contributions. Retail donors. And he is twisting the intent of political disclosure laws to do it.
Like McCarthy, Castro is attempting to bully and intimidate. McCarthy was a villain, though he did damage to our democracy before that villainy was recognized and condemned. Let’s hope it doesn’t take so long to condemn Representative Castro.
10
If what Castro did was deemed harassment, then what Trump has done over the years has to be judged similarly. Especially as his tweets have called out even private citizens, put them down, and urged the public to harass them. I look forward to rallies where we can chant "Lock him up!"
7
Here's another example of Republicans desperate to attack anyone who is a Democrat. Their accusation that Representative Castro "doxxed" donors to Trump is way off base, since doxxing is defined as revealing private information. Actually, the information was a matter of public record but not widely known--i.e. not private information.
This accusation is just another tiresome example of Republican harassment of any progressive.
8
This opinion piece is lacking on some fronts but I will critique just one.
Newspapers in America exercise their 1st Amendment rights all the time by taking publicly available information and distilling it for the discerning, reading public.
In that endeavor, they could also scour the very public divorce records of every man and woman and divulge those details for us readers, giving us a glimpse of their very personal lives.
I believe most of us would react in disgust at such a move and ask ourselves "Why are these papers doing that?" It's not doxxing either. And newspapers would simply be exercising their free speech rights. But tasteless is tasteless, and Joaquin Castro's move was tasteless and unnecessary.
6
You imply that political donations are equivalent to the private details of a marriage. Why would that be? When you donate to a campaign, you're acting very much in the public sphere. I've never made a disclosable donation without being very concious that my neighbors--and anyone else--can see that I've done that if they're curious. Anyone who didn't know that should know that now.
Shining a light on Deplorables is a much needed public service.
Thank you for your service, Joaquin Castro.
10
Doesn't need a light, just a mirror.
3
@Socrates. America! Read this to see where we’re headed under socialist rule!
2
Campaign donations like these are public record, all you gotta do is dig for 'em. If Mr. Castro wants to do the research for us, good on him.
4
What was the intended purpose of compiling and releasing the list of donors and employers? Was it to change minds and opinions through reasoned discussion? Was it to publish and encourage a " hit list "? What was the purpose?
9
@BD The information was already compiled and released. What Castro did was draw attention to it. I'm not sure that was a good idea; too many people are inclined toward actual harassment. I don't think that the purpose was to encourage harassment as such, though. I think that Castro simply intended to force some accountability for those who financially supported Trump.
What Castro did was a disservice to everyone whatever party affiliation. Can anyone with a straight face say that such acts of “shaming” by an elected official will not suppress political speech, ie, political donations? Donations might be formally public record, but in effect they are not which is precisely why Castro saw fit to “publicize” them. Citizens have the right to support the candidate of their choice but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to be turned into public figures-by becoming objects of protests- whatever the size of their contribution is. In the heavily polarized times we live where we have an incendiary president confronted by an opposition that is hyped up on moralism and self- righteousness, such acts jeopardize the safety of citizens exercising their political right. If you think using the word “invaders” jeopardizes the lives of Hispanics, then surely, “shaming” donors will have the same effect! Be consistent and stop being so self righteous for crying out loud.
9
Of course it is doxxing & harassment. It will only anger and increase Trump's base. Trump will be re-elected and the demos will continue to whimper and be angry for another 4 years. Thank you Joakuin for your efforts to insure Trump's re-election. Through in your support of open boarders & will be perfect.
6
All public info.
It would be a different story if he disclosed somebody's private cell phone number for instance.
3
Mr. Castro's Tweet might not have been illegal, but that doesn't make it right. What purpose did he have other than (1) damaging their reputations or (2) hoping they would be publicly shamed and intimidated into changing their minds. Either is wrong for any campaign official.
If Trump had done this, the news media would have rightly condemned him. I would have too!
9
of course it was doxxing . what was the point if nothing other than to encourage harassment of Trump donors and intimidating others from contributing to his campaign?
11
If the Republicans are so incensed why don't they start publishing the names of Democratic donors? Problem is ticked off dems tweet and holler but ticked off Republicans seem to prefer to express themselves with an AR-15.
