Patagonia Media Rules: ‘Dark Money’ for Men, ‘Philanthropy’ for Us

Patagonia Media Rules: ‘Dark Money’ for Men, ‘Philanthropy’ for Us


BBillionaire Bree Sid gave his company to a conservative nonprofit in 2020 and 2021, then immediately sold it.

The fallout was that the conservative nonprofit, the Marble Freedom Trust, headed by Leonard Liu of the Federal Society, got $1.6 billion to spend. Syed was able to give away his family fortune without having to pay taxes on the transfer.

You see, if Syd had simply sold the company, he would have paid taxes on its increase in value, and thus would have reduced his giving to Marble. this is, The The New York Times Tell us, “An unusual series of transactions that appear to have evaded tax obligations.” It was another story about “dark money”, “conservative big money politics”.

Billionaire Yvonne Schweinard in 2022 gave his company to a liberal non-profit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which could use its money to fund politicians and political causes.

The result is that the liberal nonprofit will have $3 billion in funding for lobbyists, politics, and possibly conservation efforts. Chouinard was able to give away his fortune without having to pay transportation taxes.

You see, had Chouinard sold the company, he would have paid taxes on the increase in its value, so he would have less to give to the nonprofits he now controls.

This is the The New York Times Tell usheralds a “new kind of capitalism” with an actual commitment to “make the world a better place”.

The Times quoted a friendly banker: “There was a significant cost to them to do this, but it was a cost they were willing to incur to ensure this company adhered to their principles,”

So what is the difference between these two transformations? Why is Syed’s money “black money” and Chouinard’s “charitable work”?

The Times article on Chouinard attempts to fabricate a distinction: “Mr. Syed has taken a different approach in giving 100% of his online company to a non-profit organization, Reap huge profits from personal taxes He made a $1.6 billion gift to fund conservative causes, including efforts to stop action on climate change.”

Except, wait a minute – Sid and Schwenar did basically the same thing. They received the same “massive personal tax gains”. They needed to organize the donation the way they did, because in both cases, the recipient was a 501(c)4 – an organization that can participate in politics – not a charitable organization that is excluded from political activism.

Tax attorney Daniel Hemmel explains:

Here’s politics money expert Jesse Eisinger:

The biggest difference here may be that Chouinard still appears to be in control of how his fortune is spent, while Syd does not.

If you’re a liberal, you might see another difference here: “Federal society is bad, combating climate change is good.”

Remember that a file The New York TimesIn presenting her case against Marple and Sid, she did not simply say “Conservative judges are evil! Long life Raw vs. Wade And the Kilo vs New London! That would have been a bare-knuckle, partisan ideology. To give their argument extra weight, they framed it as part of a larger question: “One is dark money, the big money story.” The other is a charity story.” You see, it’s not just about the fact that a file The New York Times Editors agree with the goals of one and disagree with the goals of the other. There’s some principle at stake here – I’m sure someone will figure out what it is at some point.

Some people in the food chain may think these stories are a lie. And here’s the bigger story: When liberal elites set the general rules they accuse conservatives of breaking, liberal elites Don’t actually believe in these rules. They are merely trying to hide the disingenuous arguments of personal privilege behind a thin veil of principles.

Remember again during lockdowns, when The New York Times Writer Charlie Warzel wrote that protesting is a terrible sin, only to turn around and write that he loves protests? Warzel, during the anti-lockdown protests: “For those who have chosen to put their faith in science during a pandemic, it is difficult to understand the decision to gather to protest while there is a deadly viral disease — easily transmitted by close contact and spread by asymptomatic and asymptomatic people alike. Either – they are destroying the country.”

Warzel during the George Floyd protests:

Wurzel’s anti-protest claim has been phrased as a public objection to protest during the pandemic. He never admitted that what he really hated were the protesters’ beliefs. “These people should shut up because I disagree with them” would seem petty, self-serving, and lacking in self-awareness.

Remember all their speech symbolsOr the anti-disinformation policies they created to justify restricting access to stories that could hurt Democrats? Facebook and Twitter only had to pretend that they had their terms of service (which were not enforced before or after). That’s because “this story could hurt Joe Biden right before the election” doesn’t sound good as an excuse.

Remember how election denial is an unforgivable crime, but election denial Stacy Abrams is a hero?

In short, they do not care about any of these supposedly superior principles. They just want to feel that there is something in their arguments that is more substantive than “I disagree with you, so shut up.”

But there is no.





Source link

Leave a Comment