Just let me know if you voted for Hillary and what company you work for so I can boycott them.
Thanks!
1
It's accountability. We don't owe fascists our business.
10
Are these donors to the current occupant of the White House ashamed of their donations? Why else are they unhappy about being 'named and shamed' as donors to his campaign?
Their donations, as are all political contributions, are a matter of public record. The FEC requires it. I know every time I donate, I must include my name, my address and the name of my employer as a matter of public record.
These people seem to think their right to privacy is paramount and the rest of us have no such options.
12
Republicans have been playing a shell game with this for years. Money equals free speech, as long as there is adequate disclosure, then there is no adequate disclosure. See: Scalia's quote.
They have relied on people not doing the work to mine public disclosure databases, and the public not responding to the information. Once they face that, then they want No Disclosure, because, of course.
Republicans know this is bad for contributors and their associated corporations. What is existential, is it signals to regular voters, that non-Trump/Republican voters are next. That they will be publicly and privately shunned for their complicity in what this Republican Party is doing.
Ask your Republican friends if they are Nicole Wallace Republicans or Sean Hannity Republicans, and adjust your impression of them from there.
-Peace
12
Are not large donations a matter ofpublic record? If so, what's the problem with exposing the public record to the public?
7
So, the Democrats want the list so their supporters can try to bully them into submission by boycotting their businesses? Mind you that is a form of coercion. Do these people understand they may be putting a thorn in these companies sides, but also putting the lives and families that work at these businesses at risk? Or do they even care? They may hurt the bottom line and the business will be forced to cut jobs...the people have no say in their political preferences. They are just trying to make a living to support their families. Why should they suffer your wrath? Why do these people insist on trying to destroy people that do not agree with their line of thinking? Why can't they just let them support who they like and let the candidates debate and campaign and at the election get out and vote instead of running businesses in the ground that are providing jobs! If the Democrats get their way after all their boycotting of companies and shut down all these businesses, will they be able to replace these jobs? Or will they just keep taking from the ones who still have a job to support the people they put out of a job because they wanted to bully people into submission? Since when was it racist, white privileged driven, or just down right despicable to have a different opinion? When did it start to be a problem for people to be tired of having to conform to everything you say? When did it start being OK to be "bullied" into thinking a certain way?
132
@Tina
They can support their business, safely, without contributing to DJT. Then can also do that while supporting DJT.
What people are doing is simple, and it most certainly is NOT coercion.
Oddly, The Right has long advocated boycotts of businesses that are, for example, gay friendly or say "Happy Holidays". Funny how that's o.k
"If I give you money, and u you give it in turn to DJT...I'm not happy about that. In fact, I'm not going to give you any more of my money."
The Supremes have ruled that money is speech. Seems like people are speaking.
507
@Tina I thought this was how capitalism works... My money, my decisions. This is publicly-available information. Actions have consequences.
459
@Tina This is public information and freedom in America. This is information, not bullying. Go move to Russia if you want your freedom taken away.
305
This is not even open to debate. The intentional public posting of a candidate’s donors with the intention of personal harassment and damage to a donor’s business is beyond harassment. It is a form of political and financial terrorism. And it is this type of terrorism that has become all too frequent and practiced by the left wing of the Democrat party. Whether it’s public shaming of Republicans and physical confrontation at restaurants, public spitting at MAGA hat wearers, chanting outside Republican office holder homes, bashing reporters who support Republican causes, calling Republicans racists or white supremacists and now this business boycott strategy, it is all a form of terrorism and it must stop. If Democrats feel that this is the only way to win an election they have already lost. This is shameful, unAmerican and anti-Democracy.
We have now seen the complete transformation of the Democrat party. And what we see is tragic and dangerous!
130
well, it clearly is open to debate: as you see here most people have a different opinion than you. the fact that you lead with 'this is not open to debate' reveals your true motive to quash free speech. Debate is essential to a real democracy as is transparency. what you seen to want is an oligarchy of the wealthy.
355
@Ross Stuart
"with the intention of personal harassment and damage to a donor’s business . . "
I would say you are intentionally conflating different strands into a single complaint in order to cast aspersion on the perfectly legitimate exercise of personal freedom. "Personal harassment" (as in, assault or confrontation on a person's body) is far different from "damage to a donor's business" resulting from individual decisions not to patronize someone because you don't like what they do with their money, which they accrued at least in part with money you gave to them in exchange for goods and services. It is wrong to encourage people to use violence against any person or group. It is not wrong to withhold financial or other support from someone who violates that principle repeatedly, as President Trump does, or the kind of people who apparently discount the importance of that principle by donating money to him.
Don't even think about calling anyone a snowflake ever again. These donors are the biggest snowflakes in the universe, melting even at the idea of having their so-called principles hurt their pocket books.
336
Really!??
Terrorism?
What about conservatives boycotting:
Nike for supporting Kapernick?
Keurig?
Starbucks?
Delta?
Dicks’s sporting goods?
Don’t throw stones…
423
Just in case you're not overwhelmed by all the ugliness, of trump era here it goes...fresh from digital universe.
Boy Scouts of America have a 'pedophile epidemic' and are hiding hundreds in its ranks, lawyers claim
The Abused in Scouting lawyers say they've identified 350 predator scoutmasters and represent 800 victims.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-america-have-pedophile-epidemic-are-hiding-hundreds-its-n1039661
Is it coincidence that all this perversion comes to the surface in era of trump!
4
I was once present in a group of silk suited men in a lecture about economic theory. When it became clear to me that economic theory, at least the classic kind of theory, made no mention of unemployment, homelessness and the like, I asked the question "What about the poor and the homeless?" The answer I got from one man was showing me what to him was the simple and the obvious " Well, there is always waste in any system".
It was said with a smile, but it shocked me. I soon realized how naive I was to be shocked. Yet, I never forgot that attitude. For me it was the classic rich mans attitude toward the poor, the poor that do not register in economic theory lectures.
This is a real failure of the system, which carries over from the past into the present. Hopefully somewhere out there changes have been made.
4
"The left has become obsessed with demonizing anyone who disagrees with them." Seriously? Isn't that what the President's been doing for the last three years?
10
Boycotts work and hurt the destroyers of American justice and fairness where it hurts them most. In their greedy, self-serving wallets.
It is our last recourse, in the face of a dogged determination by GOP lapdogs who only serve a fraudulent conspiracy of corporate operatives that have devalued, devastated, and mortally crippled our system of checks and balances.
I for one, will exercise my freedom of choice and applaud the condemnation and boycotts of companies who openly applaud and co-conspire with these nasty, evil, corrupt, and self-serving enemies of the people’s wills who only want to live in a country that supports our credo of pursuit of happiness, liberty and justice for ALL not just the criminal, non-taxpaying board rooms of the capitalist criminals to whom the quality and dignity of American life means absolutely zero to.
I will never consume one more product of these financial supporters who prop up industries who wish to continue to enslave and exploit American workers and break the middle class to continue their defiant refusal to play by the laws enshrined and designed to protect us from exactly these corrupters of our freedoms, and their determined betrayal of our hopes for our country’s highest potential.
The “harassment” is theirs - and that is too soft a term for what their conduct has shown us time and again, that they feel that we are but flesh and blood inconveniences to be used and abused and discarded once they have sucked out our life’s blood
10
If 150,000 illegal immigrants per month were white, Joaquin Castro would be among the first to condemn the “invasion.”
3
" … all that's in Trump's mind is '...a putter, a cheeseburger, someone else's credit card and a porn video - and the rest is empty space ...".
- Journalist & Biographer ('TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald') Tim O’Brien - 08/09/2019.
Mr. O' Brien completely describe the essence of Donald Trump. He is a narcissistic, completely empty vessel.
9
@Joe Miksis— You mean O’Brien, I assume.
Money is speech. If Trump's enablers spend gobs of cash to support him, someone millions of people dislike and who is harming millions, what better way to vote than with the wallet? Republicans and their right-wing hateful religious fanatics have been boycotting LGBTQ-friendly companies for years because they’re offended by human rights. Tough luck.
Imagine if Americans had known that Henry Ford was a Nazi-loving supporter of Hitler, or that Texaco sold oil—illegally—to the Franco regime during the Spanish civil war? The world might have been very different today.
Big donors should be courageous enough to stand up and be open about their political donations. The fact that they’re trying to hide means they know they’re wrong. Why hide? They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
10
While labor unions have been in the cross-hairs for decades for making political contributions and have been forced to identify and clearly separate their political activities from what the conservatives allow unions to do, private business has been free to dedicate whatever portion of the price of necessary goods to whatever political cause they chose. If it is unfair to use the funds of a required union membership for political purposes, it is equally unfair to use for political purposes the funds earned by purchases required for physical survival. Just because I need to eat or drive a car does not mean that I want to be forced to support specific political causes with my purchases.
We should require a label on every good and service sold in the US, spelling out how much money of the profits goes to which political causes. Consumers should be protected from having to finance political stances that they disagree with and that are against their vital interests, just as workers represented by labor unions have a right not to be forced to support political stances they don't agree with. Forcing us to support political causes against our will by keeping us in the dark should be seen as the constitutional issue it is.
Informed consent and freedom for consumers!
6
If it is moral not to do business with a Republican/Trump supporter because they don’t share your belief, is it moral not to do business with a homosexual or a Muslim because they don’t share your belief?
Should someone boycott a black-owned business because the owner contributed to Obama or because someone is a Hillary supporter?
The moment you change the target of Dems’ boycott from probably heterosexual white to a minority it suddenly becomes a civil rights violation.
13
@AmateurHistorian Nailed it, wreaks of hypocrisy!
4
@AmateurHistorian - some people already do make sure they only do business with people like them.
People can choose to spend their personal money where they want. Otherwise, we live in a fascist dictatorship.
Companies may not have much leeway. But I'm guessing a good amount of so-called Christian companies do business with other so-called Christian companies when they can.
3
@AmateurHistorian
Citizens United gave corporations undue influence over politics. This is about economics, not simply beliefs. Why should I patronize a business that uses that money to then make sure people stay in power who will continue
to undermine my rights? You argument is specious.
20
Trump enablers, which include both his direct enablers and his voters, should be held accountable.
I for one would never hire a Trump supporter. Anyone who supports Trump after all the lies, scams, and racism is probably a liar, scammer, and racist. How could I possibly trust them?
Maybe when his supporters find that there are consequences associated with their apparent acceptance of all of the above they'll rethink their positions.
4
To use the words of Sarah Palin, some people out there are "palling around with terrorists." We need to know who they are. If you don't want to be accused of palling around with terrorists then stop palling around with terrorists.
3
Those who support racism should be shunned.
7
Hey, why not have some state legislatures pass laws that make it a criminal offence to boycott these companies just because support Trump . ........ just like those companies that support Netanyahu?
3
I've been boycotting Papa Johns and Jimmy Johns for 10 years, since they said they would change their employee policies so they did not have to comply with Obamacare mandates regardless of how it might hurt the employees.
This is the first time I've ever heard a major newspaper like the NYT asking if economic boycotts are "harassment."
Could it be related to the BDS movement against Israel?
4
I find this information extremely relevant to my choices. I was thinking about treating my self to a spinning class for my birthday but it won't be at soul cycle! I wish more information regarding the businesses that support Trump was readily available. (As well as businesses that take a stand against Trump-type ideology).
9
If you think enough your candidate to donate large sums of money and host fund raisers, then you should be happy to have your name associated with them. If you are concerned about the association, then you shouldn’t donate. It’s simple. Money talks with politicians and we should know who is buying time and influence with any politician. Those of us who cannot afford to donate enough to be an influencer should consider how are purchases support large donors. This should apply to all parties, as part of living in a democracy.
5
The people who argue that businesses shouldn’t have to serve someone because of that customer’s lifestyle or beliefs are in many cases those who are now saying that it’s wrong to boycott businesses based on their owner’s support of Trump.
5
Of course boycotting SoulCycle or Equinox is not harassment. Was it called harassment when African Americans boycotted the bus system in Montgomery, at great personal cost to themselves? Of course not; it was a protest. We are still free to choose which businesses we patronize.
And I am very glad that Rep. Castro publicized the names of Texas donors to Mr. Trump's campaign. Perhaps more Democrats in Congress will be willing to do the same, if they are privy to that information.
8
@Miriam [ if they are privy to that information.]:
We are all privy to that information. It's part of the public record. You can look it up.
2
I can also publish names and addresses of people on the Internet, and bring attention to specific people in this way. Such information is already public.
It is clear that bringing attention to public information, with the intent of harassment, is what's happening here.
1
This information is all in the public domain, collected according to election law, and displayed on a federal website. The GOP (who demonstrate little concern about publicizing illegally obtained private emails) seem to object to people knowing who writes their checks. But the American people have the right to know that. Of course, maybe GOP donors don't want the public to know who their giving their big bucks to. If I were giving to Trump and the GOP, I'd be ashamed to.
What gets me is how the NYTimes buys and repeats the GOP line, as if Republican outrage were real and worthy of attention. It's shoddy journalism, the likes of which helped elect Trump.
5
When do we get to have an organized boycott of Fox advertisers?
10
Let me at that Minnesota list! Stat!!!
2
From Twitter today:
Scott Lemieux
@LemieuxLGM
3h
Remember the years of "clouds and shadows" stories the Times did about the Clinton Foundation? Oddly, I don't remember any stories about whether naming donors was "harassment"
Is there a single political reporter or editor at NYT with any insight and/or without amnesia?
4
We haven't seen such sociopathic cruelty from The Left since Kavanaugh and The Covington kids. Now that their targets are private citizens, their barbary is all the more chilling.
4
@Hank [We haven't seen such sociopathic cruelty from The Left since Kavanaugh....]
Until you recognize what Kavanaugh meant when he wrote "FFFFF,' you don't know what sociopathic cruelty is.
1
If we’re going to have a system that essentially allows wealthy people to buy influence from politicians, we at least need to know who is giving money so we can better understand who is receiving favors for money.
6
If you can't take the heat, don't contribute. It's your choice. I am proud, as others have stated, to support financially and vocally the progressive politicians I share views with. I welcome the potential civil discourse this may entail. I am not afraid.
What I would appreciate, is continued release of the donors to the Republican Party, Donald Trump and the businesses associated with these people. This would give me more power to put my dollars where my beliefs are. I encourage others to do so as well.
18
If you can't take the heat, don't contribute. It's your choice. I am proud, as others have stated, to support financially and vocally the progressive politicians I share views with. I welcome the potential civil discourse this may entail. I am not afraid.
What I would appreciate, is continued release of the donors to the Republican Party, Donald Trump and the businesses associated with these people. This would give me more power to put my dollars where my beliefs are. I encourage others to do so as well.
5
“I have always been an active participant in the democratic process,” Mr. Ross said in a statement. “I have known Donald Trump for 40 years, and while we agree on some issues, we strongly disagree on many others and I have never been bashful about expressing my opinions.”
Does he also give thousands of dollars to the Dems he disagrees with?
12
It's OK for Trump and his supporters to use the presidency to enrich themselves, but not for people to boycott their businesses? As for harassment, what are Trump's tweets? Trumpers crying unfair doesn't deserve the NYT or anyone's attention.
12
Since when is disclosure harassment?
13
@Steve
Since it would be considered as such if say, donors to Planned Parenthood were to have their names, home addresses and places of employment posted publicly on social media by anti-choice groups.
3
@Viv: You may have forgotten the time an anti-choice group published the names of every woman in New York State who had an abortion after the state's database was hacked.
1
When people donate to a political candidate, their names are made public. If they don't know this, they should. The people who make large donations certainly know it.
Making this public information public should be no surprise. And after all, the fundraiser was not a clandestine event.
No it is not harassment to boycott businesses who support white nationalists and other fascists.
Political donations are public information.
12
Change Trump's name to David Duke ... or George Lincoln Rockwell ... or Bull Connor. How would a proposed boycott against Stephen Ross play out in any of those scenarios? Because that's the level of white supremacy, white nationalism, unadulterated racism that's in power at the White House. Just ask the people of El Paso or the children left without parents in Mississippi.
8
"Where lies the power, there let the blame lie too."
George Eliot
4
It is a disgrace to the liberal Democrat mob that political donors need to be afraid of violent and unscrupulous actions by other Americans . if Trump had done the same thing to some of the radicals he would have been skewered as usual by the Press.
Trump hatred syndrome will only ensure that most fair-minded people will support the president in 2020 ...put that on your list
4
no it is not harassment.
I will not renew my equinox membership because it never dawned on me that the person who owns this gym would so blatantly support Donald trump. I do not want to allow this owner to use profits from my money to pay for fund raisers for this horrible bully and misogynist.
my right. no.question. no harassment.
10
I think it's fair game. Anyone who offers financial support to prop-up a sexist racist homophobe who's done more to pull this country apart while at the same time undermining it than any president in history, yes, it's safe to assume they're complicit and as such should be held accountable.
5
I prefer “truth over facts” too!
1
The sooner the better because the lines at the Chick-fill-a are ridiculously too long!
Please boycott immediately, thank you!
2
Of course it is harassment and the Progressives
fail to realise that it is a two way street.
People who had joined the Communist Party in
the depths of the Depression when they were looking
for any solution and did not know the evils that
Lenin and Stalin had and were carrying out were
prosecuted, persecuted and harassed after World War II
when the House began its hunt for the "Reds".
What if someone, just to spite you, paid 50 people a
thousand dollars each to go to wherever you work and live
and hold up signs accusing you of the worst crimes...
What possible defence could you offer before Twitter and
the Internet demanded you be boiled in Oil ?
You have vote, exercise it, if you feel strongly about not supporting
anyone with your monies who supported some cause or candidate, shop elsewhere but do not carry out a Witch-Hunt for it will not
be long before some swears they saw you riding a broomstick via the light of the Waning Moon.
7
If a Trump supporter says they are not a racist, well, maybe. But they are okay with racism.
7
"Republicans have accused the congressman of “doxxing” private citizens and trying to incite harassment of the president’s supporters."? Aww, poor babies! Trump has incited more than harrassment, against far greater numbers including whole groups of people. So - let his rich donors feel some (slight) pain.
3
No. it is just desserts.
2
There is an easy solution to all this. 100% public funding of all elections for Federal and state offices. Problem eliminated....
8
Definition of a bigot from Merriam-Webster: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
As a lifelong Democrat, Bigotry-USA is where my party now lives. And I believe they will pay the high price in 2020 because there will be NO cross-overs (which they need to win) and more likely...converts to Trump.
5
For a lifelong Democrat, you don’t seem to know your party very well.
1
Vote in the elections! Until then, Vote With Your Wallet!
3
Funny! When the Democrats stop shopping it’s called harassment but when Republicans stop shopping it’s called a recession...
5
I see Trump as the enemy already, a boycott might be the least of your problems if you give him money. Personal safety might be a consideration. Hate generates hate, maybe there is some fear in being associated with a racist.
1
Can we also get the names of the owners of those chicken processing plants in Mississippi employing undocumented immigrants. How much do you want to bet their deep-pocketed Republicans?
Here in NJ we recently learned there was a deep-pocketed Republican employing undocumented immigrants at his golf club, claiming he didn't know, some guy named Don Trump.
6
It is simply bad business to slap your customers in the face with your politics. Why would I pay $5000 a year just so that my hard-earned cash can be handed to Donald Trump? Equinox is now branded as a source of "white nationalist" fundraising. Live with it.
7
If you support sub-humans, you deserve whatever consequences come with it.
