September 2, 2025 • 31 mins
On this week’s SoloPod, Angela Rye talks with Elizabeth Booker Houston about her contract with Chorus and the online controversy over a Wired article about dark money going to dem influencers.
Chorus is a non-profit organization that allegedly pays influencers to push Democratic Party messaging. This came out in an article in Wired magazine written by Taylor Lorenz. Elizabeth is going to go over her contract with Chorus and tell us why she thinks Taylor’s reporting is questionable.
Welcome home y’all!
—---------
We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast.
Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube.
Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Native Landpod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Reason Choice Media. Welcome Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome,
Welcome home, y'all. This is a solo pod of Native Lampod.
I'm Angela RAI. I get to sit with y'all most Tuesdays.
Last Tuesday, I was out, but I am back today
(00:21):
and I'm going to talk a little bit about this
social media beef in these here social media streets. Uh,
there's been a woman named Taylor Lorenz who wrote a
piece called a dark money group is secretly funding high
profile democratic influencers. Oooh, very taboo until you really get
(00:41):
into the meat of this thing and you figure out
what's been happening on the other side. The context that
I would like to offer you in this moment is
that you know, we're living in an unprecedented times. Some
call it fascism. I am some Okay, there are a
lot of us who are trying to figure out what
in the world is going on right now, and sometimes
when you are living in unprecedented times, you have to
(01:03):
do unprecedented things. The thing that Taylor Lorenz is criticizing
dark money for are things that Republican folks have been
doing for many, many years. Some of them were doing
it below the radar and illegally before Citizens United and
after that decision, the ways in which dark money influenced
(01:26):
the political process significantly shifted. And I would say that
on the other side of the isle with the Democratic Party,
they've been very reluctant to engage in this way. So
if you think about what just happened in Texas, I'm
gonna I'm going somewhere. If you think about what just
happened in Texas with the redistricting process, you saw blue
(01:48):
state governor saying, you know what, if Texas nuxts, I'm
about to buck. And the reason why I'm bringing that
up is because there are these are the same governors
who just a couple of years ago, not even we're saying,
you know what we need. I'm gonna tell you what
we need. We need independent redistricting commissions, we need parties
(02:09):
or we need congressional and state legislative lines drawn by
nonpartisan people so we can ensure fairness in the process.
When you hear that, you're like, you know what, That's
a good idea for some people. There are others of us,
particularly my forever bosses with the Congressional Black Caucus that know, generally,
when you talk about nonpartisan and it's all going to
be fair, black folks are normally the ones who are
(02:31):
left out. And of course, in this redistricting day and age,
where they decide to just redraw districts in the middle
of a term five years in instead of the tenure mark,
which is standard, you get cheaters. And so what happened
is blue state governors were like, okay, well, they're planned
by a different set of rules. We can either play
ball or we can still be going for this wish
(02:51):
idea for these independent redistricting commissions. Dark money is no different,
hear me. Dark money is no different. When you are
playing with people who are not playing fair, at some
point you got to step into the ballgame. So I
want to listen to this clip really quick from Taylor
Lorenz and we are going to bring in a very
special guest, my sister friend, who will be introduced right
(03:13):
on the other side of this clip. Let's roll it.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Well, so what you just said is totally right, Like
the right is seen as more authentic, and that is
because that there's not this effort to from the top
to sort of control who gets access and who gets
power and sort of like gatekeeper, whereas the Democrats sort
of seem obsessed with gatekeepers and they can't stop making
this They want to invent new gatekeepers when old gatekeepers
(03:36):
don't exist. So you know, this dark money group and
this Chorus company are sort of seemingly trying to become
those gatekeepers, you know. I think another issue is that
the Democrats criticize dark money for a long time and
have criticized this role in politics, and I think that
this situation just reveals further the problems that we have
(03:56):
about the influencer world, because you're right, this does happen
on the right too, right, Like, this is a big
I've written about some of those influence campaigns, But we
want to get rid of dark money and politics that
we know who's posting these political messages or who's biased.
You know, if I take fifty thousand dollars from a
dark money group, first of all, that makes me uncomfortable
(04:17):
because I don't even know who's funding that group or
what their sort of goals are. But say I take
that money, people should know, like the people following me
should have a right to know my funding, and I
think that we should know the funding sources of these
political influencers or of these influencers who are calling themselves journalists.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
So this is a very interesting conversation that we're having
in a vacuum, and to back us up out of
this vacuum, and maybe Citizens United versus FBC will also
help us. It was a twenty ten case to change
the game for all of us. But I want to
bring in my good friend and sister, Elizabeth Booker Houston.
You all know her as Booker Squared and she is
(04:58):
regularly bringing it to folks. And what I would like
to know from Elizabeth first, because I believe in fact Friday,
So let's just have a fact Friday moment. Can you
please tell me when you started to produce content where
you were talking about the political process. Do you remember
around when that was?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
What year was that the first time on any of
the like I guess modern platforms because I've been talking
about politics since two thousand and seven on Facebook. But
when I started making videos it was twenty twenty. It
was during the pandemic because my specially, one of my
specialties is public health law, so that's when I started
making content.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
And I want you to know that. I know this
is true because one of my big sisters and friends,
Geraldy Mariba, was like, have you heard of her? I
love her? So it's around that time. It may have
been twenty twenty one, but definitely around this time. Can
you tell us for the record, Elizabeth, when you first
learned of Courus.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Well, I learned about it in November of twenty twenty four,
right after the election.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Can you say that one more time for the people
who might be slower.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I can't hear November twenty twenty four, after the election.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Okay, So I want to So you said after the election,
which means you didn't have any engagement with them for
a very significant election, one where fascism was on the line,
you were still doing content on your own.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Yeah, they did not exist. They approached a group of
creators and asked us if we were interested in trying
to form some way that we could get funding and
not have any ties to having to create content. That's
why this whole controversy is hilarious to me, because most
of what I do is like, oh, here's a contract
(06:37):
with a nonprofit and we want you to make a
video or make some sort of content in exchange. And
so what they were trying to do with Chorus is say,
we want to find a way to fund you and
also give you tools to be able to grow your platform,
but not tell you what to do. And so this
whole controversy has been really weird to me because that's
what attracted me to the group in the first place,
was Okay, you're not even going to expect content from me.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So one of her arguments in the piece and Taylor's piece,
was that they actually were having editorial control over what
you put out. So one of the things that we
see all the time on Instagram is like, if you
were paid by an advertiser, you need to disclose this
thing because that means your content, what you're saying has
been influenced by the person or entity that paid you.
