U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com– “[Michael] Bloomberg is starting his campaign with a big asset—his gun-control group’s email list,” Mother Jones reported Sunday. “His campaign is ‘temporarily renting’ the addresses of Moms Demand Action’s supporters.”
The way the story reads, it doesn’t sound like the state and local groups had any choice, something “progressive” women demand when it comes to just about everything except their right to keep and bear arms. Senior national organizing director Aimee Tavares reportedly passed along “the news” reiterating who started the group, who funded it, and ultimately, who is going to tell it when to jump and how high.
That demand for their compliance should surprise no one but the willfully misinformed, noting the billionaire control zealot’s “long history of sexism,” meaning most of the MILMs will obliviously let him dictate to their obedient “leadership.” That’s even though a promise long made to the “membership” (defined as everyone who has given them their email address, as opposed to NRA members, who pay to join) is being willfully and cynically broken.
“We may use the information we collect for any lawful purpose, such as to:
- respond to your requests;
- send information to you about Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund or other organizations;
- operate and improve the Sites, and customize your experience;
- comply with applicable law;
- identify or remedy potential threats to the Sites’ security;
- conduct research about your use of the Sites and our services; and
- for any other purpose stated at the time of collection.”
Anybody see anything in there about information being turned over to a third party for political campaign purposes? Or that list members don’t get to know who their names and data would be “rented” to, or if other candidate positions might better represent other deeply held beliefs? What if they'd rather have Bernie? Or Elizabeth Warren? Was this intent made clear to them “at the time of collection”?
And what about people like me, who signed up to keep tabs on alerts from the group so I could see if there was anything I and other gun owners needed to take action countering? I certainly don’t consent to have the information I willingly provided used for any purposes not stated and understood when I “enrolled.” I reasonably suspect I’m not the only gun-ownership advocate who became a “supporter” for the same reasons as well. I'd argue we have a right to decide if we consent to have our information shared with the Bloomberg presidential campaign.
At the very least, this shows reneging on a pledge as a matter of expediency and convenience. That ought to raise questions about ethics, about how people are respected, and about playing fast and loose with the rules. Again, this should surprise no one, because the whole reason Everytown exists is to urge the government to renege on its mandate that your and my right to arms “shall not be infringed.”
Not being a lawyer, I don’t know if unilaterally changing the terms of an implied agreement and using personal information collected under a promised set of expectations, without first obtaining the permission of everyone on the list, is a legal violation that could prompt individual and class actions, or maybe even an FEC complaint from other Democrat candidates. It would be fitting and funny if it were, and if the imperious Bloomberg campaign fell on its face right out of the starting gate on its first attempt to dictate to a group of people it obviously considers bought and paid for.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.