Early 2020 Democratic presidential oddsmaking, desirability

Yeah, yeah.

On one hand, it's way too early for this, amirite?

(Updated regularly, most recently, March 4. Updates include changes in "like factor" and more.)

I am right, per John Dickerson:

Presidential hopefuls used to declare their candidacy in a single speech; now the process is drawn out with peekaboo hints, social-media announcements that lead to explorations, and talk-show teases. It’s like an Advent calendar, but no one gets a square of chocolate.

On the other hand, when a bland neoliberal Hispanic former mayor and former Obama cabinet backbencher named Julian Castro actually thinks he has a shot, no, not too early.

So, three things.

First, I'll give you oddsmaking.

Second, I'll give you his or her likely target audience.

Third, as a Green-leaner, I'll give a letter grade based on my take on the acceptability of their political stances and related issues.

Note: Odds may go over 100 percent total because they would change in reality with candidates dropping out, etc.

Note 2: I have written in-depth takes on selected candidates and will do more in the future. Where available, they're linked.

Note 3: A candidate's name in red means they've officially entered the race. A strike-through means they're officially out.

Note 4: I will also do one or more pieces rating candidates' websites. The first, rating women in the race by how pandering to women's gender stereotypes the websites are, is here.

And, since he liked mine, Gaius at Down with Tyranny also has a ratings/oddsmaking.

(June 29, 2019: Here's my take on winners and losers from the first pair of Democratic debates.)

So, let's start, with ...

Julian Castro! [Officially declared candidates, and those with official exploratory committees are in red.] Odds: 0.1 percent. Target: People with the last name of Castro. Like factor: D. (Laughingly, Nate Silver calls Castro "a major candidate."

(Note: On people with perceived higher odds, I'll give more of a breakout. At least as much as for Julian in the paragraph above.) And so, in no particular further order ...

Joe Biden: Odds 10 percent. (Don't overestimate those early Iowa polls.) Biden has the pluses of being a better establishmentarian candidate than Hillary Clinton and ties to the Obama coattails, and may be seen as more progressive than is actually true. With both her and Bloomberg out, too, he's the only "establishmentarian" heavy hitter left. Minuses are being almost as old as Bernie Sanders, being gaffe-prone, being Sen-MBNA on bankruptcy tightening 15 years ago, and lots of #MeToo baggage beginning with but not limited to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Target: DNC establishment and DNC superdelegates if a brokered convention happens. Like factor: D-minus.

Side observation, now that JoePa is in. Who's hurt? Probably Booker and Harris, to the degree they're seen as more "establishmentarian" than Sanders and Warren. Also, the more conservative young guns trio of Robert Francis Beto! O'Rourke, Mayor Pete and Mayor Julian.

Howard Schultz is also hurt, at least as a Dem candidate. He'll have to go the indy route now if he wants in.

Kamala Harris: Odds 12 percent. Has the pluses of being a minority and a woman both, especially in the MeToo era. Has baggage of outright ConservaDem past on criminal justice issues as Cal AG and playing footsie with Mnuchin outlet on banksters and Great Recession. Has advantage of limited Senate legislation paper trail. Go here for a good roundup of everything about Kamala the Cop; take some of the non-Cop bullet points with a grain of salt. Target: Slightly more liberal Cory Booker voters. Or is it the other way around? Like factor: C-minus and falling, in part due to Donut Twitter rallying to her. Her hypocrisy on smoking pot while later busting kids for it, as well as the lie about smoking pot to Tupac 7 years before his first album came out open her to further hypocrisy charges as well as pandering ones.)

Cory Booker: Odds 7 percent. Has pluses of being a minority. Has baggage of footsie with Big Pharma, of many "poseur" stances (he's a weathervane in a field filled with them), and lack of a Senate legislation paper trail for his length of time in office. Target: Slightly more conservative Kamala Harris voters. Or is it the other way around? Is working on "what to run for" issue by getting New Jersey Legislature to consider an "LBJ bill" so he can also file for Senate re-election. Like factor: D-minus, but perhaps moved up to a straight D.

Robert Francis O'Rourke: Odds: 10 percent. (And dropping as of Feb. 15. While he has some national name recognition, he's not Bernie Sanders, so he can't play Hamlet much longer.) Pluses include recent Senate campaign, Beltway stenos and even more, Beltway neoliberal think tanks rallying to him and vague "winnability" issue. Minusus include issue-free Senate campaign being exposed along with ConservaDem House record. Target: White Obamiacs from 2008 and 2012. Like factor: D-minus. (Per Stephen Young, expect an announcement by the end of January. And, Stephen was wrong, in part because Beto actually was tracing ancestral roots and never went to Iowa. Stay tuned.)

There's a lot of people who are already drinking his Kool-Aid, which started two months ago. Many doing so without even knowing he's a ConservaDem. The Twitter memes about "tough choice between Beto and Bernie" are ridiculously clueless.

I partially blame political ladder-climber Sema Hernandez for endorsing him last August even though he never did unequivocally endorse single-payer and even though there were plenty of other reasons to still see him as a ConservaDem.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Odds: 12 percent. Pluses include MeToo actions to the degree they were genuine and some actual legislation history. Plus/minus is "bipartisanship." Minuses include seemingly unsavory nature of pushing Al Franken out the door and ConservaDem past, especially on guns. Target: Conservative wing of 2016 Sanders voters plus women in general. Like factor: D.

Bernie Sanders: Odds: 16 percent. Pluses include previous campaign history, plus him moving slightly leftward again on foreign policy. (Wake me up a year from now re Israel and BDS issues, as well as the Venezuela coup.) Minuses include the downside of previous campaign history, plus no "Hillary voted for Iraq and spoke to Goldman Sachs" easy campaign targets. Minuses from a Green POV include that he's still way too much of a military Keynesian. Additional baggage of age. See my posts about him and F-35s. Additional baggage for some Dems of being a white male. Like factor: B-minus. (I'm not grading on a curve, but you can compare his grade with other Dems.) That said, he IS a Dem. See this new piece. Or click the Bernie tag below.

Sherrod Brown: Odds: 9 percent. Pluses include being from the Midwest, perception as a kinder, gentler Bernie Sanders and related matters. Minuses include no hot single issues from his Senate time, long enough for him to have developed one, and being more Fauxgressive than Progressive. Like factor: C-minus.

Michael Bloomberg: Odds: 1 percent. (This odds is as a Democrat only; I in no way rule out him making an independent run in the general election — even if he's chided Howard Schultz for thinking of that.) Political, if not real, pluses include perceived liberalism, especially on climate and environment through things such as the soda tax, claims to appeal to centrist independents in general election. Minuses include bankster background and everything related. Target: Democratic establishment, slightly more conservative Howard Schultz voters. Like factor? Hell,. F.

Howard Schultz: (In as independent, theoretically. Schwaffling after his annoucement.) Odds 1 percent. Pluses include perceived liberalism, history of Starbucks, connections with Starbucks patrons. Minuses include downside of Starbucks history, especially with black patrons. Target: Dem establishment, slightly more liberal Michael Bloomberg voters. Like factor: D and dropping like a fricking rock. (I had colored him red, but given the amount of nuancing he was doing 48 hours after his 60 Minutes, he's back in black.)

Elizabeth Warren: Odds 8 percent. Pluses? A woman in the MeToo era, perceived as liberal to left-liberal economically. Minuses include her Cherokee Nation baggage, that she's not as liberal on as many things as believed and that she's anti-BDS. Also, per her "I'm having a beer" NYE Instagram video, a too-transparent sense of earnestness, possibly coupled with a too-transparent sense of pandering to Millennials with that as an Instagram rather than Facebook video. Additional minus is that she reportedly has hired comms staff from Hillary 2016. Politically unastute plus they were hacks. Like factor? C-minus (and dropping with the Hillary news). Thanks to Daily Wire or whoever gave that graphic to somebody connected to Trump, who then Tweeted it.

Steve Bullock: Odds: 3 percent. Pluses include being a governor, and thus an executive and also thus, no Senate paper trail. Minuses start with being a moderate white male. Target: New Dems in general, and specifically, ones who want to target the heartland, and slightly more conservative John Hickenlooper candidates. Does have a potent issue on campaign finance, but in a year of "no PACs" candidates, could be drowned out. Like factor: C. Now in, and the late start means his odds are probably less than 3 percent.

John Hickenlooper: Odds: 4 percent. Pluses include being a governor of a larger, more purplish state than Montana, and thus an executive and also thus, no Senate paper trail. Minuses are more prominent than Bullock's and include his in-the-tank support for fracking, plus his 2008 DNC actions while Denver mayor for those with longer memories. Target: New Dems in general, and specifically, ones who want to target the heartland, and slightly more liberal Steve Bullock voters. Like factor: D-minus.

John Delaney: Odds: Less than Julian Castro. Pluses besides being first to file? None. Minusus? Bland older white guy from exurban Congressional district. Plus/minus: Looks like a bald, blander Will Ferrell. Target: Cabinet position in next Dem presidency and staying in longer than Julian Castro. Like factor: Not even registered. But, the fact that he's worth at least $92M is registered.