3
Let's use an analogy Mr. Castro would understand. The NRA says guns don't kill people, deranged people kill people. But most, many people (including Mr. Castro, I'm sure) would argue that easy access to guns make the likelihood of gun violence by the deranged so much easier. Similarly, a listing of Trump donors does no violence to the donors, and it is pointed out that there is no call for violence. Still, easy access to the names is easy access, no different than easy access to guns. Individuals are virtually prompted to search where these people live, work, shop, and eat. Sadly the search will include relatives, children, and friends. Certainly most will merely harass, but some will use or threaten violence. So, violence and harassment will inevitably result, and it is hard to think that is not the desired result.
Mr. Castro knows exactly what he was doing, and he should be ashamed.
9
Good for Joaquin Castro and for us all that he decided to shine a light on information that was already public and available but no doubt not well known. Mr. Castro's actions could be said to be in the best interests of democracy and of people's right to know. He was exercising his First Amendment.
Mr. Castro generated light on the topic, while the angry responses produced more heat than light. Generating heat instead of light is also very trumpy, to my way of thinking.
4
I want to know who and what organizations and businesses are contributing to each candidate. It informs how I will vote and where I will shop. If contributors do not like this information being public, then don’t contribute. Whom one supports is an indication of where one stands on the issues. Big donors are not contributing solely out if the goodness of their hearts. They want something in return be it legislation, regulatory action, industry friendly appointments to important jobs, policy influence, etc. We the public have a right to know who is buying our government.
9
Ms. Nossel is right. The First Amendment's free speech clause protects all legal speech. Mr. Castro's tweet was free speech.
6
Can't imagine why Trump supporters wouldn't be proud to openly declare their support for him.
He hasn't done anything wrong, has he?
11
Launder ALL contributions. If you like a candidate's positions, contribute for THAT reason. Without anonymity, donations are tantamount to a bribe. The United States isn't supposed to be a third-world operation.
6
These were already public financial records, not private information. Joaquin Castro stating that he felt donors making large contributions to Trump were "fueling a campaign of hate", may be considered harassment by some, but they are wrong. The legal definition of the crime of harassment varies among the states, but this doesn’t come close to meeting the standard for harassment under any state law anywhere in the country.
If you don't like speech, or disagree with it, it doesn't mean it is not protected speech. In fact, this is precisely why speech is protected, as speech everyone likes (to the extent such a thing is even possible) doesn't need protection.
There is a standard under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) where language can be limited if it is intended to provoke "Imminent lawless action", but without question the ruling has nothing to do with Joaquin Castro publishing public records showing major contributors to Trump are financing his campaign, and Castro then asserting that he believes in doing so these donors are financing hateful rhetoric.
Here we have large Trump donors who financially support both Trump and his platform yet want to prohibit Americans from knowing they are doing it, and worse, prohibit any American from saying they believe it is wrong for them to do it.
10
Political financing is a matter of public record. The political machine runs on cash, lots of it. Transparent, accountable, accessible politics depend on it. There are numerous online public databases that aim to enable anyone to follow the money so that media, watchdogs, researchers -- and, most importantly, voters -- can conduct their own searches to see who's giving it, and how much. This information is critical in helping Americans gain insight into their elected representatives, who the top donors are in each region of the USA, and the outsize influence of these donations.
Transparency is not only important for the kinds of big donations that make headlines. Many political donations are for amounts well below donation caps in much of the country, but even these small gifts add up to significant political influence. There are several reasons why some might not want you to be able access the information in these databases, including funneling, bundling, cash from foreign interests, illustrating the outsize influence individuals may have both in their own regions and well beyond them, and learning about how political financing leaves some voters more vulnerable to conflicts of interest than others.
But even the best database is no substitute for the political will to keep watch and “name names” of the most influential donors. Thank you Mr. Castro.
10
If you contribute, then you believe in that cause or candidate. Why not be willing to have that information publicly available?
9
An Internet post is not equivalent to handing out leaflets while barking on a streetcorner. Castro's allegedly innocuous tweet, in today's environment, served as a primer. He knew what was out there, and what could break-loose as a result.
4
@Steve
What? Latino people decided where to spend their hard earned dollars so they are not contributing to the financial dollars being spent on advertisements putting a target on their backs.
