|
|
|
|
|
by acdha
408 days ago
|
|
Your first quote isn’t on the page you referenced but the New York Post’s coverage of a lawsuit brought by a Republican activist – not exactly a neutral party – and he didn’t include ActBlue in his lawsuit which is going after a specific person identified only by their American Express card number, no doubt recognizing that the burden would be much higher to prove that ActBlue was colluding with rather than being victimized by whoever that was. Similarly, your second quote is from a different Republican activist. His data and methodology don't appear to have been independently reviewed, and it doesn’t sound like there’s been any independent review of what he told people to get them to sign affidavits or verification of their claims, all but the first of which are small (it would not be the first someone elderly forgot about clicking on a link or signing up for a recurring charge), much less establishing that ActBlue condoned that activity. The underlying problem here is that there aren’t higher standards for donations and because we don’t have a national digital identity system and the super court has found that political spending is close to speech in terms of the protections it deserves, it’s not clear how much more could even possibly be required. |
|