Jay Inslee: Odds: 9 percent. Pluses include being a governor and one with more liberal stances on climate issues than Bullock or Hickenlooper. Plugged in more than either of them as well. Minuses include relatively unknown level to many Democrats, being from a fairly "safe" state and not a huge record. Like factor: C.

Tim Ryan: Odds: 3 percent Less than Pete Buttigieg. Pluses include perception of willingness to take on House Dem establishment. Minuses will include his Blue Dog-ish record and trying to run from the House, as well as "Mayor Pete" beating him to the punch. Not to mention he's a New Ager lite. Like factor: D.

Tulsi Gabbard: Odds: 4 percent. Political pluses (note that caveat) include Sanders connections, especially if he does not run, a Kool-Aid stronger than Beto's, perhaps, and definite support from people like H.A. Goodman who haven't done the full Bernie-to-Trump but are definitely the conservative faction of BernieBros. General pluses are willingness to take on Dem establishment. Minuses are basically everything I've said above under political pluses plus the fact she still, Kool-Aid drinkers aside, appears to back Islamophobia, and that she's as much a political re-inventor as Trump. That's all true, and I've blogged about her Hindu nationalist fascist bromance three full years ago, and now, like Beto, about her Kool-Aid drinkers plus Kool-Aid brewer Michael Tracey. Targets: The conservative portion of the Sanders movement. Like factor: D-plus.

Jeff Merkley: Odds: 3 percent. Pluses include being a general progressive for a Democrat and good on climate change in particular. Minuses include being no more than a typical progressive Dem on foreign policy. Target: Sanders voters. Like factor: C-plus.

Hillary Clinton: Odds: 2 percent. (Yes, that high.) Pluses include support of think tanks, Donut Twitter, diehard PUMAs, etc. Minuses include being Hillary Clinton and her past campaign baggage, both 2008 primaries and 2016 general. Additional baggage of age. Target: 2016 Hillary Clinton voters plus a few more voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Like factor: F-minus.

Amy Klobuchar: Odds: 1 percent. Pluses? Lemme think. Minuses would be being behind two or three other women senators and being older than two of them, as well as being seen as less progressive than all three. Target: Hillary Clinton backers who wouldn't vote for one of those other women, along with masochistic lower-level white collar employees who love sadistic bosses. Like factor: D.

Terry McAuliffe: Odds: More than Julian Castro and John Delaney, less than anybody else. Pluses: Was a governor. Minuses: Way too much personal political baggage plus way too much Clintonista baggage. Target audience: Clintonistas.

Marianne Williamson: Odds: Not a ghost of a chance or even a New Agey ghost of a chance. (I'd forgotten that there had been noises about her until she was mentioned on someone else's blog. But she even has an exploratory committee and website.) Pluses: Not a politician. She has, though, made extensive donations, mainly to progressive Dems but also to ConservaDems like Jon Ossoff and Doug Jones. "Peace" imagery. Minuses: All her baggage as a New Age nutter. Target audience: People who think "A Course in Miracles" is real. Like factor: Probably on the non-New Agey angle, a B-minus; including it, a D-minus. Her campaign contributions do NOT include the Green Party, but do include the Natural Law Party. Nuff ced.

Yes, this is longer than for most candidates, but because, like Gabbard, she flies under the radar, and some of her positions are good. My full take is now up.

VANITY CANDIDATES I DIDN'T ORIGINALLY LIST

(That's not to say there aren't vanity candidates on the list already.)

Mayor Ballgag or Pete the Budgie, I mean South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg aka The Maltese Cross to Bear: Odds: The same exact percentage of Julian Castro's odds as South Bend's population is of San Antonio's. Target audience: The future Dem president who gives him a Cabinet seat/Indiana Dem Senate voters. Like factor: D-minus; worked for management vulture McKinsey for three years, for doorknob's sake. Has zero real accomplishments at South Bend and embroiled city in racial issues. No, seriously. Wikipedia. Here's more reasons, with a blog post written just to "out" Beto-Lite, why you shouldn't vote for him.

Eric Swalwell: Yes, a favorite of the collusion-heavy wing of Donut Twitter is hoping he runs. And he reportedly is giving it a thought or four. He's now in, and running on gunz control, realizing post-Mueller Report that collusion goes nowhere. He's Donut Twitter and a bigger vanity candidate than Pete Ballgag with even less to be vain about.

==

Further vanity candidates entering after May 15, and not among early speculation, are listed below, simply by name, with no assessment, because they ain't got shit on chances:
Bill de Blasio
???

