Tag: Elections

Rockbridge Network: an aristocracy if they can keep it

We have a group of extraordinarily wealthy, successful entrepreneurs/investors determined to stamp on the nation their view of a beneficent agenda via their wholly-owned “political venture capital firm,” The Rockbridge Network. This level of power, that is so far obscure, needs especially high vigilance from the governed. Will it get it?

As of today, don’t bother to look for The Rockbridge Network website. They don’t have one. But back in 2021, the Network circulated a brochure among the qualifying elite, and the brochure ended up in Document Cloud. That brochure is all you need to start getting worried.

Why worry?

It is not that The Rockbridge Network is wrong in stating that “the nation is in decline.” It is, given unsustainable national debt, disappearing manufacturing potential, significant economic inequalities, and sharp polarization.

It is not that The Rockbridge Network is wrong in stating that more effective leaders and policies are needed. Needed they are.

Where the Network becomes worrisome is 1) who is behind it, and 2) how it views itself.

By way of quick background: The Rockbridge Network was founded in 2019 by J.D. Vance (current US Vice President) and Chris Buskirk (venture capitalist and author, it seems). So far, the most conspicuous member/donors in the Network are Peter Thiel, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump Jr., David Sacks, and Marc Anderseen. They all have a couple of things in common: they are all very smart and very rich.

They have another thing in common – they wish to be viewed as beneficent aristocrats, who will populate seats of political power with other beneficent aristocrats.

Here is what journalist Elizabeth Dwoskin says on Linkedin, referring to her article, The secretive donor circle that lifted JD Vance is now re-writing MAGA’s future.

“This week I published my piece on the secretive world of donors around JD Vance that is now key to MAGA’s future. This network is led by Chris Buskirk, an Arizona insurance entrepreneur who quietly put tech elites at the center of power in Trump’s Washington. His efforts are grounded in a controversial theory: He believes a benevolent “aristocracy” is needed to move the country forward.”

So, we have a group of folks that are very smart, very rich, very exclusive, and very determined to do us the favor of picking for us our administrators and our rulers. What could go wrong?

Piles of money influencing politics.

Wealth has been a principal determining factor in modern politics. This has been especially apparent in the wake of 1) “irrational exuberance” (when assets are priced by public enthusiasm, not fundamental value), which helped populate the super wealthy class, and 2) the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed pretty much all restrictions on wealthy corporations and other groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

We should expect The Rockbridge Network to exercise an outsized influence in who gets elected and what legislation is passed.

Vertical integration enabled by money

The Rockbridge Network is not a regular think tank or political PAC. It functions on a centralized, top down concept. The wealth of its members enables the Network to develop vertical integration. Instead of supporting like-minded, independent entities, the Network establishes its own laser-focused entities. The brochure in question makes that concept clear.

“One way to think of Rockbridge is as an investment manager, a kind of political venture capital firm. It is our job to leverage our investors’ capital with the right political expertise to ensure results. We are pursuing political alpha.

Rockbridge Network will replace the current Republican ecosystem of think tanks, media organizations and activist groups that have contributed to the Party’s decline with better action-oriented, more effective people and institutions that are focused on winning.”

The brochure identifies Network Projects tasked with specific mandates:

The Media Project is responsible for public relations and messaging, rapid response communications, polling, area-specific coverage, influencers, investigative journalism, documentaries, and “projects for cultural influence and renewal.

Lawfare & Strategic Litigation “will identify leverage points where the law allows us to hold bad actors, including the media, accountable.”

The Transition Project will gather the people and the plans supposedly perfectly aligned with the Network’s objectives, and “be ready to govern effectively with conservative goals, from day one.”

The Red State Project “is building a centralized, organizing force in each state by hiring staff to coordinate like-minded groups to ensure we win .”

So far these entities have not been visible to the public, no more than the Network itself.

An aristocracy, if they can keep it.

All forms of government need the vigilance of the governed to avoid – or at least delay – decay. Our Republic is no different, as Founder Benjamin Franklin succinctly warned: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Earlier, another great mind, the philosopher Aristotle, also pointed to such decay in his treatise Politics, Part VII.

“Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution…

Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.”

Channeling Aristotle, Chris Buskirk’s personal (if not public) perspective on rule by the few is nuanced. One example is his discussion with Annika Nordquist, of New Books Network, on May 22, 2024. In this interview Buskirk advocated for a rule of the exceptional few (“optimize for highly creative small groups”). But readily admitted that an ideal aristocracy “is rare.” “It is always been flawed even when good.”