There is NOTHING unreasonable about it.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and plainly presenting already public donor information might help disinfect the swamp.
There's a reason for the old saw: "If it wouldn't look good on the front page of the NYTimes, best not to do it."
711
So our vote is secret but out political donations are not? This is inconsistent! I demand that every ballot is publicly available on the Internet with each voter’s name, address and phone number clearly visible. I would like to be able to call a voter and have them explain to me face to face why they voted the way they did. Or even better, visit them at home. Or at their place of work.
9
@KitKat The Australian ballot was adopted to preserve the integrity of the vote. We each have equal impact on the outcome of elections. The outsized influence of ginormous campaign contributions perverts that integrity. If people don't want to see their names listed as donors to a candidate, attempting to exert outsized pressure with their money, perhaps they shouldn't contribute. Or perhaps we should change the whole corrupt system.
32
@KitKat Did you think your political donations were secret?? This information is available for anyone by searching on line now days. Mr Castro just did the work for us.
27
The rich are working the ref again, no surprise. They want to give money and call it speech, so they got Citizens United. Citizens United was predicated on full disclosure of who gave, but they don't like that part so they're trying to kill it by bullying those who actually disclose who gave.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision in Citizens United. Here's the part they want you to forget:
“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,”.
The wealthy don't like being "accountable". Who knew?
1621
@EdBx Thank you. Best comment in this section, for sure.
52
@EdBx: Justice Kennedy was my Constitutional Law Professor in Law School. By no stretch of the imagination is he anything other than a Conservative Republican. For him to issue the decision about the right of the people to know who is bankrolling a political candidate, is to me as if some liberal ghost took over Justice Kennedy.
13
@EdBx
Perfect comment. Thank you.
19
There is a reason why we allow public access to information like campaign donors. What's that saying... "Democracy dies in darkness". Donors are currently allowed to hide behind opaque PACs and that also needs to stop. If donors are ashamed or afraid of being named, perhaps they need to do some soul-searching and think about why they are donating in the first place.
907
@Tres Leches, since when should anyone feel ashamed or, especially, afraid to contribute to a legitimate (yeah, I know) candidate running for office? Exactly what country do you think this is?
17
@Steve If your question is rhetorical, I apologize. If not, here's the answer: When that candidate is clearly unfit for the office and an affront to democracy.
32
@Steve
Good question. Why should anyone feel ashamed of backing the sitting president of the USA?
And if you are ashamed, then why are you donating.
I would feel much more comfortable if I knew the top 100 donors of all candidates and I guarantee there would be little shame placed on the donors, but it may raise eyebrows about who the candidate is willing to take donations from!
@Tres Leches is 100% correct, but your question about what country they think this is brings doubt as to the veracity of your reply!
19
Mr Castro released compiled, publicly available data to fierce conservative backlash.
Why is it publicly available data? Because if money is political speech, we should know who is talking so we can talk back.
Hey remember when Trump released Sen Graham's cell phone number during the 2016 primary? I do.
Remember the conservative backlash?...
854
@Thomas
There was none. Just like when Trump attacked a private citizen, by name, using his Twitter megaphone--an Indiana union official who publicly disagreed with Trump's lies about Carrier. Trump supporters were entirely silent and complicit; they didn't care in the slightest, didn't say anything, despite that this man received threats from the demented Trump base as a direct result of the Trump's actions, simply because he objected to Trump.
Trump supporters are hypocrites. The Republicans have always been "do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do." It's their defining feature.
97
@Thomas agreed. Just like on Masterpiece Theater, contributors that "proudly sponsor" a candidate should make that declamation public and expect to be recognized publically
whether or not the candidate is a good show, or not.
22
@Thomas
Oh yea, I remember when Graham smashed his cell phone after the Trumpelstitzkin released his cell phone number.
And now he is the best bosom buddy of his.
25
When Donald Trump gave out Lindsey Graham's private personal phone number during the 2016 campaign, *that* was doxxing.
Compiling publicly available information to place political, moral, and economic pressure on political donors is nothing of the kind. Let's see this current controversy for what it is: a transparent attempt by supporters of a reprehensible candidate to escape all accountability for the role they play in enabling his divisive and destructive behavior.