2
Under normal conditions, identifying campaign donors would be expected. But since 2016...when Hillary lost the election and wokesters hurled themselves off the rails in a collective histrionic fit...publicizing donor names may now be correctly characterized as an invasion of privacy...and highly dangerous.
3
" His supporters say it's harassment". Playing for Trumps team does seem to come with baggage, huh? These donors seem to have enough contact with the real public to know their captain is not just disliked by many, but absolutely vilified by some, and we all know that "some" of any large group are capable of stupid, violent behavior. Comparing the two "groups", though, the pro and anti Trumpers, where do you see the most violent rhetoric? From the group urged by their captain to "punch (protestors) them in the face", which he would support with legal fees, and who brags he can "grab (women) by the privates"? Who suggested cops can be a little rougher putting suspects in their cars? Who thinks torture works and we should do more of it, and who once wondered, "Why have nukes if you are not going to use them" - and not in the sense that we should destroy them. Compared to the other group, whose leaders do not speak in violent metaphor - I really can't see an informed businessman operating in public in this country fearing for his life from the snowflakes because his name is on a list of political donors, can you? Boycotts, yes, we can organize those. Individually, except for our inherent percentage of crazies, I don't see many lining up to martyr for the cause - as Pelosi said, "he's just not worth it".
2
Can you imagine what good the billions of campaign $$ could do elsewhere? Donated to ending childhood hunger, cancer research, Alzheimer’s research, homelessness, et.,. What a shame that instead the money will go in to name calling, vicious TV adds and propaganda.
4
I'm not sure why the NYT keeps insisting on doing the Trump campaign's work for them. Joaquin Castro posted a list of public donors, that anyone can look up, at any time. When the article says that "Republicans have accused the congressman of 'doxxing' private citizens", it is obligated to make clear that that is a false claim.
5
One of the most successful ways in which we won the war on terror was to follow the money and cut it off from the people that meant to do us harm.
White Supremacy is as dangerous as terrorism. What worked for combating one form of terror will work for another.
7
If political donations are free speech, so are boycotts.
If these rich bloodsuckers are ok with getting their tax cuts served with a side of racism, then here comes the bill.
7
In our uber materialistic country nothing could be more American. And its been going on since our very colonists started boycotting British goods in what T.H. Breen aptly called "The Marketplace revolution." Vote with your dollars people.
5
Too many forget that it was an economic boycott that helped end apartheid in South Africa. At that time these same “non-racist” Republicans stood against ending that regime, Dick Cheney labeled Nelson Mandela “a terrorist” and voted against a resolution calling for Mandela to be freed from prison after a decade.
They can’t acknowledge racism even when a nation is built upon it, much less here at home where it’s application is a political tool to rouse the base. I'll never shed a tear over a racist being deprived of dollars to fund his hate.
6
Shaming is an old tactic that can be used effectively in this instance. Trump and his supporters must be confronted every where they go. The supporters are just as guilty as Trump and must be confronted and shamed. The last few days Trump has pushed the envelope further than many of us can tolerate.
4
It’s a shame that this disclosure of publicly available donor info wasn’t started 3 years ago. Disclos’em all, I say! Absolutely. And I won’t go near them.
1
@Michael C
Boy it is hard being a Cub's fan in this climate (The Wrong Ricketts...shudder...)
Per Citizens United, donations are speech, right?
Well, then withholding money should also be speech.
C'mon, donors- put your market share where your mouth is!
5
Of course it’s harassment, it’s the new double standard for the left and Democrats. Shame on the Republicans for allowing it to happen.
1
i though that liberal believe in free speech rather than in persecuting and demonizing those who do not agree with them. Casting Trump as a 'White Supremacist' or as someone who hates blacks' are both quite far afield and require a good deal of hand-waving and imprecise quoting and thinking about the President to demonstrate those things as realities.. calling anyone who supports Trump a bad name is repugnant.
Liberals need a new name like 'intolerants'.
In American we drive on the right. But we are free to think whatever we want. And I am not what you deem me to be. That goes for the President too.
5
@robert brusca
Yes, and telling a conservative exactly what one thinks is free speech too.
But only conservatives seem to think that you can exercise free speech and not experience any consequences from it.
Their parents should have taught them better.
2
The chickens have come home to roost. Money is speech? Corporations are people? Fine. Your support for trump is supposed to just be your dirty secret? That's not how this works.
7
None of this outrage occurred before Trump.
This man is the catalyst for so much outrage occurring in people's everyday lives.
Every single day Trump is all over the news.
Please Americans, vote him out! He is toxic.
3
If, as per Citizens United, money=speech, then people should be allowed to comment on what others are “saying.”
6
I forget, wasn’t there some kind of boycott about Tea early in our history?
7
I cant help but notice, as a Republican, the VAST numbers of liberals writing in and essentially stating something along freedom of speech and why not? Here is the problem: if the Republicans had done this, a wild howl of indignation would have come from each of you. Let’s admit it and move on.
3
Boycotting trump supporters is a patriotic duty.
4
Let me get this straight. If you're a businessperson -- say, a baker -- who doesn't want to do business with me because of my sexual orientation, that's your constitutionally protected right. But if I'm a customer who doesn't want to buy your cakes because of your offensive politics, that's unlawful harassment?
6
What have the courts said about this? The SCOTUS?
And they call liberals snowflakes. And the Koch brothers complaining about free speech? Good lord, if you can’t stand behind your donation out of fear of backlash, maybe change who you support. That said, any violent threats are way out of bounds. Economic boycotts and similar tactics are what we call free expression.
4
In my country, we’d call this “Ethical Investment “.
5
Boycotting is fine. But what about harassment, like protesting in front of someone's house. Bear in mind some folks may not even donate much money, $200 is not a lot of money. Is it appropriate to protest in front of a private citizens house to prove a political point? What kind of Nation have we become?
2
I have been voting with my wallet for a long time, and will continue to do so whenever I become aware that a purchasing choice has political implications. The notion that these corporate moguls should be able to steer our society in its currently lethal direction, and do it anonymously, is so un-American as to boggle the mind. I was very sorry to hear that one of the big donors is a bigwig at Marvel Entertainment, an enterprise I have felt attached to since I was just a child, and it was just a comic book publisher. I have no qualms about saying Marvel has gotten its last penny out of me, at least until I hear there's been some change in how my pennies are being used.
6
This is so ironic that the Republicans are calling fowl. Wasn't there a recent court case where a baker in CO didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple because of his personal principles and the conservative right supported his right to not provide services Isn't this the same? We the customer don't want to support businesses that have beliefs that violate our principles. The continued hypocrisy of the right is unbelievable.
4
Ashamed of which candidate you choose to support? Maybe you should reevaluate. Public disclosure of financial contributions is law; so far the GOP haven't succeeded in making it secret.....but I'm sure they'll try.
5
Yet Trump, Ross and the other Republican Oligarchs are ok with Right-wing “Christians” boycotting stores and companies that accept gay people. Whenever Republicans don’t get exactly what they want they cry and whine and moan and make outrageous accusations of “terrorism” and
3
Two words about boycotts and the hypocrisy of the right: Colin Kaepernick.
5
@Paul Glusman Let's add the Dixie Chicks to that right wing hypocrisy.
2
I am so confused by this. So Trump can use the bully pulpit to harass federal employees who are assigned to investigate Russian interference (remember the "12 angry Democrats"), but Democrats can't even post a list of publically available donor information? Hypocrites much? Look, I'm not in favor of either action, but this ship has sailed with president Trump's Twitter account.
4
It’s a “right” of free-speech to boycott -X- a business for not agreeing with its practices. The practices of its owner does not equal = business practice, and putting everyone that works at that business out of a job even though those people may support your candidate. So let’s upset hundreds if not thousands of people to silence one person... the math \- does not make sense to me
1
If trump is so great and doing so well with his (phony) M A G A, why are his donors so afraid of being outed. They don't get to have it both ways. Lift up the 'rocks' and let's see all the vile hypocrites scurry for more cover.
Furthermore we MUST see trump's tax returns. Many, including me, believe a major part of his real estate business is a money laundering enterprise for Russian oligarchs and others seeking to hide or disguise assets.
That Florida mansion sold to a russian billionaire in palm beach for a $40 million profit after two years (and no significant improvements) is a perfect example of the trump "genius" for laundry. BTW that's the mansion he was competing against Jeffrey Epstein for.
7
Oh pity the poor oligarchs. They won't be able to use your own money to buy legislative favors that are antithetical to your values or economic interests.
5
We have those who support the conservative bent as we do the liberal bent.
Both sides call for boycotts from time to time.
Yet, it is called harassment when those other than conservatives call for a boycott.
Just another day in our brand of toxic politics.
4
Antonin Scalia himself said these donations need to be transparent you can look it up.
this is a bunch of rich people whining.
5
I'm Asian American, born in Chicago, raised in California. I've stood waiting at a bus stop, my foot in a cast, while a drunk white guy screamed at me for taking jobs away from him. I've gone into a bar and had a white guy look me over and say "I didn't know they let your kind in here." I've had all the slurs directed at me, personally, to my face. That's harassment. Being told, over the phone, you're not going to get get someone's business because you support the Harasser in Chief? That's not harassment.
You insult me and all those people who truly have been harassed by even raising the question.
When the state of Hawaii challenged Trump's travel ban, some Trump supporters declared they wouldn't be coming here. Were we being harassed then?
It goes both ways, but it seems that only Conservatives don't understand the hypocrisy of complaining about it. Can't take it? Don't dish it out.
9
I am so very happy Congressman Castro released the Trump donor names from San Antonio. Thank you. Can we do it for the entire country on all levels ofor government?. How can there be transparency in representatives votes without it? Let's end the false notion that we, the voters, should not have this information. We already know the outside role money plays in politics; and, since we elect the politicians, who are suppose to represent their constituents, (not the money) let's hold up a bright light to this line of querying.
4
Political speech is protected in this country because, in part, a healthy public debate was seen as a critical element of a democratic republic. However, it takes deux to debate. That means that people have a right to respond to other people's political speech.
What is political speech? Certainly texts count, whether spoken or written. That means that it is consistent with and encouraged by the constitution to make a response to someone's MAGA or Feel the Bern garment—for example to tell them that they disagree with or dislike the respective candidate and why. The courts have ruled that some non-obvious forms of communication are protected speech, such as burning the flag.
Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that spending money to support political campaigns is protected speech.
If spending money is political speech, then it follows that when we encounter it, we have the right to respond to it. In fact, the entire notion of protected private political speech is rather odd. If money spent for political purposes is to be considered protected constitutionally, then it needs to be public; otherwise it adds nothing to the debate and has no need to be protected.
4
Let’s be clear. I’m not trying to harass Mr Ross or change the way he votes. But just don’t expect me to actively patronize any of his businesses.
8
For all its pitfalls (see Russian interference in our elections) this is one of the bright spots about the internet and social media: information is easy to find and easier to spread far and wide.
There’s a reason campaign donations are public. We have a right to know who’s funding whom.
We are also free to act on that information. Join, quit, picket or boycott any persons business you want.
That’s freedom, folks.
6
Mr. Trump can retaliate against China or Russia and even destroy the Venezuelan economy if they don’t agree with him. Furthermore, he fires employees disagreeing with his political views. It seems to be the end of the world when the people respond with the same tactics against Trump donors. After all, it is our money and there is nothing wrong to be more selective spending it.
5
I think the threats are wrong but the boycott is fair.
5
Free speech doesn't come with a veil of secrecy. You're free to donate to politicians and free to be ridiculed for doing so.
That being said, a tactful response is often the best response, ie someone voting with his dollars and another voting with her feet.
5
Trump supporters are screaming about stuff that leaves them looking like a bunch of rubes. Surely they are capable of reason?
It's pretty simple: we have the right to spend our money where we will. To claim that it's harassment is an insult to the whole concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It's true no matter who you favor. There's no law against not doing business with a particular company, business, or brand.
If naming a donor to a particular candidate has a deleterious affect on that donor's business, perhaps they should leave their business dollars out of politics instead of trying to buy elections. Of course, that would result in REAL democracy, and we all know Donald Trump wouldn't stand a chance in such a venue.
4
@Art Likely: When some business goes on someones no list, it may go on someone else's yes list. You lose some customers but gain others.
1
Boycotting companies where employees were striking was an expected part of our family life when I was growing up in the fifties and sixties. Let your money express your beliefs. Totally reasonable.
So they are ashamed of supporting DJT? I was taught to not do things you wouldn’t want made public.
No harassment allowed. Just no patronage. Surely we get to choose how we spend our money? Good land, things are nutty.
5
Anything that can potentially hit trump in his wallet is a very good thing. It is the only thing he cares about.
5
Mr. Trump, his administration, the majority or Republicans and the 'right' seem to have no issue attacking people for who they are, and have no control over, their race, gender, sexuality, etc., and yet when they themselves are criticized for what they do, and have complete control over, it is harassment.
This strikes me as deeply un-American.
1
@p351 Projecting much? Only the left is obsessed with race, gender and other characteristics one doesn't get to choose. I've never heard a conservative judging anyone based on those but the left does it all the time.
1
This reminds me of the Antifa and People-in-Black wearing masks over their faces. The message I get is they don't have the courage of conviction to personally take responsibility.
This is the same thing. If you believe in a candidate, it should not be a problem that you stand by and take responsibility for that conviction.
1
@Biji Basi Yeah, but that doesn't mean that those who disagree with the totalitarian left should be physically attacked by the likes of Antifa and other leftist militants.
1
Money in US politics is hugely corrupting, and seemingly out of control. Rich people donate in order to gain influence, therefore their should be made public. In many other countries "money for influence" is called bribery, and it's illegal.
2
The average citizen has as many rights as corporations. In Citizens United the Supreme Court "found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures. " These same corporations have no right to scream Uncle (Sam!!!) when we chose to not give them funds and instead boycott them for their use of our money.
1
Trump supporters (meaning, I guess, most Republicans) seem to want to come off like tough guys: Lock 'em up, send 'em back, carry a gun most anywhere, do what you want anytime without check, name-call, send people to war, more armaments less talk. But when it comes down to it they seem to have no backbone: their chickenhawk leaders avoid military service, they blame Obama and Hillary for everything and they find the rest of us at fault when through legitimate means we find a small way for them to take responsibility for wanting to perpetuate the career of someone unfit for the presidency.
5
Conservatives with even half a brain know they have no rational argument against individuals’ right to boycott the businesses of wealthy donors. Their response is aimed at low-information voters who will receive the messaging via Fox News.
3
They're donating because they want to benefit somehow, mostly financially, be it directly via taxes or indirectly by keeping others at a disadvantage.
Examples include racism, ICE, defunding Planned Parenthood, controlling/undermining the free press.
How depressing.
1
What about women who seek to end a pregnancy at a clinic, who must endure an angry, shouting blockade from the Trump base? Is that harassment?
1
Seems to me this is exactly what Republicans blather endlessly about - the free market. This is public information, and the pubic should be able to use this information to guide their economic decisions.
Why shouldn't we be able to boycott businesses and people who don't align with our political values?
Why can a baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but a liberal voter can't decide to boycott a business that supports a political leader that doesn't reflect the customers values?
Republicans need to end their perpetual victimhood whining and boycott liberal businesses if it's so darned upsetting.
2
If these donors want to know how to handle a barrage of unwarranted hate tweets, they should just ask Donald Trump’s adversaries. Also, what “victory” is Trump’s fundraiser celebrating? Have we reached a benchmark for most mass shootings under one administration or something?
2
This country’s revolution started with boycotts; what’s the problem? It beats violence.
3
Harassment? More like the free market of which these hard-right types speak so highly. Or at least they do when it's going their way.
1
Frankly, I think boycotts by either the Left or Right are a waste of energy. Should I really boycott my barber if I find out he gave to Ocasio-Cortez or Trump? If he gave to Ocasio-Cortez, does that make them a socialist? If Trump, would that make them a racist? Does it really benefit us to patronize vendors vendors who echo our ideology and do we really believe that will shape us into a more civil society capable of living together? I think not.
2
Why would anyone care what his supporters say? Need I describe the person they're supporting?
This is all about corruption American style. The people who donate these large amounts are buying government at the majority’s expense. So the Trump campaign can then spend more money on manipulating the clueless into voting against their best interests. The general public needs to know who is corrupting their government, so they can vote against these interests with the way they spend their dollars. This is the only message these people will really understand.
1
a disclaimer on an appeal for a donation from the sanders campaign told me that if i donated more than $200 the sanders campaign would be required to report my name. address, occupation, and the name of my employer to the federal government. why? a subtle tip off to the boss if i am deemed "politically unreliable" by some bureaucrat? if i am required to be this transparent my thoughts are trump's donors should be as well.
1
Because big corporate donors have such a huge affect on our politics by their funding of particular campaigns, often being able to determine which candidates succeed in getting nominated or elected then of course, the little person needs to be able to voice their opposition.. I can't donate big bucks to tip the scale for a certain candidate but being able to band with others in boycotting a big donor's business helps to give me a voice and maybe prevent my dollars being used to support someone I would never vote for.
3
As long as we have the Citizens United ruling as the law of the land, it seems fair for the public to know the identities of the human beings standing behind the major corporate donors to political campaigns.
4
This is a new one. Capitalism is supposed to be about choice. The market sets the price. When consumers don’t want to contribute to your company,that’s called freedom. Keep us updated on what Trumpets own what so I can make another choice.
5
Nobody should be "funding" campaigns. Period. All politicians should run with the same amount of money provided by taxpayers. End of donation system. End of influence peddling. Enough is enough.
3
No, it is not harassment. It is a small expression of political power, one of the few we have.
4
For the past forty years, I have kept a list of companies that I do not want to do business with. I know that part of what I pay them goes to support things of which I do not approve.
5
@Anonymous
Could you please share your list with me and others who want to be able to have that choice?
1
How is naming donors harassment? Citing Citizens United, if money is free speech, consumers can exercise their First Amendment right to spend their money accordingly.
4
If spending big money on politics for your own gain is free speech, then me not spending money at businesses that support Trump is also free speech.
3
I always look at the political donations of people I do business with. I fired my accountant when I discovered he'd donated to support California Proposition 8 (which declared same sex marriages invalid).
However, I wouldn't publicize this, for obvious reasons: whom I do business with is a personal choice; so is voting and supporting policies. Subjecting people, even those with whom I disagree, to mob justice or public bullying, is antithetical to democracy.
I make an exception for the super-wealthy: we allow them too much power already. I'd have no trouble drawing attention to their political support. Perhaps if we reverse the Citizens United decision I might change my mind, but that's not likely to happen. But in any case, most of their donations are just the costs of doing business, of procuring and expanding power, based on a complex calculus that I'm sure includes consideration of the risks of damage to their businesses. I have no pity.
3
If money equals speech and is therefore protected, it stands to reason that withholding money through a boycott equals speech and is also protected. The Right claims that refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding is protected religious expression. My choosing not to spend money at a company that works to discriminate against me, or supports those who discriminate against me, could be considered as my protected religious expression.
2
It is concerning that now Republicans want to hide campaign donors' names and amounts from the public record - with the exception of very small contributions. That sounds like more hidden, dark money schemes to me - just like 527 committees with secret donors. Furthermore, hiding the names of contributors and the amounts opens the door to fraud and breaking FEC laws. As far as boycotts go, that is a personal choice and protected by free speech under the First Amendment.
