It's been reported that the White House has admonished Kamala Harris's niece for profiting off her famous aunt's name.
The examples used include writing a children's book mentioning Harris, selling T-shirts evoking Harris, and getting invited on TV shows because of her relationship with Harris.
Tell me where I'm wrong but I don't understand how any of these things could be disallowed.
I'm allowed to sell a T-shirt with Harris on it if I want to. And I could write a book and mention her. Surely, someone who is actually a relative has the right to do the same as long as she's not faking her relationship, or publishing illegal or untrue things.
What do you think?
The following is commentary intended for discussion. Add your comments
It's all grandstanding - there is nothing wrong with it, and they are just trying to get ahead of the right who will be calling this out.
Real journalists like you Sharyl will call it like it is - American free enterprise!
mp/m
Right, but let one of Trump’s children do it and you would be crying like a little girl
.The legacy of lies networks wil beat us over the head with it every day, all day long, with special editions, every day for weeks, just so the rubes won’t forget.
Isn't it a form of capitalism? what's wrong with that?
Nothing at all unless you claim to be anti capitalist, then it's just hypocrisy.
If hunter can do it, why not her?
The Jack Benny Program had a band leader named Phil Harris. But that was decades ago when Benny was on radio.
I agree. She’s not an official taking advantage of her position. It’s hard to see an ethical problem with what she’s doing.
Legal, strategic, guidance, caution?
As a relative to the vice president the niece has now entered “politics” and is part of the team in 2021...not 1950 - 2000ish....narratives and what you say matters. Her freedom and legal rights no longer matter..
Sharyl: I agree and can see no reason these things should not be allowed. But it speaks to the debasement our our culture and values that profit has become the highest value. What of innovation? What of public service? What of achievement, artistic or intellectual? What of hard work and struggle? Politicians and their enablers simply have no clue about how normal, decent people lead their lives. Profiting from the coattails of others seems unseemly, but it's a free country, or used to be anyway. I am disturbed by the meteoric rise of a mediocrity, and a nasty one at that, like Kamala Harris, but remember Dan Quayle. Spiro T. Agnew. In this case it is beyond ludicrous to choose a running mate based upon skin color and biological sex. Astonishing! .
Should have added Barack Obama to the list of mediocrities.
It's just good ol' American capitalism, folks.
Profiting from a famous politician relative's name connection? How can that be wrong, Hunter?
Solution is simple. Have "kamala" start having people call her something different. Maybe Jane or Horabelle. Worked for "Doctor" Jill
Interesting that Harris' niece is told to stop profiting off her aunt's position while Hunter Biden's far greater profits off his father are being ignored. I guess the Harris story is an easy way to show the administration's "integrity."
EXACTLY. LOVE IT!!!
No complaints from me. It's not like it's something new.
Hate to say it but it’s no worse than Hunter living off his daddy’s name, title and position.
It’s a little tacky but let the market decide. If she were peddling inside information or leveraging access for lucrative oil and gas contracts or state investments it would be different. We have bigger issues, just ask the pipeline workers who list their jobs or the thousands of hotels restaurants and stores similarly affected by ideologue Joes disingenuous executive order that killed jobs and lively hoods and is worse fir the environment. But hey, Warren buffets trains will be full of oil.
America first didn’t mean ignore the world but Joe Biden clearly I’d not working fir the mutual best interests of Americans or he wouldn’t have killed so many jobs without having already created a demand opportunity for new ones. Considering the repetitive calls for universal income since the obama years it may simply be a convenient tactic like economic shutdowns to force ever mire people on to federal dependence.
To the extent she is using images of the VP that are publicly available images, takes the pictures herself, or purchases the rights to photographs from a third party, it should not be a problem. However, if the VP grants her niece special access for the purpose of benefitting her commercial enterprise, that would be a problem. It would also be a problem if the VP or a member of the administration promoted those products, ala Kellyanne Conway with President Trump's daughter.. I'm not exactly sure what the administration's main malfunction is on this, but either there was a factor we don't know about or it was a political decision, not a legal one.