- The Michael Bloomberg campaign has partnered with Meme 2020 to promote his presidential campaign on popular meme accounts like fuckjerry and kalesalad.
- While the campaign and some of the accounts involved think this is an effective form of messaging, some have criticized the accounts and Bloomberg for using this strategy. Meme account thefatjewish said he rejected Bloomberg’s offer to post a meme for the campaign.
- While these accounts are being paid to post about Bloomberg, critics have pointed to people like Ethan Klein and Joe Rogan, who have made endorsements based on their own political beliefs.
- Since buying meme posts is something of a new political strategy, it is unclear if this can move the needle the same way a formal endorsement does.
Bloomberg Promotes Campaign Via Meme Accounts
Michael Bloomberg’s campaign is partnering with high-profile meme accounts to promote his campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination.
According to a New York Times report, Bloomberg is working with Meme 2020, a company that works with over a dozen meme accounts, totaling over 60 million followers. Posts went up on several accounts on Wednesday. The lead strategist of Meme 2020, Mick Purzycki, is the chief executive of Jerry Media, a social media company that has faced controversies for stealing content and promoting the infamous Fyre Festival.
Jerry Media runs a popular Instagram account called fuckjerry, which boasts 14.9 million followers. That account posted a Bloomberg meme structured like a direct message from Bloomberg to fuckjerry.
“Hello Jerry. My granddaughter showed me this account,” the fake message from Bloomberg reads. “Your memes are very humorous. Can you post a meme that lets everyone know I’m the cool candidate.”
“What did you have in mind?” fuckjerry responded.
Bloomberg then sends a picture captioned “when you’re the cool candidate” that shows him wearing an objectively uncool outfit. Fuckjerry agrees to post it for the modest price of one billion dollars, and Bloomberg asks for his Venmo.
Memes have also been posted to other popular accounts, including tank.sinatra, which has 2.3 million followers; grapejuiceboys, which has 2.7 million followers; and kalesalad, which has 3.5 million followers. The memes there also follow the Bloomberg-just-slid-into-my-DMs format. Each post is explicitly captioned to say the post was paid for or sponsored by Bloomberg’s campaign.
All of them contain the same thematic sense of self-awareness and irony: Bloomberg is old, rich, and out of touch and wants to be cool with the kids. In one post, Bloomberg botches the Bernie Sanders “I am Once Again Asking” meme format, but still hopes tank.sinatra can use it to make him look cool. In another, he sends kalesalad a joke about kale salads. The account tells him it’s not very funny but is swayed by Bloomberg’s billion-dollar offer and ultimately agrees to share it.
This is not the first time Bloomberg’s campaign has dabbled in meme or social media culture. In early February, the Team Bloomberg account tweeted a video calling Trump a “liar liar pants on fire” while the gingerbread man from Shrek danced around him.
During a January Democratic debate that Bloomberg did not attend, the account also live-tweeted a series of jokes.
The latest sweep of sponsored meme posts has been met with mixed reactions online. While some comments on the Instagram posts express praise and support, there is also a lot of criticism.
On the fuckjerry post, users have said things like “this sucks” or “unfollow.” Model and actress Emily Ratajkowski commented, “this is not a good look for you.”
Thefatjewish, who has 11 million followers on his meme account, commented on tank.sinatra’s post saying he was also offered an offer to do this but actually turned it down. He said that growing up in New York City himself, he disagreed with Bloomberg’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy and anti-marijuana stance.
“I’d encourage any meme account owner to take schmoney from basically any brand…because brands are trash and deserve to have their money taken,” thefatjewish wrote. “But this dystopian black mirror simulation is too much for me i now need to be shot into the fucking sun k bye.”
Bloomberg’s memes started a large conversation on Twitter, too. Many criticized both Bloomberg for buying space for memes and the meme accounts for taking his money.
Others, however, found it creative and called it a “brilliant instagram ad strategy.”
Support from Accounts and Campaign
According to those involved in this meme campaign, it could be an effective strategy. George Resch, who founded tank.sinatra, told the New York Times that this was a successful ad for him.
“It’s the most successful ad that I’ve ever posted, and I think a lot of it came from people being confused whether or not it was real,” he said.
Sabrina Singh, a spokesperson for Bloomberg explained the campaign’s thinking to the Times.
“While a meme strategy may be new to presidential politics, we’re betting it will be an effective component to reach people where they are and compete with President Trump’s powerful digital operation,” she said.
President Donald Trump’s boisterous social media presence seems to be a major reason Bloomberg is working the meme angle. An aide for his campaign said they want to change the Democratic Party’s approach to the Internet.