(07:20):
You're saying the exact opposite that this entity. Chorus actually
did not want to have influence over this subject matter
of your content.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Correct, They did not want to have any influence over that. Also,
I'm just going to keep it a book. Eight thousand
dollars is not enough money for somebody to get content
out of me all month. It's just not, so.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Can you What was the reason when you were approached
to take this deal? Is the core? I have your
contract right here, she has my contract, have the contract,
and I am an attorney. I'm not Elizabeth attorney, but
I am an attorney.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
One of the.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Things that it's the Amplifier Services Agreement, which I also
think is very important for people to understand in my mind, Elizabeth,
and you can talk to me like you know you're
at so maybe I missed it. Amplifier generally means they
are going to uplift, promote, or shed light on something
that already exists. Was that your understanding?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Yeah? Absolutely. The whole idea of the Amplifier cohort was
this is a group of people who it was kind
of like a double entendre. So the first is, this
is a group of people who if we give them
the support and services, they will be able to amplify
their messages more easily. Right, We're gonna put you in
a cohort that allows you to get the tools to
basically maximize your way to amplify what you're doing. And
then the other meaning to it is also I mean,
(08:32):
let's be straight up, they probably wanted people like me,
so that they can continue to get interest in funding
for the cohort, and they could be like, look at
Elizabeth Booker Houston, she was part of our cohort. Now
we can get more funding and more people applying well.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
And then So this is the other thing that I
think is really significant to me. This isn't a day
and age whether we should be talking about dark money
funding this or funding that. But I think there is
a difference in what dark money represents. I would love
for you to explain to our audience with dark money
is because it sounds so bad. We know, as a
communication strategy, people talk about a boogeyman, and dark money
(09:09):
always is a great boogeyman because it sounds so awful.
So from your understanding, Elizabeth, what is dark money?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
So dark money is where you cannot trace the donations
back to the donors. And that is essentially any five
oh one C four organization. So that includes organizations like Chorus.
But that's not the only five oh one C four
I've worked with. I've also worked with the League for
Conservation Voters. I've also worked with like Planned Parenthood Action Fund,
you know, different organizations they CLU, you know, they have
(09:37):
five oh one C four arms because they cannot trace
the funding back to the donor, and they do some
sort of work where they're essentially trying to influence politics,
but they're not doing things like you can't have a
political ad for a candidate. It's not something that you
can do that's partisan. It has to be non partisan.
But you find that these groups often are trying to
influence politics in other ways, more so focusing on the issues,
(09:59):
not on a part already and not on a candidate,
which in my opinion is the best way to move.
But dark money has also been specifically used over the
years to talk about those five oh one c fours
that are collecting this money so they can funnel it
to super PACs. And I can say unequivocally that is
not what is happening in this situation. So when I
saw the term dark money, I was thinking, Okay, this
(10:20):
is being used in the absolute broadest way, and it
has a negative connotation that is likely just going to
come off as sillacious and get people to click on this.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
And click they did. So to that point, I want
to go to the dark money group that they reference
in this piece, which is the sixteen thirty fund. The
sixteen thirty fund is noted to be one of the
left largest hubs of dark money. According to a political article,
(10:51):
it says that they have given money to two packs
leading a successful campaign to preserve abortion rights. It says
that they donated to the Congressional Integrity Project, which was
a group that went to target Republican lawmakers who were
(11:14):
involved in the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden. They gave
money to a climate conservation group, the Citizens for Responsible
Energy Solutions, a wopping two hundred thousand dollars, and then
the Family Friend a family friendly action fund, which was
a nonprofit whose affiliate pledged to spend forty million dollars
(11:36):
re electing Biden and other Democrats. And even with all
of that, it says that some of their their their
funds went down in twenty twenty four. But I'm bringing
that up because dark money that you know, helped to influence,
you know, Russia's interference in an election, versus dark money
(11:57):
that is working to preserve some of our rights perhaps
were by Elizabeth, I think we are is different.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, I agree, I think it's very different. And like
I said, we know that this term has a negative
connotation and without the context and without giving the specifics
or talking about how especially given what's happened. I'm really
disappointed that people didn't go and see who's sixteen thirty
fund is donates who as far as candidates like Jamal
Bowman Rashida to lead Corey Bush, people who you and
I you know, we greatly respect and admire and we
(12:24):
consider friends or colleagues who have been fighting the good fight.
And so that is allowed a narrative to be pushed
to not only portray this entire organization is something very negative,
which then falls onto Chorus, which is sixteen thirty fund
is a fiscal sponsor, not the funder for Chorus, which
keeps getting overlooked as well. And then that trickles down
(12:46):
to the creators who are part of Coorus to make
us seem like we're doing something scandalous or trying to
hide something from our followers. But really, to be quite honest,
I just really thought that saying I'm part of course
was going to be good enough. I've never had anybody
dig this far into any other five oh one c
four that I've worked with.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Can you talk about some of the benefits of the program.
I think it's important for people to understand now that
it course is the official boogie ban of this week
and last. Can you talk about some of the things
that you gain from being a part of this program.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, the thing that they've been teaching us is really
just technical tools. So I personally want to get onto
YouTube as a platform and grow more on there. Everybody
has different goals coming into the cohort. There are some
people who are trying to grow in different ways. I
know a lot of us have also been like growing
our facebooks because of the technical tools and the trainings
they are giving us. And so they have these trainings
where they're showing us this is how you can make
(13:39):
the best graphics. This is how you can make the
best thumbnails. This is how you can edit your software
with these different tools. This is how you can make
sure that your sound is perfect with this microphone. It's
all very very technical. There is absolutely nothing that is
said that says, hey, you're going to make make a
video about this specific topic, You're going to talk about
(14:00):
this issue this way. It's more so, whatever the hell
you talk about, here's how you can do it to
make it sound really good. And then there's also daily
messaging updates, which again are just talking about these are
the major messages breaking through in the news, just like
any like if you were just going to pull up
you know, Google and try to see what the top
news stories were for the day. Those meetings last like
(14:21):
ten minutes. They're not this big, in depth talking point situation.
It's just here's some ideas, guys, if you're trying to
think of ways to make content, I'm gonna be perfectly
honest with you too. The thing that gets me about
that is the way people read that as oh, well,
they're directing your content. I don't really pay attention to
most of the messaging meetings myself because I already know
(14:41):
what I want to talk about most of the time.
And also my focus is very much on the black community.
So there are many days where they're like, here's the
top messages, and I'm like, well, that's cool. Maybe that'll
help somebody else, but I already know I want to
talk about this.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
And have you ever have you ever seen anything where
they're like, you know, you get this particular reward or
you know, a certain kind of feature if you talk
about the content that they recommend.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
No, because Yeah, there's nothing like that, because again they're
not even recommending like content, they're just saying, this is
what we're seeing people talk about in the news. Take it,
leave it, do what you want to do with it.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
What about this idea that you guys have to vet
any content you do outside of the program through them.
