Compelled to Act

Summary

Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna are committing $20M to support Democratic candidates and causes in the 2016 election, driven by a vision of inclusivity and global interdependence, and in opposition to the divisive rhetoric they associate with Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

Abstract

Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna have announced a $20 million commitment to aid Democrats in the 2016 election, marking a departure from their previous non-partisan approach to philanthropy. They articulate a vision of a global society that embraces diversity, tolerance, and mutual prosperity, which they believe aligns with the Democratic platform and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The couple expresses deep concern over the polarization and fear-mongering they see in the rhetoric of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, particularly on issues like immigration. They argue that Trump's policies would harm both Americans and non-citizens, contrasting this with the optimism and inclusiveness of the Democratic Party. While acknowledging they don't agree with every aspect of the Democratic platform, they assert that a Clinton presidency would move the country closer to the world they wish to create. They also recognize the grievances of those who feel left behind and believe the Democratic platform is better positioned to address these concerns, unlike Trump's promises which they view as potentially disingenuous and unfeasible. Their decision to endorse and donate is also a signal to the Republican Party about the negative consequences of running a campaign based on fear and hostility.

Opinions

The 2016 election is seen as a pivotal moment for defining the future of American society, with a stark choice between inclusivity and divisiveness.
Donald Trump's vision is criticized as zero-sum, promoting tribalism and division, particularly through his stance on immigration.
The Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton, are perceived as promoting a more positive, pragmatic, and inclusive agenda that benefits both citizens and non-citizens.
Trump's popularity is acknowledged as stemming from genuine grievances of those feeling disenfranchised, but his solutions are deemed implausible and potentially insincere.
The couple has reservations about using wealth to influence politics but justifies their actions as a necessary response to the current political climate.
Transparency in political funding is valued, as evidenced by their openness about their contributions, despite the lack of a legal requirement for disclosure in some cases.
The decision to support Democratic efforts financially is also intended to send a message to the Republican Party about the repercussions of their campaign strategies.

We’re committing $20M to help Democrats in the 2016 election

Cari and I have dedicated our lives to figuring out how to do the most good we can with the resources we’ve been given. Until now, those efforts have not included making endorsements or contributions in presidential elections. Though we’ve voted for the Democratic nominee each of the times we’ve cast a ballot, we’ve considered ourselves independent thinkers who respect candidates and positions from both sides of the aisle. When we envision a well-functioning democracy, we see two strong parties that challenge each other’s thinking in their mutual passion for the greater good.

This cycle is different. The polarization in America today has yielded a race that is about much more than policies and ideas. It has become a referendum on who we want to be — as individuals, as a nation and as a society. Will we be driven by fear, towards tribalism, emphasizing the things that divide us? Will we focus on how to advantage those most similar to us while building barriers to separate us from the rest of the world? Or, alternatively, will we continue in the direction of increased tolerance, diversity and interdependence in the name of mutual prosperity?

We are the first generation that can choose to aim resolutely down the second path, unencumbered by fears around scarcity once considered insurmountable, and unified by global communication mediums that connect us intimately to our most distant neighbors. In this version of society, we all work together to create a thriving worldwide community.

We cannot ignore the remarkable alignment between these two visions for society and the choices in this year’s election. The Republican Party, and Donald Trump in particular, is running on a zero-sum vision, stressing a false contest between their constituency and the rest of the world. We believe their positions, especially on immigration, which purport to improve the lives of Americans, would in practice hurt citizens and noncitizens alike. In contrast, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton in particular, is running on a vision of optimism, pragmatism, inclusiveness and mutual benefit.

Like many Democratic voters, we don’t support every plank of the platform, but it is clear that if Secretary Clinton wins the election, America will advance much further toward the world we hope to see. If Donald Trump wins, the country will fall backward, and become more isolated from the global community. This distinction is starkly caricatured by his #1 “policy” position: the literal building of a wall between us and our neighbor.

On the other hand, a huge part of Donald Trump’s popularity is that he serves as a voice for those in the U.S. who have been left behind as the rest of the world has enjoyed enormous progress, who feel disempowered and desperate to be heard. As a nation, we need to figure out how to bring everyone with us, and we believe the Democratic platform currently is more aligned with ensuring that happens. In comparison, Donald Trump’s promises to this group are quite possibly a deliberate con, an attempt to rally energy and support without the ability or intention to deliver. His proposals are so implausible that the nation is forced to worry that his interest in the presidency might not even extend beyond winning a contest and promoting his personal brand.

So, for the first time, we are endorsing a candidate and donating. We hope these efforts make it a little more likely that Secretary Clinton is able to pursue the agenda she’s outlined, and serve as a signal to the Republican Party that by running this kind of campaign — one built on fear and hostility — and supporting this kind of candidate, they compel people to act in response. We are not the only ones being activated so strongly during this election.

Specifically, we are committing $20M to a number of organizations. Some examples include:

the Hillary Victory Fund, the DSCC, and the DCCC

the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Victory Fund

For Our Future PAC

MoveOn.org Political Action

Color Of Change PAC

several nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV efforts.

The largest contributions are $5M to each of the LCV Victory Fund and For Our Future PAC.

This decision was not easy, particularly because we have reservations about anyone using large amounts of money to influence elections. That said, we believe in trying to do as much good as we can, which in this case means using the tools available to us (as they are also available to the opposition). At the same time, we are being open about the amount of funding we’re providing, even though transparency is not required in some cases.

We may be criticized by some for taking this action and there will be theories projected onto our reasons — but those who know us best will see the sincerity of our intentions, and can attest that the thoughts above represent the full scope of our motivations. We offer them humbly, and with the deepest love for America, and for the world.

Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna