Jacqui irwin wants big tech to watch and listen to you
“California lawmaker trying to weaken privacy law is married to Ring executive” - Politico headline.
When Jacqui Irwin was confronted with potential “Conflict of Interest” and “ethical questions” by watchdogs and reporters, she responded by saying such questions were “offensive.” How dare someone challenge Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, who acts as though she is above the law.
All the reporters were doing was objectively following the money on AB 873. Variations of the bill had potentially negative financial consequences on her husband’s company, Ring, