Patagonia rules of the media: ‘Dark money’ for your people, ‘philanthropy’ for us

bBillionaire Barre Seid bequeathed his company to a conservative non-profit in 2020 and 2021, which promptly sold it.

The result was $1.6 billion to be spent for the Marble Freedom Trust, a conservative non-profit group headed by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. Seed managed to give away his family fortune without paying taxes on the transfer.

You see, if Seed had simply sold the company, he would have paid taxes on the increase in its value, and thus would have had less to give to the marble. This, new York Times told us, “There was an unusual series of transactions that appear to have avoided tax liabilities.” It was another story of “black money,” “conservative big money politics.”

In 2022, billionaire Yvonne Chouinard bequeathed his company to a liberal non-profit organization called Holdfast Collective, which can use its money to fund politicians and political causes.

The result is that the group will have a $3 billion business to fund its lobbying, politics, and perhaps conservation efforts. Chouinard managed to make his fortune without paying taxes on the transfer.

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

This new York Times tell usHeralds “a new form of capitalism” with a genuine commitment to “making the world a better place”.

“There was a worthwhile cost to them to do so,” new York Times A friend quotes the banker, “but it was a cost they were willing to bear to make sure the company lived up to its principles,”

So, what is the difference between these two transactions? Why is Seid’s money “black money” and Chouinard’s money “philanthropy”?

The piece on Chouinard attempts to make a distinction: “Mr. Seid took a different approach in giving 100 percent of his electronics company to a non-profit organization, Getting a Huge Personal Tax Benefit As he gifted $1.6 billion to fund conservative causes, including efforts to halt action on climate change.”

Except, wait a second – Seid and Chouinard basically did the same thing. They got exactly the same “huge personal tax advantage.” They needed to structure the charity the way they did because in both cases, the recipient was a 501(c) 4, an organization that could be involved in politics, not one that was excluded from political activity. Donation.

Tax attorney Daniel Hemel explains:

Here’s money-in-politics expert Jesse Eisinger:

The biggest difference here may be that Chouinard still controls how his assets are spent, whereas Seid does not.

If you’re a liberal, you might notice another difference here: “Federalist society is bad, and fighting climate change is good.”

remember that new York Timestaking its stand against Marble and Seed, did not merely say that “Orthodox judges are bad! Live forever” Roe vs. Wade And Kelo vs. Kelo New London!” That would have been naked ideology and partisanship. To give more importance to his argument, he framed it as part of a larger question: “There is a black money story, a big money story. The other is a philanthropy story.” You see, it’s not just about the fact that new York Times Editors agree with the goals of one and disagree with the objectives of the other. There are some theories at stake here – I’m sure someone will figure out what it is.

Maybe the food chain of these stories is what some people believed, but ultimately, it is a lie. And here’s the big story: When liberal elites outline general rules that they accuse conservatives of breaking, the liberal elite don’t really believe in those rules, They are merely trying to hide the fraudulent arguments for personal privilege behind a thin veil of doctrine.

Remember during the lockdown, when new York Times author Charlie Warzel wrote that it was a terrible sin to protest, only to write back that he liked protest? Warzel, during anti-lockdown protests: “For those who have chosen to put their trust in science during a pandemic, the decision to gather to protest is hard to fathom, while a deadly viral pathogen – eased by close contact and spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike – devastate the country. ,

Warzel during George Floyd protests:

Warzel’s anti-protest claim was added as a general objection to protest during a pandemic. He never admitted that he really hated the faith of the protesters. “These people should be silent because I disagree with them” would be petty, self-serving and lacking self-awareness.

remember all their speech codes, or the anti-propaganda policies they put in place to justify throttling access to stories that hurt Democrats? Facebook and Twitter had to pretend they had terms of service that they were only enforcing (which they never enforced before or since). That’s because “this story could hurt Joe Biden right before the election” doesn’t sound like a good justification.

Remember that denying an election defeat is an unforgivable crime, but spotless election-condemnation Stacey Abrams is a hero?

In short, they don’t care about any of these supposedly higher principles. They just want to feel like there’s more to their arguments than “I disagree with you, so shut up”.

But there isn’t.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.