1
Seems like some want to be able to buy the politicians they want, but want to do it on the down-low so they don't face any possible push-back. Have their cake and eat it too, so to say.
1
Harassment is harassment--unreasonably interfering with someone's life, running the gamut from annoying them to making them feel unsafe. Boycotting a business is simply choosing not to spend money on something. So, no, while it's possible for a person to do both, and it's possible for a person or business to face both, they are not the same. That seems pretty clear.
2
Whether you support causes on the left or the right, you shouldn't be vilified for supporting a party or candidate. The use of social media seems to have amplified everyone's intolerance of opposing views.
2
Is it harassment?
No.
The citizens have the right to spend their money where they want. Corporate donors should feel the effects of their donations. Free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences.
I’m angry the NYT even took this spin. No, it is not harassment. It is democracy.
3
Although not explicitly stated in the article it appears the Trump donor information came from federal election commission filings that is public information. If so I don't see the problem here. These donors were exercising their first amendment right to donate to the candidate of their choice. Castro was simply exercising his first amendment right to state this public information and express his opinion about it. He did not threaten these donors nor tell others to harm them. That others become aware of this information through Castro and think less of these donors is not criminal. I have often seen Fox news and NY Times articles disclosing Mr. Soros, among others, as a major democratic donor. If Fox news and NY Times can do this why can't Castro?
Also, by the way republicans seem to want to have it both ways. First amendment protection for political donations but lack of disclosure of who is actually expressing themselves. That seems to fly in the face of the basic principles of free speech. That someone can say what he/she wants but others should know the source of the statement to consider the motivations of the speaker in making the statement and the veracity of what is said.
4
You somehow have convinced me that you would have been the very first, if the Republicans had done that to Barack Obama, have accused of “racism” and inappropriate use of election information.
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.
2
The Supreme Court said that donating money to political causes is the equivalent of free speech. Fine. And when people care about to whom or to what political cause you donate your money, they also get to exercise free speech - which can include non violent protests, consumer boycotts, or if one desires, renting three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri and expressing their opinions.
12
Most of the time I would say private donations under the legal limit should be private but business donations of any kind should be made public. Most of the time. With Trump we have an exception and without his tax returns we don't know where his money comes from, or if he is compromised. So yes, in Trump's case all donors should be disclosed.
9
I should think that these businesses would want to let other Trump supporters know where they can spend their money. What are these guys so afraid of?
16
If knowing who gives money to Trump is somehow endangering those very donors. Then by that logic Trump is certainly as guilty of murder as the El Paso shooter.
6
Knowing who supports any candidate or issue helps you vote with your wallet....
13
Please don’t lose sight of the original goal of Joaquin Castro’s tweet. He wanted to out & shame Trump donors. I’m a resident of San Antonio and constituent of Castro. I have supported and followed their rise and accomplishments. That being said, does anyone realize many of those same donors have donated and supported both Castro’s. Many of these donors contribute to both parties and many candidates. One donor has contributed $100 million building our largest homeless shelter primarily serving Hispanics. Check the New York Examiner article for details.
Really stupid move Joaquin.
7
If these folks are donating to buy access, then they are paying to play. These are all public records. If money is speech, then the rich who benefit so much should be held accountable.
2
@Steve Wallace, so by your logic it would have been okay to donate to Hitler and his opponents? That’s called hedging your bets ...
The more secret private money in politics the better, right? That will always lead to a better democracy!
9
Republicans love free-market until ....
This is the free market at work. It’s my money and I decide where I want to spend it.
As far as making public donor lists - you should be proud of who you support. I am. I support Elizabeth Warren although I might change to Kamala Harris.
9
Give good old Buttigieg another glance, wouldja?
He is of sound mind and possesses every decent hallmark of a man of character who clearly loves our country and every sector of the American family equally. Even the led astray independent or conservative.
I’d be happy with a Buttigieg/Harris or Warren/Buttigieg or Harris/Buttigieg or Warren/Buttigieg ticket - in any order of billing.
It was a beautiful thing to watch him deftly serve a Fox News audience in a town hall meeting, a level-headed, non-divisive discourse with calmly, if not red meat tossing series of facts with his obviously honest, and not heavy-handed approach, that left the audience applauding for their “enemy”.
If anyone can bring back the independents sick of the old Democrat stranglehold on the party - see the calcified rehearsed and canned commentaries of Biden and Sanders - it his him.
Go Pete!!!!
1
The rich control government policies.
They get rid of regulations so that the rich can pollute without being responsible for the damage that they do. They get rid of financial regulations so that the rich can make more by defrauding and abusing customers and markets. They appoint judges who will rule to benefit the rich and corporations.
It’s no wonder that they don’t like being identified.
10
You're not hurting the donor when you boycott these companies. You're hurting the franchisee, whose views may not mirror the donor, and all those employed by that person. As business drops off, the franchisee has to make cuts. Those cuts are coming in the form of less hours, possible cut in hourly wage (it can and does happen) or, even worse, layoffs or full terminations. So, by all means, keep on boycotting. You're only hurting your neighbor.
3
@Court Clerk
A boycott means, most usually, that I will spend my dollars elsewhere, not that I will simply stop spending. For instance, I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby which means I go to Michaels, JoAnnes or small local businesses. I have never been to Chic-fi-A but I enjoy KFC. If Colonel Sanders starts acting like antebellum days have returned I will find elsewhere to feed my chicken sandwich cravings. Simple really.
4
@Court Clerk, not really. The business can be sold to someone else who won’t offend customers. If his ownership endangers the business, he should get out.
The boycott of Colorado during the early 90s helped turn public opinion against Amendment 2, and against the fanatics who got it onto the ballot. Then SCOTUS overturned it in 1995. Boycotts work. And you forget that being associated with Trump harms SoulCycle and Equinox.
2
Actions have consequences. These folks were allowed to have their political opinions with impunity until it has become clear to all where those opinions have led us.
“They have made their bed” as the expression goes.
9
I do not want to give money to anyone who would pass it along to anybody who is destroying the country and the planet. I believe that is a completely reasonable attitude. It’s not even interesting. I check all vendors that I do a significant amount of business with for Republican donations.
13
I don’t want you to feel left out so I can assure you that anyone aligned with Democrats? I do what you do. So, I guess we are even.
1
There used to be a great website called "Buy Blue."
As citizens in a country that has been turned into an amoral free market by the Supreme Court and Republican party, where you shop and what you pay for is your last chance to have any influence.
Support local businesses, and if you must go to a big box limit yourself to Costco.
For exercise, instead of paying...walk or ride your bike! Do yoga with a friend! Take deep breaths and listen to the sound of the ocean.
And if you can afford it, give some money to a local political campaign you believe in.
Progressive candidates depend on many small donations to equal the $500,000 that a Stephen Ross or the $35,000 that a Justin Herricks can donate. Not just presidential campaigns, but state house and senate candidates, and judges (if they are elected).
7
Conservative arguments for unlimited campaign donations always come with the caveat of "full disclosure". As in the article citing Scalia, "As long as everyone knows where the money's coming from, what's the problem?" they claim. Of course they assume voters will be too lazy to investigate to find which billionaires are funding which Republicans, and on this they are correct. Now suddenly, pointing people to public information that has existed for decades is a crisis in Republican circles. Are the deep pockets embarrassed they are connected to Trump and the NRA Republicans? Do they really think the voters have no right to know who is bribing our politicians with campaign cash or which politicians are being bribed?
9
Transparency , we should all be for it, no matter . If I am a taxpayer ,even if I am childless , do I not have a right to have a say in our educational system? I think it imperative ,whether right or left ,we have the right to shop where we please & to know what businesses do with our money ? Or are people going to be that selective & allow only bakers & florists to decide who they do business with? We as consumers have a right to that choice. Calling people "Terrorists" when they exercise their freedom of choice or right to know is evil ,if not downright "ELITIST" & if people truly believe in that they should move to CHINA or RUSSIA, where they belong. Having oligarchs telling them what to think or know.
4
Economics is "The One Ring" that binds us all - and really is the main unified force that expresses the American will
4
Simply put, demonstrations have a long and powerful history in the U.S. What is going on in this instance is not harassment...it's first and foremost a First Amendment expression of opinion by those opposed to what they see in the Trump administration, pure and simple.
7
Anyone remember Grab Your Wallet?? Have been consulting since the election to avoid spending money with his supporters. This is no different. Just recognizing that Money=speech. Apparently when the shoe is on the other foot....
5
You get what you pay for. We have a right to know who's buying our elected officials.
7
What I don't understand is that if you are a conversative and you agree with many of their positions, why don't you nominate a conservative who is a decent person? They could have done that but instead elected DJT - in my view a bad person who should not be the leader of the free world.
7
As I recall, Trump has had no trouble vilifying prosecutors on the Mueller team who exercised their right to contribute to Hillary Clinton's campaign. And, Manhattan women of child-bearing age, make sure your male obstetrician-gynecologist supports presidential candidates who support a woman's right to choose. Because there's at least one who voted for Trump.
8
"Republicans and wealthy allies like the Koch brothers have argued that it results in donor harassment and has a chilling effect on free speech."
Once again, they do not understand what free speech is.
No one is stopping you from donating.
No one is stopping you from speaking.
You are just seeing the consequences. Freedom of speech goes both ways.
8
Thank you. Free speech does not mean free of consequences. Nobody inhibits their ability to contribute but we absolutely SHOULD know where the money comes from and once a business or corporation donates that should be public knowledge.
2
We've been boycotting products manufactured by companies owned by the Koch brothers for years. You can express your dismay at the ballot box but also how you spend your money. It's America and theoretically still a free country.
5
The Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling was a tectonic power shift that gave the 1% greater disproportionate economic and political power. When the powerless are faced with greater disadvantage, one should not be surprised by the use of boycotts, a lawful and peaceful form of speech. Boycotts are far better than the insanity of the El Paso violence. Those who suggest boycotts are somehow unethical are in the same camp as Trump who wants to silence dissent. Trump tells Beto to shut up and the Squad to go back from where they came. Trump has brought us to the point where organized boycotts are the only means to tell him those who oppose him will not be silenced.
7
Boycotting is not Harassment. Boycotting is spending your money where you want.
6
Exactly, it's our power as consumers operating in a free market, the same free market that's so revered by the libertarian/hard right types who whine about consumer boycotts.
1
Do you for a minute think Ross and his fellow oligarchs give unsightly amounts of money to Trump's campaign because they think he is a stable genius, or the best president ever? No, they do it expecting a quid pro quo -- such as large undeserved tax cuts and elimination of regulations intended to keep them honest.
They use Citizens United to buy politicians and win elections.
Look at Trump's cabinet, mostly oligarchs who used their positions not to protect the American public but only to enhance the profits of their oligarch friends. Trump told his oligarch friends at Mar A Lago after his tax cuts that he made a lot of money for them.
We are at a point in our democracy where we are losing it to wealth. Trump is just a shill protecting the oligarchs' and corporatists'
profits.
The only means for the rest of us to bring about income equality and take back our democracy from the oligarchs is to use the power of the boycott.
5
If one targets their business toward a particular community, it's not too much to ask that they not fund political attacks on the same community. Given as they take people's money and then give money to hatemongers against those same people, the economic act of a boycott makes perfect sense.
3
A gay man, I reviewed the publicly available list of contributors for California's anti-gay marriage proposition 8 campaign. I was surprised and disappointed to discover my office mate of 3 years name on the list. I had no idea he held such bigoted and resentful views and the nature of our relationship changed forever as there was no longer any trust.
I regularly review publicly available donor lists now as I need to know what clients, co-workers and so called friends are really thinking.
2
@Curtis M
By the same reasoning, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if you were fired (or not hired) because of your political donations.
But of course you would mind, because you're part of a protected class.
Politics is the people's business, public business. If you want to play in politics with your money, everyone should know about it, it should be law that all political donations in cash or kind, should be public.
4
I believe that donations are public records - therefore , it is my RIGHT as a member of the public to be informed of monies given and to what cause or in support of what political stance.
It is also my RIGHT to boycott any and all individuals /companies etc that support an agenda that is the antithesis of my own personal beliefs.
It is also my RIGHT to disassociate from any individual whose personal beliefs are the antithesis of mine.
The above RIGHTS are guaranteed by my freedom .
Simple.
4
Free speech comes with responsibility, so how is being anonymous taking the responsibility? The Supreme Court equated dollars given for pacs and candidates to equal to free speech, but allowing anonymity is not the intention of using the public square. So, name names. Let me exercise my rights to not spend dollars in business that supports him.
3
It is not harassment. It is Freedom and Liberty. I have not been buying things all my life because:
1. I don't have any need of the product (That is not harassment)
2. Don't like the prices the stores charge (That is not harassment either)
3. I've met the owners of the store or the business owners and don't like them. (That is not harassment, that is personal choice.)
2
How is it even a question? Of course it's not harassment. It's information that is publicly available by law. People are not obligated to shop anywhere particular. The end.
4
I am now one more person who won't be going to the Intrepid Museum when I am in NYC this fall.
2
This is the kind of questions that Trump followers would never even ask themselves, let alone consider. If we don't stop trying to be fair to people that are constantly cheating us, we will never be in charge of steering this country in a noble direction on any topic.
Nowhere is this more obvious than what happened with the Mueller Investigation. His conclusion began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel determined that a sitting president can't be indicted. Then,
“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case,” he wrote. “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator,” Mueller said.
The result was that Trump was able to be investigated, found largely guilty, but not even accused let alone prosecuted and removed from office.
2
Where will the line be drawn? People donating blood with the condition that it only go to someone who supports a particular political party? Physicians only treating people if they belong to a specific political party? Not funny. This will happen.
2
@Charlie, not the same thing. But what you fear is already happening—by right-wing Republicans. Pharmacists who don’t support birth control refuse to dispense it. Religious fanatics shooting doctors at abortion clinics. Presidents defaming certain ethnic groups and inciting violence. Get it? Those opposing this ”president” are merely avoiding businesses who support him to help cut his support. Nothing wrong with that.
And you can’t designate who your blood donation benefits. If you’re that bigoted, they’ll send you back out the door.
So in the minds of the GOP’s big business class, “free enterprise” means it’s okay to deceive consumers by depriving them of information that they might find crucial for making enlightened decisions. It appears to mean that money somehow releases businesses and the people that own them from accountability.
All of their lectures from the last forty-plus years about personal responsibility, the sacredness of contracts, and that society is structured like a market have been little more than window dressing. These ideas become alibis for soaking the poor and the working class while heaping contempt on anyone other than themselves.
2
This is known as accountability -- politics is the quintessential public business and the public has a right to know who is contributing to politicians and the right to decide who they don't want to do business with. This vividly illustrates why big donors want to keep their contributions as anonymous as possible. Although harassment should be condemned, there is nothing wrong with boycotts and public criticism.
2
Putting out this information for individuals to know what the owner is supporting is just like the signs on a food container box that tells the consumer what the nutrition content is of the item that they are thinking of buying and thus the consumer is able to think about whether they want to buy brand A with 5 gm of X or brand B with 15 gm of X -
1
Yes, political donations are matters of public record. And yes, there are laws governing how much individuals and companies can donate. Not long ago, in an effort to avoid compliance with those laws, an ex-client of mine let it be known through back channels that vendors who wanted to continue to enjoy his business needed to start donating the max amounts allowable to the candidates of his choice. Those who didn’t want to pay to play were identified and gradually culled from the list of companies who were deemed to be onboard with the priorities of this wanna-be partisan king maker. I have no doubt business people of opposing philosophies have engaged is similar types of sleazy schemes. I lost a lot of money (business) because of my politics and it made me angry at the time. But, I don’t regret my choices. I do think, however, that there should be meaningful laws in place that prevent businesses from discrimination or exploitation of employees or vendors based on their political affiliations or philosophies. Tough to enforce, I’m certain. But if you can’t fire someone for being black, gay or Jewish - you shouldn’t be able to fire them for being a Democrat or a Republican who doesn’t happen to agree with the boss’s politics. But - what is being “fired” except a permanent boycott of your services from the top down?
This whole brouhaha is just another reason why, like most of the rest of the sane nations in the developed word, we need 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.
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.
3
What's to hide? If they're want they'll hide donations. All need be public. Full stop.
1
No, it’s not harassment. We have the right to choose who we purchase our products from, and we also have a right to choose on moral principle.
No, it’s not harassment. It’s what they deserve.
2
Supporting a candidate financially means you support the actions and measures they have taken and seek to take. That makes you, the donor, fair game for boycotting and other non-violent retalilatory action IF the policies are dehumanizing and racially charged. This is the case no matter what party the candidate belongs to. That was Castro's point. He is trying to end policies that view acute suffering (family detention and separation) as a matter of deterrance and, thus, as a matter of course. So I not only support an individual's free speech right to boycott Trump donors, but also fully support the use of public platforms, such as online petitions, to expand the reach of the boycott. This is harm-reduction work.
2
I have no problem with anyone who wants to boycott a business or individual because of who the business or individual has donated to. Its still a free country.
2
If spending money for political objectives is "free speech" protected by the First Amendment, then surely NOT spending money for political purposes is also "free speech" protected by the First Amendment.
Economic boycotts are fair game. Name-calling and other forms of harassment are counter-productive, cheapen our political discourse and may be illegal. Leave the name-calling to Donald Trump. Boycotts will send the message.
4
Citizens have a right to boycott anything. It’s called capitalism. They have a right to spend their money on organic asparagus or grass fed beef if they want. Citizens have a right to buy from businesses that do not commit crimes against their customers like Enron or Wells Fargo. Citizens have a right to spend money at businesses that treat their employees better like Costco rather than businesses that mistreat their employees - like Wal-Mart. Suddenly the Oligarchs are afraid of the free market. It tells you everything you need to know about socially unacceptable people like Stephen Ross or Jeffrey Epstein. They don’t care about anyone but themselves.
3
So, is it harassment if I, for example, choose to not buy an outfit from a company because I don't like the way the item looks or fits, how it is made, the price? What if I find their advertising offensive? What if I don't like the brand positioning, including the politics and philosophy, of the company?
It is all the same to me: my money and I spend it how I choose to. I try to know what a company stands for and if they support such hateful, divisive rhetoric, I want nothing to do with them. That is my freedom and I respect everyone's right to do as their conscience and budget sees fit.
1
Voting with your feet and purse is the only effective recourse left to citizens who reject corporate control of representation in their government.
3
When I had my retail store years ago in Manhattan, I never put political posters in the window. I'm sure that my customers knew my politics running a natural food store.
2
It well past time for the right to do the same to the left and then some. Now that they have gone to extremes the right has no choice. They must compromise on nothing with the left - it only encourages them to demand more as they will never be satisfied until they have fundamentally changed the country
(per Obamas original statement) and in the process undermine and destroy it.
1
Maybe folks on both sides should step back from the brink. People are certainly within their rights to refuse to do business with firms operated by people whose politics they find abhorrent. Likewise, in most cases, firms are within their rights to terminate the employment of people whose politics they find abhorrent (I was surprised to learn; and there are some exceptions). Are we really to become so balkanized that democrats refuse to employ or do business with republicans, and vice versa?
Why is it harassment? Donors are exercising their right to send money to a political candidate and customers are exercising their right to shop elsewhere. If you are a divisive candidate of either party expect consequences.
