{"id":1885,"date":"2024-07-30T14:47:22","date_gmt":"2024-07-30T21:47:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=1885"},"modified":"2024-07-30T14:47:22","modified_gmt":"2024-07-30T21:47:22","slug":"still-sending-money-to-the-lincoln-project-your-iq-score-just-came-back-you-were-beat-out-by-a-box-of-rocks-by-10-points","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2024\/07\/30\/still-sending-money-to-the-lincoln-project-your-iq-score-just-came-back-you-were-beat-out-by-a-box-of-rocks-by-10-points\/","title":{"rendered":"Still sending money to the Lincoln Project? Your IQ score just came back \u2026 you were beat out by a box of rocks by 10 points."},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
The Lincoln Project newsletter header.<\/strong><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Lincoln Project.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Founders<\/strong>
\n\u2705\u00a0 George Conway (has since left the organization)
\n\u2705\u00a0 Steve Schmidt (has since left the organization)
\n\u2705\u00a0 John Weaver (has since left the organization)
\n\u2705\u00a0 Rick Wilson
\n\u2705\u00a0 Jennifer Horn (has since left the organization)
\n\u2705\u00a0 Ron Steslow (has since left the organization)
\n\u2705\u00a0 Reed Galen
\n\u2705\u00a0 Mike Madrid (has since left the organization)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For those who may have forgotten about the early days, a refresher\u2026<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Inside the Lincoln Project\u2019s \u2018toxic\u2019 workplace<\/strong><\/a>: Interviews with nearly two dozen people with knowledge of the group\u2019s workings reveal a culture of infighting, sexist language, and disparate treatment.<\/p>\n

The organization is facing a rapidly escalating controversy over allegations that another of its co-founders, John Weaver, sexually harassed more than a dozen young men, including some working for the project, and over what other members of senior management knew about the claims and when they knew it.<\/em><\/p>\n

The accusations have roiled the organization, and as its current and former employees and contractors began coming forward to discuss them, they described a workplace where women in key positions were sidelined and where sexist and homophobic language was used by those in leadership posts.<\/em><\/p>\n

In reporting a story over the past several weeks about the Lincoln Project\u2019s management, culture, finances and handling of the Weaver allegations, The 19th interviewed nearly two dozen individuals currently or formerly associated with the group or familiar with its operations.<\/em><\/p>\n

Nearly all of them said they feared speaking publicly about their experiences with the Lincoln Project and its remaining co-founders. Many cited their tendency to \u201cgo nuclear,\u201d as several put it, when faced with internal dynamics that could undermine the public image they cultivated with their liberal fans.<\/em><\/p>\n

The interviews depict an organization that grew quickly, with little planning at its inception, and then began to spiral out of control as its founders quarreled over the organization\u2019s direction, finances, tactics and even who would own the donor data that the project would eventually amass. Some of the co-founders had an informal management agreement that excluded the others, without their knowledge. Several had private firms to which the Lincoln Project channeled tens of millions of dollars that are then not subject to disclosure, while others were paid relatively modest amounts directly or nothing at all. There were clashes over ego and resentments over podcasts and television contracts.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Lincoln Project was organized as a super PAC, meaning it could raise and spend unlimited sums of money but had to disclose only basic details about where the money was going. The firms that some of the co-founders brought with them to the Lincoln Project\u2019s work became a source of internal frustration, as more than half of the nearly $90 million raised by the project flowed to firms controlled by its various founders. Once it was there, there was usually no way to track how they spent or kept it.<\/em><\/p>\n

As senior management squabbled over how to divide the pieces of the project\u2019s financial pie, dissatisfaction was growing within the organization\u2019s more junior ranks, which were made up of largely young and liberal staffers who said they had different standards than some of the group\u2019s leaders, citing Schmidt and Wilson specifically. There was language used in both the Lincoln Project\u2019s ads and within its workplace about gender and sexuality that made many of them uncomfortable, the dozens of interviews revealed.\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the era of intense political polarization, organizations claiming to champion noble causes have emerged, only to reveal their true colors as opportunistic grifters. One such entity that has attracted significant attention is the\u00a0Lincoln Project.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Initially hailed as a beacon of hope by those who vehemently opposed the Trump administration, it has now been exposed for its deceptive tactics, dubious spending practices, and\u00a0relentless pursuit of separating gullible people from their money.<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, was quoted as saying<\/strong><\/a>, \u201cFear is easy,\u201d Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, was quoted as saying in The Atlantic in November of 2016. \u201cFear is the simplest emotion to tweak in a campaign ad. You associate your opponent with terror, with fear, with crime, with causing pain and uncertainty.\u201d<\/p>\n

Exploiting Fear and Spreading Conspiracies:<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Lincoln Project\u2019s modus operandi is a simple game of persuasion and fear-mongering. They prey upon low-information voters, creating an atmosphere of constant threat and paranoia. By exaggerating the actions of the so-called \u201cMAGA extremists\u201d and painting them as a grave danger, they manipulate vulnerable individuals into believing everything they hold dear is under attack. This fear-driven approach allows the Lincoln Project to position itself as the saviors, fighting against an imagined enemy and urging supporters to contribute financially to their cause.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Separating Gullible Donors from Their Money:<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Lincoln Project has mastered the art of exploiting the emotions and anxieties of its target audience. By presenting themselves as the defenders of democracy, they appeal to the moral instincts of those who genuinely care about the future of the country. However,\u00a0beneath this veneer of righteousness lies a well-developed con<\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u00a0designed to extract as much money as possible from unsuspecting donors.<\/p>\n

\"\"
An unofficial alteration to the Lincoln Project logo.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Their fundraising tactics are highly questionable, with a significant portion of their expenditures allocated to overhead costs and lavish compensation for the project\u2019s leaders. Shortly after their organization, The Center for Responsive Politics,<\/em> a nonpartisan watchdog organization, exposed the Lincoln Project\u2019s unusual spending practices, highlighting the exorbitant amounts of money spent on consulting fees and luxury expenses rather than on the intended political goals. This revelation raised serious concerns about the organization\u2019s true motivations and the extent to which they prioritize lining their own pockets over making a genuine impact.<\/p>\n

The Lincoln Project\u2019s initial promise to oppose Trumpism and protect American democracy has been tarnished by its unethical practices and dubious financial maneuvers.\u00a0By preying on the fears and anxieties of low-information voters, they have constructed a lucrative fundraising machine designed to exploit emotions rather than effect positive change.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The Lincoln Project serves as a stark reminder that not all those who claim to fight for justice and democracy are to be trusted. True change comes from transparency, integrity, and a genuine commitment to the causes we believe in, not from a cinematic con chiseling ready cash out of unsuspecting passers-by.<\/p>\n

Threatening and Dark Ads:<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Lincoln Project has gained attention for its ads that employ a dark and threatening theme and tone. These ads have been a subject of criticism, with some arguing that they go too far in their approach. Andrew Ferguson from The Atlantic, for example, described the ads as \u201cpersonally abusive, overwrought, pointlessly salacious, and trip-wired with non-sequiturs.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0This criticism highlights the perception that the Lincoln Project\u2019s ads may rely more on shock value than substantive arguments.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

One possible explanation for the Lincoln Project\u2019s choice of such ads lies in their experience within the Republican consulting arena. Having been involved in political campaigns and messaging for years, they have likely observed that appealing to fear and threat tends to resonate with conservative voters. Understanding the conservative psychological profile, they seem to have honed in on the theme of threat as a means to capture attention and influence the target audience.<\/p>\n