If you want to speak to an elected official or candidate,
you have to run that by them. What about that claim?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, that is completely one hundred percent false, And that
came from a section of the contract which I know
you read, which talks about the course newsroom requirement, and
it says that we have to participate in the newsroom
at least twice a month. Just to be blunt, we
haven't done any newsrooms because I believe there just wasn't
the funding there yet. This isn't like a super huge,
widely funded thing. This is very much a startup. So
(15:48):
we haven't even done any newsroom events. But the idea was,
we want you to do two newsroom events a month,
and you can book with lawmakers through course, but if
you want to reach out to them yourselves, just coordinate
with us so we know that you're using the newsroom.
That's what that meant is that if you're going to
work in the newsroom, what's these lawmakers for your two
newsroom whatever events a month, let us know because we've
(16:08):
got to coordinate when it comes to anything not related
to Courus newsroom. If I'm not doing anything with Chorus
everything else, they don't even know. And because we haven't
even done any newsroom events, I haven't talked to them
about any lawmakers I'm talking to except maybe after the
fact sometimes in the group chats, I'm like, look at
this cool interview I did you know, check it out,
Feel free to share it, that sort of thing. And
(16:28):
I can also say that my other sponsors that again
are disclosed all over my page, would be pissed off
if I gave all of that control over to Chorus,
that every single lawmaker booking I have has to go
through them. It doesn't even make logical sense. And again
that's why I was so thrown by all of this.
I was like, that doesn't even that doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I think one of the things you just write up
as sponsors, And so there may be somebody that is
listening that is like, well, if you're you know, if
you're doing this because it's the right thing. Why do
you have sponsors? Talk about why that is and how
you got to the point where you would have sponsors
or partners on content.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
I have bills, right.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
But but how did you didn't start off as a
sponsored talent? Right? It's something that you have moved towards.
As you have influenced and become more influential, people see
you popping up a lot more. They're like, oh, we
need to hire her to do XYZ. Talk about some
of those partnerships or sponsorships.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Yeah, my main one is Congressional Black Caucus Pack. I
love working with CBC PACK. I've worked with them for
like a year and a half now.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Actually, oh, let me disclose I am on the board
because before that becomes a problem for miss Taylor or
anybody else that's trolling, I'm on the board.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Is proud to have Elizabeth, thank you. I love working
with CBC PACK. I try to work with I really
have a preference for black organizations led organizations, which again
is why that's so funny that people think I would
give away all my control and autonomy to some white
boys who founded something. But aside from that, I work
with the Washington informer. I've been really excited to have
(18:12):
a three month partnership with them. They are a black
DC newspaper. They had just extended my partnership another three months.
So excited to work with them on that. I've worked
with Wateringhome Media with our good sins Ashley Allison. She's
been fantastic and that brings together Black, Indigenous and creators
of color. We just finished a cohort. Another cohort I
was in that was disclosed on my page where we
(18:33):
talked about health and medicaid and talked about that specifically.
I've also done. I have so many different partnerships I've done,
Like I said, with ACLU, have done several kind of
one off projects with them, Planned Parent had Action Fund,
Evergreen Action Fund, pretty much just all things that align
with my content. And so the way that I approach
(18:54):
all of these contracts, because I get a lot of
offers for a lot of things, I do not accept
most of them. I find those contracts and sponsorships that
already align with what I'm doing and what I want
to say. It's not the other way around. I've actually
even had contracts where I've started working on something, they
come back and they change the messaging and I cancel
(19:15):
the contract and say I'm sorry, this doesn't align anymore.
I have no problem doing that, and I really love
doing this work, like being able to do a full
time which I've only been a full time content creator
for the last few weeks. As you know, I left.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
My family job.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
No, I left it, And the irony about leaving my
federal job at the FDA was I joked on threads
and said, y'all didn't care this much when my salary
was paid by user fees from big Pharma.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
M talk about that too. They may not know that
elizab business. They only can you know, people can't walk
into gum. They got a walk or to gum. So okay.
So we talked about this piece around the candidates too.
We talked about your other sponsors or partners. One of
the things that I thought was fascinating about Taylor's interview
(20:06):
with The Hill was that she said that the Right
comes across as more authentic and there's not this effort
to gatekeep and from the top. And I thought that
was really fascinating because that couldn't be further from the truth.
There are so many documented incidents of them putting people
literally from ground zero putting people on, and they have
(20:27):
a lot more money to do that. I think one
of the platforms we saw pop up I think in
twenty twenty was Rumble, and they were paying people to
go onto the platform millions of dollars. Again, for the record,
do you want to share how much your contract was
with Chorus?
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Yeah, it's eight thousand dollars a month for a six
month cohort.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
So eight thousand dollars a month for six months. And
you're like, that's not enough for you to have paid
for me and sold me off. That's not sufficient.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
I made twelve foul dollars a month when I was
a Fed lawyer. I mean, just to be frank, my
finances have been public for so long as a federal employee,
having a file OG four fifties, things like that, so
you know, I've been very public. But no, to say
that four thousand dollars less than my indefinite salary as
a FED lawyer for a mere six month cohort is
(21:20):
enough to sell myself over, give give up the full
creative control and have people tell me what to say.
Absolutely not. I will throw ass on the stage before
I do that I'm sorry. I'm not sorry. That's crazy
to me.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Well, on speaking of throwing ass, I think that the
other the other thing that we should get to is,
you know, like, where do you go from here with
this story? This, this She's thrown all of this out here,
a lot of allegations. It sounds like some of them debunked.
Even from your own contract, there is there's nothing that
proves or establishes some of the claims that she's made
(21:55):
in the piece. Instead of retracting them in the piece,
she has gone online to be defensive or to suggest that,
you know, maybe this isn't in fact the case. What
is your what is your comment to Taylor at this
point and to other folks who are out there, some
of them who look like us, who are writing the
basis claims in this article as truth.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
I think it's really disappointing that this could have been
a really good opportunity to just talk about dark Whenning
and sixteen thirty Fund as a whole, rather than honing
in on one set of creators and one nonprofit, because
let's be for real, it was definitely coming in at
the creators, and I think the stems from the fact
that She published an article in April twenty fourth where
she first said the Chorus was scamming people and not
(22:37):
paying creators. Right now the story has changed now they're paying.
I don't know if it was to save face. I
don't know what the situation was, but that article still
hasn't even been retracted, and now they're the claims that
of course they are paying creators and not scamming creators,
and so I don't really know what the motive was
with that. I also think it was ridiculous to say
(22:59):
things like we were not allowed to talk about Gaza
or the genocide and Palestine, and my attorney counted up
just for purposes of what I'll get into. My next
step was that I had made nineteen posts on Instagram
alone since June first, and my stories and my grid
and collaborations all about the genocide and Gaza, covering the flotilla,
(23:19):
what happened to Chris Small's with and being beaten by
the IDF A doctor whouldn't get to the children in Gaza. Fundraising.