1
Republican hero Ronnie Reagan once characterized the Cesar Chavez’s grape boycott as “immoral.” Where was the morality in exploiting farm laborers including children? Republicans are now echoing this ridiculous argument as they talk about the political rights and freedom of speech of Trump donors. Sorry. I also lay claim to my political rights, thank you very much. That includes my inalienable right to spend my money where and how I please. That would include not supporting a business owner who donates to a morally bankrupt President. The reason why Republicans are so upset is because the only thing they care about is money.
6
No it's not harassment. I loathe and detest anything this administration stands for. I would like to be able to not patronize businesses whose owners support it. It's after all my money that ultimately ends up there. I have no interest in publicly shaming those who support this horror of an administration, but I also don't want to contribute to it. And that should be my right.
7
There sure are a lot of conservative snowflakes crying about the consequences of their actions. It's so interesting how "free speech" isn't so fun when there are consequences for your words and actions supporting Trump.
11
@Natalie, they’re cowards. All bullies are.
You give big to pols? We all want to know, it's the public sphere, your decisions impact all of us. Sure, you're concerned about your bottom line, your tax burden, so you want to give to "your guy." Well, his decisions matter to all of us. You don't get to hide and pretend you don't have a dog in this fight when we get hammered by "your guy." Sorry, it's called democracy.
8
There is no Equinox in San Antonio...
1
This is a right of living in a capitalists society and people's right to protest. BTW Walmart with your decision to pull video games which numerous studies show no causal link but an unwillingness to halt ammo sales, you can forget about my dollars ever following into your cash registers! This is the point of economic protest.
5
Citizens United said money was protected free speech. Actual speech is also protected. So, there you are!
4
Everyone glossed over the reality; Trump said he was going to pay for his own campaign.
Then everyone lined up the buy his favor.
You all missed the point. So did the F.B.I.
8
Calling people names is harassment. Refusing to give them your money is simply saying you have better things to do with it, much better.
8
We absolutely have the right to avoid doing business with people we don't like. For whatever the reason. I avoid ChicFilA because of their stance on gays. I won't shop at Hobby Lobby. So you can tell a lot about me by where I don't shop.
7
Very disappointed that Farrell Building Co. has not been called out as they are also having a fundraiser for Trump this weekend in Bridgehampton. It makes me sad to think that their clientele probably couldn't care less, but please know there are plenty of us who live here who definitely are completely disgusted with our current president/administration.
4
Very relevant to the donor situation, why does it have to be a dollaracracy.? Is it even remotely like this in other Western nations? Doesn't money have a long,long, long history of corrupting people? And we have Congressmen spending half their time soliciting donors. Ridiculous! That's not what they were elected to do. I know ..Citizens United--money equals free speech. The powers that be could reform the dollaracracy anyway, but do you see a huge call for that. The amount of money tossed around in our campaigns, the longest in the world by a million miles, at the same time not wanted by the masses, whom the game is supposed to support, is obscene.
3
This is definitely not harassment, one man one vote has been replaced long ago by one dollar one vote. Lobbying? This is corruption.
Boycott Boycott Boycott and Make Change.
Please speak truth to power and teach the oppressed.
5
Much as I know that there are many good people in the States, I have decided to boycott the whole country. My reasons are basically two-fold: First, that man in the White House is a stain on humanity--he is a danger to the entire world. And second, I don't relish the idea of being shot dead in one of your fair cities.
5
It's called the Free Market.
2
Naming donors is consistent with transparency. The American people deserve transparency, particularly now with the racist rants, allegations of election tampering, allegations of obstruction of justice, indictments of presidential administration officials, fraud, repeated lying - the list goes on. Trump's repeated harassment of government officials on Twitter and harassment of immigrants and use of hate speech goes beyond decency and comprehension. Trump is politics at its worst. People deserve to know how Trump has continued to remain in office despite numerous offenses. Let the lists be revealed!
4
it's happening everywhere. My wife just cancelled her membership to an athletic club, because she found out her yoga instructor is a Trump Supporter. I think she found out through a Facebook post.
4
Donald Trump during his initial campaign; "I will pay for my campaign".
That makes the donors bribers and Trump corrupt as everyone is lining up to buy him.
4
Ronald Reagan noted that we could "vote with [our] feet." We can also vote with our wallets, or not vote with them at all.
4
And this is why so many environmentalists have been boycotting LL Bean--the hypocrisy of the owners donating money to anti-environmental people like Trump & Cruz is just too much to bear!
4
@Airborne. There are a lot things wrong with Amazon. The treatment of their warehouse people is a problem and the disappearance of so many small businesses is another.But Bezos, at least when I heard last, had set up a non partisan fund for Veterans and donated to neither political party,
The one reason I do shop at Amazon and never at Walmart is that Bezos donates a small percentage of the cost of my item to a charity of my choice. I named my college Alma Mater as the recipient, and so did a relative. My college gets a lot more money out of me than they ever did before Amazon.
@Bashh
If you wanted to donate to your school, you could just send them a check. You don't need Amazon as the middle man.
Bezos is the least generous of all the billionaires (even Steve Jobs) and his "charity" is a scam tax shelter.
He doesn't need to donate to political parties because his lobbyists do it for him. Political power players even pay him for positive coverage in WaPo. Or do you think buying a newspaper was an act of selfless charity?
Harassment? Surely this is a joke? In this of all countries, consumers should have the freedom to vote with their wallets.
3
When you associate yourself with one of the most controversial figures presently then expect to be right in there with him. If you can’t stand the heat ...,, ! Or hide your affiliation as others used to do.
3
What law is it breaking to identify Trump contributors? We already know who some of them are....the Koch Brothers, the Mercers. Given who Trump is, it's no wonder they don't like to be identified. They may worry about losing business, but how is that harassment? I'm not throwing rocks at their windows - just choosing not to buy the goods they sell, or the spin classes they offer. They should suffer consequences for selfishly supporting a psychopath, just because he has lowered their taxes.
4
It is called democracy.
2
How cute! He’s embarrassed? Don’t be we get it. We know you want something from him. You donate, your company makes money. That’s what it boils down to, isn’t it? Why else? Or bills get passed, or you are on the inside. Don’t be shy. We’re not. We will show you how we feel. Through our non memberships, our voting. See, we are proud, not embarrassed.
3
Was it harassment when African Americans boycotted the segregated bus systems in Mobile, Montgomery and Birmingham? Of course it wasn’t; and neither is this.
Everyone one of us is entitled to make an informed choice about what businesses will get our money and which will not. Nothing says I have to enrich someone who supports a brand of politics I abhor.
Isn’t it bad enough the majority of us who loathe Donald Trump and everything he stands for — if he stands for anything other than applause lines — are compelled to pay taxes he will unilaterally decide to spend for his outrageously expensive personal travel; and much worse, to ‘build the wall,’ separate families, shove people into detention centers operated for profit, and deport honest working people who don’t have the right ‘papers,’ as though they were dogs in a kennel lacking the desired pedigree?
3
“For people who claim to be tolerant, they sure spend a lot of time calling half the country ‘racists.’”
Although I think DJT is pretty unambiguously racist, I think it is folly to suggest that supporting Trump necessarily makes someone a racist. Nevertheless, is Ronna McDaniel really suggesting here that we should be tolerant of racism? Because that's how I read it.
1
This donor information is largely public, first of all.
Second, the right uses money -- anonymous money -- to suppress voting rights and support a deranged "president" who is tanking our nation and beholden to a foreign adversary.
Calling it terrorism is a bit rich.
Economic boycotts work. And I appreciate having something I can actually do to right the ship of state.
Those who scream "terrorism" are okay with mass murder in our streets. I am not.
5
everytime there is a slaughter in the US I hear many of my canadian friends say "and that is why I wont go there anymore, despite loving warm beaches in the winter, despite having friends and family who live there" or other reasons one might have once had to travel to the states. That is indeed a boycott that affects everyone, but so do repetative mass shootings. It is not just your odious president that keeps us away. Just sayin'.
2
Get private money out of politics, problem solved.
2
The Supreme Court says big money contributions is speech and disclosure is mandatory.
If contributors don's want to be vilified for contributing to a racist leader, then don't contribute. Simple
2
Very simple. If corporations are going to be people (hello, Mitt Romney! Hello Citizens United!) they have to play in the world of people's choices. I choose not to have racists in my house. Is that not a personal boycott? I choose not to support businesses that use my money for racists, and it seems it is right that I should know what they do with my money. And if I don't like, I can take my money elsewhere.
3
Nope. Scotus says money is free speech. Boycott is just people speaking. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
12
Collaborateurs wanted to be able to support Vichy in secret too. And after he was executed, everyone claimed membership in the Resistance.
7
@jwp-nyc- Yes, how many pay money to Trump out of extortion- or greed- who personally hate him. Quite a few, I imagine. Since they rationalize their support through personal gain, they seek to avoid accountability. "I had to support Adolf, he's a friend. . . "
1
Solution = don’t donate to Trump. Payrolling rhetoric of hatred, bigotry, and violence should carry its own punishment. Hiding behind Citizens United to tear apart the fabric of our country for financial gain is an abomination.
9
You lie down with dogs you get fleas. People vote with their wallets so why should people give money to someone who gives money to this President? The GOP and Trump supporters call it financial terrorism, I call it freedom.
12
Doesn't this smack of McCarthyism? Making lists of undesirables because of their political beliefs. Threatening their livelihood. Intimidating them.
It would be one thing if these people were members of the KKK or white supremacists, but these appear to all be normal everyday people exercising their rights in our political process.
3
@Ralphie
When you have donors who are able to contribute huge sums of many with the hopes that if their candidate wins, they will reap the benefits, while the average Joe who barely has the financial means to support his family has no say.
Like everything else in this country there is a gaping inequity between the haves and the have nots. Citizens United clearly puts the advantage in the 1 percenter's court when it comes to currying political favor.
Boycotts are simply one way to level the playing field and allows the rest of us to have a voice.
3
@Ralphie The government is not going after these business owners. Democrats are really not socialists as Republicans like to claim and are exercising their right to spend their money as they like in a capitalist, free market society
I would imagine you had no problem with the boycott of the NFL because of players taking a knee. It was organized and there was even a logo for it which I saw on a Facebook cover photo...a line crossing out the NFL initials.
1
Win the Presidency - $550-750 M
Boycott Donor Companies - Priceless
8
Republicans accusations of Castro are hysterical. They’re saying he’s, “trying to incite harassment of the president’s supporters” and this is “donor harassment and has a chilling effect on free speech.” Republicans don’t care about free speech or corporate corruption. The GOP has stopped WH news conferences, allow POTUS Twitter attacks, are fine with all mainstream media being called “fake news,” have actively and aggressively contributed to voter suppression, and that’s just warming up on GOP harassment.
Candidate donor information is still available (until the GOP suppresses it…): Opensecrets.org, Fec.gov, FollowTheMoney.org, Goodsuniteus.com, Buycott.com. States also have their website for voter information, such as Florida: dos.elections.myflorida.com, New York: elections.ny.gov, Virginia: vpap.org.
4
This is why we need thy NY Times, because they ask that question.
6
Your selective outrage is showing.
Remember when NYT printed every donor to the Clinton Foundation, all the way down to $1?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors
8
Boycotts work.
6
Should this spread, Republicans will boycott Facebook, number one donor to Nancy Pelosi
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/nancy-pelosi?cid=N00007360&cycle=2018&type=I
4
If you support this racist president then you should realize you may get bad press. If you don’t support racism then you don’t contribute to this president. It is very simple.
23
If you donate to a Presidential Campaign, why wouldn't you want your fellow Americans to know about it?
Are you in support of the candidate or are you ashamed?
23
@TLW Jr.
Are you ashamed of your opinion? Is that why you're commenting anonymously?
1
Ross’s decision to actively fund raise for the kleptocratic grifter-in-chief was a major disappointment to me. I have frequented his Porter House restaurant (in the Time Warner Building) for weekend lunch regularly over the years and my assigned table is a roll toss from his anointed spot. It had been generally assumed that he was one of those rarities - an enlightened billionaire who was not in lockstep with the Kochs, Langones and Schwarzmans who support the moral turpitude of this president in quest for tax breaks. However, unlike the Porter House menu, Ross cannot order a la carte from the platter of this racist. And although he claimed that this support was only for the bottom line, he of all people hardly needs the extra tax bucks! It has been asked before, and it now has to be asked again: “Have you no decency, sir?” Apparently not.
21
For those who say boycotting is terrorism - NO!
Where I choose to spend my money is MY CHOICE ... and I am just one person ... I'm not telling anybody else to shut down a business, I'm just not going to spend it at a particular business that supports things that I don't believe in. I have a right to spend my money where I want to spend my money ... that is the economics of capitalism - plain & simple.
22
Oh no! How can the rich be expected to be accountable for their political activities? Can’t a billionaire buy a politician in peace? This is terrorism! A massacre! Woe! Stop talking about kids in cages...what about the suffering of the rich!?
Why is it the “party of personal responsibility” always feels entitled to weasel out of any consequences to their decisions?
27
Sorry, you don't get to support Trump because you "like his ecomonic policies" without also supporting his racism and his wannabee fascism. Time to choose which side you're on.
27
Broke up with Equinox today. Waited to see if those inside the firm were able to convince Ross to cancel the event and stop the damage to their stellar brands. No such luck. I walked into my Hudson Yards gym and announced why I was there. The staff pulled me into a room and had a very warm and candid conversation with me about how distraught they are and how much its damaging the good work they’ve done. They were heartbroken. And when they said “this isn’t us”, I reminded them that unfortunately now it is. We hugged and as we parted ways I said it’s now in their court to stand up to Ross and if they can’t align they’re values, they should seriously consider breaking up with him.
17
We call it as we see it; Trump is a Racist and we will not support any business(es) that support Racists.
16
@hfwjim
...says the person who has never been to SoulCycle or Equinox
How can it be harassment since the President, his cronies and all those who voted for him have the blood of hundreds of Americans on their hands? They have shown no interest in applying the most basic regulations on assault weapons which kill and kill and kill again.
10
I am delighted that both citizens and non-citizens have the right to boycott businesses which support policies they don't believe in. And that they have this information publicly available information.
I would also like to know the names of the processing plants in Mississippi which were raided by ICE recently. I believe that companies that employ undocumented persons should be financially punished. And if the laws don't take care of that, and they don't, citizens and non-citizens should have this information so we can boycott the businesses that hire undocumented workers and the businesses that purchase their goods.
We know that much of the economy, particularly agriculture and meat processing rely on undocumented individuals. Accepting their labor and then denying their contribution to profits when ICE comes to call is inexcusable.
Let's punish the businesses whose business models rely on undocumented labor.
13
@PGF I agree! Based on another article in today's paper, Trump hires undocumented labor at his construction sites, golf courses, hotel properties and winery. Let ICE target all of his businesses.
3
@ PGF-
Totally agree. The owners of companies that do this should be criminally punished for their exploitation, not just hit with fines.
2
He said he knows trump for 40yrs, so is everyone in NYC knew him as a fraud and a biggest unscrupulous liar, who cheated everyone who ever worked for him, people knew how greedy and despicable he is, remember Central Park five.
How he manage to get away from the law, being the lawless felon in his shady real estate dealing.
So, Mr. Ross if you support this character with all his repugnant deeds, what are we suppose to think of you.
In my view you want to have this person in a WH because you can relate to him and probably cheated yourself through your whole life.
That's all.
12
Choosing to boycott is simply freedom of choice. Choosing to donate is also freedom of choice. Why should either be kept secret in a democracy?
14
What is this "democracy" of which you speak?
Whatever you think of Citizens United, it is actually quite clear on the right of full public disclose of corporate contributions:
“... 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. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are "in the pocket" of so-called moneyed interests... This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
Indeed, the language suggests that UNLESS there is full public disclosure of candidate contributions by corporations, shareholders and citizens cannot do their due diligence as citizens of a democracy.
Full disclose therefore is not only an option; it is REQUIRED for the good of the body politic by Citizens United.
11
We've gone to extreme lengths to ensconce money as a form of free speech.
Why are we worried someone's speech will be heard?
Funny how the market should be unregulated until market pressures are not in their favor.
10
We live in a country where the Supreme Court has ruled that money is free speech and corporations are people. Why are the oligarchs worried?
It sounds like they have more free speech and more people to do the talking for them. Sounds like a very unlevel playing field to me.
11
Just as giving money for political purposes is a form of free speech, likewise, withdrawing money toward political ends is also free speech. The Trump supporting business people just don't want to admit it because it costs them money.
6
When a business becomes very large it becomes something of a public utility.
When a mom-and-pop restaurant can't by law discriminate- and private citizens are required to disclose their occupation with every political donation- why should a multi-billion dollar enterprise be able to hide its leaders' support of hate doctrines?
This is all but a suppression of the consumer's right to choose and a citizen's right to free speech.
2
From the article:
"While the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United case to uphold public disclosure — with Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s conservative stalwart, arguing later that without such revelations “democracy is doomed” — Republicans and wealthy allies like the Koch brothers have argued that it results in donor harassment and has a chilling effect on free speech."
Free speech means our government can't restrict anyone's right to voice their opinion.
Free speech does not mean that private citizens are prohibited from responding to your free speech opinion, as long as their response doesn't violate anyone's rights.
If you contribute to an odious (in my opinion) candidate, I have every right to choose to not patronize your business, and to convince as many people as I can to also not patronize your business.
While I disagree with the Citizens United decision, the "revelations" in the quote above are needed for all large contributions, to allow the people to know where the money to support specific candidates is coming from. This is one point on which I agree with Justice Scalia.
5
@Logic Dog
Citizen United is the worse thing that happened in this country.
It should be immediately repealed!
1
If political donations are free speech, perhaps some people would prefer to whisper or just move their lips?
But political donations are not just speech, they are actions. And do these Republicans not want to be responsible for their actions?
6
Choosing not to buy someone's product or services is NOT harassment; it's the freedom not to spend my money on people and\or their organizations (hence supporting) that conflict with my values.
6
Political donations should be public domain information by law.
Where are the hackers when we really need them ?
2
Be careful what you wish for. Those advocating the "outing" of Trump donors for the purpose of encouraging boycotts could easily find them selves on the other end of it. For example, a powerful group like the NRA could encourage its millions of members to boycott businesses affiliated with a Democratic donor.
If we are to be intellectually consistent, we must acknowledge either that that this is a fair tactic no matter who employs it, or say it is a bad tactic, no matter who employs it, Republican or Democrat. Once we accept this behavior as justifiable, we set a very dangerous precedent which interferes with our basic democratic process. I thought all of us want to preserve that process from interference of any kind.Whether it's foreign or domestic, the result is the same. our basic democratic principles are attacked.
4
@Gene Gambale It is a fair tactic no matter who employs it. For better or worse, we need to be accountable for our actions and beliefs. It is a central principle of our democratic process.
2
A bit of perspective would include the fact that Trump has demonized, and advocated physical harm to minority federal judges, as well as reporters and demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Although the post-election fate of Trump-related businesses appears to have been dismal, he continues to advocate boycotts of businesses and media outlets with which he disagrees. We need to hear more, not less, about who funds the Trump kleptocracy, including which businesses have been anonymized to disguise their ties to people like the Kochs.
6
I've been boycotting Trump's products and services ever since I first heard of him, decades ago, not that I could ever afford his overpriced luxury stuff. But even though I never patronize his businesses or products, I would never harass his staff (or his own self, for that matter). Anybody involved with Trump is trying to make a living, I presume it's not that easy. They have my sympathy.