Among actual or potential candidates with more of a chance, how do they affect each other? Brown is possibly the main beneficiary of Sanders not running, if Brown does. Gabbard is second (for now) and Warren a distant third. Bullock and Hickenlooper obviously affect each other; both affect and are affected by Inslee to a lesser extent. Booker and Harris, with both being minority candidates, and in somewhat similar political silos, affect each other. Gillibrand interplays with Warren and Harris, and Klobuchar if she runs, and possibly also with Sanders.

Booker and Harris are both in, of course. Speculation in my corner of Twitter thinks Booker drops back out first.

If O'Rourke runs, he probably benefits most from Booker, the only other younger charismatic male in the race, dropping out. Not sure who benefits most if Robert Francis runs then drops out.

The winnowing of these candidates will start with the first official debate in June, which will have a 20-candidate cutoff, should we get that many by then.

==

As of right now, I don't expect Sen. Amy Klobuchar to run. I don't expect any Democratic governors or ex-governors besides those mentioned above, from a thin Dem ranks in statehouses, to enter the race. I think Tom Steyer is less likely than Schultz or Bloomberg. (Update: Steyer has officially said he'd prefer to blow billions, if necessary, on trying to impeach Trump instead of potentially blowing billions on a prez campaign. And Klobuchar, for whatever reason, has decided to jump in, despite a thin and "bipartisan" Senate record and a kind of despicable personal one.)

I think other businesscritters are less likely yet.

And, that includes Mark Zuckerberg, who has too much Facebook mess to clean up in the next 12 months to have a chance. (Notice how buzz about his possible candidacy has died off in recent months?)

==

It's also "amazing" (not really) how narrowly the New York Times defined "diversity" in talking about possible candidates trying to get an early start. Sanders is a secularist of some sort, but there's no real atheists. Harris, despite her part-Indian ancestry, is Christian. Tulsi Gabbard is Hindu, of course. As noted above, none are "diverse" in terms of thinking outside the bipartisan foreign policy establishment. None, despite Bernie's mild democratic socialism and falsely calling himself a socialist in 2016, is there any "diversity" outside of broad tenets of modern neoliberal-influenced capitalism.

There's certainly no huge diversity in governance issues. None of the Democratic candidates has talked about amending the Constitution to abolish the electoral college, despite two presidential split decisions this century. Certainly, none has promoted ideas such as any form of instant-runoff voting or proportional representation among their state's U.S. House or state legislature delegations.

Gallup has polled recent Democratic attitudes. Support for some sort of action on climate change is growing within all divisions. More and more whites identify as liberal than moderate and conservative combined. "Liberal" is also growing among blacks and Hispanics but at slower rates.

==

Finally, with Dem changes on superdelegates, is there some chance of a brokered convention? Yes, but not much Put it at 5 percent; note how wide open the GOP race was in 2016 but how much it converged well before the last round of primaries.

==

No, more finally. What about the Republicans?

Well, Bill Weld has now formed an exploratory committee. If he jumps full in, and if that temps John Kasich to jump full in, then you'll get something.

Update, April 15: He's officially entered.

All candidates for all parties, or independent filings, can be found at the FEC website. (It just takes a one-page form, that's it, so it attracts vanity candidates like bullshit draws flies.)

#TheResistance loves it some #Oprah2020 I do not, nor Zuck the Huck; #NeverOprah

I know, I know, I'm a bit late to the social media party, but I wanted to fire a blunderbuss at the whole idea of celebrity Democratic candidates for president and not just Oprah Winfrey.

OK, in the last six months, three celebrities of various sorts have been getting talked up by Democrats of some sort as 2020 presidential candidates.

The latest? Oprah Winfrey after her Golden Globes appearance.

This would be the same Oprah who has a borderline quack, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as a regular show member. And, Dems? Per your bashing of her, he's definitely more of a medical quack than Dr. Jill Stein.

And I haven't even mentioned notorious antivaxxer Jenny McCarthy.

She also has Dr. Phil McGraw, who had "professional ethics" problems His dad, also a counselor, was censured for the normal reasons a psychological counselor might get into ethical trouble. Think #MeToo.

Other than that, she's simply vacuous on a number of issues. Not dumb, necessarily, but no trail.

Her solution for problems in general is New Age positivity. Nope, that doesn't really work, especially when that's just of the quackery she promotes. Or promoting the warmongering of Shrub Bush. (Besides that link, she had him and his memoir on in 2010.)

