Queston 1-Does anyone think it was sufficient for Fox to pay off the accusers of Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly, or for the Weinstein Group to pay off Harvey Weinstein’s accusers, and then to act like nothing happened?
Question 2- Does anyone think it is sufficient for progressive Democrats to redirect Harvey Weinstein’s campaign contributions–and then to act like nothing happened?
Let’s face it. Most big contributors are sleazebags-even the big contributors to progressive causes. If they’re not sexual predators, they’re slumlords, strikebreakers, off shore money launderers, lobbyists . . . or at the very least they abuse their help.
There is a limit on the amount people are allowed to give directly. In order to evade it, candidates and party organizations have to use all kinds of work arounds and loopholes. Sure, after Citizens United some of this may be legal, just like the non-disclosure agreements that Fox had people sign.
But is it really good enough just to give up a little money when there is a scandal and then to go back to hoping that nobody else gets caught? Isn’t that what Fox does?
I actually don’t like the idea of candidates giving up the money. Allegations against the donor don’t make the money worth any less nor does keeping it at all imply the candidates condone the behavior in question. If there were a future fundraiser where he was to be the headliner planned that might be reconsidered, but in terms of money already in the bank what’s done is done. I’m not sure what you mean by pretend nothing happened. There are laws to address these allegations and the legal system needs to do its thing.
I agree, or at least concur, with you, to the extent that giving up the money is an empty gesture. The candidates act shocked when misbehavior is made public. But apparently the behavior of Weinstein, Ailes, and O’Reilly was pretty well known. Candidates, like corporate boards, preferred to look the other way.
My point is that all, or pretty much all, of these large donors have done things which should cause a reputable candidate to give up their donations..
Much of the time, the donors have protected themselves with non-disclosure agreements. I would ask any reputable candidate, before taking any large donation, to require in writing a blanket release voiding any non-disclosure agreement that they have been involved in. That’s a simple enough thing to ask.
What non-disclosure agreements are you referring to? The law already requires that money given to campaigns be fully disclosed.
As the various articles on Weinstein ,O’Reilly et al report,when lawsuits are settled, there is often a non disclosure clause attached. It’s a way to keep things quiet. And a big reason why they get to offend over and over.
This should be very familiar. Forcing victims to remain silent in order to receive settlements were at the very center of the clergy sex abuse scandal. It was a central theme in an Oscar-winning movie.
I know that the context here is different, but the tactics of the attorneys working on behalf of the abusers are precisely the same.