4
Freedom of speech also means freedom to express opinions without being threatened or persecuted. What is happening here amounts to persecution based on one’s political choices. The donors are not necessarily public figures. They should have a right to remain private.
1
So are you implying that campaign finance information should not be disclosed to the public? Not buying a product whose profits go to a politically undesirable group or cause is far from harassment. It’s the market speaking up against bad behavior. Unless you don’t think that consumers are somehow not market participants.
2
I want to know who's giving what to all of the candidates. But particularly for Trump and his congressional disciples.
I want to know which of our public-minded philanthropists want Trump to continue what he's doing.
4
Boycott a business for something you don't believe in? Fine. But at the same time people can choose to support a business based on who they support.
And people have to know there is a fine line between legal action and crossing that into areas like harassment or possibly even worse.
At least let's try to keep things civil.
4
A boycott of Trump's donors businesses is an acceptable form of political power by the opposition. Money talks.
3
There's some purposeful confusion entering the discussion that needs exposure. The beginning of this issue
is the Citizens United decision that identified corporate behavior as private speech insofar as free speech constitutional protections were concerned.
Since corporations form of speech is donation of money to candidates who will faithfully
execute the needs of a corporation, the only way for the public to detect the consequent political pay off was to follow the money trail back to the original bribe (aka "political contribution" for those with weak stomachs).
So, the insistence that campaign contributions be listed in public databases somehow got made into a law. What someone does with this information is a different matter. But it is essential to understand that the information under
discussion is public information in public databases of the FEC.
When a person's name appears with a dollar contribution
listed, this helps inform the public whether the candidate beneficiary helped facilitate the private goals
of the contributor. Thus, it helps maintain some weak
form of transparency in the debased world where contributions and private paybacks merge.
It also allows the public to respond in any nonviolent manner
they so choose. That isn't harassment. It's political speech.
What's the problem with that? The goal of pushing "harassment" is to make it impossible to understand the logic between a contribution and any political payback.
This is what American free speech is all about whether we like it or not. One of my ancestors was in the Continental Army and I bet he was not above helping a few loyal Tories on their way to Halifax and other points British. I've participated in boycotts of goods produced by fat cat agribusiness opposed to UFWOC.
There's nothing particularly 'progressive' or 'left' about it. It cuts both ways and in fact, any which way depending on 'who's ox is being gored'
Glad to hear of it, I'll join the boycott instanter.
2
I've been boycotting businesses that don't uphold my values for as long as I can remember. Those values mostly involve how they treat their workers. When thrumper came along it was a no brainer.
I won't associate myself, or knowingly contribute a single red cent, with or towards any supporter of that abomination of a man.
All we have is our purses and our votes. Economic boycotts are powerful and effective and must continue.
6
Boycotting individuals and businesses that give money to causes that one feels are unjust is a valid protest in a society where the political system has been hacked by wealthy people and massive corporations.
6
No. It isn't harrassment. I don't want to do business with Trump Donors because they are supporting a person who is opposed to every value I hold important i.e. non-discrimination against people of color, LGBT, healthcare for all as a right and a fair, just immigration policy. I am also disturbed by Trumps world view in economics and climate change.
5
There is no moral justification for supporting Trump. He is guilty of crimes against democracy and humanity. He is fanning the flames of race-hatred in a manner not seen in any national leader since Hitler. If you are against those things you cannot support Trump, whether he is “good for your business” or not. There simply is no moral middle ground on this. I do not want to give supporters of of white supremacy a penny of my money. I am a lifelong Miami Dolphins fan, but I will not attend a game as long as Steve Ross is involved with the team.
14
Boycotts are the least demanding actions Americans can pursue under the circumstances. The recent obscenity of Trump and Melania posing with the orphaned baby of El Paso victims, with Trump grinning and giving the thumbs-up, should be confirmation (should any really be needed) that these creatures and their enablers are beyond the moral pale. Why aren't decent Americans making more effort to express their revulsion, e.g. demonstrating daily in the streets until this brute is history? You have a democracy--for now, at least--so use it.
14
@Ruth Knight
Yes... the country became so apathetic and disengaged, it's kind of scary.
We had a women march, protests, what happen people???
Apathy and detachment will be the of us!
Is this the government we deserve.
3
I think that it is time that at investor calls people start asking how much money corporations and their PACTS are spending to support different parties and candidates. As one of the small people shareholder owners of the larger Corporate People organizations defined by the SCOTUS, I deserve to know how the companies I have part ownership in are spending their money.
We need to start asking CEO's if the tax cuts are worth propping up a president and his republican party that cages people, separates families, encourages racist attacks and allows for people to have unfettered access to military assault rifles.
For Mr. Ross I ask "Were the deaths of the non-white citizens there in El Paso just the cost of doing political business with Trump to get you tax cuts? If the white supremacist deaths had occurred to members of your family or the synagogue you attend would you still view it as just the cost of doing business or would you look past your tax cuts to become outraged?" Based on what I see from corporate America, I fear you wouldn't. That is why your businesses need to be boycotted.
10
Obviously, it not harassment but speech. (See: Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 2010.)
7
Donating to political candidates is a matter of public record. If you don't want people to see it, I have to ask what you are ashamed of?
15
The GOP did this to the Clinton Foundation back in 2008. I don't remember a debate about it at all.
12
Boycotting Trump's supporters might be harassment. But you might call Trump's supporters lucky when compared to the other side: Trump's opponents are getting massacred.
8
Facebook is in negotiations to lease 1,500,000 square feet In NY"s Hudson Yards, a development of the Related Companies.
Related is owned by Stephen Ross.
If Facebook and Zuckerberg cared one bit about its users they should use their leverage with Ross who is the poster child for greedy billionaires supporting Trump and his reprehensible policies.
12
Its not harassment. Its freedom of speech, underlined by acting with your wallet. A boycott is a strong and valid political tool - something anyone can use to make a point, or a protest.
And why would anyone want to hang out with, or spend money on, Mr. Ross, anyway ?? I certainly wouldn't.
11
@W.Wolfe
I sincerely don't understand the accusations of harassment. All people are doing is... not going to that business. They're not following the owners, doxxing them, spamming them, or anything else. They're simply not giving them their money, which is well within their right to do.
I mean, worse case scenario is they're writing a bad Yelp review.
I really don't see the problem.
This is so strange a question - why would a boycott ever be considered harassment? Isn’t that how freedom works in an open society? Donors are free to donate and the people who give them the money they donate (their customers) are free to boycott them for their decisions. I thought that was the whole premise of Citizens United: no constraints on donations, so the market can correct. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
10
@Stephen
Even if Citizens United never happened, this still wouldn't be harassment. People call for boycotts all the time.
1
I seem to recall a call to boycott Nike when they supported Colin Kaepernick, and there were plenty of republican (including the pres) who were all over twitter supporting that idea. I don't agree with phone calls verbally assaulting people you don't agree with, but boycotts? I don't see the conflict.
16
@Elizabeth Thomas
Shhhhh. The conservatives might figure out destroying things they already bought is stupid and doesn't hurt the company. Don't interrupt them while they make stupid mistakes.
9
What happened to the magic of the market? Boycotts are part of that. Don’t let a conservative sell you that line again. They don’t want magic. Conservatives want monopolies.
14
In this country, so far at least, you are free to say, within a few limitations, whatever you like. You are not entitled to be free of opposition or repercussions to what you have said. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. Should we be exempt then from response to that speech? If so, why?
9
Didn't Van Jones have to resign from the Obama administration for signing a petition? Like at a farmers market or something?
Political activity has always been public and has always had consequences.
9
The great quarterback Payton Manning attached himself to Donald Trump. He was strange and evasive and coy about it all. He is doing playful comercials where he is charming, kind of sweet etc. It is always unpleasant to see stars doing ads for corporations. Particularly since they have more than enough money to begin with. And the corperations themeselves are generally tainted from the git go. But seeing Manning is particularly unpleasant, Can't get the association with Trump out of my mind. As for the company I don't remeber what it is. But I wouldn't remember that even if Manning had taken a knee. Something that would have made him genuinely quite admirable and special.
5
I thought it was called the free market system for a reason?
8
Boycotts don't hurt the very wealthy donors. They will definitely hurt the employees who might be living paycheck to paycheck. Chrissie Teagan must feel so proud of herself. She lives in a rich person's bubble not caring about anyone else.
2
@Julia That is not true. There is a reason why many of Tucker Carlson's corporate sponsors are bailing on his program. Nestle is huge and powerful, and it just pulled out.
1
@Julia Indeed. This argument could be used concerning the boycott of Cuba and other countries that Trump believes will change their form of government-a boycott of a nation rather than a company.
One is acceptable, starve the people, the other, unacceptable as it is harassment.
1
@Julia
In this "great" trump economy, I am sure they can find jobs elsewhere.
2
We all owe a big thank you to Rep. Castro, we have as voters have every right to know who is funding our elections. We know who is interfering, why not who is funding?
10
@George does the same treatment apply to Democrat donors? equal treatment or preferential?
I wish I had a membership in one of those gyms just so I could drop it. This isn't because of right vs. left or Republicans vs. Democrats. Trump's demagoguery is beyond the pale, and anyone who contributes to him is contributing to an environment of hatred and fear.
15
As an African American woman I am terrified. I and most black and brown folks in this nation live with anxiety and fear on a daily basis even before Trump was elected.
For much of my adult life I've been the first black or only black person in a myriad of professional and social situations. Its required emotional and mental fortitude that is prodigious, sometimes to the point of exhaustion. I've managed that anxiety and exhaustion by through exercise - whether it was going to gym at school, the Y or most recently Equinox, which I enjoyed immensely. I joke with friends that its been my "physical mental therapy" that keeps me sane in a world gone mad!
I knew that Ross owned Equinox and Soul Cycle, and was well aware of who he was as a developer. I've been appalled by the construction of his $250 million dollar "Stair to Nowhere "in Hudson Yards - aka The Vessel - a bronze plated folly erected in a city with an acute homeless problem. That already gave a clue to his moral compass.
So when I heard Ross was hosting fundraiser for Trump, a president who has stirred up deadly racial animus for political and economic gain, it shattered my ability to utilize Equinox as a sanctuary, a place of mental/physical rejuvenation. My quitting Equinox isn't harassment, its about choosing not to line the pockets of those elites like Ross who have placed money over decency, power over the Constitution that binds us together as a nation. Nope I'm done.
16
Where do I get the list, I need feel the need to do some serious boycotting.
9
Really, if you’re afraid people will find out that you’re backing a candidate like Trump because of a boycott, that’s the ride you will take if you buy that ticket.
Deal with it.
15
This event highlights the difference in thinking between Republicans and Democrats. For Democrats the word “hate” is defined as a belief in policies that discriminate against liberal policies and the interests of liberal voters. For Republicans the word “hate” is defined as verbal or physical harassment on a personal level. Which makes more sense, a made-up political version of hate (i.e. political correctness) that we read about every day (and never see evidence of) or real, physical, hatred and anger directed towards anyone who disagrees their precious, infallible, self-righteous views. Whenever there’s an opportunity to have good discussion from both sides, the Democrats prefer to shutdown the conversation. Why? Let’s talk about things and come to a mutual understand. I am open to plenty of ideas on the left, but they have become so self-righteous, quick to judge, quick to label, and quite frankly quick to yell and rage. The Democrats have become a party consumed by self-interest, hatred and bitterness toward anyone who dare think differently. I truly hope we can listen to each other and give each other an opportunity to share our views, and yet still be friends. Why do we insist on being so one-sided? As if one side is 100% right about everything and the other side has no valid points to offer, that’s utter nonsense (even authoritarian). I’m not right about everything and I can plainly admit that… so feel free to disagree… I’m okay with that. That’s fine.
2
Conservatives pushed the Citizens United decision that cash is speech. If they are now claiming harassment for their speech (I.e. cash contributions) perhaps they should be the party labeled snowflakes. Actions have consequences, and the harassment goes both ways.
13
The Supreme Court gave corporations the freedom to contribute to political campaigns under the principle that "money is speech." That means those who object also have the freedom to not contribute to those campaigns by taking their business elsewhere. Of course, outside money in politics is wrong; and it's been toxic to our democracy. The tragedy is not just political harassment, but the cost of the political payback for that money as we've seen in Dayton and El Paso, two states with little if any gun control, and a national political party that has accepted the blood money from the gun lobby that has cost Americans countless lives in 20 years of a disgraceful, preventable epidemic of gun massacres. That's beyond harassment; it's become a form of "domestic terrorism." We need to get corporate money and corporate influence out of politics and focus on the safety of everyone not just the billionaire donors who are whining while many Americans are dying.
3
It's public information. And we have a right to spend our hard-earned after-tax dollars (something investors such as Ross wouldn't be able to empathize with because of his friend Donald's massive tax cuts to the likes of him) where we want.
And who's to say some supporters of the president wouldn't go out of their way to take a SoulCycle class or go the other way by eating extra meat at the Bill Miller BBQ in Texas?
4
This has the combined smell of the bothersome and unscrupulous divulging of data (a la Wiki-leaks) and First Amendment right to decide where one's dollar goes (a la Citizens United).
Boycott Walmart as it continues to sell guns and ammunition even as many stores are seeing active shooters including in Missouri on Thursday. Thanks to the fireman who stopped this attack. The Walmart family are big Trump donors.
5
@Jacquie
The incident in Missouri wasn’t an attack? The accused was shopping while wearing body armor and carrying an assault rifle. Both are legal in Missouri as far as I know. I am not sure if his motives, however, as I believe the investigation is ongoing. I do know for certain he highlighted the abject stupidity of Missouri State Law as it pertains to gun safety.
1
The question of whether or not it's "harassment" seems immaterial. As long as the information is in the publicly available to anyone then broadcasting it to a wider audience is clearly protected by the First Amendment.
A better question would be a is it a good idea? A few of those who were outed as donating to Trump also donated to Representative Joaquin Castro. What are the chances they will do so again? More importantly ridicule and shame do not have much of a track record of changing people's minds. So at best Mr Castro just solidified 44 people's decision to vote for Trump. More likely a lot of small business owners who may not like Trump, but are far more sympathetic to other small business owners have just decided to vote for Trump out of spite.
5
Voting with our wallets has been a tried and true method of exercising our voice.
Avoiding or boycotting is also a great method of communicating disappointment with a company.
Making threats or otherwise intimidating anyone for any reason is not acceptable. Never has been, never will be. The whole point to letting our money talk is that we don’t have to. If we do decide to, which is our right, it should be done with a professional tone.
I do understand people’s hostility. Sowing racial discord (racism, NYT) must have consequences. Boycotting should be enough. It can be very powerful.
5
Freedom of Speech does not equal a right to anonymity! Everybody has the right to support his or her candidate or cause, but that doesn't include the freedom from the peaceful and non-violent reaction by others to such speech. Not giving my business to someone or an organization that supports a candidate or cause I am opposed to is also a form of free speech! Lastly, how many of those Trump supporters now screaming bloody murder over others not wanting to do business with them anymore showed similar outrage when a bakery refused to sell a gay couple a wedding cake or Hobby Lobby refusing to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health services, all based on their conviction that they shouldn't have to? We all now the answer: Few, if any. So, Trump supporters - get over it.
7
Why would I spend any money at a company run by a person who donates to some political party or person I disagree with?
Doesn't a fraction of MY money fund HIS speech?
9
The phrase "vote with your pocketbook" has been around since before I was old enough to vote (and that was a loooong time ago). Not patronizing businesses whose values do not align with your own is a good way of doing that.
It goes without saying that threatening or harassing people is never OK but stating that you will not patronize someone's business because of their values/views is in no way harassment.
5
Conservatives need to grow up. Millions of Americans buy products from companies with progressive leaders even though they are not.
2
Can you imagine the outrage if this was done to a minority. Simply asking a citizenship question on a confidential national census is considered racist bullying by the left, but the rules are different when their purposes are served by the intimidation tactics
3
@shirleyjw
You can't choose your race, but you choose your politics. I choose not to support those who I disagree with politically. How is that the same as racial harassment?
Lazy false equivalence that makes no sense whatsoever.
1
@shirleyjw
Even slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of determining House Representation until the ratification of the 13th Amendment! The attempt by Republicans to scare immigrants from participating in the Census was a clear attempt to reapportion House seats in a way that benefits Republicans. It was clearly racist! Sorry you don’t like our Democracy. Something you have in common with our wanna-be tyrant of a President.
1
If funneling unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns through Super-PACs is free speech, than I think it's only balanced for the public to know about donations that are made. It is of course free speech to be able to make decisions about what businesses we patronize based on perceived values of those who run or own the company. Of course, donating to Trump doesn't make a person or organization bad, but it gives a bit of a clue as to what values they stand for.
3
If it's public shaming to list donors already on a public data base, meaning that they are now ashamed (presumably) of what they did when exposed to the light of day, why did they do it? Do they now feel what they did was wrong?
In communities (Hispanic; El Paso) already denigrated by Trump who degrades them to his world-wide audience, what's inappropriate about legally exposing community members who support his doing so?
2
Is this harassment? I don’t know. But if it is, I would love to keep doing it. More of it.
5
Personally harassing someone or threatening them? No. Boycotting businesses and encouraging others to do so? Absolutely fair. It's called "voting with your wallet".
6
@Carol Lingenfelter How about those who boycott minority owned businesses? Should be fair too? Not.
Naming big donors? They certainly don't mind when along with a donation their name goes public on public buildings: e.g.hospitals -Zuckerberg, public libraries-Schwartzman, college buildings or college schools within public universities-Ross so it's hard to find any problem with their political contributions being made public.
4
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and so naturally the infection that afflicts American democracy object to all this sunlight cast on their shady political activities.
5
Anyone remember people being hounded by HUAC and Senator McCarthy. What about Paul Robeson being prevented from working here on account of his beliefs? Not to mention Pete Seeger and Dalton Trumbo? Some took a different view of them because they were all left-wingers. It all depends on whose ox is gored.
4
For starters, we might try calling it responsible consumerism.
7
Our political system has become "pay to play," and it's time to make people who court evil for profit pay for it themselves. Contributing to Trump and the GOP is tantamount to contributing to treason and the downfall of the United States.
1
I remember in 2004 a woman being fired from her job because she refused to remove a pro-Kerry bumper-sticker from her car (her own private car, not a company-owned vehicle), and her boss was a big Bush donor.
Turnabout is fair play. Sauce for the goose and all that.
5
@slb
What?? I would've thought that story would make you realize that firing people for political views is wrong. But instead you say two wrongs make a right?
2
What was the purpose of releasing the names if not harassment?
A really sleazy thing to do.
1
I’m sure all these donors are very proud people. If not why not? It’s only not in good taste if it costs them money? Isn’t that the price one pays? Don’t put yourself out there then.
2
I wonder how many of these donors are also employers who hire undocumented labor?
6
I think the real disconnect between Republicans and Democrats on this issue is that Republicans are making the logical jump from "political contributions are being made public" to "the public contribution info will lead to donors being targeted with violence". It really highlights the differences between the mindsets of the two groups.
To put it simply, Republicans view the furnishing of this info as a threat because they always assume that they are in danger. They are aggrieved, suspicious, and distrustful of people who disagree with them. It's why they call the police on black people who are just minding their own business. It's why they insist on carrying handguns around "in case they need it". It's why they assume brown skinned immigrants are actively trying to "take over" America by simply existing.