So, no! Per somebody else, we know how celeb candidates have fared in the past. (Meanwhile, TheResistance is already claiming its unfair to say Oprah is just like Trump when the closest wording to that has been "Oprah is another celebrity billionaire, just like Trump," which is totally true.)

Second has been Mark Zuckerberg.

That would be a person whose business has admitted to manipulating customers psyches, spying on them, booting customers it doesn't like and violating federal housing laws on the advertisements it accepts. He's also a manipulator of loophole-ridden California state law on public benefit charities.

Of course, that's not that different than Barack Obama, a quasi-celebrity when elected. His campaign invented digitally targeted ads, his administration increased Bush's spying on Americans and prosecution of leakers, and violated housing ethics in forcing homeowners to bear almost all the housing market's pain after the Great Recession.

Zuckerberg's solution, otherwise? Use more Facebook!

Third has been Mark Cuban.

First problem is that he's a tech-neoliberal type, just like Dear Leader. Second is that he's currently a Republican! Third is that, other than being a Republican, we know even less about his ideas for the country than Winfrey's or Zuckerberg's.

Even worse for the left-liberal or Berniecrat portion of the crowd? All three are multi-billionaires. In essence, this is a call for a return to feudalism, or an oligarchic riff on elective monarchy like the Holy Roman Empire.

Beyond that, things don't look better.

Otherwise, you have some Democrats talking up Joe Biden, who would be gerontocrat for sure, turning 78 shortly after election day 2020. Berniecrats continue to push his name for re-election, despite him being older than Biden, the Sanders Institute being the latest proof yet he's just another Democrat, and the possibility that his wife might be indicted before then. Others mention Kristen Gillibrand, a self-reinventor so over the top she makes Hillary Clinton look like she has an actual core.

==

That said, the fascination with celebrity is nothing new, and goes back before the modern entertainment world.

For such a peace-loving nation, the country has elected multiple war hero presidents.
1. George Washington
2. Andrew Jackson
3. Zachary Taylor
4. Ulysses S. Grant
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower.
This ignores the raft of post-Civil War presidents who had lesser roles (Garfield was elected to Congress in media res!), Poppy Bush's World War II experience, and one special case which I'll treat below.

It's hard to grade Washington as the first president, but let's call him and Ike both "above average," while noting Washington's slave-ownership and Eisenhower's racist ideas and go-slow stance on civil rights.

Jackson was organized and efficient, but below average for ethics issues such as Indian removal and racism.

Taylor, despite occasional rehab attempts, was one of the worst presidents in history. Despite Ron Chernow's attempt to rehab him, I'll keep Grant as one of the worst presidents in history, too.

Theodore Roosevelt is a quasi-war hero. He certainly let himself be marketed as one. And, he got there by being an action-adventure hero, at least to his social class back east. And, while he did a lot for the environment, his racism, his personalization of trust-busting, and his cluelessness on banking rank him a notch or more below the top.

We've elected a couple of other quasi-celebrity presidents, though, too.

I'm speaking of Jack Kennedy and Barack Obama, both of whom did little in the Senate other than being photogenic.

So, by that count, we've got eight quasi-celebrity presidents. Nine if you want to slip Reagan in. Ten if you're counting the current occupant of the White House.

Ten out of 45? That's 22 percent. Not totally un-American now is it?

I mean, look at the fetish of British royal-watching in America. Same thing. Helps if the royal, like Diana, is photogenic.

Of the military prezzies? Well, Ike looked like your dad or granddad. But give Washington modern teeth and a modern hairstyle and he'd buff up. Jackson would have "tubercular chic" or something reasonably attractive, plus the "mystery" angle of carrying a bullet inside. Other than being a bit on the short side, Grant would be OK. Taylor would be the only real camera-breaker. TR?

Gad ... can you imagine Teddy Roosevelt with a Twitter account?

President Zuckerberg? I just threw up in Facebook's mouth (new updates)

Mark Zuckerberg via President of Mexico

To be halfway serious, as well as halfway snarky, I think I would take a President Trump over a President Zuckerberg, whose ambitions are hinted at in this Vanity Fair piece.

I think he is:
1. At least as vain as Trump if not more so, albeit in a less mercurial way;
2. Probably as thin-skinned as Trump;
3. At least as imperious as Trump;
4. With a better business and management skill set behind 1-3, which makes them all scarier.
5. Add in that he's surely a tech-neoliberal who thinks that an app, or better, social media (gee, which one?) is the solution to everything, which cultural critic Evgeny Morozov has rightly called "solutionism" and which I call "salvific technologism."

