A cheap attempt to smear Rand Paul
Brad Polumbo
For a politician, harsh criticism and media scrutiny are simply part of the job description. But not all that criticism is warranted. The most recent example of a baseless media attack on an elected official comes after Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, took a stand against the push to ban TikTok.
Paul recently broke with many members of his party to oppose legislation banning the social media app, citing free speech concerns.
SIX REASONS THE US SHOULDN’T BAN TIKTOK
“If you don’t like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don’t use them,” Paul said. “But don’t think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them. The First Amendment isn’t really necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. The First Amendment is precisely there to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. U.S. courts struck down the Trump administration’s ban and, I believe, will strike down any Congressional ban.”
The senator’s First Amendment concerns about legislation banning TikTok are shared by the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union. However, critics in the media have suggested that he actually opposed it not because of any of these principles but because one of his major donors has a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company.
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1644069560939696132 https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1639328732119805952
“Sen. Rand Paul’s heated opposition to a TikTok ban startled Capitol Hill last week, but you could look at it as a straightforward case of following the money, according to insiders — in this case, the money of a major GOP donor who has $33 billion on the line,” Lydia Moynihan, of the New York Post, wrote. “Sources claim credit for Paul’s impassioned speech should go to GOP mega-donor Jeffrey Yass. The billionaire CEO of Susquehanna Financial Group has given Paul more than $10 million since 2020, according to election filings. His fund also owns a 15% stake in TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, that’s worth an estimated $33 billion.”
In response to this allegation, Paul has said, “My decisions are not based on any kind of donations. My decisions are based on the Constitution and First Amendment.”
Paul deserves the benefit of the doubt here, and it’s hard to see any reason why this criticism ought to be taken seriously. One can certainly disagree with Paul on whether TikTok ought to be banned, but there’s nothing about the senator’s vote or stance that’s at all inconsistent with his track record on related issues, stated principles, or ideology.
After all, he’s always been a hardcore believer in free markets, limited government, and free speech. The only reason to suspect anything nefarious would be if he were taking a position inconsistent with these values on one particular issue where he has a donor connection. But opposing a sweeping federal ban on a popular private platform is in line with these values, so it’s exactly the stance you’d expect Paul to take regardless of his fundraising.
Indeed, the senator has a long track record of opposing other government interventions into the tech sector, such as breaking with Republicans and opposing antitrust efforts aimed at Big Tech. He also has a history of defending the First Amendment and whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden.
That’s right: All we have here is a politician voting in line with his long-held principles and in a manner consistent with his voting history. And in the background, he receives funding from donors who share those values. That’s exactly how politics is supposed to work. People vote for the candidates they believe in, and those candidates, ideally, vote based on principle, not special interests.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
So, the whole thing looks like a non-story. The people pushing it must either be woefully uninformed or attempting to smear Paul in bad faith.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the co-founder of BASEDPolitics.