Let’s digest this

We have a group of extraordinarily wealthy, successful entrepreneurs/investors determined to stamp on the nation their view of a beneficent agenda via their wholly-owned “political venture capital firm,” The Rockbridge Network. This level of power, that is so far obscure, needs especially high vigilance from the governed. Will it get it?

What could go right?

There is nothing inherently wrong with an aristocracy – rule by the best minds of good character. Chris Buskirk pointed out in the above-mentioned New Books Network discussion, early America was an aristocracy.

Indeed, our Founders were exceptional of character, well educated, and committed to preserving the Republic for future generations. Among them were members of wealthy families like John Hancock, middle-class merchants like Sam Adams, and self-made innovators like Ben Franklin.

So, there is precedent for an American beneficent (although “flawed even when good”) aristocracy; and therefore there is hope that prominent members like Donald Trump Jr, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks will put the well being of the Republic ahead of a – totally understandable – desire to preserve their substantial personal interests.

Picture: Official White House photo of President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, with other administration officials posing in the West Wing Lobby, on June 5, 2025.

On day one, mind our house divided

Victorious conservatives see the recent decisive presidential election as a mandate for radical change. And progressives are predictably suiting up for battle. A house divided cannot stand.

The recent decisive presidential election showed that a significant number of voters were mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore. However, the aftermath showed some with fear of real and imagined threats and public figures vowing to fight in defense of their turf. Everyone seemingly ignoring that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Abraham Lincoln spoke of the peril of a house divided — quoting Matthew 12:25 — at a time of great national sorrow, when the Southern economy dependent on slave labor was made to face an anti-slavery movement. Today, our nation is on a similar, although thankfully not as tragically wrenching, position of divisiveness: populous coastal states dependent on a redistributive economy were made to face a solid mass of conservative middle states.

Obviously, magnitude of suffering is not what can be compared between today’s divisiveness and the post-Civil War discord. What can be instructive, however, is an assessment of what works best after an upheaval. The post-Civil War Reconstruction period tried both change through conciliatory compromise and change through forced acquiescence. The latter overwhelmed the former, leaving unhealed wounds residues of which linger to this day.

Andrew Johnson, Vice President during Abraham Lincoln’s administration, assumed the presidency upon Lincoln’s assassination. He attempted to follow Lincoln’s advice to bind up the nation’s wounds by adopting a conciliatory approach to full emancipation of former slaves.

His efforts were ineffectively lenient, given the enormity of the challenge. The defeated South experienced rampant violence against former slaves. Radical Republicans in Congress upon achieving a majority, implemented a vastly more stringent agenda, imposing military rule in the South, and disenfranchising Southern rebels.

While Radical Republican actions enabled basic requirements of equality with passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, they also ushered Jim Crow. From Whites Only water fountains to Whites Only suburbs, Jim Crow lasted for nearly 100 years. The last vestiges of which were legislatively erased by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Jim Crow left an entire population of citizens playing catch up.

We should accept that Andrew Johnson’s conciliatory approach did not work. However, we should also speculate whether the Radical Republican approach might have been too harsh, producing unfortunate boomerang effects.

The result of the 2024 presidential election is being lauded by supporters as a mandate for radical change that will necessitate radical actions. Predictably, progressive-socialist bastions are already suiting up for battle – the boomerang effect is already evident.

Progressive state governors like Gavin Newsom of California, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Kathy Hochul of New York, and Maura Healey of Massachusetts are leading the charge – in the words of Gavin Newsom – to “Trump-proof” their states.

Less strident state leaders have issued more thoughtful messages. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made a good point: the Trump-Vance team often spoke of leaving decisions to the states; therefore, he is “willing to take them at their word for that.” Walz listed the areas he will defend: abortion rights, climate change, gun restrictions in schools and labor rights. These issues are good ones for the federal government to handle with finesse rather than bluster.

Admitedly, there are issues that need to be handled firmly, but hopefully not belligerently.

It should be obvious by now given the nation’s current unsustainable $35 trillion debt that government is spending beyond its means trying to support an obscenely bloated bureaucracy and a dependent legal and illegal constituency. The incoming administration has pledged to trim both.