I have had fundraising links for Palestinian families as well
as folks who are affected by the genocides in Congo
Sudan t Gray in my bio for a very long time.
I regularly share these things and my stories and on
threads and reposts, and so that was just such an
easily debunked claim that all it took was one person
(23:43):
to say, well, I think this is happening, and I
was flooded with comments of people saying, why won't you
acknowledge the genocide and Gaza when I have consistently, so
I was disappointing. And also to say that we were
pushing the party line and trying to make it seem
like this was a DNC project or the Democrats. The
DNC has been incredibly anti Black and I have many
problems with them, which I have been very public about.
(24:04):
So that pissed me off on a different level because,
to be quite frank, and the DNC knows this, because
I've been on some calls where I popped off. I
don't want to be in any creative cohort they ever have.
I really don't. I don't like any idea of being
told that I got to push any particular Democrat. If
I go talk to them, it's because I wanted to
talk to them. It's because I wanted to interview this person.
I don't like the idea of that. At the DNC
(24:25):
last year, they had all of these creators, some of
them three four to a hotel room because they couldn't
afford a hotel in Chicago, could couldn't even cover like ubers,
no flights, when didn't give people food. You had to
buy concessions inside of the stadium, and they had maybe
a few little snacks out that everybody had to fight over.
I mean, this was not no five star treatment by
any means. So it really irritates me that people keep
(24:47):
saying that I'm paid by the DNC when they've never
paid me, not one red cent, and my money has
been very black. As I've said, the organizations that have
paid me the best and the most have been black organizations,
and so I really feel like that undermine so much
of my work, the hard work that I put in
to build my platform, and also is really dismissive of
the black partners that I work with and highlight the most.
(25:07):
And it just very much was giving. There's no way
that this black woman could possibly be worth eight thousand
dollars a month for six months unless she's giving everything
over to these individuals. To tell her what to do.
There's no way she could possibly retain her autonomy and
still be worthy of that when we know that white
creators are making five times that much money, way more money.
(25:30):
The disparity is insane. So there's so many layers to it,
and I could just go on and on, but I
will say that my next steps are that, as of
about an hour ago, my attorney has sent a letter
to Wired and Conde Nast demanding a retraction, as well
as detailing and roughly I think fifteen exhibits evidence of
why this was defamatory, why it was false, why it
(25:54):
was knowingly and intentionally false. Because miss Lorenz knows we
have text messages, that we've had conversations in the past,
that she knew I was part of chorus. She knows
that we have dms. We've had conversations again. I noticed
that she has my cell phone number, but I never
got a text message asking to even speak on this article.
It turned out she sent it to a DM on Instagram,
(26:15):
which she shared the screenshot on social media, and this
was after I had unfollowed her due to issues from
the past, and of course those dms get buried when
you have half a million followers. But again, this has
all been a very interesting experience.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
And you're saying sorry, Elizabeth, you're saying, for the record,
she has your phone number, yes, and she says in
the piece that she reached out to you for comment
that you didn't but where she sat comment was not
at your phone number, it was in your Instagram dms
where you don't follow her.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
So just more just little things that just keep adding up.
And I'm just really disappointed with the way I've seen
people talk about this. Like I had one person online
say I never took dark money. I took money from
organizations like move On, and I said, we'll move on
to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars from sixteen thirty
last year dark money. So that's dark money. There's a lot.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
According to the definition, which is why we take issue
with the definition. There are several of our civil rights
orgs that are five oh one C fours. So if
you take any money from a C four, if that
automatically means that because they have donors that don't have
to be disclosed as dark money, are we really wanting
to use this definition in that way or use that,
you know, use that term in this way.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Yeah, so yeah, And I made that comment about the
NAACP when I was having a conversation with Consciously on threads,
and I put dark money in quotes, which then brought
Taylor to then come in on Twitter for some reason,
not on threads with the conversation began and screenshot and
say that I was dogging out the NUBACP. I just
(27:47):
I was like, Okay, now, this is this is just
being willfully obtuse at this point that you're not understanding
what we are trying to say, and how reckless this was.
I have had an influx of so many harassed in commons,
of people saying horrible things. However, I've had way more
support from the people who I actually care about, which
is my community. I wish that people understood more that
(28:10):
my politic is black women. It's not leftist, it's not progressive,
it's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's not republican, it's
not democratics a black women. So I go into everything
with the idea of what is the best thing for
my community, and Angela and you and I have talked
about how people don't understand that that way far end
(28:31):
of the spectrum, the left spectrum that is not the
majority of our community by any means, and I'm not
and I understand that there are some black folks who
are on that far left in who are making sure
to try to move that needle, and I appreciate that
work that they do. And many of those same individuals
have come out of my defense over this past week,
even if we don't agree on the methods to get
(28:52):
to liberation, they know that this was not right, and
I appreciate them so much because at the end of
the day, we always have community no matter where we sit.
But I have decided that this is where I'm going
to sit. Is that more pragmatic approach that I have
learned from the majority of folks in my community, and
that's what I'm relying on, because, to be quite honest,
I think that's where my talents lie. I know administrative law,
(29:14):
I know how these systems work, and so that's my space.
And I just wish the more people understood that we
can all have this role to play. And it doesn't
mean that just because somebody is working on a different
part of the past deliberation, it doesn't mean that they're evil.
It doesn't mean that the work that I do is
(29:34):
undermine just because I'm saying I'm going to work a
little bit within this system right to try to make change.
And that goes the same for the folks who are
on the far left who are saying I'm never going
to work within that system. I'm never going to work
within it. But I'm going to do all of the
community organizing outside. I'm going to be protesting outside in
these streets. Everybody's got their part to play in this,
(29:55):
and I think that's where a lot of the conversation
has gotten murky. And to be blind, I need white
people on the left stay the hell out of our
business because that has been the worst part about this
conversation is the number of especially white men, who want
to come into a space that they don't need to
be in and trying to talk to us. This is
why we got to keep our outside conversations inside. To
(30:16):
be honest, Well, that makes sense too. I would say,
you know, just to close, Elizabeth. I know you got
you on.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Sun duty, but I want to I want to ask
you if you have any parting words to folks who
may be haters, naysayers, they confuse they're disparaging whatever's happening
right now? What is your message to them if they
continue to rely on an article that you expect at
least your attorneys are pushing for to be fully retracted,
(30:44):
especially as it relates to putting some respect on your name.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I'm paid, I'm not bought, but you can try me
if you want to.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Well.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
And on that note, on that high Shirlann Chishm note
this this has been a Black women's political party podcast.