1021
Please remember the following: Page 1 of the Trump Political Traitor Playbook clearly states, "Turnabout is not fair play when it is turned on me. I have the right to say or do or lie about anything or anyone. No one has a corresponding right to do the same to me. In fact, I have the exclusive right to accuse all of my enemies of my own crimes, while taking no responsibility whatsoever. This includes but is not limited to consorting with Russians, selling my office, making racial slurs, and openly courting white nationalists."
49
@dan
If the donors feel right about their donations, they should be glad that people know.
37
Thank you. I argued with my husband about this for half an hour last night. Public shaming is the oldest form of social control dating back to the earliest egalitarian human societies with no authoritarian rule. He said nothing to suggest violence be taken against them. He posted nothing embarrassing other than their support for the current President. We see in the news constantly about who gives money to Trump. Just look at this week and Ross. So it's okay if it's one at a time in newspapers, but not ok if its a list all at once posted on Twitter instead?
Furthermore, now that our elected officials don't listen to us, (just look at gun reform), our dollars are the only voice we have. Choosing to take our dollars away from people who are propping up actions and agendas we disapprove of is the real voting booth now.
659
@AnonymousPlease Yes, this last paragraph. I really think you are correct. We can vote at the voting booth and we can also with our pocketbooks. I don't want to give my money to anyone who gives money to the likes of Trump.
59
@AnonymousPlease
I agree with the last paragraph. As we are further disenfranchised by winning the popular vote but losing the Presidency, having our Supreme Court nominee blocked from even a hearing, gerrymandering and vote suppression, voting with our dollars is becoming the only way left for a large number of the population to be heard.
On the point of shaming- why are people who donated to Donald Trump ashamed? Should they look at that shame and what underlies it? Make different decisions that they would not be ashamed of. I am a proud supporter of Senator Harris and anyone can tweet that if they would like. Name and employer- public information.
59
@Alex I would be fine with people knowing who I donated to. That is not targeting.
17
Mr. Castro did his state and the nation a huge service.
I am proud of the small donations I make to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and others whom I support. If these big-ticket donors are ashamed of their support of Donald Trump, then they should not donate to him, and put their money where it can do some good -- like in education, research, the arts, and, yes, in support of basic human rights.
I thank Mr. Castro for his contribution to our understanding of how national politics really work. As voters, we have the right -- or at least we should have -- to know who funds the politicians and policies we are asked to vote for.
I hope more Americans will publicize where all this money supporting Trump and his allies come from. And I don't need to be encouraged to act. I will happily boycott them all on my own.
1034
@avrds
To all those calling out Mr. Castro for sharing this public information, I suggest you do a little digging around for yourselves. Individual donations are available at fec dot gov / data . And then as they say, follow the money.
Too bad there's not a similar system to track all the millions if not billions of dark money that's out there in the system ... As voters we should have a right to know this information.
114
@avrds
Many of these donors have donated to Democrats, and have indeed supported "education, research, the arts and human rights".
Perhaps you should recall that the Koch brothers are one of the biggest funders of the arts in NYC.
13
@Viv
How nice that the Koch brothers fund the arts in NYC. So do the Sacklers of Oxycontin fame. The Kochs can make themselves look good while pushing fossil fuels and destroying the environment; the Sacklers can do the same while pushing drugs that destroy millions of lives.
128
If people are donating that much money to the candidate of their choice, one might think that they would be proud of it.
When I speak in support of a candidate, anyone within earshot can see who I am and engage me in a discussion if they so choose.
If, as the SCOTUS decided in the Citizens United decision, money is the equivalent of speech, then it too should be subject to public scrutiny.
I publicizing the people who donate public would have two positive effects on politics:
First, it would make the "voices" of all American citizens more equal in volume.
Second, it would shine a light on who is financing our politicians and make the process of electing them more transparent. Right now, not many people feel like their national representatives are working in their best interest.
(I suppose a third positive might mean that fewer big donors might mean fewer political ads. Wouldn't we all like to see that?)