“The way Trump’s campaign is run is extremely social first,” the aide said to the Times. “We’re trying to break the mold in how the Democratic Party works with marketing, communication and advertising, and do it in a way that’s extremely internet and social native.“
The Impact of Endorsements
These sponsored posts have also sparked a larger conversation about social media and political endorsements. As the Times noted, other big Internet names have gotten vocal about the 2020 election. Both YouTuber Ethan Klien and podcaster Joe Rogan endorsed Bernie Sanders, and endorsements from these kinds of individuals can prove to have a large impact.
Vice wrote a piece saying that Rogan’s endorsement is “one of the most influential in America.”
“Rogan’s endorsement matters doesn’t depend on whether Rogan himself is GOOD or BAD, it’s whether his endorsement moves the needle,” the piece reads. “And given how much discussion there is about his endorsement and what we know about Rogan’s overall influence, it almost certainly does.”
There is, however, a key difference between Rogan’s and Klein’s endorsements and paid social media campaigns for Bloomberg. While those two spoke out because they believe in Sanders as a candidate, fuckjerry and others posted on their accounts because they had a financial incentive to do so.
Because meme accounts supporting candidates is somewhat uncharted territory, it is unclear what the impact here could be. What we do know is that when celebrities speak out based on their core beliefs, it actually can make a huge difference.
During the 2018 primaries pop star Taylor Swift endorsed Tennessee Democrats and encouraged her followers to register to vote, leading to a massive spike in voter registration. Vote.org saw 65,000 registrations in a single 24-hour period. For comparison that’s more than the amount of people who registered throughout the whole month of August that year.
Singer Ariana Grande has also been vocal about politics. She has given an endorsement to Bernie Sanders and encouraged her fans to vote. In December, she broke the record for the number of voters registered during a tour.
Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge to Affordable Care Act
In the 7-2 decision, the justices argued the Republican-led states that brought the challenge forth failed to show how the law caused injury and thus had no legal standing.
SCOTUS Issues Opinion on Individual Mandate
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the third Republican-led challenge to the Affordable Care Act to ever reach the high court.
The issue at hand was the provision of the law, commonly known as Obamacare, that requires people to either purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty: the so-called individual mandate.
The individual mandate has been one of the most controversial parts of Obamacare and it has already been before SCOTUS, which upheld the provision in 2012 on the grounds that it amounted to a tax and thus fell under Congress’ taxing power.
However, as part of the sweeping 2017 tax bill, the Republican-held Congress set the penalty for not having health care to $0. As a result, a group of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, arguing that because their GOP colleagues made the mandate zero dollars, it no longer raised revenues and could not be considered a tax, thus making it unconstitutional.
The states also argued that the individual mandate is such a key part of Obamacare that it could not be separated without getting rid of the entire law.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
Majority Opinion Finds No Injury
In the majority decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Republican states had no grounds to sue because they could not show how they were harmed by their own colleagues zeroing out the penalty.
“There is no possible government action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs’ injury — the costs of purchasing health insurance,” he wrote, adding that the states “have not demonstrated that an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo.”
Breyer also argued that because of this, the court did not need to decide on the broader issue of whether the 2017 tax bill rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional and if that provision could be separated from the ACA.
The highly anticipated decision will officially keep Obamacare as the law of the land, ensuring that the roughly 20 million people enrolled still have health insurance. While there may be other challenges to the law hard-fought by conservatives, this latest ruling sends a key signal about the limits of the Republican efforts to achieve their agenda through the high court, even with the strong conservative majority.
While the court has now struck down challenges to Obamacare three times, Thursday’s decision marked the largest margin of victory of all three challenges to the ACA.
For now, the ACA appears to be fairly insulated from legal challenges, though it will still likely face more. In a tweet following the SCOTUS decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) vowed to keep fighting Obamacare, adding that the individual mandate “was unconstitutional when it was enacted and it is still unconstitutional.”
See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press)
Utah Student With Down Syndrome Left Out of Cheer Squad’s Yearbook Photo
The move marks the second time in three years that Morgyn Arnold has been left out of the school’s yearbook. Two years ago, it failed to include her in the class list.
Two Photos Take, One Without Morgyn Arnold
A Utah school has apologized after a student with Down syndrome at Shoreline Junior High was excluded from her cheerleading squad’s yearbook photo.
The squad took two official team portraits this year. The first included 14-year-old Morgyn Arnold, who had been working as the team manager but attended practices and cheered alongside her other teammates at every home game. The second imsgr did not include her and ended up being the photo the school used across social media and in its yearbook.
Arnold was heartbroken by the decision and her family believed it was made because of her disability.
In social media posts about the move, Arnold’s sister, Jordyn Poll, noted that Arnold “spent hours learning dances, showing up to games, and cheering on her school and friends but was left out.”