Elizabeth Booker Houston, I'm so grateful for you, says, make
sure y'all follow her at Booker Square because she might
be paid, she might have a partner, she might even
have a sponsor for here and now, but they don't
tell her what to say. And Nisa did I Welcome home, y'all.
(31:29):
Native Lampard is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Native Landpod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Reason Choice Media. Welcome Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome,
Welcome home, y'all. This is a solo pod of Native Lampod.
I'm Angela RAI. I get to sit with y'all most Tuesdays.
Last Tuesday, I was out, but I am back today
(00:21):
and I'm going to talk a little bit about this
social media beef in these here social media streets. Uh,
there's been a woman named Taylor Lorenz who wrote a
piece called a dark money group is secretly funding high
profile democratic influencers. Oooh, very taboo until you really get
(00:41):
into the meat of this thing and you figure out
what's been happening on the other side. The context that
I would like to offer you in this moment is
that you know, we're living in an unprecedented times. Some
call it fascism. I am some Okay, there are a
lot of us who are trying to figure out what
in the world is going on right now, and sometimes
when you are living in unprecedented times, you have to
(01:03):
do unprecedented things. The thing that Taylor Lorenz is criticizing
dark money for are things that Republican folks have been
doing for many, many years. Some of them were doing
it below the radar and illegally before Citizens United and
after that decision, the ways in which dark money influenced
(01:26):
the political process significantly shifted. And I would say that
on the other side of the isle with the Democratic Party,
they've been very reluctant to engage in this way. So
if you think about what just happened in Texas, I'm
gonna I'm going somewhere. If you think about what just
happened in Texas with the redistricting process, you saw blue
(01:48):
state governor saying, you know what, if Texas nuxts, I'm
about to buck. And the reason why I'm bringing that
up is because there are these are the same governors
who just a couple of years ago, not even we're saying,
you know what we need. I'm gonna tell you what
we need. We need independent redistricting commissions, we need parties
(02:09):
or we need congressional and state legislative lines drawn by
nonpartisan people so we can ensure fairness in the process.
When you hear that, you're like, you know what, That's
a good idea for some people. There are others of us,
particularly my forever bosses with the Congressional Black Caucus that know, generally,
when you talk about nonpartisan and it's all going to
be fair, black folks are normally the ones who are
(02:31):
left out. And of course, in this redistricting day and age,
where they decide to just redraw districts in the middle
of a term five years in instead of the tenure mark,
which is standard, you get cheaters. And so what happened
is blue state governors were like, okay, well, they're planned
by a different set of rules. We can either play
ball or we can still be going for this wish
(02:51):
idea for these independent redistricting commissions. Dark money is no different,
hear me. Dark money is no different. When you are
playing with people who are not playing fair, at some
point you got to step into the ballgame. So I
want to listen to this clip really quick from Taylor
Lorenz and we are going to bring in a very
special guest, my sister friend, who will be introduced right
(03:13):
on the other side of this clip. Let's roll it.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Well, so what you just said is totally right, Like
the right is seen as more authentic, and that is
because that there's not this effort to from the top
to sort of control who gets access and who gets
power and sort of like gatekeeper, whereas the Democrats sort
of seem obsessed with gatekeepers and they can't stop making
this They want to invent new gatekeepers when old gatekeepers
(03:36):
don't exist. So you know, this dark money group and
this Chorus company are sort of seemingly trying to become
those gatekeepers, you know. I think another issue is that
the Democrats criticize dark money for a long time and
have criticized this role in politics, and I think that
this situation just reveals further the problems that we have
(03:56):
about the influencer world, because you're right, this does happen
on the right too, right, Like, this is a big
I've written about some of those influence campaigns, But we
want to get rid of dark money and politics that
we know who's posting these political messages or who's biased.
You know, if I take fifty thousand dollars from a
dark money group, first of all, that makes me uncomfortable
(04:17):
because I don't even know who's funding that group or
what their sort of goals are. But say I take
that money, people should know, like the people following me
should have a right to know my funding, and I
think that we should know the funding sources of these
political influencers or of these influencers who are calling themselves journalists.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
So this is a very interesting conversation that we're having
in a vacuum, and to back us up out of
this vacuum, and maybe Citizens United versus FBC will also
help us. It was a twenty ten case to change
the game for all of us. But I want to
bring in my good friend and sister, Elizabeth Booker Houston.
You all know her as Booker Squared and she is
(04:58):
regularly bringing it to folks. And what I would like
to know from Elizabeth first, because I believe in fact Friday,
So let's just have a fact Friday moment. Can you
please tell me when you started to produce content where
you were talking about the political process. Do you remember
around when that was?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
What year was that the first time on any of
the like I guess modern platforms because I've been talking
about politics since two thousand and seven on Facebook. But
when I started making videos it was twenty twenty. It
was during the pandemic because my specially, one of my
specialties is public health law, so that's when I started
making content.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
And I want you to know that. I know this
is true because one of my big sisters and friends,
Geraldy Mariba, was like, have you heard of her? I
love her? So it's around that time. It may have
been twenty twenty one, but definitely around this time. Can
you tell us for the record, Elizabeth, when you first
learned of Courus.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Well, I learned about it in November of twenty twenty four,
right after the election.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Can you say that one more time for the people
who might be slower.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I can't hear November twenty twenty four, after the election.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Okay, So I want to So you said after the election,
which means you didn't have any engagement with them for
a very significant election, one where fascism was on the line,
you were still doing content on your own.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Yeah, they did not exist. They approached a group of
creators and asked us if we were interested in trying
to form some way that we could get funding and
not have any ties to having to create content. That's
why this whole controversy is hilarious to me, because most
of what I do is like, oh, here's a contract
(06:37):
with a nonprofit and we want you to make a
video or make some sort of content in exchange. And
so what they were trying to do with Chorus is say,
we want to find a way to fund you and
also give you tools to be able to grow your platform,
but not tell you what to do. And so this
whole controversy has been really weird to me because that's
what attracted me to the group in the first place,
was Okay, you're not even going to expect content from me.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So one of her arguments in the piece and Taylor's piece,
was that they actually were having editorial control over what
you put out. So one of the things that we
see all the time on Instagram is like, if you
were paid by an advertiser, you need to disclose this
thing because that means your content, what you're saying has
been influenced by the person or entity that paid you.