Despite not disclosing party affiliation, I'll list him as a tech-neoliberal Democrat. (I think he's smart enough in terms of current American politics to try to buck the two-party system, so, he's not running Libertarian and he's sure as hell not Green. Plus, he'd probably assume that Dems will slaver for him more than Republicans and that it will be "Dems' turn" in 2024.)

Contra Nick Bilton's claim that Marky Mark would be "an astounding president," for anybody outside the 1 percent, or even more, the 0.1 percent, he'd be a gigantic kick in the nads. Let's not forget he's already ripping off poor and middle-class taxpayers with his "public benefit" foundation. That said, per the foundation, and cluelessness about it, as blogged before, I know that some Skeptics™ would cream their pants over a Zuckerberg run.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to launder campaign finance funds through that foundation in case of a presidential run, via super-PACing off of it or something.

Hell, I distrust him so much I even did a riff on a Shakespearean sonnet about it.

Let's hope that Bilton's right and his lack of a politician's personality bars his run.

==

Update, Feb. 17: A 5,000-word manifesto posted by Hucksterman on Effbook, and analyzed by the Guardian, sure makes it look like he's eyeballing the world of politics.

Update, March 6, 2017: And now, Facebook is bragging about being able to influence elections. Would Zuckerberg conduct a more thorough detachment from Facebook than Trump has from his businesses, and far earlier in the process? I doubt it.

Update, March 12: Maegan Carberry of Salon is now on the wagon, saying Hucksterberg would be good because he would be the shortest route to defeating Trump. First, she's thinking inside the duopoly box, error No. 1. Second, she's thinking inside a top-down version of the Dem half of that box, a move that would further kill grassroots level Dems. Third, her idea only inflates the whole imperial presidency issue. Per her five options, even if the Dem half of the duopoly doesn't have time enough for Option 5, failure to do much on Options 2-3 would merely reflect how bad the party is and how much it needs to be blown up. Of course, Obama himself undercut the possibility of Options 2-3 from the 2010 midterms on.

You say Zuckerberg, I say Hucksterman, part two (updated)

I blogged on Wednesday about the magical PR pixie dust that has led some people to think Mark Zuckerberg's new for-profit LLC is really a charity and will do all sorts of magic stuff.

Marky Mark, Priscilla Chan and daughter Max.
Who could resist such cuteness? I could.

Well, other than pixie dust inhalers calling me a cynic, and naive PR readers thinking Zuck's done so much good, others have claimed that a California benefits corporation, which is the type of LLC this is in California, will keep him in line.

And, an alleged skeptic should know better. After being given a lawyer's explainer of what such a corporation is, as he attempted to refute a Pro Publica piece from my original blog post, and referenced again below. I Googled to find the actual law instead.

It's true that 30 states have some sort of benefits corporation, per Wiki. It's also true that every one of them was created this decade, when the man and the hour of neoliberalism met nationally in Barack Obama. That alone should be ground for pause. Nobody has any real empirical evidence on how these babies operate.

Specific to Zuckerberg and where Facebook is?

Per California's enabling statute, I don't see it that way; I don't see California's law having any real teeth to making Zuckerberg do anything that he doesn't want to do, period and end of story.

The only way to "enforce" whether such a body is living up to its charter, etc., is through a "benefits proceeding."

However, such proceeding is all "inside baseball":

(a) No person may bring an action or assert a claim against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers under this chapter except in a benefit enforcement proceeding.
(b) A benefit enforcement proceeding may be commenced or maintained only as follows:
(1) Directly by the benefit corporation.
(2) Derivatively by any of the following:
(A) A shareholder.
(B) A director.
(C) A person or group of persons that owns beneficially or of record 5 percent or more of the equity interests in an entity of which the benefit corporation is a subsidiary.
(D) Other persons as have been specified in the articles or bylaws of the benefit corporation.
(c) A benefit corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this part for any failure of the benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit.

So, that would mean the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative corporately, or any shareholders or directors named Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg or cronies thereof, of such persons unlikely to hold more than 5 percent of the Initiative's stock, are the only people who can do anything about its performance. Let's remember that, although Cal law, and in most states, technically allows an incorporated, publicly traded company to also reincorporate as a benefits corporation, there's been no rush to do so. Why would they, at least when any shareholder can raise eyeballs, at least "derivatively," which is never really explained.

As for whether such incorporation is better than a traditional 501(c)3 nonprofit? I think not.

True that they don't have tremendous amounts of oversight, either. However, theoretically, the IRS can come down on nonprofits more than these LLCs. The fact that IRS enforcement is bupkis in reality doesn't refute the theoretical angle. And, I'll take even minimal IRS enforcement over this.