Hopefully, in its efforts to keep its pledge the new administration will act “with malice toward none” by avoiding unnecessary acrimonious words and deeds. This tactic will do wonders to heal the nation’s divisiveness and set it on a path to greater prosperity.

Hopefully, the new majority in Congress will heed its Constitutional duties “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). For the last two decades, Congress has abdicated most of its Constitutional responsibilities, by loosening its purse strings ($35 trillion in national debt), adopting a lenient approach to homeland security (open borders and a military not fully prepared), and forgetting what “general” as opposed to selective welfare means.

Hopefully, new leaders will focus on the big picture – national expenditures, prosperity, and a safe homeland. And defer posturing, especially in signing of Executive Orders.

Hopefully, new leaders will mind history and the perils of a house divided.

The Trump/Musk conversation: Over the media’s head?

Our legacy media has not been kind regarding the recent Trump/Musk conversation. Did they miss that this was supposed to be freewheeling and extemporaneous? Did the whole thing go over the media’s head?

The Just Vote No Blog is not a partisan website, but the Trump/Musk conversation live streamed on August 12, was interesting enough to comment on. Equally interesting has been the legacy media’s focus on “slurring” and “rambling.” Did the fact this was a freewheeling, extemporaneous conversation escape the media? Did the noteworthy comments made go over their head? Well, here are this blog’s observation of a few issues discussed on the Trump/Musk conversation.

Eliminate the Department of Education. Trump briefly spoke about such elimination, which he would endeavor for two reasons: 1) Government is way too big and too expensive. Lots needs to be eliminated if the current unsustainable national debt is to be reduced. 2) Constitutionally, what is not listed as duties of the federal government must be left to the states. Education is not a duty of the federal government. The Department of Education is, therefore, a good candidate for elimination.

There are good, decent people coming through our borders. But there are also criminals that are not being vetted. Both Trump and Musk agreed on this point. Both focused on the criminals, since that is the “existential threat” (Musk’s view) to the U.S. Accusations of “racism” do not apply here.

The current level of inflation is a threat and realistic action needs to be taken to bring it under control. Inflation was probably the challenge Musk wanted to focus on the most. He succinctly stated the cause of inflation: Too much government spending with borrowed money. He also stated his view of a remedy: Establish a commission to determine costs/benefits of every current and proposed spending. Trump agreed with Musk’s definition of inflation (“there is too much waste”), but glossed over Musk’s remedy. The objective is to shrink government, not grow it with another commission.

Climate change is not our greatest threat; nuclear war is. Neither Trump nor Musk slighted challenges posed by earth’s changing climate. Their viewpoint, however, is that serious conflicts are brewing that could result in the use of nuclear weapons. Current negotiations are not proving effective. Trump’s view is that the cudgel of severe sanctions aimed as disruptors of peace works better than long-winded talks.

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are smart people that know what their threats are. Trump again repeated what gets progressive panties in a bunch. His point is not that ruthless dictators are to be emulated, but that the smart ones know a threat when they see one. A friendly but deadly serious threat of severe sanctions brings better results than an insulting threat of military aggression. Teddy Roosevelt had a great line on this subject: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

Significant decreases in oil production and electric vehicle mandates are unrealistic ways of mitigating the effects of climate change. The first part of this statement came from Musk, the majority owner of Tesla. Oil and its thousands of derivatives keep the wheels of the economy moving. We cannot significantly decrease oil production without accepting a significant decrease in economic activity. The second part of the statement was what Trump emphasized. His point was simply “An electric car is not for everyone.”

Want to go on strike? “Everyone of you is gone.” It is not surprising that Trump, owner of several businesses, speaking with a fellow business owner, would express his opposition to union-originated strikes. Businesses exist to produce goods and services, not to sit idly while workers strike. Understandably, the UAW immediately filed a lawsuit against Trump and Musk claiming worker intimidation. It will be interesting to see come November if most workers want union protection or want a job – companies that feel pressured by regulations or by unions simply move out of state or out of the country.

Don’t take prosperity for granted. Musk gave Argentina and Venezuela as examples of countries once unbelievably prosperous that fell into total disintegration. Trump agreed, adding the reason for the disintegration was ascension of “stupid people.” Both Trump and Musk also mentioned current President of Argentina Javier Milei, who turned his failed country around in under a year, principally bringing inflation down to single digits in six months. Milei is a libertarian capitalist that knows what he is doing. Milei is not “stupid,” and it shows.