(07:20):
You're saying the exact opposite that this entity. Chorus actually
did not want to have influence over this subject matter
of your content.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Correct, They did not want to have any influence over that. Also,
I'm just going to keep it a book. Eight thousand
dollars is not enough money for somebody to get content
out of me all month. It's just not, so.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Can you What was the reason when you were approached
to take this deal? Is the core? I have your
contract right here, she has my contract, have the contract,
and I am an attorney. I'm not Elizabeth attorney, but
I am an attorney.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
One of the.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Things that it's the Amplifier Services Agreement, which I also
think is very important for people to understand in my mind, Elizabeth,
and you can talk to me like you know you're
at so maybe I missed it. Amplifier generally means they
are going to uplift, promote, or shed light on something
that already exists. Was that your understanding?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Yeah? Absolutely. The whole idea of the Amplifier cohort was
this is a group of people who it was kind
of like a double entendre. So the first is, this
is a group of people who if we give them
the support and services, they will be able to amplify
their messages more easily. Right, We're gonna put you in
a cohort that allows you to get the tools to
basically maximize your way to amplify what you're doing. And
then the other meaning to it is also I mean,
(08:32):
let's be straight up, they probably wanted people like me,
so that they can continue to get interest in funding
for the cohort, and they could be like, look at
Elizabeth Booker Houston, she was part of our cohort. Now
we can get more funding and more people applying well.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
And then So this is the other thing that I
think is really significant to me. This isn't a day
and age whether we should be talking about dark money
funding this or funding that. But I think there is
a difference in what dark money represents. I would love
for you to explain to our audience with dark money
is because it sounds so bad. We know, as a
communication strategy, people talk about a boogeyman, and dark money
(09:09):
always is a great boogeyman because it sounds so awful.
So from your understanding, Elizabeth, what is dark money?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
So dark money is where you cannot trace the donations
back to the donors. And that is essentially any five
oh one C four organization. So that includes organizations like Chorus.
But that's not the only five oh one C four
I've worked with. I've also worked with the League for
Conservation Voters. I've also worked with like Planned Parenthood Action Fund,
you know, different organizations they CLU, you know, they have
(09:37):
five oh one C four arms because they cannot trace
the funding back to the donor, and they do some
sort of work where they're essentially trying to influence politics,
but they're not doing things like you can't have a
political ad for a candidate. It's not something that you
can do that's partisan. It has to be non partisan.
But you find that these groups often are trying to
influence politics in other ways, more so focusing on the issues,
(09:59):
not on a part already and not on a candidate,
which in my opinion is the best way to move.
But dark money has also been specifically used over the
years to talk about those five oh one c fours
that are collecting this money so they can funnel it
to super PACs. And I can say unequivocally that is
not what is happening in this situation. So when I
saw the term dark money, I was thinking, Okay, this
(10:20):
is being used in the absolute broadest way, and it
has a negative connotation that is likely just going to
come off as sillacious and get people to click on this.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
And click they did. So to that point, I want
to go to the dark money group that they reference
in this piece, which is the sixteen thirty fund. The
sixteen thirty fund is noted to be one of the
left largest hubs of dark money. According to a political article,
(10:51):
it says that they have given money to two packs
leading a successful campaign to preserve abortion rights. It says
that they donated to the Congressional Integrity Project, which was
a group that went to target Republican lawmakers who were
(11:14):
involved in the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden. They gave
money to a climate conservation group, the Citizens for Responsible
Energy Solutions, a wopping two hundred thousand dollars, and then
the Family Friend a family friendly action fund, which was
a nonprofit whose affiliate pledged to spend forty million dollars
(11:36):
re electing Biden and other Democrats. And even with all
of that, it says that some of their their their
funds went down in twenty twenty four. But I'm bringing
that up because dark money that you know, helped to influence,
you know, Russia's interference in an election, versus dark money
(11:57):
that is working to preserve some of our rights perhaps
were by Elizabeth, I think we are is different.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, I agree, I think it's very different. And like
I said, we know that this term has a negative
connotation and without the context and without giving the specifics
or talking about how especially given what's happened. I'm really
disappointed that people didn't go and see who's sixteen thirty
fund is donates who as far as candidates like Jamal
Bowman Rashida to lead Corey Bush, people who you and
I you know, we greatly respect and admire and we
(12:24):
consider friends or colleagues who have been fighting the good fight.
And so that is allowed a narrative to be pushed
to not only portray this entire organization is something very negative,
which then falls onto Chorus, which is sixteen thirty fund
is a fiscal sponsor, not the funder for Chorus, which
keeps getting overlooked as well. And then that trickles down
(12:46):
to the creators who are part of Coorus to make
us seem like we're doing something scandalous or trying to
hide something from our followers. But really, to be quite honest,
I just really thought that saying I'm part of course
was going to be good enough. I've never had anybody
dig this far into any other five oh one c
four that I've worked with.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Can you talk about some of the benefits of the program.
I think it's important for people to understand now that
it course is the official boogie ban of this week
and last. Can you talk about some of the things
that you gain from being a part of this program.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, the thing that they've been teaching us is really
just technical tools. So I personally want to get onto
YouTube as a platform and grow more on there. Everybody
has different goals coming into the cohort. There are some
people who are trying to grow in different ways. I
know a lot of us have also been like growing
our facebooks because of the technical tools and the trainings
they are giving us. And so they have these trainings
where they're showing us this is how you can make
(13:39):
the best graphics. This is how you can make the
best thumbnails. This is how you can edit your software
with these different tools. This is how you can make
sure that your sound is perfect with this microphone. It's
all very very technical. There is absolutely nothing that is
said that says, hey, you're going to make make a
video about this specific topic, You're going to talk about
(14:00):
this issue this way. It's more so, whatever the hell
you talk about, here's how you can do it to
make it sound really good. And then there's also daily
messaging updates, which again are just talking about these are
the major messages breaking through in the news, just like
any like if you were just going to pull up
you know, Google and try to see what the top
news stories were for the day. Those meetings last like
(14:21):
ten minutes. They're not this big, in depth talking point situation.
It's just here's some ideas, guys, if you're trying to
think of ways to make content, I'm gonna be perfectly
honest with you too. The thing that gets me about
that is the way people read that as oh, well,
they're directing your content. I don't really pay attention to
most of the messaging meetings myself because I already know
(14:41):
what I want to talk about most of the time.
And also my focus is very much on the black community.
So there are many days where they're like, here's the
top messages, and I'm like, well, that's cool. Maybe that'll
help somebody else, but I already know I want to
talk about this.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
And have you ever have you ever seen anything where
they're like, you know, you get this particular reward or
you know, a certain kind of feature if you talk
about the content that they recommend.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
No, because Yeah, there's nothing like that, because again they're
not even recommending like content, they're just saying, this is
what we're seeing people talk about in the news. Take it,
leave it, do what you want to do with it.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
What about this idea that you guys have to vet
any content you do outside of the program through them.
