• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Maybe I’m reading the context of your article wrong, but as far as I can tell, there was no funding of Republican campaigns either directly or indirectly through Schiff. They did some advertising which I think is shady to disregard the other candidates and only frame it between Schiff and Garvey, but I can’t find any evidence or articles directly stating that DNC or Schiff money was funneled into Republican campaigns. Even Porter didn’t make that claim from what I can tell.

    Here’s the breakdown of the campaign contributions and spending: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-schiff/

    So what he did was shitty to the other Dems hoping to be on the ticket, and it worked because it edge them out of the race, but there was no direct contributions to the GOP candidate.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The difference between a direct contribution and paying for advertising to boost your campaign are practically nothing. That’s the whole problem with SuperPACs.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Campaign money is there to boost the candidate campaign. Not sure what else you’d expect it to be used for, but I digress.

        The original comment was saying he funneled money to the GOP side, and all I’m poinint out is that does not seem to be the case.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          And I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter. Unless you think SuperPACs aren’t funneling money to the campaign they’re supporting.