It simply doesn't occur to Democrats/Liberals to think this way. To the Republicans who are upset about this, they really do feel like this will result in them being targeted violently. Of course, this is just paranoia, but to them, it's very real. That's why they elected Trump in the first place. They really believed that Clinton would take all their guns and put them in FEMA camps.
3
@Greg
But they support Trump caging Brown people...
1
The GOP donors cannot hide behind Citizens United which says their money votes, and then expect to be shielded by privacy on the other hand. It doesn't work that way. you step into the public domain, and you are fair game for boycotts, protests, and any other form of First Amendment free speech.
Sorry, Fat Cats, you can't have your cake and eat it to, every time.
3
Boycotts are free speech...much more American than secret dirty money funding borrow- and s-pend Republicans.
4
It's our righteous indignation and a sense of justice that calls these donors out.
Who is harassing who? This donor class is helping to fund the corruption of our Republic, economy, health care, environment, national security, and imposing inhumane practices that are inflicting great pain on the vulnerable.
Snowflakes!
3
If people want to avoid shopping and using businesses that support Trump, who has been supporting white nationalism and whose administration has policies that horrify many (separating families who are fleeing danger and attempting to get to the U.S., calling immigrants racists, no controls on guns of any kind, supporting anti-abortionists, etc.) that seems to be how capitalism should work. Boycotts are allowed in this country.
However, calling up Trump supporters or Trump supporting owners of businesses and bothering them at home is wrong for any party or any group to do to one another. Just boycott their business to let them know how you feel. Call your Legislators and let them know how you feel.
And VOTE!
3
This is what upsets Republicans? Not the fact that Russia interfered with our election? Not the fact that Trumps runs slipshod over established American norms? Not the fact there have just been two more mass shootings?
6
Ms. McDaniel said in a statement. “For people who claim to be tolerant, they sure spend a lot of time calling half the country ‘racists.’”
Well maybe she shouldn't spend all her time supporting one.
7
Knowing that they support his hate agenda "is" harassment.
3
Castro did the job of the press. Why didn't they publish the list?
13
Ann Coulter a few years ago was giving out people's addresses and phone numbers.
10
It’s called ‘pay to play.’ If ya wanna play politics ya might have to pay from lost business.
11
Republicans post names and addresses of people they want harassed which is really dangerous.. Posting business supporters of Trump does not invade the personal space of the supporter..
15
Since "Citizens' United" gave full constitutional "freedom of speech" protections to legal entity, it seems logical to me that those companies (and persons) who want to exercise their freedom of speech should want that speech to be heard in its fullness -- no editing of who or what was said by whom or what! Billionaires be careful what you wish for.
7
As my father used to say in reference to how a boycott works "people vote with their feet they either go here Or they go there
5
For me it really is this simple. I'm electing to not give my money to any business or corporation that in turn gives money to the current president or any member of his party that continues to tacitly support his lack of principals or ethics. No harassment intended.
22
Political anonymity amongst the 1% is what perpetuates our plutocracy. Pierce the corporate veil and let them suffer the consequences of their actions.
21
@Skip Bonbright
Thank you. Well said. Time to drain the swamp and see the swamp creatures, indeed.
No, it's not harassment, we should know what the services we pay stand for. It's no longer enough to hide behind some corporate shield. I want to know what my hard earned money is buying.
18
Because donors are sufficiently wealthy to buy the U.S. Government, thus nullifying the votes of massive numbers of voters, voters have the right to know the names of donors who are buying and candidates who are selling. To make these names and amounts public is not harassment. It is simply telling the truth about one of the ways donors can get around their inconvenience of living in or influencing a democracy.
21
So let me get this right...
They do not want to be identified as supporting a candidate?
If the candidate they are supporting is worth supporting, you would think they would be proud to be associated with that politicians campaign, right?
Right?
I am a happy and proud Elizabeth Warren supporter. Proud I say.
22
Spending money on politics is speech, according to the Supreme Court. And organizing boycotts and carrying them out is also speech. Unwelcomed speech begets an appropriate response. Them's the breaks.
18
If they are going to insist on gerrymandering our votes into obscurity, then we should at least have the right to freely express our displeasure at the cash register.
And we do.
17
All campaign contributions to all candidates should be published on a regular basis. Until we have meaningful campaign finance reform, we need to know who is purchasing our elected officials.
16
If someone runs a business we patronize and support financially, there's absolutely no reason to continue that relationship if the business owner /operator is using our patronage to support a political philosophy or person who who diametrically oppose. They have the right to support whomever they wish but opponents also have the right to discontinue investing their money into the coffers of someone who offends their sense of morality. End of story.
14
@J. Howard
If I only associated and/or did business with people I agreed with politically, I'd be a lot poorer both financially and spiritually.
Where does this path lead?
Perhaps to two separate 'societies' - one leftist and one conservative -- each frequenting businesses that cater to one side or the other. And then, an eventual break-up of the country.
Neither 'side' is going to go away. And neither side has a substantial majority. If we can't fall back on certain principles and values shared (or at least) abided by all, where does that leave us?
6
There is an alternative: a non-ideological business that serves all its customers. It’s called the free market.
2
People don't give to big money to politicians unless they expect to get something of value for it. And what they get for it usually comes out of taxpayer's pockets. As a taxpayer, certainly have a right to know how and where my money gets spent.
11
It is only fair to Donald Trump and his family that his donor's businesses be boycotted.
The Trump brand has suffered enormously from DJT's political behavior and he shouldn't have to suffer alone. All businesses associated with Trump brand should be affected.
14
People who want the free speech of supporting the president via Citizens United don't get to have it both ways with massive donations and anonymity. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.
13
Simple fix: get money out of politics. Permanently. This "tradition" of policy preference going to the highest bidder has got to end. It is one of the principal drivers of minority rule, which doesn't sound even vaguely like something the founding dads had in mind.
7
Conservatives tend to have no problem harassing people walking into women's health clinics, people protesting police brutality, or those who survive mass shootings and domestic terrorist attacks. The difference is that donating to a political candidate is a choice by anyone who does it, and not all people in the above circumstances chooses to find themselves there.
I have to say, it's hard for me to muster up sympathy for people who are getting blowback from the public on matters of public record. Conservatives wanted campaign donations to be protected as political speech, and they got it. If you're too afraid of political or speech consequences to your donations, then you are free to not donate. If you do, be prepared for other people to exercise their speech rights in response to you exercising yours.
Funny how simple all of this is.
13
The arguments against this basically boil down to people complaining "but if this is OK, then that means that there could be consequences to my actions!"
Trump is the most divisive president in my lifetime, possibly even since Lincoln. If you want to support, him that's fine- you have every right to do so. But what you DON'T get to do is decide how other people react to your support. Free speech is a two-way street.
12
It is not harassment to not buy something or boycott or not patronize a business. It is a choice made by an individual that has no negative effects on any other individual. Political donations must be visible so we know who is buying influence. This is a big nothing-burger in the terminology of Trump and his minions.
6
@kramnot So it is then OK not to patronize a minority owned business? Or is it racist?
Political contributions, at an individual level, need to be better protected. A contribution is a close relative to a ballot. Given the dynamics of political campaigning in America, fund raising is critical; without it, a candidate may not even make it to the ballot. Financial support is essential in getting the candidates we want, and privacy should be sacrosanct.
The urge to punish an opponent's backers is a natural one, but it is anti-democratic. It is mob mentality and shameful. The easy argument - I have a right to determine how my money is used - is a two-edged sword. Swatting a big contributor is easy, but so is retaliation. What if a company screened suppliers and dropped anyone who contributed to a candidate supporting Planned Parenthood ? Or if an energy company screened contributors for supporters of alternate energy in determining hiring or promotions ? THEN this would be a foul ? No, it's wrong and dangerous either way.
If a company or an individual takes a public stand, fine, fair game. So too, if they are active in PACs and the like. But we need to draw a line; protecting the privacy rights of individual contributors is fundamental.
2
One fatal flaw in this argument: 1 person, 1 vote. There is not the same equity when it comes to money. And in fact, voters without the money to donate should not have their spending dollars be used to give a donation for which they would be appalled to do so themselves. To use your analogy it would be like forcing someone to vote against their own choice. What boycotters are saying is “ I don’t want MY hard earned money go be given to a politician I oppose.” A very reasonable choice that requires open information.
@Charles E Dawson - I disagree with this. A contribution is not at all close to a contribution. Maybe a $5 or $10 grass roots donation, but not say $1 million. When I make a $5 donation, I don't expect anything in return other than the feeling that I contributed to the person I want to win. That can't be said about a $1 million contribution.
When large money became allowed, it changed the game completely. Being able to screen a supplier is very different from knowing who is buying influence and doing what you can to stop them. It is not at all anti-democratic. What is anti-democratic is shutting down real talk about real problems with large campaign contributions.
@Charles E Dawson
n
This country cannot be bought and paid for, especially by the most monstrous among us. Period.
Repeal Citizens United - EVERY Political Donation should be posted on line for all to see who is pulling the strings. Only then will our democracy begin to function again.
Nothing sanitizes like the light of day!
12
It is my right to stop buying LL Bean products because Linda Bean is a big Trump donor, It is My right to transfer all of my prescriptions out of Walgreens because the Company supported anti-democratic policies and candidates in Wisconsin. If you too want to exercise your right to not patronize businesses that support Trump and Republicans go to "Grab Your Wallet" at https://grabyourwallet.org
9
After the 2016 election, I pulled into the local dry cleaners in NC that I'd used for years and saw the owner getting out of his vehicle with horrible, racist anti-Obama and Hillary stickers, and a Confederate flag license plate on it. With a big family and a husband who wore starched shirts to work every day, I'd spent a lot of money there over 15 years. I'd never realized the owner's political leanings until I saw his truck. I never went back. This is what freedom is...my right to not support racists and bigots with my money.
628
@Susan
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. However, I do have to ask, did you go one step further and sit down and write to the owner and explain why you are no longer doing business with him after 15 years and perhaps ask him if he he would like a conversation about it. He may decide to go into hiding and not let people know how he feels or may decide to look at it from another position (probably won’t happen but a least you tried)
13
@Susan. Everyone had this right and have had for years. The issue is using and advertising donor lists in a democracy. It’s not done in the best of circles.
7
@Susan It is free speech.
11
Hobby Lobby? Never been there, and never will be.
Chick-fil-A? Never been there, and never will be.
Domino’s Pizza? Only a few times, way back during college. Since then, yuck!
Don’t these people, die-hard Trump supporters, realize that discrimination is bad for business?
13
Where did not condoning and/or opposing racist misogynists become “intolerance”. The Grifter’s supporters need to grow up and stop whining.
11
The left isn't demonizing anyone. The wealthy people who are being boycotted are not being told they can't donate. This is society turning around and saying, you are not owed my dollar Especially if you're going to take my dollar give it to a racist.
The Boyars of our country don't understand why the serfs aren't happy eating dirt.
13
Boycott politely.
6
It seems that we should be more concerned about the victims of ethnic bigotry and the incitement to violence that lead to the massacre in El Paso than the people who fund it.
8
An effective boycott of South Africa effectively ended Apartheid.
It caused industry in that country to turn on the Aparthed regime.
Given the circumstances it was the best and only choice .
Trumps supporters are aiding and abetting his racist, anti climate policies for more wealth via unfair tax policies.
Of course we should boycott them and their businesses
22
Big donors = the .1%
These people couldn't care less if Trump's a white supremacist. No morals, no soul, they are our .1% - and they hold near total control over our political process.
17
If you support Trump, then you support racism, the destruction of the environment, putting children in cages, and the dismantling of our democracy. Consumers should know which companies are trying to buy favor with this administration and therefore should have the opportunity to not have their money go to it.
14
"For people wishing to attend a V.I.P. reception and take a photo with the president the cost is $35,000, according to an invitation viewed by The New York Times."
So I guess there won't be any coal miners attending.
18
Call it what it is. A bribe.
10
Republicans want to harass through Trump and protected from being harassed. Actions have consequences.
11
A government owned and controiled by big business for their own profit and not by and for the people is called corporate fascism. Welcome to the United States.
12
Years ago we boycotted those who supported Apartheid in South Africa. This is no different
12
Actions have consequences. If you support a President who is racist, then people have the right not to support your business. I just got the list of grapyourwallet boycott companies. I will not patronize any of the boycotted companies.
13
Every employer now has a right to know every job applicant's political views so that they can exercise their own political preference by either hiring them or rejecting them. Their decision to reject any qualified applicant is now protected as a form of speech.
4
@Toni
We now refuse to let you Republicans into our Silicon Valley money parties..
True story..
3
@Toni, I hope you’re being sarcastic, but based on the views expressed by 1800+ people here, I can’t be sure.
What goes around comes around.
10
It's not harassment. Voters deserve to know who is funding all candidates. that should be an absolute right in this country. They are hiding for a reason - that being that they know full well that Trump is a despicable person and supporting him in any way is also despicable and they don't really want it known they gave him money. But, of course, the are happy to have a useful idiot doing their bidding. And in the end, greed always wins.
11
I don't belong to Equinox or SoulCycle, thankfully, but I can express my disgust of this super rich creep by never stepping within spitting distance of Hudson River Yards or one of his watering holes which are now polluted, in my mind.
12
Are the ones complaining now the same people who publicly shared video of themselves burning their Nikes and destroying their Keurigs?
14
@raph101
Or boycotting the NFL.
I would not call up Trump supporters and tell them that they are going to hell (though I'd love to). And I would not advocate that others do so (again, though I'd love to).
But don't I have a right to know if Bob's Law Firm makes a contribution to Trump and his ilk, before I hire Bob's Law Firm? It seems logical that I'd take my business elsewhere.
I mean, I have already sworn off visits to FL, NC, and other places, where I'd rather not have my money support states that enact horrible laws, suppress their citizens' rights, and elect lunatic representatives to send to Washington.
16
Hehe! I so agree with you . I try to spend as little as possible and get my message out.
Expose them until they cry uncle.
9
3 MILLION more people did not vote for this imbecile President. Let's see how suppression of those votes translate to the purse. Boycotts work.
11
Harassment? Hey Trump, you and your cronies have no room to talk! If you can't take it then don't dish it out!
12
Seriously, NYT?
After this "paper of record" published the names of every one of 4,870 donors to the Clinton Foundation, right down to those who contributed One Dollar?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors
I've been a subscriber for a long time. When I see something like this, and I often do, I really don't know how long I can continue to support sedition disguised as "both sidesism."
15
@Another Joe
CORRECTION: The number "4,870" referred to the number of pages naming Clinton Foundation donors, not the number of donors.
The actual number of people named was over 146,000.
The disturbing thing is that by failing to mention the Clinton Foundation donor list, this piece isn't even "both sides." It's pure GOP "victimization" propaganda.
IMHO: Every donation should be public. Actually, no donations should be even allowed, but that's another question (only public funds, and I'd actually ban all political advertising... but that won't happen here).
By the way, I'd also make every single person's salary/income public information. People should know what their boss is paid.
Just sayin'.
6
Colloaboraters, enablers, they are the Don’s Base. They boycott so many firms most supportors don’t know which ones to boycott. They dish out racism, zenophobia and misogyny on a daily basis. McConnell and rest of the GOP need to get familiar with organized opposition. Trump incits so much hatred it boils over into mass murder, while he laughs and gives a thumbs up at staged hospital events in El Paso. Register to vote. Vote.
12
its the freaking law.
notice that all those folks that live in multiple houses are sooooo upset that they day is spoiled.....
rich people need to be taken down to size.
15
Be still my beating heart! Public information was placed in a public forum.
If you don't want to be called a stinker, don't go dancing in a field of manure.
25
If you don’t know who has been turning your paradise into hell....here’s a little hint. Republicans.
Since Reagan the right has had cart Blanche to destroy.
Unions, pensions, markets twisted for monopolies, financial manipulation and malfeasance, ‘think Tanks’ to distort reality and suck up any excess that could be used fo the further end of the populous, non education or inculcation to one point of view, water systems full of lead, guns, 60% of discretionary funds go to the military or security, and on and on. This all brought to you by Cheney, Bush and his Shub ( were did he go?), Gingrich, Dick Army, religious nuts everywhere justifying lynching. Where does it stop? Get rid of the south. They will never change, women are secondary, business is God, and God tells me what to do!
Bad news kids. The world of conservatism is an oxymoron. Conservatives/Republicans do not care about the survival of humanity only where the next million can be pilfered.
13
I think there ought to be public disclosure. I want our political system to be transparent. I want to know when people are throwing huge sums of money at campaigns, and I want to know what they’re getting in return. I don’t see how democracy can work without that transparency.
But the “I hope you rot in Hell” rhetoric is just plain stupid. It certainly isn’t persuasive. I don’t like Trump or his policies either. And I’ll happily boycott things as a way to influence change. However, we’d have a better public discourse without the hateful rhetoric coming from both Left and Right. It is counterproductive to any sort of goal to make things better.
11
Until we undo the holding in Citizens United v. FEC, I am quite comfortable with the publication of political donors' names. If people choose to boycott businesses based on the political fundraising of a business, its owner or major shareholders, I'd say that it falls under the same First Amendment principle that the Supreme Court found in deciding that money = speech in Citizens United. More importantly, I'd like to see dark money brought into the light. That goes for both political campaigns and lobbying. Who donates to whom and to what should always be a matter of public record.
12
I agree. Why don’t we all take turns posting lists of donors on social media? As a physician, I had a patient go to someone else because she looked up my donation online. Turnabout is fair play.
1
@susan B. Oh, Nashville, sorry, my bad. Same thing though.
Trump and his followers have used wealth as a weapon and often the only criteria by which one's success need be measured.
The rest of us cannot/will not do that, but we do, especially collectively, have powers of our own: the vote, and until 2020 comes around, the choice to boycott any and all establishments we choose. The Billionaire Class is so used to being sucked up to, it cannot identify or respect others who have minds of their own.
We don't have to defend or justify our positions, certainly not to business owners who, let's face it, would stay under the hypocritical radar, if they could, forever.
13
If you're going to support a guy pushing a white nationalist racist agenda that's gotten to the point that people are out there shooting the very people our president is singling out then YOU ARE a white nationalist racist.
26
It’s fun to post online, and financial backers are a big deal, but better by far than posting your opinion is calling or emailing your elected officials – say, every damn day.
Your federal, state and county legislators may not take your call or read your email, but their staffers will count it.
If the count gets high enough, they might do something. The same cannot be said of an online post, no matter how many like or recommend it.
Even better: Call your local Democratic headquarters and volunteer. Most county-level groups need help with door-to-door canvassing, phone banks and handing out fliers.
This kind of effort really matters. Maybe only a little, but can I say even that about my latest online diatribe?
Er..., the one before this one, that is.
9
And most importantly, VOTE ON ELECTION DAY. Ensure you're registered correctly. Cast your vote thoughtfully. Make yourself heard.
It's money transparency in politics. We sure as hell need more of it, starting with some long coveted and relentlessly concealed tax returns.
23
It’s called draining the swamp. If we aren’t all in, the swamp will continue to spread and thrive. All money must be followable.
I do mean all money—every damn penny.
23
Outlaw financial and in-kind contributions by people and organizations to anyone running for public office, along with a legally-mandated cap on all candidates' total election spending and the problem disappears -- along with a whole bunch of others.
6
When voters lose influence because money controls politics, boycotts are a way of participating.
29
If the limit on the size of donations was small, and the requirements for PACs demanded full transparency on donors, then the “embarrassment” of being revealed would be tiny.
It is when the significance of these huge donations become apparent, that the outrage ensues.