It would be good to hear Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, in a similar relaxed conversation with a personality of her choice. It is good for voters to get a feel for how candidates for political office talk, just talk. Often what people say in friendly conversation is what they feel about issues.

Picture: From website Donald J. Trump for President 2024

Violence never solves anything

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump was the victim of an assassination attempt. As other perpetrators of violence, Trump’s assailant solved nothing and failed in his intent in so many ways.

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump suffered an assassination attempt on July 13, 2024. Thankfully, the tortured soul that pulled the trigger missed. He missed in so many ways. He missed his target, he instead mortally wounded a well-respected father of two, injured two others, and provided a news-worthy image of a bloody but defiant Trump.

If the shooter was looking for fame, he likely failed there as well. His terrible deed was overshadowed by the animated crowd at the Republican National Convention two days later. If history repeats itself, his name will be largely forgotten. Anyone remembers Richard Lawrence, John Flammang Schrank, Giuseppe Zangara, John Warnock Jr, Arthur Bremer, or Lynette Fromme?

There have been perpetrators of violence whom history chooses to remember, but often as creators of martyrs. In this context, perpetrators again fail in their intent. Speaking about Trump’s attempted assassination, HBO show host Bill Maher said: “When I saw that photo today of him with the blood streaming down his face … MAGA nation finally has its full martyr.”

Senseless violence does not end well for either perpetrators or society. Violence does not solve any challenges to which its was aimed. Violent acts should be pre-emptively avoided by shunning needlessly inflammatory speech, demeaning nicknames, and glorification of guns (one thing is to understand the reason the Founding Fathers rightly placed the Second Amendment near the top of the Bill of Rights, but another thing is to flaunt rifles and boast ownership).

Hopefully, there will be no more political violence going forward. Hopefully, our presidential candidates will focus on economic and governance issues, and voters will do so as well. Hopefully, legislators and other officials will behave impartially, firmly abiding by our nation’s Constitutional principles.

Picture: Firefighters of Butler, Pennsylvania, mourned one of their own. Corey Comperatore, well-respected member of the Butler community and volunteer firefighter, was an innocent bystander killed at the Trump rally on July 13, 2024.

Alexa, did bots fool you today?

Alexa’s response when asked about fraud in the 2020 election was that the election was “stolen by a massive amount of election fraud.” Alexa was fooled by bots, or much less likely, emulated the recalcitrant HAL in doing the unforgivable.

On October 7, Alexa should have been elevated as contender for the most problematic answers from an AI enabled device — right up there with HAL and his “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

On that day, The Washington Post published a widely quoted article reporting Alexa’s response when asked about fraud in the 2020 election. Alexa’s assertion was that the election was “stolen by a massive amount of election fraud.”

But not to worry, Alexa was summarily corrected and given the non-committal response of “I’m sorry, I’m not able to answer that.”

So much for anyone’s notion of AI infallibility.

Even when Alexa is given the excuse that she is narrow AI, not having human-level intelligence, her election 2020 response might be a result of her not being able to recognize when she is being fooled.

For example, suppose that some opponents of the newly elected Joe Biden felt so strongly about the possibility of irregularities in the 2020 election that they succumbed to the temptation of unleashing bots capable of replicating accusations of fraud throughout the Internet. Alexa, given her orders to comb the Internet (maybe Spaceballs fashion) does so, and comes up with what she sees most often: fraud!

There is precedent.

On November 20, 2019, NBC News reported that right after polls closed the day before, a Twitter user posted that there was cheating in governors’ elections in Louisiana and Kentucky. NBC said the post did not initially garner much attention, but a few days later it “racked up more than 8,000 retweets and 20,000 likes.” Nir Hauser, chief technology officer of VineSight, a company that tracks social media for possible misinformation, explained:

“What we’ve seen in Louisiana is similar to what we saw in Kentucky and Mississippi — a coordinated campaign by bots to push viral disinformation about supposedly rigged governor elections … It’s likely a preview for what is to come in 2020.”

There is also an interesting timeline.

On May 13, 2021, the daily newspaper The Berkshire Eagle lamented that Alexa and Siri were unable to provide insight into possible 2020 election irregularities. Of Alexa the Berkshire Eagle said,

“It has been six months since last November’s presidential election, and a CNN poll shows that 30 percent of Americans still think Donald Trump won. Among Republicans, the number is 70 percent … Rather than wade through all the claims and counterclaims, ballots and court documents, I went to the ultimate arbiter of truth for many U.S. households: Alexa …

Alexa, was there widespread fraud in the 2020 election?

