The media’s Patagonia rules: ‘Dark money’ for your guys, ‘philanthropy’ for ours

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

In 2022, billionaire Yvon Chouinard gave his company to a liberal nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which can use its money to fund politicians and political causes.

The fallout is that the group will have a $3 billion business to fund its lobbying, politics, and maybe conservation efforts. Chouinard managed to give away his fortune without having to pay taxes on the transfer.

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

This, the New York Times tells us, heralds “a new form of capitalism” with actual commitment to “making the world a better place.”

“There was a meaningful cost to them doing it,” the New York Times quotes a friendly banker, “but it was a cost they were willing to bear to ensure that this company stays true to their principles,”

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

The piece on Chouinard attempts to concoct a distinction: “Mr. Seid took a different approach in giving 100 percent of his electronics company to a nonprofit organization, reaping an enormous personal tax windfall as he made a $1.6 billion gift to fund conservative causes, including efforts to stop action on climate change.”

Except, wait a second — Seid and Chouinard basically did the exact same thing. They got the exact same “enormous personal tax windfall.” They needed to structure the donation the way they did because in both cases, the recipient was a 501(c)4, an organization that can be involved in politics, not a charity excluded from political activity.

Tax attorney Daniel Hemel explains:

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

The biggest difference here may be that Chouinard still appears to control how his wealth is spent, whereas Seid does not.

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

Recall that the New York Times, in making its case against Marble and Seid, didn’t simply say “conservative judges are evil! Long Live Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London!” That would have been naked ideology and partisanship. To give their argument added weight, they framed it as part of a bigger question: “One is a dark money, big money story. The other is a philanthropy story.” You see, it’s not just about the fact that the New York Times editors agree with the goals of one and disagree with the aims of the other. There’s some principle at stake here — I’m sure someone will figure out what it is at some point.

Maybe some people in the food chain of these stories believed that, but ultimately, it’s a lie. And here’s the bigger story: When liberal elites outline general rules that they accuse conservatives of breaking, the liberal elites don’t actually believe in those rules. They just are trying to hide disingenuous arguments for personal privilege behind a thin veil of principle.

Remember back during the lockdowns, when New York Times writer Charlie Warzel wrote that protesting was a horrible sin, only to turn around and write that he loved protests? Warzel, during anti-lockdown protests: “For those who’ve chosen to put their trust in science during the pandemic it’s hard to fathom the decision to gather to protest while a deadly viral pathogen — transmitted easily by close contact and spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike — ravages the country.”

Warzel during George Floyd protests:

Warzel’s anti-protest claim was couched as a general objection to protesting during a pandemic. He never admitted that what he really hated was the protesters’ beliefs. “These people should shut up because I disagree with them” would sound petty, self-serving, and lacking in self-awareness.

Remember all their speech codes, or anti-disinformation policies that they made up to justify throttling access to stories that could hurt Democrats? Facebook and Twitter had to pretend they had terms of service they were merely enforcing (which they never enforced before or afterward). That’s because “This story could hurt Joe Biden right before the election” doesn’t look good as a justification.

Remember how denying election losses is an unforgivable crime, but unabashed election-denier 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 something to their arguments more substantive than “I disagree with you, so shut up.”

But there isn’t.