Free speech has consequences. Such free speech in secret is not democratic.
12
As usual, the left likes whatever hurts Trump and other Republicans and their supporters. But remember you are setting a precedent by supporting these people harrassing those making contributions. How will you like it if in the future Republicans give out the names of those who donate to various dem candidates and who they work for and encourage boycotts. Is that what you really want? Sure, it works great now if you hate Trump but do you really want this to become the way we conduct politics. Essentially what this is doing is saying -- if you support someone we don't like and if your politics aren't like mine, then I'm going to attempt to destroy you.
That's not honest debate. And it becomes the way of the future our divisiveness will simply increase.
5
@ralphie. I agree. Post the names of every democratic supporter. I’d know where to spend my money.
8
@Ralphie, To quote another commenter on this article, "This is public information and needs to remain public information, period."
3
“Our nation’s longstanding traditions of legislating and voting in public refute the claim that the 1st Amendment accords a right to anonymity in the performance of an act with governmental effect.”
--Justice Antonin Scalia, 2010
Ouch.
3
It will be interesting to see the reaction(s) when the Democratic nominee is decided and "right wing" folks adopt the same tactic of public sharing of donors and boycotting donors' business. Turn-about is fair play?
3
As if they haven’t boycotted liberal businesses before. Were you not paying attention during the Obama years? Or freedom fries? Death threats against the Dixie Chicks?
10
Already happened. Remember how Obama and his supporters were treated? Abortion providers? Disney movies?
7
@NR
Take a look at any Trump rally. No business is going to go under if they don't get what negligible discretionary income these people have.
1
All the more reason to overturn "Citizens United". The citizens working for large corporations do not all have the same political beliefs and it is wrong for any corporation to be allowed to donate in excess of any individual.
15
I would like to see an article in the New York timeswith a the list of big money donors and corporate donors. If a corporation has citizen individual rights they should have a cap on their donations. People who are not from the wealthy class should have a better opportunity to run for these positions in politics without having big money backers. on that note I believe all lobbyists meetings with our elected politicians should have a public witness in writing with what was happening in those meetings full disclosure in government so we know where the power lies.
5
I remember growing up never having Welch's grape juice or products in the house because John Welch was the founder.
The JBS is believed to be the founder of modern conservatism that has given us Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. I always bothered me as a child that we couldn't have what all my friends had in their fridges. Today I fully understand where my parents were coming from. They had their firm beliefs and stuck to them. They know that money that went to purchase a Welch product also went to support the JBS.
It was my parent's right then, to vote with their checkbooks just as it is the donors right today to give to whoever they believe on.
9
@Larry
I seem to have omitted a sentence a two in my posting.
Let me clarify. John Welch was the founder of the John Birch Society (JBS), a extreme right wing conservative organization that fostered among other things, Jewish conspiracy theories and was against the civil rights movement of the 1960s. John Welch's views were so far to the right that even Barry Goldwater distanced himself from him.
Enough said.
@Larry You suffered all these years for nothing. Robert Welch founded the JBS and his money came from manufacturing candy not grape juice. Go research him. Then go and buy some grape juice.
They want everything. They want money, tax breaks, power and influence over our government wielded behind the scenes, and they want it all in secrecy. Seems to me that's the opposite of Democracy.
24
“Harassment?” Welcome to the real world. There’s consequences just like in your free market. Actually, aren’t the majority of conglomerates, corporations & developers ultra conservative?
12
This is public information and needs to remain public information, period.
16
These pocketbook statements are small potatoes compared to the way he threatens and browbeats people and organizations that oppose or even just question him.
14
All they would have to do is let us know and we’ll buy there widgets. With pride.
Is it really so hard for people to understand that when you wear a maga hat and/or donate to this candidate, you are expressing support for his policies? It has nothing to do with hate or love. If you are against arresting parents for putting in a hard day's work on the first day of school, purposefully not letting the school system know what's happening so kids come home to find their houses locked and parents gone, holding people in horrendous conditions for months at a time, separating kids from their parents and letting them die under your watch, fomenting rage and hate toward "others," and so much more, then don't wear a maga hat and don't donate money to Trump.
15
@alcatraz
Anybody who wants America to be great again should be able to wear a hat that says so without fear of harassment. It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just a hat with a positive slogan. You can't just project all of your opinions onto people's fashion choices. And you don't get to decide what other people think or assume you know better than them what's in their own minds!
These are self-important, grand-standing moralists. The only people they are hurting are the employees at these establishments. Make your voice heard at the ballot box.
5
Absolutely. And arrest those that hire them, especially on a large scale.
Here's what's so interesting: apparently political donations are free speech (cf. Citizens United) that couldn't be infringed upon, right? That made Republicans happy.
Republicans are constantly proclaiming the value and virtue of "individual responsibility" and "personal responsibility", right?
So let's put these things together: yes, you have a right to free speech, but part of that right is that you have to accept the consequences. Spewing racist speech is your protected right. But so is your bosses right to fire you for it.
This is no different. You want to tell the world you support a racist president by donating to his campaign? That is absolutely you're right. But it's equally my right to choose to never do business with you as a result. And it's also my right to share what I've learned from fec.gov/data where I (or anyone) can look up donors to trump by zip code and amount. That's free speech too.
11
If you are proud of donating to this guy you should not be annoyed when the act is broadcast to others.
12
While I have not yet figured out how corporations making political donations is the same as protected free speech for the people according to the 1st amendment, I also haven't found anything that says either:
1) I must continue to patronize a business the supports policies I abhor, or,
2) I may not implore others not to patronize that business either.
Republicans are only mad because this time it's THEIR ox that's being gored. When it was The Dixie Chicks criticizing President Bush, they organized boycotts, burning parties of the Chicks' CDs, all rather gleefully.
The Kochs are upset because the more is known about what they fund, the more people will want to abstain from giving them money.
The Fox Noise gang may well attack boycotts against THEIR folks as "un-patriotic" but they sure are gung-ho about boycotts against "lib'rul" companies!
15
Of course it is not harassment, as long the target of it is Trump and his supporters !
It is the same as usual for linerals: democracy is in danger every time they don't win ...
3
See the comment above about the Clinton Foundation and the Times. Are you QUITE sure this is only a liberal position?
4
@Mary
When Trump loses the popular vote by a yuuuge 3 million and takes office anyway - you know for sure our democracy is in great danger!!
5
Funny how Republicans are soo horrified that their poor suffering billionaires are losing some money.
Any democrat, every race, and financial support of them till it hurts is the prescription for a better America.
6
I'm curious to know how many of these donors complained when the New York Times published the names of Clinton Foundation donors. Just asking.
11
How many Californian's were fired after they appeared on the donor list to the Gay Marriage Proposition?
4
Let's not confuse two different things: No one should have to deal with strangers calling and saying "you're burning in hell." That is harassment. Don't do that.
But boycotts? Absolutely. You have every right in the world not to give your money to Donald Trump, directly or indirectly. These people are financing Trump? Well, I won't finance their business.
687
@Ann If a boycott of a business is an acceptable form of speech based on political preference then everyone should know everyone else's political views so that they can decide whether to purchase goods or services from them and even hire them. This form of political expression, the boycott, should be available to all citizens.
7
@Toni. Freedom of Speech is a right, not an obligation; it also includes the right to not speak. However, by exercising that Freedom, we always risk that others will listen to us, hear what we have to say, and then react to it. Like most other freedoms, freedom of speech also means living with the consequences.
41
@Toni the boycott IS available to all citizens. Do you spend your money at establishments that you don't like, or don't like the owners? Everyone has the right to spend their money as they see fit. When a business owner donates lots of money to a candidate, it most certainly is everyone's business because that person is buying influence. So the voters should know this and be able to decide if they want to keep suppling that business owner with more cash flow.
26
Weird how the same people who have been telling us to trust the glorious, infallible free hand of the market start calling it "harassment" when the free hand gives them the middle finger.
20
When corporations give big donations to campaigns, the exercise their "freedom of speech."
When people stop supporting those corporations, they call it "harassment."
12
Excellent point!
1
This seems straightforward. the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...". None of the political donors are being thrown in prison for donating to a particular candidate. If donations are political speech, so is a response to those donations, such as calling for a boycott of the company of someone whose speech you find disagreeable. The law does not state that you can say anything you want without repercussions, it just says the government cannot pass a law to punnish you for your free speech. Calling for boycotts is not harassment, and does not stifle anyone's free speech rights. Actions and words can have consequences, including free speech.
7
Hey, if you don't want the publicity which comes with making campaign donations which are a matter of public record, keep your money in your pockets. If you donate, you are on notice that people will respond - some will flock to your business in approval, some will boycott you. That's life in the big city. Freedom of speech and action doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
6
If you choose to give your money to a public figure, then you can't expect the public not to have the right to know. It's also the publics right to boycott or call out your business based on your political choices.
The real deep state is in political contributions. All the alt right rhetoric is just a red herring to try to get their agenda in place.
3
Doing business with anyone involves utilizing the service and paying for that. Simple. But, these days it has become utmost important to check whether you are paying for a business which ultimately use that money to doom you and/or your values.
It is purely consumer choice. There is no harassment involved. It is just the business owner decision on which side he wants to be in.
4
Let's just make the whole system more like France's but go further.
There, a candidate gathers petition signatures to run within a registered party. Open primaries are held for members and non-members of a party. Individuals can only donate less than 10k Euros, and corporations are prohibited. Donations to an individual candidate can't exceed a pre-set amount. Candidates can borrow from banks and other individuals, but must pay it back. The State reimburses winning candidates half of their contributions in order to avoid them being distracted by indebtedness during their term. Debates are run by the government through the national TV station. Then, there's a national holiday where ALL citizens are allowed to vote. The system isn't perfect, and politicians still find ways to cheat, but there are at least controls in place to prevent total open corruption like we have here in the US.
Get rid of individual donations altogether and make a taxpayer-funded election system. Level the playing field, get the money out of politics, and take control over voters away from parties, think tanks, and corporations.
2
John Roberts will go down in history as the Chief Justice that backed Karl Rove's Citizen's United suit that says corporations are people (Absurdity personified!). That is the decision that more than any decision in modern history has altered the political landscape by permitting dark corporate money to flow into politics at every level without control. Roberts paved the way for massive gerrymandering via statehouses that were bought and paid for by Koch brother funding. Mr. Roberts has done more to destroy democracy than any one could have ever imagined. Our democracy is at great as long as Citizen United remains the law. We continue to pay the price for his rejection of the fundamentals of government by the people for the people.
Money buys power. Publicize the super-rich abusers of our political system. We have a right to know who they are.
5
If you are only willing to support a candidate with anonymous campaign contributions, maybe campaign finance laws aren't the problem.
If your support for that man is going to hurt your business because he is so reviled, then you have to choose between supporting him and losing business, or maintaining your business and not supporting him.
It's flat out cowardly to expect to give money to a political campaign and keep it quiet because you're afraid it might negatively impact your business. Have the courage of your convictions.
7
How can this possibly be 'harassment'?
We voters are being 'harassed' (and much more) if we do not know who is funding our politicians and their propaganda.
Concealed money in politics was once called CORRUPTION.
Have we forgotten that?
If we don't like what the billionaires are buying, we not only have the right, but we actually have the obligation to boycott.
It is, really, our only defense against this rampant corruption.
So, bring it on and reveal all. Tell us who are funding all the campaigns in 2020 and let us voters decide!
Oh, I forgot.
Citizens United made that impossible.
Citizens United legalized rampant corruption and shafted the decisions and choices of the voters.
Thanks Mr. McConnell.
4
Compiling and disseminating a list of your own constituents who donated to the other side of the aisle in the wake of the politically fueled mass shooting is despicable behavior from a congressman. It may be legal but nothing positive comes from this. Nothing whatsoever.
I'll be donating to the Trump campaign in light of this.
1
@mm. And your support of trump will only result in more mass shootings. That’ll show um! Makes perfect sense.
Why worry about fairness. Do whatever is legal and helps Dems win. Do you think Republicans who suppress the vote care about fairness?
2
Let me get this right:
1. Money is speech. (Citizens United)
2. Donors gave money to a political campaign.
3. Others are publicizing their donation of money (speech).
So if other people hear your “speech”, that’s NOT free speech?
As my mother told me: free speech means you get to say what you want. It does not mean you escape all consequences for the content.
5
Like most readers, I wonder how is this even controversial.
On the other hand, from start to finish, the way the Times has written this up certainly is.
3
The question is wrong. Not buying a service or goods cannot be harrasment. In hindsight I regrett having written two comments. It’s just a ploy to get people to comment.
Maybe those attending should put paper bags or raincoats over their lovely faces. Seems none of them are bragging much about donating to the sociopath. We are so blessed!
4
This article misses the point entirely. This is not just a difference in political opinions. This is a moral and ethical issue. Trump has shown himself to be neither moral or ethical. He is a racist by his actions and comments. He is a white supremacist by his actions and comments. People who support him are either racists or white supremacists or turn a blind eye for perceived economic gain. If you support him people have a right to boycott your business.
2
Mingling with monied Trumpers on a Friday night in the Hamptons. Solving Baltimore's problems with the president’s son's girlfriend / campaign adviser. Raising my stature to V.I.P. reception by the virtue of $35,000. Commemorating my ordainment with a Me-and-45 Photo -- which will join the others on MY I'm-an-important-Republican WALL in my home.
Or how about staging a coup to demand a primary challenger? Invitation reads "Meet at cash bar closest to swimming pool. Bring a name, any name."
1
This is beyond ridiculous. It is PUBLIC INFORMATION. By law.
How interesting that when the free market economy comes back to hurt Republicans, then and only then it is a problem. Last time I checked, what I choose to do with my money is my business. Good for those boycotting....they should. Hit them where it hurts: their wallets. It's the only thing they care about anyway.
6
Conservatives like to talk about the wonders of democracy while trampling all over it. They want us to believe they are somehow the victims here when in fact this is about them NOT having the courage to actually stand up for their own pathetic convictions. Castro did nothing wrong. He just called them out. Donate to your favorite candidate or political cause and own that. Conservatives are crying foul. They want to share their hate money anonymously. Cowards. If your politics swim against the stream, own that!
4
Per the article, here's what RNC Chair Ronna Romney (McDaniel) had to say: "[T]he left has become obsessed with demonizing and boycotting anyone who disagrees with them . . . For people who claim to be tolerant, they sure spend a lot of time calling half the country ‘racists.’” So, tolerant people shouldn't call out racists. Why didn't i think of that? She's a genius!
5
@Atheologian
Ronna is the niece of Mitt Romney... and we all know Mitt's percentage's: Nonna says "half" but Mitt only despised "the 47%".
1
Politicians should be required to wear their contributors on their coats just like professional golfers wear their sponsors logos. Instead of looking like mafia figures, we would see who actually owns them and who they really support.
3
After all the criminality and shredding of the Constitution I am suppose to feel bad for billionaires who buy and sell our country. Not me, boycott them back to the stone age where they belong.
4
The Times never makes it clear what "doxxing" is. It involves the publication of donors' home addresses. Castro did not do that. He simply published the names of donors, which is public record, and stated his "lament" that these donors are contributing to be very real plight of latinos targeted by the President's rhetoric and policies.
5
Why is this being presented as a question? The NYT validates this false argument by giving credence to the claim that it's "harassment" to boycott businesses whose owner's values you wish not to support. Campaign donations are "free speech," free speech is public, and so is the free market. Claims of "harassment" is just another creature in the fathomless swamp of right-wing entitlement and fabricated victimhood.
8
Oh! Sure go to the Hamptons
Mr. Stephen Ross, you will find a very fertile ground there among your entourage of billionaire friends.
It's just shameless, just absolutely unbearable & shameless... tells you everything you need to know about these particular kind of supporters...
If you have all this money why not contribute to much better causes.
But no, precious tax cuts takes a precedence over the country...
Really "patriotic" to say the least... oh yes, shower your millions to get more of what you already had enough to cover at least several generations of your offsprings.
You must be blind and deaf if you don't see what he is doing to the country
Are you sure the younger brood will be grateful to live in the country of your undeveloped one-dimensional warp vision.
It's fascinating to observe, how old age doesn't bring any foresight & wisdom, isn't about time to evolve to a higher ground at 79 sir, it could be your last possible chance, it's not too late...
Oops... sorry the date is set!
Your people are there, the billionaires charity is at full speed ahead.
With friends like these America is definitely First!
3
Well, if half the country doesn't want to be called racist, maybe they shouldn't be racist.
However, that comment misstates that the country is 50% white.
The most egregious of the Trumpites is the slumlord masquerading as luxury purveyor, Richard Lefrak. Will those invited to “live better” alongside the Long Island Expressway still desire to occupy those hideous towers knowing the developers have been in cahoots with a racist demagogue?
1
People who support a bigoted fascist for financial gain are even worse than people who support them because they think like him. Maybe their tax cuts won't help them so much now and they will think again.
3
So, the hypocrites and toadies who continue to fill the swamp with garbage, are actually ashamed of the support given to corrupt officials?
That's why the need for secrecy?
I see.
6
The conservatives aren’t as stupid as the left to hurt businesses that support employees and communities just to make a lame political statement. But it could start.
1
‘Hey, we were going to use you for business, but we found out you’re a racist,’
Pretty clear statement that DNC has succeeded in poisoning the atmosphere so badly that even normal activities are fodder for the flames of public humiliation.
Of course President Trump contributes mightily to that as well with his often stupid tweets. Which makes it that much harder to combat such oppression.
1
“It’s not harassment because the information was public already.”
Okay, then riddle me this: if the info is public already, why did Castro feel the need to make it even more public? What was his intent?
Any honest human being would acknowledge that Castro very clearly meant to harass these 44 individuals, directly or indirectly. The only other plausible explanation is that Castro is an idiot. Not mutually exclusive, I know, but my money’s (no pun intended) on the former.
1
Good. Call them out. I want to know who the neofascists are.
6
Large donations = Bribes!
4
trump supporters don't like being demonized by the left? People of color, Mexicans, Muslims, GLBTQ's,Jews,Canadians etc, don't like being demonized by trump and his supporters.
8
I will not support those who seek to deny others their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Those people are fascists Republicans and the people who voted for their Dear Leader.
2
With Citizens United and the power of special interests all has become fair game. When corporations and lobbyists have the direct phone numbers to THEIR representatives in congress and a disproportionate amount of control over what legislation is passed and how it is written, then every effort made by citizens to eat away at that control is necessary.
9
Of course, you get to shop wherever you want to and for whatever reason, but to phone the business and tell the owner' ‘Hey, we were going to use you for business, but we found out you’re a racist. We hope you burn in hell and your business go with you," is not helping your cause.
Is this kind of inflammatory language necessary? Why add fuel to the fire? This is not a credible way to make your case against Trump. This is playing directly into his hands and is a fight you will lose.
4
If it’s public information, it’s fair game and that applies to the entire political spectrum. Private information is, of course, different.
6
So, if someone spends their money in a way that goes against my interests, how is there a difference in me withholding my money in a way that goes against their interests?
Am I obliged to support these well heeled donors? When did that happen?
6
Justice Antonin Scalia: "There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."