If you want to speak to an elected official or candidate,
you have to run that by them. What about that claim?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, that is completely one hundred percent false, And that
came from a section of the contract which I know
you read, which talks about the course newsroom requirement, and
it says that we have to participate in the newsroom
at least twice a month. Just to be blunt, we
haven't done any newsrooms because I believe there just wasn't
the funding there yet. This isn't like a super huge,
widely funded thing. This is very much a startup. So
(15:48):
we haven't even done any newsroom events. But the idea was,
we want you to do two newsroom events a month,
and you can book with lawmakers through course, but if
you want to reach out to them yourselves, just coordinate
with us so we know that you're using the newsroom.
That's what that meant is that if you're going to
work in the newsroom, what's these lawmakers for your two
newsroom whatever events a month, let us know because we've
(16:08):
got to coordinate when it comes to anything not related
to Courus newsroom. If I'm not doing anything with Chorus
everything else, they don't even know. And because we haven't
even done any newsroom events, I haven't talked to them
about any lawmakers I'm talking to except maybe after the
fact sometimes in the group chats, I'm like, look at
this cool interview I did you know, check it out,
Feel free to share it, that sort of thing. And
(16:28):
I can also say that my other sponsors that again
are disclosed all over my page, would be pissed off
if I gave all of that control over to Chorus,
that every single lawmaker booking I have has to go
through them. It doesn't even make logical sense. And again
that's why I was so thrown by all of this.
I was like, that doesn't even that doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I think one of the things you just write up
as sponsors, And so there may be somebody that is
listening that is like, well, if you're you know, if
you're doing this because it's the right thing. Why do
you have sponsors? Talk about why that is and how
you got to the point where you would have sponsors
or partners on content.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
I have bills, right.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
But but how did you didn't start off as a
sponsored talent? Right? It's something that you have moved towards.
As you have influenced and become more influential, people see
you popping up a lot more. They're like, oh, we
need to hire her to do XYZ. Talk about some
of those partnerships or sponsorships.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Yeah, my main one is Congressional Black Caucus Pack. I
love working with CBC PACK. I've worked with them for
like a year and a half now.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Actually, oh, let me disclose I am on the board
because before that becomes a problem for miss Taylor or
anybody else that's trolling, I'm on the board.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Is proud to have Elizabeth, thank you. I love working
with CBC PACK. I try to work with I really
have a preference for black organizations led organizations, which again
is why that's so funny that people think I would
give away all my control and autonomy to some white
boys who founded something. But aside from that, I work
with the Washington informer. I've been really excited to have
(18:12):
a three month partnership with them. They are a black
DC newspaper. They had just extended my partnership another three months.
So excited to work with them on that. I've worked
with Wateringhome Media with our good sins Ashley Allison. She's
been fantastic and that brings together Black, Indigenous and creators
of color. We just finished a cohort. Another cohort I
was in that was disclosed on my page where we
(18:33):
talked about health and medicaid and talked about that specifically.
I've also done. I have so many different partnerships I've done,
Like I said, with ACLU, have done several kind of
one off projects with them, Planned Parent had Action Fund,
Evergreen Action Fund, pretty much just all things that align
with my content. And so the way that I approach
(18:54):
all of these contracts, because I get a lot of
offers for a lot of things, I do not accept
most of them. I find those contracts and sponsorships that
already align with what I'm doing and what I want
to say. It's not the other way around. I've actually
even had contracts where I've started working on something, they
come back and they change the messaging and I cancel
(19:15):
the contract and say I'm sorry, this doesn't align anymore.
I have no problem doing that, and I really love
doing this work, like being able to do a full
time which I've only been a full time content creator
for the last few weeks. As you know, I left.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
My family job.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
No, I left it, And the irony about leaving my
federal job at the FDA was I joked on threads
and said, y'all didn't care this much when my salary
was paid by user fees from big Pharma.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
M talk about that too. They may not know that
elizab business. They only can you know, people can't walk
into gum. They got a walk or to gum. So okay.
So we talked about this piece around the candidates too.
We talked about your other sponsors or partners. One of
the things that I thought was fascinating about Taylor's interview
(20:06):
with The Hill was that she said that the Right
comes across as more authentic and there's not this effort
to gatekeep and from the top. And I thought that
was really fascinating because that couldn't be further from the truth.
There are so many documented incidents of them putting people
literally from ground zero putting people on, and they have
(20:27):
a lot more money to do that. I think one
of the platforms we saw pop up I think in
twenty twenty was Rumble, and they were paying people to
go onto the platform millions of dollars. Again, for the record,
do you want to share how much your contract was
with Chorus?
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Yeah, it's eight thousand dollars a month for a six
month cohort.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
So eight thousand dollars a month for six months. And
you're like, that's not enough for you to have paid
for me and sold me off. That's not sufficient.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
I made twelve foul dollars a month when I was
a Fed lawyer. I mean, just to be frank, my
finances have been public for so long as a federal employee,
having a file OG four fifties, things like that, so
you know, I've been very public. But no, to say
that four thousand dollars less than my indefinite salary as
a FED lawyer for a mere six month cohort is
(21:20):
enough to sell myself over, give give up the full
creative control and have people tell me what to say.
Absolutely not. I will throw ass on the stage before
I do that I'm sorry. I'm not sorry. That's crazy
to me.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Well, on speaking of throwing ass, I think that the
other the other thing that we should get to is,
you know, like, where do you go from here with
this story? This, this She's thrown all of this out here,
a lot of allegations. It sounds like some of them debunked.
Even from your own contract, there is there's nothing that
proves or establishes some of the claims that she's made
(21:55):
in the piece. Instead of retracting them in the piece,
she has gone online to be defensive or to suggest that,
you know, maybe this isn't in fact the case. What
is your what is your comment to Taylor at this
point and to other folks who are out there, some
of them who look like us, who are writing the
basis claims in this article as truth.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
I think it's really disappointing that this could have been
a really good opportunity to just talk about dark Whenning
and sixteen thirty Fund as a whole, rather than honing
in on one set of creators and one nonprofit, because
let's be for real, it was definitely coming in at
the creators, and I think the stems from the fact
that She published an article in April twenty fourth where
she first said the Chorus was scamming people and not
(22:37):
paying creators. Right now the story has changed now they're paying.
I don't know if it was to save face. I
don't know what the situation was, but that article still
hasn't even been retracted, and now they're the claims that
of course they are paying creators and not scamming creators,
and so I don't really know what the motive was
with that. I also think it was ridiculous to say
(22:59):
things like we were not allowed to talk about Gaza
or the genocide and Palestine, and my attorney counted up
just for purposes of what I'll get into. My next
step was that I had made nineteen posts on Instagram
alone since June first, and my stories and my grid
and collaborations all about the genocide and Gaza, covering the flotilla,
(23:19):
what happened to Chris Small's with and being beaten by
the IDF A doctor whouldn't get to the children in Gaza. Fundraising.
I have had fundraising links for Palestinian families as well
as folks who are affected by the genocides in Congo
Sudan t Gray in my bio for a very long time.