362
@Tom WanamakerWanamakerk Good point. Thanks
1
@Tom Wanamaker
A problem with your theory is that Democrats respond with violence to statements like that these people are “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”
How would you feel if you donated to Kamala Harris's campaign and the Castro brothers posted your name on a list of people who support the incarceration of low level drug offenders and the exoneration of the innocent on death row? Followed by people boycotting your business.
2
Very simple: My consumer spending is entirely my own to use as I see fit. IF I know that my consumer dollar is going to profit a person whose policies I repudiate, I have every right to take my business elsewhere. Harassment? What an outrageous and pretentious claim to make! You put yourself out there as a supporter of someone, that's your choice. Don't you dare blame me for choosing to take my business elsewhere based on my feelings about what issues or candidates a corporation or investor supports. EQUITY has nothing to do with how I spend my consumer dollar, it's entirely my business and decision to make based on whatever factors I choose to employ, full stop. In theory, if there's nothing to be ashamed of OR if you don't think your donations are negative, why would someone want to hide the information? One would think that just as many people could applaud the donations as criticize them. That is, unless, there really IS something shameful about the person or organization one chooses to donate to and support and if I should find that out, I take my business elsewhere as is perfectly and 100% my RIGHT. Don't you all agree, ladies and gentlemen?
485
Boycotting companies exposed as financial supporters of political ideologies is absolutely a consumer right. But this whole debate makes me think of a similar, controversial case about freedom of religion. US courts including SCOTUS have awarded both customers and businesses the right to refuse service based on religious ideology--the Denver baker, etc. It seems far more benign to stop patronizing companies with a known political affiliation.These are both civil liberties, no?
26
@ManhattanWilliam Amen! Can't agree with you more !
7
@ManhattanWilliam Well said!
5
What is the purpose to reveal the donor names to Trump on twitter? They are not responsible to the mass shooting directly. If Castro wants to control gun selling stricter, he should criticize Trump’s policy for gun control in the House.
5
They are responsible for the mass shootings indirectly. Thats the point.
@Matsuda I believe you are missing the point entirely.
A stunt by a desperate candidate trying to stay alive, regardless of what Ms Nossel calls it.
And a half-baked idea. Do the Castro brothers think more dark money, with the anonymity it offers donors, would be a good thing?
Castro's iron grip at on a position at the bottom of the polls won't weaken, and come September 12, he'll likely be sitting home watching the debates like the rest of us.
9
@Hugh Julian Castro is running for President, not Joaquin Castro.
What Castro did was fully transparent democracy at work.
Well done, Castro.
Exposing the bottom lines of Republicans to democracy is effective policy advocacy.
20
" Involvement in politics — even as a donor — entails a certain willingness to engage in the rough-and-tumble of discourse with those who may make you feel uncomfortable for the views you hold. Being called out publicly, as opposed to menaced personally, is fair game. "
Amen.
14
The line between shaming and harassing is porous. But there is danger for any political camp in demonizing individual donors. Terms in office are bound to be filled with hard calls and controversial decisions, whether from calculation, incompetence, or bad faith. Trying to make private citizen donors accountable for each of those is not a tactic that works well when you're the ones in power.
17
His actions were done with malice. Getting technical about the definition of doxxing or internet harassment doesn't change his intent. He intended to cause harm.
49
@Pono
This was public data available to all. No malice here, he was simply an informant and educator. Well done!
65
@gonzo I disagree. Castro's intent was to help his brother's flagging candidacy. The falling candidates, Castro, O'Rourke, have been in El Paso day after day walking around looking for any reporter with a cameraman, repeating and prolonging the nightmare with all manner of attacks. Constructive criticism, yes, but bullying and political opportunism is another thing and Castro etc. are not doing anything to "inform."
21
@gonzo
Inform for what purpose?
Does Castro tweet any other donors?
Yeah- right. This is really hard to interpret
19
I remember the Dixie Chicks got slammed for making a comment on stage against President Bush and the invasion of Iraq. So I say now, what I said then: we should defend a person’s right to express their sentiments even if we do not support that sentiment. Those who assert their right to enjoin a concerted effort to inflict harm on a person with the intent to punish or to suppress their speech should consider their responsibility to protect the rights of others, lest one day they may need that protection from others themselves.