3
A boycott is not "harassment." We have a right to know, both as consumers and as citizens, what candidates the rich are supporting. We have a right to choose not to patronize businesses whose owners support racists. Because, sadly, this isn't an old-fashioned disagreement over high taxes or regulations or any of that. This is about a president* providing wink-wink cover and succor to domestic terrorists (not just El Paso, don't forget Charlotte), inflaming mobs with race hatred, caging brown children, trying to ban travelers of a certain religion, debasing the office and embarrassing our nation every time he opens his mouth -- the list goes on. We need to know who's on board with all that, so that we can decide whether to subsidize those people with our dollars, or not, accordingly. There's no true "chilling" effect -- they can continue to support him all they want, but we don't have to support them. They're not entitled to our business. They also chose to become public figures both by starting businesses that exist in society, and by making large donations to national politicians. They deserve to face the financial consequences of their decisions.
458
@PK The amount of money donated, or if any money is donated, should not make a difference. We need to know how everyone else is likely to vote.
@PK "A boycott is not "harassment.""
I couldn't agree with you more, but recently, a bipartisan bill to protect Israel from a boycott declared that a boycott IS harassment.
1
@PK Your reaction is a good reason why the left will never gain any traction in this country. Anybody contemplating a boycott of any business for the sake of bringing political pressure should think it through first. Once you've declared a boycott, then, if there's no demonstrable effect from it, you've just announced the weakness of your cause (or, to put it more kindly, you've just advertised a lack of support for your cause). I'm reminded of back when in 2012 Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy came out against gay marriage. Progressive zealots shrieked that they would boycott the chain & force it into bankruptcy. Result? Multiple Chick-fil-A outlets in Chicago, that are thriving. The 1st NYC Chick-fil-A opened in 2015. The chain opened “the world’s largest Chick-fil-A” in downtown Manhattan a few years later. It's now planning outlets in Boston and Brooklyn. Record profits. Cathay died in his sleep a billionaire. Even liberals have slunk back in. They serve a pretty tasty bird...yes? A boycott only makes tactical sense if it doesn't hurt working-class people who are aligned with your values. Boycotting Soul Cycle & Equinox injures the people working there not Ross. Ross will barely feel a sting as he cruises down the Atlantic in his 50-foot yacht. But it will be harder for recently laid off Equinox workers to make ends meet. Brilliant. The Resistance strikes again! So woke! Real change will happen much faster through the power of the ballot as opposed to the power of the purse.
2
If you don't want people to know you are supporting a candidate, why not give through a dark money organization? I wish that wasn't an option, but it is, and that seems to take the wind out of these complaints.
1
This is a preview of things to come at much larger scale. But the good thing about it is that the backlash, when it comes, and it will come since every action generates a reaction, will be brutal.
De-mocrats as in de-fund, de-platform, de-employ, and destroy the opposition. Worked in academia, mainstream media and entertainment business but at hidden costs..
it will be interesting to see what the polls night before the election and final election results differential will be.
1
If you have been fortunate enough to be blessed by wealth using it responsibly and wisely should be seen as a civic responsibility. Now I realize that each person has the right to make their own determination about what constitutes the wise and responsible use of their wealth. We have a set of campaign finance laws and regulations that require disclosure of the source of political contributions. There are many very good reasons for those disclosures to be required. If you are ashamed in any way about your contributions to any cause or candidate then it seems inappropriate to have made that contribution. What did you hope to gain from it, a favor or a promoting a better world? Use your resources and time wisely while you are here.
As to the decisions about who to buy from or patronize, those are individual decisions as well and we are all free to make our own. Perhaps it is appropriate to think of them as analogous to political contributions by donors. It is a form of speech and as such then protected by the First Amendment and yes, even by the Supreme Court Citizens United decision. Those of us who choose to use our patronage to express our views on social issues should have the right for those decisions to be informed and free to express.
3
Didn't Justice Kennedy argue in the Citizens United opinion that more and freer speech is preferable to less and more restricted speech? Well, revealing donors is more and freer speech.
Sauce for the goose...
4
Harassment? Hardly. We are supposed to be living in a Democracy, where individuals are free to decide whom they wish to support. Since corporations have "personhood" in the election process, and have many times the voting power of the average citizen, it is even more important that we know where they stand. Transparency is critical to the functioning of a free and open democratic society.
4
How about a list of Trump's top donors, with specific products they represent? I will not spend a penny on anybody endorsing this man's re-election.
4
Mr. Castro's posting is fair. Political donations and fund raising for public office are not private. Thousands of dollars to take a picture with the President; yes, the public should know who you are and what you support.
Boycotts, protests, backlash are all part of the discourse - the First Amendment. If support of a business is supporting detention centers and child separation from families, I would like to know this so, I can use my first amendment rights and remove my dollars from that business.
There are groups, institutions and individual that do not buy Quilted Northern tissue, Brawny paper towels, and Dixie cups because these business are Koch brother's.
Economic boycotting is not new.
3
The Supreme Court decided for better or worse that money equals free speech. People who boycott Trump's corporate supporters are merely complying with the will of the court.
4
There is only one reason why a Representative would bring attention to a specific public record and that is political gain. Why would anyone at this point every vote for Joaquin Castro again?
1
The whole idea behind free speech is that you have a right to express your opinions, but your fellow citizens will then weigh both the words and the credibility of the speaker. When money is speech, I want to know who is doing the talking.
Ross insisting he has a right to my patronage is, in essence, saying he can force me to contribute to the Trump campaign. He can say, and donate, as he chooses. I’ll take my ears and my business elsewhere.
4
Perhaps the consequent publication of the source of donations is one of the best tools to preserve this democracy. This administration is only about making money for the “owner’s class” and their donations can not be matched by ordinary citizens. They can simply buy elections through targeted advertising, opinion “making” trough trolls and the spreading of lies. The only “weapon” for ordinary citizens to counter the questionable influence of “big money” is to make sure that they stop funding those donations themselves by avoiding products and services offered by the big donors. I consider that regaining some power for average voters after the “citizens united” decision allowed big money into politics. Money talks in politics - so get it out or let it be used by everyone.
1
I would actually like to see a whole lot MORE publicizing of the names of big Trump donors -- both for nationwide businesses and local ones. Perhaps PR campaigns by a coalition of progressive groups like Indivisible, Color of Change, Swing Left, etc? This President supports white supremacy, separation of children from parents and climate change denial. You don't get off the hook by saying "I only support his tax cuts for the wealthy -- I'm not a racist or a climate change denier." If you support him, you ARE these things. We deserve to know exactly who you are and to exercise our consumer rights accordingly. That's what the public record is all about.
2
I belong to Equinox. It is filled with LGBTQ+, women, people of color, and sounds like a mini-UN of languages.
Doesn't Ross get that he is raising money to hurt his own customers and staff?
And he wouldn't have so much income or wealth on which to cut taxes in the first place if it wasn't for all his customers and staff.
3
If a boycott cuts into his revenue he will back down. The thing about rich white people is you have to hit their pocketbooks in order to get their attention.
Any American has a right to give to Trump's campaign and any American has the right not to buy products from, or use the services offered by, that person. Trump is forever using economic pressure to get what he wants. He has no right to deny it to the rest of us.
4
Conservatives never tire of telling the rest of us we must take personal responsibility for our actions and be willing to face the consequences. Except when it's conservatives who must face such responsibilities and consequences.
6
At this point I don't think it is harassment.
We have a president who is authoritarian and I think we need to start calling out his chief supporters.
3
trump went after Hillary Clinton's donors and was naming them in his 2016 campaign trying to show she was doing something criminal. Well the wheel has turned & it is trump's donors time to be exposed. NRA had Russian donors they didn't have to name because of the republicans winning that case to keep donors hidden. Can't get tax returns to see if foreign governments are donating, this is one way to get names.
5
any time I can boycott a Trump supporter, I do so. It is the decent thing to do.
7
Why try to destroy people who disagree with you? Nice positioning.
How about we unpack that and "reposition" the question:
Why try to stop the Administration from putting children in cages?
Why try to stop the Administration from leading chants of "send them back"?
Why try to stop the Administration (and Congress) from protecting manufacturers of automatic weapons?
Why try to stop the Administration from encouraging people to believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution allows them to form "local militias"?
Why try to stop the Administration from turning our criminal justice system over to mass incarceration profiteers?
Why try to stop the Administration (and Congress) from suppressing voting rights?
Why try to stop the Administration (and Congress) from helping the 1% avoid taxes?
Why try to stop the Administration from destroying national parks and wilderness?
Why try to stop the Administration from dismantling policies to slow global heating?
Why try to stop the Administration from facilitating foreign interference in our elections?
Why try to stop the Administration from demanding that foreign governments stay at the President's hotels and private clubs in order to "do business" with the Administration?
And finally (and perhaps most relevant here), why try to stop people who ignore all of the above because the President's policies are making them richer?
4
There is something wrong with a political party that wants to operate in the dark.
3
For me this is pretty simple. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem and people who use their money to support the problem are part of the problem. It doesn't matter if they also throw some crumbs to other causes because the problem, the big problem is Trump and what he has done and is doing to democracy. Its just a tad hypocritial for people claim money is speech to complain when people use their speech by not spending their money to fund the complainers.
3
As has been said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
3
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 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.
5
No company should bribe politicians. Period. Political contributions are bribes.
2
I used to love Dilbert. Always had the day-to-day calendar on my desk at work, until I found out that the author is an avid Trumpster. I now have Garfield on my desk--just as amusing, but doesn't leave such an unpleasant taste behind.
It's my right as a consumer to make that choice and it is not harrassment.
5
Boycotting is not harassment.
3
Is it harassment? Perhaps. But remember that donor money is used to harass opponents. So, you pay your money, you take your chances.
1
If I don't want to contribute to an odious politician, I do not want to add my dollars to those companies or individuals who do.
It's pretty simple. And knowing who contributes to the likes of trump or the current disheveled republican party exposes those people so that those who wish can avoid supporting them. Besides exposing them to the ridicule and shunning they so richly deserve.
2
Political donations are like the vote. They should be private. But even if they are of public record, that's different from putting them in a text and telling people to harass Trump donors is beyond the pale.
Castro should be ashamed of himself. The dems would be howling if Repubs published lists of people who donate to whoever the Dem nominee is and tells them to go harass these people.
2
The fact that the NYT is even suggesting that boycotting a business because of its owner's political beliefs is absurd. Are any of these business owners being stalked or assaulted because they support Trump? Of course not. The idea that the NYT would equate perfectly legal and peaceful boycotts with harassment is indicative of the pandering journalistic style the NYT has decided to settle for so they can have more meaningless sitdowns with Trump. Campaign contributions are public record. Anyone has the right to avoid businesses that offend their values. If you're ashamed that you political donations are being made public, don't make those donations. I make donations to candidates, and if you want to put me on a list, fine. I'm perfectly secure with who I support with my contributions.
1
It is quite rich to hear these right-wing donors cry about being targeted when they been more than happy to torment Soros for years, including encouraging threats on his life. Talk about dishing it out, but not being able to take it. And least not even start on their treatment of female Democrats.
3
We have the elite/wealthy paying off our Republicans (and democrats) with bribes called campaign financing. A horrid and vulgar type of corruption and we do nothing about it. It is time we did something about it because no politician will correct that problem! Will they?
So if we have to wipe a few businesses off the face of the earth until they stop the legal bribery of our government, I say go for it. The corruption must stop. We have an oligarchy plain and simple. Start destroying some businesses and their workers will learn a l lot and be careful of the next place they get hired. Something must happen! DEMOCRACY IS NOT WORKING!
1
We all know that money buys elections. Unless and until money (especially Maxxed out $$) is replaced with a more equitable system (purely public funding like France) to elect candidates based on ideas, values, and temperament, we should know who is contributing to support things we do not want.
Furthermore, when the average family has less than $500 in the bank and billionaires are giving $$$$$ to support Donald Trump like a cup of coffee, this is Not Cool. How else can regular Americans like us fight back if not to choose how/where we spend our money?
1
Wasn't it the Republicans that were going after Murphy Brown? Amazing how perspectives change.
1
Either Americans are free or we’re not free. It is certainly not harrassment to spend our money with folks who share our values. It’s apparently ok for a baker not to bake a cake for a gay wedding—so I am free to keep my money away from those who support a bigoted and racist president. Harassment is not acceptable. There are laws against it. If a person is a victim of harrassment (as defined by statute) there are legal remedies. But exercising Freedom of Speech may not be harrassment.
2
Mr. Ross says that he has known Mr. Trump for 40 years, back when the President was repeatedly charged with violating the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Ross says he supports diversity, equality and the environment. And then he hosts a fund raiser with the 0.01% to dump $millions into the campaign of a man who spews racist hateful vitriol at everyone and has done so since he descended the escalator in front of a paid audience.
My Lord tells me that, "Words without deeds have no meaning." Your words and your deeds are diametrically opposed. Mr. Ross has the right under the First Amendment to put his money into the building of a white nationalist state, and everyone else has the right to sign up with a different exercise program. Don't wring your hands and go boo hoo.
I recommend www.opensecrets.com for everyone if you wish to know who is bribing your Congressional representative. Campaign contributions are public and you can exercise your voice by reading who is getting what money from where and then acting.
2
"Whether it's on liberal college campuses or in their Upper East Side gyms, the left has become obsessed with demonizing and boycotting anyone who disagrees with them."
--Ronna Mc Daniel, RNC
Gee, Ms. Mc Daniel, perhaps the left must resort to economic leverage because the Republican party has become obsessed with stealing political representation and power from anyone who disagrees with its donor class by gerrymandering and voter suppression.
4
Why is everyone here mentioning embarassment? It has to do with the divisive political nature of today. People are often discriminating based on political views. Most people today want a one party system where all other voices are drowned out. And people think this won't brew mutual hatred? Lol!
Does anyone really care what Chrissy Thiegen says? I certainly don't. And if the left wants to go harass someone for donating to Trump's campaign then it will be up to law enforcement to take care of things. Violent leftist groups such as Antifa will beat up anyone who doesn't follow their agenda. Yes, they are to be feared because it seems that violence is their only way.
1
Let me get this straight, all are personal info is captured, analyzed and sold by Facebook, Instagram, Google, Amazon and handed over to companies like Cambridge Analytica or The NSA and foreign governments without our consent but we, as informed citizens can't call out disingenuous corporations and wealthy individuals who want to hedge their bets regardless the outcome of this country's rigged elections, really!? Come on guys.
2
Can we get a complete list of all Trump donors?
3
“The left has become obsessed with demonizing and boycotting anyone who disagrees with them.” Seriously, Ms. McDaniel?
I just spent an hour researching how many times in the last month alone, in tweets and public remarks, the Demonizer in Chief has used vicious language about his opponents, calling them “enemies” of the country, “haters” of the country, ad nauseum. The list is too long to publish here and my time is wasted wallowing in his invective.
The pot and the kettle, Ms. McDaniel.
3
Man, the NYT can't seem to keep themselves from treating Trump and Trumpers with kid gloves. Even to make this a major story and put on a headline that even suggests that refusing to do business with people who are, essentially, supporting the dismantling of democracy, is "harassment," is unconstructive, to put it mildly. Almost as unconstructive as the now-infamous headline from a few days back that proclaimed Trump was calling for "unity vs racism." Any company supporting Trump is doing so because they are pigs getting a good position at the trough, at the expense of everyone else. They care only about their tax breaks and free ride (dismantled regulations, etc.). So why on earth should the rest of us care about them, much less feel any sympathy for their "discomfort"?
3
This information has been publicly available for many years and OpenSecrets.org posts it for anyone & everyone to see. Castro just saved people some time. People weren't outed or doxxed, they just had the information more readily available. Keep in mind if a baker can deny service to a gay couple that a democrat can refuse to do business with a republican (and vice versa). In this case here, people have been embarrassed to have it found out that they are willing to support a draft dodging, tax cheating bigot. Sunshine is the best cleanser.
3
Some behavior and beliefs are beyond the pale. Some people should be shunned.
4
You know what's really dangerous? Leaking the names of US intelligence agents who disagree with you but staying silent on the matter because the president doing it is a Republican.
5
No, it is most certainly NOT harassment. It is our right to support or not support businesses who have decided to help the most corrupt president in history get reëlected. My father always told me to “vote with my feet,” and that is exactly what I intend to do.
2
They would expose such information in a second if the shoe were on the other foot. Like Trump, the whole GOP are cowards. It's always who hurt them. The Democrats should use any and all tools against the Republicans before they use them on us.
2
There is an inherent conflict of interest when we require candidates seeking the job of PUBLIC representative to solicit money from PRIVATE individuals to attain office.
Public funding of elections places the emphasis on ideas that benefit the community rather than the donor class. Public funding of elections makes everyone's voice equal and protects the candidates from the "appearance of corruption."
1
NYT headlines are consistently “controversial” when there’s no need to be other than as click bait.
Why not say, “Democrats share publicly available list of Trump Donors. Republicans says its harassment.”
Putting “is it Harassment?” gives credibility to their specious position.
Stop doing this NYT. It undermines your journalists thoughtful and balanced reporting.
4
It is very easy to see what so called conservatives claim when they say they are being harassed, they want it so they can exercise their first amendment rights, whether it is in the form of speech or in campaign contributions, but want to be immunized from the consequences of that speech, they think the first amendment means the right to say what you believe and not have to pay consequences for that, rather than being what it is supposed to be about, free speech with freedom of consequences from the law.
It is ironic, the same conservatives whining about being harassed and victimized by boycotts, are the same lunkheads who cheered Colin Kapernick being blacklisted from playing in the NFL because of a protest he made and saying "well, he had the right to say it, we had the right to threaten the NFL, and they acted".
As far as rich Trump donors go, they support Trump because he gave them an incredible tax break that has made them only wealthier, and because of that they wouldn't care if Trump came to the white house in a hood and sheet and then can't understand why people are upset. It isn't conservative belief that is under attack, it is the way they choose to promote them, it is one thing to promote immigration reform, make a case for that, it is another to call Hispanics criminals and rapists and scum; it is one thing to believe being LGBT is problematic, it is another to use the power of the law to hurt them, actions are really the problem, not the beliefs.
3
I can respect people like Mr. Ross who acknowledge that Trump isn't all Birds and Roses but still support him as candidate. I personally hate Trump's guts but that doesn't automatically mean everyone else should as well.
That said, donations are public record, and I'd be an idiot if I expected people to not get at least a LITTLE upset and retaliatory. I mean honestly, have you been living somewhere else all this time? Americans get upset and boycott places over stuff more trivial than this, especially in today's highly corporate-centrist environment. "Vote with your Wallet" is a very strong conviction in the general populace, competing only with "scream about it on Twitter".
269
@RS5 A boycott is one way for peaceful protest. It is using one of the many freedoms that are still available to us. If a suporter of Trump can use his [her] money to support his candidate, why can't an opponent of Trump use his [her] money to not support him? As long as money is the driving force of politics in this country, [an example might be Koch], then it is the proper way to express preferences.
4
Well, I loathe trump... and there are other nice gyms besides equinox. Cheaper ones too.
1
Hahaha you have such low expectations for people. Condemning the president and supporting someone else seems like a better move for Ross
I don't think I like this at all:
"Some legal scholars have argued that in the internet age, when anyone can quickly look up the campaign contributions of their neighbors, it makes more sense to set a higher limit for public disclosure."
I'm not crazy about setting any limits on disclosure.
Also, I see the boycotting of these supporters as a good thing, in terms of having access to information.
Let me explain it this way: No way would I ever stay at a Trump hotel, or buy an apartment in any building that he has an interest in.
What these disclosures mean to me is that I am now better informed about who I want to do business with.
The choice belongs to all of us, even to Trump supporters.
6