3 ms·

> there is no “disparate impact” rule ... There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Intentional suppression (as alleged) of Tulsi's spe

> there is no “disparate impact” rule ... There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Intentional suppression (as alleged) of Tulsi's speech, or that of any other candidate, is equivalent to donations to her opponents of millions of dollars, given Google's scale, without following FEC rules on the same.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Yes. > Intentional suppression (as alleged) Sure, the allegation is of something illegal There is pretty much zero evidence presented that favors the conclusion alleged over a policy that is not illegally specifically targeted but happens to adversely impact the candidate. But the allegation is itself a way of getting a not insignificant quantity of free media, which is a sufficient reason for a candidate that is polling at <1% in most Democratic primary polls at not above 2% in the most favorable, and who has raised close to an order of magnitude less money than the top tier Democratic candidates, to make it. The fact is, Gabbard’s never been anything but a third-tier candidate and no one would have any reason to lift a finger to suppress her campaign because it was never going anywhere.