16
@Gerard
I'm not sure that concert is a place to express one's opinions. The fans of the performer(s) have paid money to attend. Therefore, they have sort of bought that time. If a band wants to record or perform Bush or Trump and record, that's their right, absolutely. But using stage time to preach for or against something feels different. If I pay to see a band (say Kings of Leon), I say, to quote Zappa, shut up and play your guitar. I don't want to hear musicians talk. I want to be entertained.
1
Decent and measured explanations are required more than ever in this hyper-fevre dream world in which we live. No, the excitable and nervous players won't listen to the explanations and no, even if they did, it is doubtful they'd understand the explanations. But it is still necessary that the explanations be offered, over and over and over again because without those decent and measured voices we are all dead meat.
6
On college campuses and elsewhere we have failed to recognize the distinction between unwanted sexual speech and political speech.
In unwanted sexual speech the hearer has a right to say that they have been harassed when they hear speech that makes them feel uncomfortable.
We have taught the correctness of this subjective standard—the hearer’s discomfort—so well in cases of sexual harassment that it has been misapplied to political discourse.
In political discourse the hearer’s subjective discomfort is no bar to the speech and is often to be expected. Open and controversial political speech is to be expected and tolerated in a vital democracy. Unwanted sexual speech is not.
We have taught our young students so well not simply to tolerate unwanted sexual speech that now we must go back and re-educate them as to the value of open and at times unwelcome political discourse.
12
Liberals need ask only one question to figure out whether this kind of thing should be allowed in our politics: "How would you feel if Donald Trump Tweeted out lists of his opponents' largest donors in each city before he holds a rally?"
21
I would love to be on that list. I really mean it. It would be a dream come true.
42
Me, too. I’m not rich by any means, but I will be the first name on that list willingly.
31
@Colin -- I would have no problem with that. See, unlike those on the right, those of us on the left are proud of our political contributions.
76
It was doing something perfectly legal with a malign intent. To my perhaps rather old fashioned sensibility it falls into the familiar catchall of bad taste.
38
@Frunobulax
You might think it was bad taste and maybe you're correct. I guess if you think that we must go high when they go low, no matter the consequences, no politician should ever say anything negative about Trump and his supporters.
Malign intent? He wanted to make it harder for people to donate to Trump. I want that as well and I don't consider that desire malign.
People need to assume some responsibility for their politics. We'll get worse than Trump if people don't wake up to that reality.
3
@Frunobulax
To my old fashioned sensibility it's REALLY bad taste to support a white supremacist who is systematically gutting this country.
1
@Frunobulax
When did it become bad taste to point out that one’s neighbors are neofascists? Seems like a public service to me.
Technically, it wasn't doxing but it certainly was underhanded harassment.
38
@Amy No it was not. I think all non corrupted politicians should openly call out the corruption of their corrupt fellow politicians in congress. Yep it is public knowledge who are the corporate donors anyway, but by attaching the voting records of these politicians to their donors would be a real eye opener for the public.
There is an unwritten law in DC and in mainstream media to pretend that corporate donors have no sway over the politician they have bought, I mean that they give millions to. And it would be nice for the American public to see how little the corrupt politician votes for what the people need and want and instead votes for their donors' best interest. Castro has opened that door, he now works for us regular people. Heads are now exploding, the jig is going to be up! I love it. Castro is a hero and oh how the corrupt Dems will try to punish him! Thanks NYT for standing up for him and doing the right thing!
5
@Amy Nope. It was just publicizing information that was already public (and appropriately so) but which many might not have known. If you don’t want your political affiliation known, don’t donate.
4
So donors to Trump’s campaign want it to be a secret? Why? Are they ashamed?
3
Russia gave millions to the NRA who then made an unprecedentedly large donation to Trump.
Trump hides his tax returns as though he's guarding Fort Knox.
Trump paid hush money to at least two women he had affairs with to protect his election chances.
Money is the root of all evil, and those contributing to the evil should be willing to have their names (already public) be noted.
If you are ashamed of giving to Trump, then don't give to him.
The whole point of keeping matters transparent is to ensure there is not some profit or other bribery motive in giving to a politician.
Didn't the Supreme Court claim that money was free speech?
140
"Money is the root of all evil" - I completely disagree!