4 ms·

Also, why did Buttigeg donate $42k to shadow inc? This should be illegal

by sixQuarks 7y ago

1stcity3rdcoast 7y ago
All the candidates donated, not just Buttigieg. It was a joint venture between all of the primary candidates in Iowa.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  This isn’t true. The Sanders campaign never gave anything to Shadow or ACRONYM. From the reporting I’ve seen, Buttigeig was the largest purchaser of their services, with Biden as a distant second. https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-apparent-app-issue-11580801699 https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-... EDIT: Since this is apparently a “controversial” statement, here is the FEC data proving this is entirely true: https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&recipient_name=Shadow+Inc&two_year_transaction_period=2020 https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&...
  - dqv 7y ago
    Thanks for this. We're flagged off now so no one can see it unfortunately.
  - mzs 7y ago
    I mean, who knows, you have to be a lot more sophisticated to grok the FEC db, for example here's over a half million to AmEx from the Bernie camp, for what? https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 Here's almost half a million to consultants from a big group of donors. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 There's just so many payments and transfers to/from Senate and Presidential campaign and big donors that just go opaque as without knowing what the recipient really did with that money for every candidate that takes donations, this is a very hard problem to answer without a serious investigation by a team of journalists and lawyers.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      So your argument is that there are somewhere secret payments from the Sanders campaign to ACRONYM, a related entity of PACRONYM, an anti-Sanders dark money group and their “tech” company, Shadow? My comment was in response to someone claiming that all the campaigns in Iowa had funded both groups. There is no evidence of that.
- dqv 7y ago
  I'd love to see the data on this. The FEC data is a little confusing to browse.
jerkstate 7y ago
I was on the conspiracy bandwagon until I looked a little more at Shadow Inc. The company also sells a voter database connector called Lightrail: https://shadowinc.io/lightrail https://shadowinc.io/lightrail as well as a voter SMS spamming platform: https://shadowinc.io/messaging https://shadowinc.io/messaging The FEC line items (e.g. for Gillibrand, Biden, Buttigieg) said the money was for software licensing and consulting, so that's probably it.
- dqv 7y ago
  Yes but the other connections are there. McGowan's husband works for Buttigieg's campaign. It's a conflict of interest. The party should have rules in place for this: either provide services to the campaigns or provide services to the party, not both. Not sure how much Gillibrand spent, but iirc Biden only spent $1250.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Eventually one of these campaigns will become the overriding majority of the DNC when they win the nomination. It’s how it works in the bylaws of the both parties. The President is the leader of which ever party elected him/her into power until a replacement is made.
    - dqv 7y ago
      Sorry I'm not understanding how this relates to conflict of interest.
rtkwe 7y ago
They paid for text messaging services... campaigns can't purchase software and services from companies now? https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602 https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602
- dqv 7y ago
  I would say that companies who have ties to competing campaigns shouldn't be allowed to also provide services to the IDP or DNC. I'd even go further and say that no campaign staffer should be tied to any companies providing services to the campaign. Edit: clarified - obviously campaigns consult companies for their success, but they shouldn't provide services to both the DNC and the campaign. Edit2: the IDP runs the caucus
  - sixQuarks 7y ago
    Exactly!
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    That's a huge restriction to put in place with no indication that anything has ever happened like that. The incentives are aligned for both the company to refuse and the campaign to never ask because both would black ball them forever from politics...
    - dqv 7y ago
      I don't think the fact that it hasn't happened yet is a good enough argument. >The incentives are aligned for both the company to refuse and the campaign to never ask because both would black ball them forever from politics... Oh no... it shouldn't be voluntary, it should be required. If a company is providing services to a campaign, that same company should not have any role on the election side.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        The app was a reporting convenience more than anything. There was an entire paper trail and a manual process to go along with it. It wasn't core to the accurate count at all.
scottlocklin 7y ago
Well for one thing, because his staffer Michael Halle is married to acronym's CEO Tara McGowan. https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-michael-halle-senior-staff-36f664e9-0099-4eb1-a01b-1f07cc488709.html https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-michael-halle-senior-st...