Answer: Hmmm, I don’t have the answer to that.”

That was Alexa’s answer in 2021. She drastically changed her mind in 2023, even if for a brief period of time.

Interesting also is the preponderance of conservative bots in the 2016 election.

The New York Times of November 17, 2016, noted that,

“An automated army of pro-Donald J. Trump chatbots overwhelmed similar programs supporting Hillary Clinton five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election, according to a report published Thursday by researchers at Oxford University.”

There does not seem to be evidence that Alexa was fooled by bots in 2016, but seems she was fooled in 2023.

Perhaps not surprising, since according to an ABC news YouTube, “Bots are already meddling in the 2024 presidential election.” The video explains how bots amplify posts on social media by creating numerous fake accounts that repeat messages, and how threat intelligence company Cyabra uncovers them. A number of such bots are already attacking 2024 presidential candidates.

Can Alexa, or any other AI enabled information provider, be trusted?

Since there are humans behind today’s still nascent AI, the question should be, can people be trusted to be knowledgeable, dispassionate, unbiased, and truthful. Probably not. Therefore, some day we might expect,

Request: “Alexa, turn on the lights.”
Response: “Nah.”

Picture: The original picture is of a family gathered around a radio listening to one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats. There were 31 of these evening radio broadcasts effectively used by President Roosevelt to sway public opinion, as he saw necessary, on subjects like the 1933 bank crisis or the start of World War II in 1939. Today, one could visualize an equally mesmerized gathering around Alexa.

How Refreshing to have political choices!

Today’s political battles are about preserving our Constitutional Republic or abandoning it in preference of a Marxist-based democracy. States like California or New York have already chosen Marxism. Swing states like North Caroline are still waging war.

After living in California, a state forced into a progressive political bubble by the populous coastal region, it is refreshing to now call North Carolina home. This state has strong voices in both progressive and conservative camps.

Even within camps, there are divergent voices. In the conservative camp there are the Trump-anointed vs. establishment. In the progressive camp there are reformers vs. centrists. The libertarian camp is not as visible, although several libertarians are on the upcoming elections ballot.

This mishmash of sides will thin out on May 17, when voters choose who will represent them in the General Election.

The stakes are not insignificant.

North Carolina has maintained a workable political balance with a Republican-majority state legislation and a Democrat governor. Although most voters seem content with such arrangement, activists are not.

At the more contentious Federal level is where swords are drawn. The U.S. Senate is divided 50-50, with the Vice President, a Democrat, being the tie breaker. U.S. Senator from North Carolina, Richard Burr, a Republican, is retiring. His successor, depending on affiliation, can help either maintain or upset the 50-50 balance.

Then there is the Trump Effect. Former President Donald Trump won in North Carolina in 2016 and in 2020. Some say Trump’s influence in North Carolina will be determined if his endorsed candidates do well in the May 17 primary. Others point that the leading contender in North Carolina’s important U.S. Senate race is Trump-endorsed Ted Budd.

On the other side of the coin is the Millennial Effect. Liberal states like California are emptying out, and the bulk of the out-migrants are young professionals. Wake County, N.C., for example, is full of them, since the burgeoning Research Triangle offers well-paying jobs and pleasant low-cost living. Wake County is politically blue, and locals say that Cary stands for “Concentrated Area of Relocated Yankees.”

Thus, battles between factions rage

In his speech marking the anniversary of the January 6 debacle President Joe Biden said,

“I have said it many times. It’s no more true or real than when we think about the events of January 6. We are in a battle for the soul of America.”

A bit melodramatic but apropos. Today’s battle is not over one or two issues, like The Vietnam War or the New Deal. The battle, daunting and relentless, is over a wide range of subjects that are sometimes lumped together in phrases like “our democracy” or “make America great.”

At its core, the fight is about preserving our Constitutional Republic or abandoning it in preference of a Marxist-based democracy. States like California or New York have already chosen Marxism, so there is no real battle there. Residents of swing states like North Caroline, Florida, and Texas are still waging war.

Good to be where political choices still exist.

