Does the headline tell the whole story?
Judd Legum is an independent journalist who does excellent work. Here are two tweets from his Twitter feed about a story on his website. These tweets are for a story he felt was so important that he removed the paywall so that anyone can read it.
It is a fact that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings did give $143,000 to Missouri's governor and Republican legislators between July 6, 2018 and February 14, 2019.
It is a fact that all but one of the Republicans in the Missouri legislature who on the list of contributions made by Spencer voted for the abortion ban; in the final vote that passed it.
When I read the story, I wondered if there was a true connection between these contributions and the abortion ban. So I checked. Turns out that all but $9,100 of those contributions were made before Missouri HB126, the abortion ban was introduced into the Missouri legislature. Hard to find a connection between that bill and donations made before it was a bill. Particularly in light of the fact that there was an election in 2018 and it seems a lot of those donations were made to support the election of those Republicans rather than in support of either the abortion or the charter school bill Mr. Legum references in his article. The link in his article to that bill shows it wasn't introduced until January of 2019. Only $3,600 of the aforementioned $143,000 in contributions was made after introduction of that bill.
Yes Virginia, bills can garner contributions prior to their introduction. Was all of the $143,000 in contributions done in support of HB 126? I do not believe so. To imply they were is what some would call "spin."
* * *
What does it mean when a corporation's CEO and/or primary shareholder makes political contributions that are the opposite of a position taken by the corporation? It is clearly an issue that can be exploited. Let's suppose for a moment that Reed Hastings would give an honest answer to the question, "why would you contribution to legislators that oppose a woman's right to choose, when your company has staked out a position in support of that right in a different state?" He could say that the corporation's position is a business decision while what he does personally with his money is his business. A lot of people would not like that answer.
Just ask Margie Christofferson. In 2008 there was a firestorm of political controversy in California as Proposition 8 was on the November ballot. It was a ballot initiative that would have ended the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Ms Christofferson was then the owner of the El Coyote Restaurant. Opened in 1931 it has been a fixture on Beverly Boulevard forever. Notorious for being the eatery where Sharon Tate had her last meal, in 2008 it was a "gay hangout" with many gay employees.
Ms Christofferson is a devout Mormon and she donated $100 of her own money to the campaign in favor of Prop 8. No big deal until a list of donors for and against the proposition was distributed. It led to a boycott of El Coyote that was devastating to the joint. Ms Christofferson took a leave of absence. It took a long time for El Coyote to recover.
If people want to boycott Netflix over the political contributions of Mr. Hastings, they should do so. Nothing wrong with that. I just wonder how many of those whose immediate reaction to the story on that $143,000 in contributions would have felt as strongly if they had all of the facts.
1. Yesterday, @netflix said it may pull out of Georgia if the courts uphold the state's new abortion ban— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) May 29, 2019
The company wants to be known as a champion of women's rights
So why has CEO @reedhastings given so much cash to legislators pushing abortion bans? https://t.co/lT9RmZ8LRO pic.twitter.com/jj7e7ZAz4J
2. Over the last 10 months, Netflix CEO @reedhastings has donated $143,000 to 73 Republican members of the Missouri legislature (and Governor Mike Parsons)— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) May 29, 2019
Missouri just enacted an abortion ban nearly as restrictive as Georgiahttps://t.co/lT9RmZ8LRO
It is a fact that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings did give $143,000 to Missouri's governor and Republican legislators between July 6, 2018 and February 14, 2019.
It is a fact that all but one of the Republicans in the Missouri legislature who on the list of contributions made by Spencer voted for the abortion ban; in the final vote that passed it.
When I read the story, I wondered if there was a true connection between these contributions and the abortion ban. So I checked. Turns out that all but $9,100 of those contributions were made before Missouri HB126, the abortion ban was introduced into the Missouri legislature. Hard to find a connection between that bill and donations made before it was a bill. Particularly in light of the fact that there was an election in 2018 and it seems a lot of those donations were made to support the election of those Republicans rather than in support of either the abortion or the charter school bill Mr. Legum references in his article. The link in his article to that bill shows it wasn't introduced until January of 2019. Only $3,600 of the aforementioned $143,000 in contributions was made after introduction of that bill.
Yes Virginia, bills can garner contributions prior to their introduction. Was all of the $143,000 in contributions done in support of HB 126? I do not believe so. To imply they were is what some would call "spin."
* * *
What does it mean when a corporation's CEO and/or primary shareholder makes political contributions that are the opposite of a position taken by the corporation? It is clearly an issue that can be exploited. Let's suppose for a moment that Reed Hastings would give an honest answer to the question, "why would you contribution to legislators that oppose a woman's right to choose, when your company has staked out a position in support of that right in a different state?" He could say that the corporation's position is a business decision while what he does personally with his money is his business. A lot of people would not like that answer.
Just ask Margie Christofferson. In 2008 there was a firestorm of political controversy in California as Proposition 8 was on the November ballot. It was a ballot initiative that would have ended the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Ms Christofferson was then the owner of the El Coyote Restaurant. Opened in 1931 it has been a fixture on Beverly Boulevard forever. Notorious for being the eatery where Sharon Tate had her last meal, in 2008 it was a "gay hangout" with many gay employees.
Ms Christofferson is a devout Mormon and she donated $100 of her own money to the campaign in favor of Prop 8. No big deal until a list of donors for and against the proposition was distributed. It led to a boycott of El Coyote that was devastating to the joint. Ms Christofferson took a leave of absence. It took a long time for El Coyote to recover.
If people want to boycott Netflix over the political contributions of Mr. Hastings, they should do so. Nothing wrong with that. I just wonder how many of those whose immediate reaction to the story on that $143,000 in contributions would have felt as strongly if they had all of the facts.
posted by me at 6:46 AM
<< Home