“I hope that no one ever has to experience the heartbreak that comes when the person they love comes home from school devastated and shows them that they’re not in the picture with their team,” she continued.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Poll also said this marked the second time in three years that her sister has been left out of the yearbook. Two years ago, the school failed to include her in the class list.
School Apologizes After Backlash
After Poll’s public call out picked up attention, the school said it was “deeply saddened by the mistake.”
“Apologies have been made to the family, and we sincerely apologize to all others impacted by this error,” it added. “We are continuing to look at what has occurred, and to improve our practice.”
The district issued a similar statement, claiming it was looking into why this occurred to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
But Poll said this isn’t the same response her family received when they initially contacted school administrators. Instead, Poll told the Tribune that an employee at the school “blatantly said they didn’t know what we were expecting of them and there was nothing they could do.”
The school has since contacted them again “to make the situation right.”
Meanwhile, Poll stressed that her sister’s teammates had nothing to do with the decision, defending the girls as amazing friends who have done everything to make Arnold feel included.
In fact, they too were disappointed to see that she was not featured in the image or even named as a member of the team in the yearbook.
Arnold’s family decided to speak up about the issue so that this school and others can improve the ways they interact with and include students with disabilities. Different forms of exclusion happen at schools across the country, and this story has prompted other parents of kids with disabilities to share similar experiences.
This kind of thing happens all the time. I can't count the number of times our son has been excluded, or nearly excluded, from events and pictures and related social activities in his 8 years of school. I know this fury.— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) June 16, 2021
A staff attorney at the Disability Law Center of Utah told the Tribune that it receives about 4,000 complaints each year. Some complaints stemmed from students with disabilities being separated into other classrooms without their peers. Others include name-calling or not allowing students on a team or in a club.
Thankfully, Arnold has not let this situation bring her down. According to her family, she has already forgiven everyone involved and plans to continue cheering alongside her friends.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Salt Lake Tribune) (NBC News)
Ex-Shake Shack Manager Sues NYPD Over False Milkshake Poisoning Allegations
The former manager is accusing the police department and its unions of false arrest and defamation relating to the viral incident last summer.
Former Shack Shack Employee Sues One Year Later
The former manager of a New York City Shake Shack restaurant who was falsely accused of poisoning several law enforcement officers’ milkshakes last summer is now suing the city’s police department, its unions, and individual officers.
On June 15, 2020, three officers monitoring the anti-racism protests in Lower Manhattan entered a Shake Shack location for milkshakes, which they later claimed had been poisoned, likely by bleach.
By the end of the night, investigators determined that no one had tampered with the drinks, and the New York Police Department declared there was “no criminality.” Police later said the officers were possibly sickened by a cleaning solution that had not been properly cleaned out of the machines, though Shake Shack claimed it did not find leaks of any foreign substances.
Before that lack of criminality was determined and while the inquiry was ongoing, the police unions and their leaders accused the Shake Shack workers of launching a targeted attack in a series of tweets, which were then shared and discussed widely on social media by prominent conservatives.
The resulting outcome was widespread condemnation and deleting of tweets. Now, almost exactly a year later, the former manager of that Shake Shack, Marcus Gilliam, has accused the parties involved of false arrest and defamation.
According to his lawsuit, the three officers — who are referred to as Officers Strawberry Shake, Vanilla Shake, and Cherry Shake — ordered the drinks via mobile app, meaning the employees could not have known cops placed the order.
Additionally, the documents state the order was “already packaged and waiting for pickup” when the officers arrived, making it impossible for Gilliam or any other employee to have added anything to the shakes when they saw the officers come in to claim them.
After the officers complained about the taste of the milkshakes and threw them out, Gilliam said he apologized and offered them vouchers for free replacements, which they accepted. However, they still told their Sergeant that Gilliam had put a “toxic substance” in their drinks, even though they had disposed of any evidence.
Claims of Wrongful Detainment
The court documents go on to say that another officer arrived and detained the employees, who cooperated with the officer’s investigation. That process included interviews, searches, and tests, which showed no evidence of bleach or other toxins.
The NYPD also conducted a review of security footage, which independently determined that none of the employees put any kind of toxic substances in the officer’s drinks.
Despite all that, and even after the three officers were released from a hospital “without ever showing symptoms,” the NYPD still arrested Gilliam and brought him into the precinct, the suit stated.
Once in the precinct, the former manager was allegedly “interrogated for approximately one to two hours” and detained for around three hours, putting the total time he was detained by police in both the store and the precinct at approximately five to six hours.
Gilliam’s attorney is arguing that the officers had no probable cause or warrants for his arrest. An arrest that the lawsuit says caused him to suffer “emotional and psychological damages and damage to his reputation,” as well as economic damages from legal fees and missed wages, for which he is seeking both punitive and monetary damages.
None of the defendants have responded to requests for comment from the media.