I regularly share these things and my stories and on
threads and reposts, and so that was just such an
easily debunked claim that all it took was one person
(23:43):
to say, well, I think this is happening, and I
was flooded with comments of people saying, why won't you
acknowledge the genocide and Gaza when I have consistently, so
I was disappointing. And also to say that we were
pushing the party line and trying to make it seem
like this was a DNC project or the Democrats. The
DNC has been incredibly anti Black and I have many
problems with them, which I have been very public about.
(24:04):
So that pissed me off on a different level because,
to be quite frank, and the DNC knows this, because
I've been on some calls where I popped off. I
don't want to be in any creative cohort they ever have.
I really don't. I don't like any idea of being
told that I got to push any particular Democrat. If
I go talk to them, it's because I wanted to
talk to them. It's because I wanted to interview this person.
I don't like the idea of that. At the DNC
(24:25):
last year, they had all of these creators, some of
them three four to a hotel room because they couldn't
afford a hotel in Chicago, could couldn't even cover like ubers,
no flights, when didn't give people food. You had to
buy concessions inside of the stadium, and they had maybe
a few little snacks out that everybody had to fight over.
I mean, this was not no five star treatment by
any means. So it really irritates me that people keep
(24:47):
saying that I'm paid by the DNC when they've never
paid me, not one red cent, and my money has
been very black. As I've said, the organizations that have
paid me the best and the most have been black organizations,
and so I really feel like that undermine so much
of my work, the hard work that I put in
to build my platform, and also is really dismissive of
the black partners that I work with and highlight the most.
(25:07):
And it just very much was giving. There's no way
that this black woman could possibly be worth eight thousand
dollars a month for six months unless she's giving everything
over to these individuals. To tell her what to do.
There's no way she could possibly retain her autonomy and
still be worthy of that when we know that white
creators are making five times that much money, way more money.
(25:30):
The disparity is insane. So there's so many layers to it,
and I could just go on and on, but I
will say that my next steps are that, as of
about an hour ago, my attorney has sent a letter
to Wired and Conde Nast demanding a retraction, as well
as detailing and roughly I think fifteen exhibits evidence of
why this was defamatory, why it was false, why it
(25:54):
was knowingly and intentionally false. Because miss Lorenz knows we
have text messages, that we've had conversations in the past,
that she knew I was part of chorus. She knows
that we have dms. We've had conversations again. I noticed
that she has my cell phone number, but I never
got a text message asking to even speak on this article.
It turned out she sent it to a DM on Instagram,
(26:15):
which she shared the screenshot on social media, and this
was after I had unfollowed her due to issues from
the past, and of course those dms get buried when
you have half a million followers. But again, this has
all been a very interesting experience.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
And you're saying sorry, Elizabeth, you're saying, for the record,
she has your phone number, yes, and she says in
the piece that she reached out to you for comment
that you didn't but where she sat comment was not
at your phone number, it was in your Instagram dms
where you don't follow her.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
So just more just little things that just keep adding up.
And I'm just really disappointed with the way I've seen
people talk about this. Like I had one person online
say I never took dark money. I took money from
organizations like move On, and I said, we'll move on
to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars from sixteen thirty
last year dark money. So that's dark money. There's a lot.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
According to the definition, which is why we take issue
with the definition. There are several of our civil rights
orgs that are five oh one C fours. So if
you take any money from a C four, if that
automatically means that because they have donors that don't have
to be disclosed as dark money, are we really wanting
to use this definition in that way or use that,
you know, use that term in this way.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Yeah, so yeah, And I made that comment about the
NAACP when I was having a conversation with Consciously on threads,
and I put dark money in quotes, which then brought
Taylor to then come in on Twitter for some reason,
not on threads with the conversation began and screenshot and
say that I was dogging out the NUBACP. I just
(27:47):
I was like, Okay, now, this is this is just
being willfully obtuse at this point that you're not understanding
what we are trying to say, and how reckless this was.
I have had an influx of so many harassed in commons,
of people saying horrible things. However, I've had way more
support from the people who I actually care about, which
is my community. I wish that people understood more that
(28:10):
my politic is black women. It's not leftist, it's not progressive,
it's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's not republican, it's
not democratics a black women. So I go into everything
with the idea of what is the best thing for
my community, and Angela and you and I have talked
about how people don't understand that that way far end
(28:31):
of the spectrum, the left spectrum that is not the
majority of our community by any means, and I'm not
and I understand that there are some black folks who
are on that far left in who are making sure
to try to move that needle, and I appreciate that
work that they do. And many of those same individuals
have come out of my defense over this past week,
even if we don't agree on the methods to get
(28:52):
to liberation, they know that this was not right, and
I appreciate them so much because at the end of
the day, we always have community no matter where we sit.
But I have decided that this is where I'm going
to sit. Is that more pragmatic approach that I have
learned from the majority of folks in my community, and
that's what I'm relying on, because, to be quite honest,
I think that's where my talents lie. I know administrative law,
(29:14):
I know how these systems work, and so that's my space.
And I just wish the more people understood that we
can all have this role to play. And it doesn't
mean that just because somebody is working on a different
part of the past deliberation, it doesn't mean that they're evil.
It doesn't mean that the work that I do is
(29:34):
undermine just because I'm saying I'm going to work a
little bit within this system right to try to make change.
And that goes the same for the folks who are
on the far left who are saying I'm never going
to work within that system. I'm never going to work
within it. But I'm going to do all of the
community organizing outside. I'm going to be protesting outside in
these streets. Everybody's got their part to play in this,
(29:55):
and I think that's where a lot of the conversation
has gotten murky. And to be blind, I need white
people on the left stay the hell out of our
business because that has been the worst part about this
conversation is the number of especially white men, who want
to come into a space that they don't need to
be in and trying to talk to us. This is
why we got to keep our outside conversations inside. To
(30:16):
be honest, Well, that makes sense too. I would say,
you know, just to close, Elizabeth. I know you got
you on.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Sun duty, but I want to I want to ask
you if you have any parting words to folks who
may be haters, naysayers, they confuse they're disparaging whatever's happening
right now? What is your message to them if they
continue to rely on an article that you expect at
least your attorneys are pushing for to be fully retracted,
(30:44):
especially as it relates to putting some respect on your name.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I'm paid, I'm not bought, but you can try me
if you want to.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Well.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
And on that note, on that high Shirlann Chishm note
this this has been a Black women's political party podcast.
Elizabeth Booker Houston, I'm so grateful for you, says, make
sure y'all follow her at Booker Square because she might
be paid, she might have a partner, she might even
have a sponsor for here and now, but they don't
tell her what to say. And Nisa did I Welcome home, y'all.
(31:29):
Native Lampard is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Tiffany Cross
Andrew Gillum
Angela Rye
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com