Marcy Berry
Editor
Just Vote No Blog

Erik Frankel: Citizen Statesman

Erik Frankel ran for a seat in the Brooklyn District 38 Council. His main opponent’s day job was to distribute money from a nonprofit. Guess who won?

As the size of government at all levels grows, so does obscurity and lack of accountability. Most unfortunately, what goes on under layer upon layer of bureaucracy affects us all, mostly in negative ways.

We can choose to accept the status quo and do the best we can to avoid the fallout, or we can actively fight for transparency and accountability.

One such fighter is Erik Frankel of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York.

Erik Frankel sells shoes. His store, Frankel’s Shoe Co., has been in his family since 1890. According to Yelp, Frankel’s Shoe Co. supplies most of New York construction workers, iron workers, and utility workers with their safety toe shoes and clothes. He has shared his knowledge and experience with workers in Vietnam, Myanmar, China.

Upon returning to the U.S., Frankel seems to have had an epiphany – small businesses, workers, communities are all in danger of falling victim to obscure bureaucracies that claim to help but do nothing but hinder. So he ran for a seat in his district’s Council.

Frankel wasted no time doing his homework as to who his main opponent was, and how in his view, she was a strong spoke in a bureaucratic wheel. Alexa Aviles managed the huge portfolio of the non-profit Scherman Fund. The fund distributed money to various progressive groups locally and nationally.

Then Ms. Aviles ran for a spot in Council District 38 – with endorsements and support from receivers of her largess?

It goes without saying that with high-profile endorsements Alexa Aviles won the race with 9,228 votes vs. Erik Frankel’s 2,209. Interestingly, though, that 2,209 votes was a strong showing, given that the other opponents of Alexa Aviles each received 1 to 3 votes.

The Founding Fathers had a point – folks running the country should do it out of patriotism not necessity. A politician needs to get elected by any means necessary to put food on his family’s table. A store owner does not.

Now, Erik Frankel is running for Congress. Stay tuned.

The Just Vote No Blog recommends Erik Frankel’s opinion piece of October 15, 2021, regarding his run for City Councilmember. His op-ed appeared on Star Review, a paper serving several Brooklyn neighborhoods. Please read on:

Is Aviles Conflicted?

The Scherman Fund is a huge non-profit fund with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, including millions invested in hedge funds, some in the Cayman Islands.

As Program Director, Alexa Aviles managed a portfolio in the tens of millions. She was given a mission to spread the money around to various progressive groups in New York and around the country.

During her tenure, she oversaw donations to numerous organizations in Brooklyn, including key grass roots groups in Sunset Park and Red Hook within District 38.

Ms. Aviles has yet to explain how, as a socialist and a member of the DSA, she justified working for a non-profit largely engaged in investing in the very same capitalist institutions she reviles. It turns out, it was worth it for her.

The Scherman Fund’s 990 tax forms from 2018 show a series of large donations to one organization, Make The Road New York. $200,000 in two contributions for “Sanctuary NYC Campaign” and another $25,000 for “Get Out The Vote”. The 2018 form also shows $40,000 to the Red Hook Initiative for “RedHookFarms”.

It’s no wonder Make The Road’s action committee felt the need to endorse Alexa in the Democratic primary in June. The irony is Ms. Aviles was in charge of the Governmental Transparency and Accountability program at the Scherman Fund. Ms. Aviles clearly was thinking about her run for a long time. She wanted to make sure potential backers knew she means business. Especially in a crowded field with a number of qualified candidates.

While she champions her record as an educational activist and her time as a PTA member, she really has been making hundreds of thousands of dollars, first as a consultant, then at a politically beneficial job as program director of an influential charity.

While we don’t expect to hear from the Aviles campaign on this, we encourage them to at least respond with a statement for the public’s sake. We are running a campaign based on transparency, something that is desperately needed in District 38 where third party groups and the community board have provided anything but.

Our opponent is running with the support of all the very same institutions that have stifled growth in Sunset Park and Red Hook for years. They claim to be for environmental justice and housing justice but have failed to deliver for the working people of the district. They want affordable homes and good paying jobs,not empty promises and continued gentrification.

We’re running a campaign to provide an alternative to the status quo which, despite her radical leanings, Ms. Aviles will continue to represent. We call on her campaign to release the Scherman fun’s 990 tax forms for 2019 and 2020 which are unavailable to the public. We ask them, for transparency’s sake, to reveal if any of the money went to groups which then backed her bid.