Is this a conflict of interest?

9 Comments

What do you think about having a private company supplying voting machines for elections? And then ontop of that if the CEO of the voting machine company was in the cabinet of one of the politicians on the ballot and the description of his position is listed as "a volunteer member of the _______ presidential transition Agency Review Team to support transition efforts related to the Department of Homeland Security."

Does this seem like a conflict of interest?

Conflict of interest 4
Not a conflict of interest 3
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 9 )
  • Boojum
    2 years ago

    How you didn't cite the name of the company, the CEO or the politician set off my Likely Social Media Bullshit alarm.

    Sure enough, Googling some of the key phrases led me to a Reuters article from late last year about social media BS posts claiming that the CEO of Smartmatic is on Biden’s political team.

    First, it's really funny how Smartmatic remains this huge bogeyman for some Trumpist whackos, even though they've been told over and over that in the 2020 election, the firm only supplied voting machines for Los Angeles County. And no matter how much Trump simps want to believe that Smartmatic worked in cahoots with Dominion - their uber bogeyman - to steal the election from poor widdle Donnie-boy, that simply is not the case; the two companies are competitors.

    It is true that Peter Neffenger, the Chairman of Smartmatic’s USA Board, did join Biden’s agency review team under the Department of Homeland Security as a volunteer in November 2020. Neffenger is a US Coast Guard admiral and former administrator of the Transportation Security Administration. Sensible Americans who actually give a shit about the security of their country would think that someone like him might have useful contributions to make when the new administration was looking at the state of Homeland Security and thinking about changes they might want to make to improve it.

    And, just in case you really don't understand the first thing about corporate structures, the Chairman of the Board is _not_ the Chief Executive Officer. The clue to that is the different titles of the two roles.

    It appears that the source of this hoo-haw over a huge fricking pile of nothing was Rudy Giuliani. Anybody who takes seriously a single word uttered by that ranting, rambling nutbag needs to have their head examined.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • LloydAsher
    2 years ago

    What ever happened to the non political companies? Does Pampers need to support blm? Does Pepsi need to support planned parenthood?

    Its marketing stupidity to alienate half your market.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Clunk42
      2 years ago

      A company is run by people; people have morals. People do not just sit idly by as their morals are squashed. Companies should be political, in my opinion, and stand for what's right. And those companies that stand for evil deserve to go out of business. It only helps for them to admit their evils.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • LloydAsher
        2 years ago

        People are different from companies. Companies sell shit to people. Chopping your market in half is a stupid move. Go woke go broke

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Clunk42
          2 years ago

          "Go woke go broke" is exactly why companies should go political. People who are evil should not be supported.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • LloydAsher
            2 years ago

            But if you just stay non political theres no need. You arent supporting anyone. Good or bad. You are just selling your product.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Clunk42
              2 years ago

              But by buying their product, you are still supporting an evil person, whether you know it or not. Thus, it is better for them to show themself, so that they may be avoided.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • Normalmember
    2 years ago

    Even if what the question states were true, the machines are not operated by the company that produced them. So that means that the system of checks we have ensures fairness.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • olderdude-xx
    2 years ago

    It may or may not be a conflict of interest Depending on how it is actually structured and their actual job requirements.

    I cannot say with any certainty with the limited information you provided.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0