The NY Times piles onto Michael Bloomberg

Maybe Bloomberg's generosity isn't harmless. 

New York Times reports Bloomberg cannot help but corrupt the people and institutions he supports. 

No one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

With the rise of Michael Bloomberg in the polls came an avalanche of negative stories. Once a candidate looks like a genuine competitor, opposition research sitting in file drawers gets released. 

To be expected were stories about stop-and-frisk, his comments about the financial crisis, and the lawsuits about a hostile work environment. The New York Times is also targeting Bloomberg's donations, turning one of Bloomberg's political assets into a negative. The stories are in reportage, Click: February 15, 2020, the op-eds (Bokat-Lindell, Jamelle Bouie), and in podcasts ("Bloomberg's not so Secret Weapon") 

Click: Podcast

The New York Times is not arguing that Bloomberg's donations are insincere. Bloomberg has a long record of support for public health, for education, for reproductive rights, climate action, gun registration, and recently, to electing Democrats and stopping Donald Trump. The Times is saying that some of this donations now appear strategic, certainly in retrospect, and that in any case all inevitably distort the behaviors of the recipients. 

New York Times readers understand that Trump is openly transactional in expectation of quid pro quo. It is the art of the deal. He bragged about it in the campaign, saying he gave so that politicians would come through for him. The Ukraine telephone call was perfect, he says, and it exemplifies what Trump understands as normal. Deals are the way of the world. 

Bloomberg looks like something else altogether--at least on the surface. Bloomberg's donations have been given to the advocacy causes he supports, but more appear to be purely charitable. Bloomberg, on the face of it, is the good-guy alternative plutocrat: richer, far more generous, sincere, and liberal. No quid pro quo. 

No. There is inevitable quid pro quo.

Times: All donations influence.

The New York Times says the amount he gives is so profound that it has a gravitational pull. People and institutions are influenced to compromise and bend in the direction of that money. Planned Parenthood. NAARAL. Gun registration advocates. Emily's List. Politicians he has helped and didn't help. Reporters. They cite examples of pulled punches.

It has been Sanders and Warren who have argued that great wealth is bad per se because its influence cannot be ignored. Now the NY Times adds their voice. Even when Bloomberg is good, he corrupts. He gives so much.

Thad Guyer says that is bad news for Bloomberg. Guyer is an attorney who represents whistleblower employees. He says a presidential candidate cannot win if the NY Times is leaning against him.

Guest Post, by Thad Guyer

"Bloomberg is a racist, sexist plutocrat"

That's not me, that's the growing call to arms by Democratic Party and media elites. And of course that's Bernie and Warren too. The New York Times' editorial pieces against Bloomberg have been unrelenting and growing. Some of it's most diverse and influential opinion writers have urged the Democratic Party to not sell its soul to another plutocrat with demonstrated authoritarian tendencies, not just because that would be morally wrong and further corrupt our party, but because it cannot work. See, Jamelle Bouie "The Trumpian Liberalism of Michael Bloomberg" (NYT Feb 18, 2020)and Paul Krugman's "Bursting the Billionaire Bubble-No, America isn’t waiting for a tycoon savior." (NYT Nov 11, 2019).

But with yesterday's podcast "Michael Bloomberg's Not-So-Secret Weapon" it is clear the NYT intends to do whatever it can to prevent him from being the nominee. The award winning and top tier popular podcast brands him a "media tycoon" who "paid his way into a position of influence in the Democratic Party", and accuses him of being a sexist, racist and elitist who has corrupted the Democratic Party (especially black and feminist would-be candidates), and it's NGOs, with his dark money. The 30 minute podcast presents compelling evidence that respected Democrats and NGOs have been debasing themselves for his political and charitable donations, including by deleting chapters from a book because they were afraid to offend Bloomberg and putting money over transparency. It says Bloomberg-- who has changed party affiliation three times-- is a corrupting influence with his dark money.

Making devastating campaign ads will just be copy and paste from the NYT, then Facebook targeting independents and skeptical centrist Democrats not so much to vote for Trump but not vote at all. By harpooning Bloomberg, the dynamic is simple-- you vote for Trump by simply not voting. The belief that Bloomberg will motivate Sanders and Warren voters, who feel betrayed by the process and his corrupting money, to come out and vote is absurd.

Ask Hillary Clinton-- if the New York Times goes after a Democrat in the primaries over their money scandals and foundation funneling slights of hand, that Democrat does not get elected President. 

---

Let me add, looking at today's news: the Washington Post also weighs in, both in print and podcast, calling Bloomberg a Trumpesque Neanderthal. See: "Some guy wearing a dress: Bloomberg reference to transgender people in 2019 video prompts outcry, Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2020 and "The profane 'wit and wisdom' of Mike Bloomberg" the Post Reports podcast, also Feb. 19, 2020.