And, places like Charity Navigator do annual reviews of charity performance, but, I assume, not of for profit LLCs, even if they're allegedly for a vague "public benefit."

As for the idea this boosts stakeholder value rather than shareholder value? Well, theoretically, but only if your LLC's board isn't a fount of nepotism. Which is why publicly traded corporations aren't rushing to do this.

Speaking, what is a “public benefit”? In California’s enabling law, it says it is:

(D)efined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a 3rd-party standard, as defined, that satisfies certain requirements. 

But, that “third party standard” is undercut by lack of third-party enforcement.

Wikipedia’s article itself notes this, too:

Benefit corporations need not be certified or audited by the third-party standard. Instead, they use third-party standards solely as a rubric a company uses to measure its own performance.

A “rubric.” Is that like a “goldbrick”?

And, yep, California's statute specifically says an outside audit is not required.

So, what we have is a for-profit company that says, "This is what we think is a 'public benefit.'"

Let's see how this spells out in detail. 

It can then say: "Our cronies agree that we're doing a pretty good job of meeting that benefit."

It can then say: "Now move along, nothing else to see here."

But, I didn’t yet answer what that “specific public benefit” is. Hold on, we’re there:

(e) “Specific public benefit” includes all of the following:
(1) Providing low-income or underserved individuals or communities with beneficial products or services.
(2) Promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs in the ordinary course of business.
(3) Preserving the environment.
(4) Improving human health.
(5) Promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge.
(6) Increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose.
(7) The accomplishment of any other particular benefit for society or the environment.

OK, more analysis time.

No. 1? Zuckerberg's fake free Internet in India could fall under that.
No. 2? Former San Francisco Mayor, now Cal Lite Guv Gavin Newsom's pothole Donkey Kong ideas would fit.

No. 3? Sounds straightforward, but wait until Facebook promotes "Virtual reality National Parks" or something.

No. 4? Straightfoward.

No. 5? Facebook in K-12 classrooms certainly falls here. The tech-neolib wet dream combined with tax deductions for doing so, as Pro Publica explained. (Yes, yes, he gets tax deductions. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. If they try to claim otherwise, tell them to read the piece precisely, then go argue with Pro Publica. If they try to claim you're saying tax deductions "now" or similar, tell them the same thing.)

No. 6? "Money laundering" is what this is called. For example, Sergey Brin starts something. Let's call it the Elgoog Foundation. The two foundations start swapping money like bacterial DNA-transfer sex. (Or like David Brock playing shell games with Hillary Clinton money.) And, trust me, this one WILL happen in the future.

7. WTF? That's not just a Mack truck sized loophole. I can take Patton's Second Armored Division through that.

Remember, on that point 7, there is no third-party auditing, and a third party definition is just a "rubric."

Back to that tax issue:

Zuckerberg shows that even among #skeptics, there's a sucker born every minute

Or maybe I should put "skeptic" in scare quotes. And, I definitely should advise you that I have a follow-up post, refuting pseudoskeptics who didn't want to accept what's in this initial one.

Marky Mark, Priscilla Chan and daughter Max.
Who could resist such cuteness? I could.

Early this week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced that with the birth of his daughter, he was creating a new charitable foundation in his wife's name and that he would give away 99 percent of his Facebook stock.

Gawker, a day later, provided the reality of what this meant.

First, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative isn't a charitable organization, it's an LLC. That means that it can spend those Facebook stocks, when cashed out, on whatever it damn well pleases.

I noted that, as well as the fact that Zuckerberg's announced desire to promote "connecting people and building strong communities" sure made it sound like he'd be giving all this Facebook stock to ...

Promote the use of Facebook.

Because, hey, Facebook connects us all, right? Into communities, right?

What's not patently self-serving in the announcement?

Well, much of it that isn't that is New Age drivel.

Advancing human potential is about pushing the boundaries on how great a human life can be. 

Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today?

Because that, too, is among what Marky Mark wants to fund.

If you can read that second sentence without barfing, you're probably not much of a real skeptic.

When I posted this on Facebook, alleged "skeptics" claim that I'm just a heartless cynic.

Since I don't normally post to "public," I can't name their names by my Facebook ethics.

Which, of course, is far more ethics related to Facebook than its inventor has ever shown.

Meanwhile, per BuzzFeed, which pointed out that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charity, Marky Mark already has for-profit activities lined up:

A Facebook release this afternoon stated as much. “The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will pursue its mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates, in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need,” it said. “Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission.”

"Policy debates" could be translates as "lobbying," in my book.