Also, why did Buttigeg donate $42k to shadow inc? This should be illegal

1stcity3rdcoast 7y ago

All the candidates donated, not just Buttigieg. It was a joint venture between all of the primary candidates in Iowa.

claudeganon 7y ago
This isn’t true. The Sanders campaign never gave anything to Shadow or ACRONYM. From the reporting I’ve seen, Buttigeig was the largest purchaser of their services, with Biden as a distant second. https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-apparent-app-issue-11580801699 https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-... EDIT: Since this is apparently a “controversial” statement, here is the FEC data proving this is entirely true: https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&recipient_name=Shadow+Inc&two_year_transaction_period=2020 https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&...
- dqv 7y ago
  Thanks for this. We're flagged off now so no one can see it unfortunately.
- mzs 7y ago
  I mean, who knows, you have to be a lot more sophisticated to grok the FEC db, for example here's over a half million to AmEx from the Bernie camp, for what? https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 Here's almost half a million to consultants from a big group of donors. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 There's just so many payments and transfers to/from Senate and Presidential campaign and big donors that just go opaque as without knowing what the recipient really did with that money for every candidate that takes donations, this is a very hard problem to answer without a serious investigation by a team of journalists and lawyers.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    So your argument is that there are somewhere secret payments from the Sanders campaign to ACRONYM, a related entity of PACRONYM, an anti-Sanders dark money group and their “tech” company, Shadow? My comment was in response to someone claiming that all the campaigns in Iowa had funded both groups. There is no evidence of that.
dqv 7y ago
I'd love to see the data on this. The FEC data is a little confusing to browse.

jerkstate 7y ago

I was on the conspiracy bandwagon until I looked a little more at Shadow Inc. The company also sells a voter database connector called Lightrail: https://shadowinc.io/lightrail https://shadowinc.io/lightrail as well as a voter SMS spamming platform: https://shadowinc.io/messaging https://shadowinc.io/messaging The FEC line items (e.g. for Gillibrand, Biden, Buttigieg) said the money was for software licensing and consulting, so that's probably it.

dqv 7y ago
Yes but the other connections are there. McGowan's husband works for Buttigieg's campaign. It's a conflict of interest. The party should have rules in place for this: either provide services to the campaigns or provide services to the party, not both. Not sure how much Gillibrand spent, but iirc Biden only spent $1250.
- ianai 7y ago
  Eventually one of these campaigns will become the overriding majority of the DNC when they win the nomination. It’s how it works in the bylaws of the both parties. The President is the leader of which ever party elected him/her into power until a replacement is made.
  - dqv 7y ago
    Sorry I'm not understanding how this relates to conflict of interest.

rtkwe 7y ago

They paid for text messaging services... campaigns can't purchase software and services from companies now? https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602 https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602

dqv 7y ago
I would say that companies who have ties to competing campaigns shouldn't be allowed to also provide services to the IDP or DNC. I'd even go further and say that no campaign staffer should be tied to any companies providing services to the campaign. Edit: clarified - obviously campaigns consult companies for their success, but they shouldn't provide services to both the DNC and the campaign. Edit2: the IDP runs the caucus
- sixQuarks 7y ago
  Exactly!
- rtkwe 7y ago
  That's a huge restriction to put in place with no indication that anything has ever happened like that. The incentives are aligned for both the company to refuse and the campaign to never ask because both would black ball them forever from politics...
  - dqv 7y ago
    I don't think the fact that it hasn't happened yet is a good enough argument. >The incentives are aligned for both the company to refuse and the campaign to never ask because both would black ball them forever from politics... Oh no... it shouldn't be voluntary, it should be required. If a company is providing services to a campaign, that same company should not have any role on the election side.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      The app was a reporting convenience more than anything. There was an entire paper trail and a manual process to go along with it. It wasn't core to the accurate count at all.

scottlocklin 7y ago

Well for one thing, because his staffer Michael Halle is married to acronym's CEO Tara McGowan. https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-michael-halle-senior-staff-36f664e9-0099-4eb1-a01b-1f07cc488709.html https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-michael-halle-senior-st...