But I'm just a cynic.

Other buzz phrases could be similarly translated. "Areas of great need" could be neoliberal tech-powered education, where Marky Mark's already been a flop, per the Gawker link.

Which, from there, goes on to note about said education initiatives:

“Micro-schools”? Putting Facebook software in public schools? Software, software, more software. If you have a headache, take a software. Jimmy can’t read? Give him software. The conceit that code can solve all social ills and free the species from the chains of aging, illness, and flatulence is the height of Silicon Valley bullshit, and Zuckerberg’s massive giveaway will clearly be predicated on that conceit.

Yep. Like Chris Whittle and others, Zuckerberg wants to get our schoolkids hooked on the tech-neoliberal version of Marlboros ASAP. 

Or, his attempt to ram Facebook down Indians' throats while offering a bait-and-switch with a lure of a crappy free Internet plan to try to get people to buy a slightly less crappy paid plan.

But I'm just a cynic. And the MSM, like "skeptics," are suckers. Right, NYT? Right again, NYT? Even while co-suckering others to play along?

And not mentioned by Zuckerberg is that this "giveaway" surely will allow him a sweet tax write-off.

Indeed, Pro Publica has now weighed in on exactly that issue

Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong. 

Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle. 

In doing so, Zuckerberg and Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His PR return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.

Sounds about right. 

But, wait, it gets "better."

What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.

And, only one person makes the decision on how to invest this. 

But wait, Pro Publica goes further on this:

Any time a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes.

Yep. 

And, Zuckerberg gets tax benefits from this:

So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. 

If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

Meanwhile, some pseudoskeptics are claiming that a California benefits corporation, which is the type of LLC this is in California, will keep him in line.

Per California's enabling statute, I don't see it that way.

That's in part because, per that same lawyer, and contra one neolib pseudoskeptic, Zuckerberg's money can be used for lobbying purposes, too.

The only way to "enforce" whether such a body is living up to its charter, etc., is through a "benefits proceeding."

However, such proceeding is all "inside baseball":

(a) No person may bring an action or assert a claim against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers under this chapter except in a benefit enforcement proceeding.
(b) A benefit enforcement proceeding may be commenced or maintained only as follows:
(1) Directly by the benefit corporation.
(2) Derivatively by any of the following:
(A) A shareholder.
(B) A director.
(C) A person or group of persons that owns beneficially or of record 5 percent or more of the equity interests in an entity of which the benefit corporation is a subsidiary.
(D) Other persons as have been specified in the articles or bylaws of the benefit corporation.
(c) A benefit corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this part for any failure of the benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit.

So, that would mean the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative corporately, or any shareholders or directors named Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg or cronies thereof, of such persons unlikely to hold more than 5 percent of the Initiative's stock, are the only people who can do anything about its performance.

As for whether such incorporation is better than a traditional 501(c)3 nonprofit? I think not.

True that they don't have tremendous amounts of oversight, either. However, theoretically, the IRS can come down on nonprofits more than these LLCs. The fact that IRS enforcement is bupkis in reality doesn't refute the theoretical angle. And, I'll take even minimal IRS enforcement over this.

And, places like Charity Navigator do annual reviews of charity performance, but, I assume, not of for profit LLCs, even if they're allegedly for a vague "public benefit."

As for the idea this boosts stakeholder value rather than shareholder value? Well, theoretically, but only if your LLC's board isn't a fount of nepotism.

Speaking, what is a “public benefit”? In California’s enabling law, it says it is:

(D)efined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a 3rd-party standard, as defined, that satisfies certain requirements. 

But, that “third party standard” is undercut by lack of third-party enforcement.

But, I'm just a cynic.

Hey, alleged skeptics? (One of him is somewhere between right-neolib and libertarian, so understandable.) Sometimes cynicism is the proper social and emotional stance to adopt as a result of skeptical perusal of an issue.

Of course, I love being a deliberate contrarian at times. And a capital-C philosophical Cynic.

But, Zuckerberg doesn't even make a public announcement about going to the bathroom unless there's some self-interest involved.

Part of the problem is that many Americans, including said neoliberal pseudoskeptic, don't understand what philanthropy actually is. Per this piece, remember:

If you are giving money to somebody with the expectation that they will carry out your instructions, further your agenda, owe you compliance and assistance, or complete a project you've assigned them — you're not a philanthropist. If your giving is designed to give you power or control over an aspect of public life in our country — you're not a philanthropist.

Period and end of story.

===

Update, April 12, 2016: Facebook's new Siri-on-Oxy-slow bot-apps are surely a public benefit, right?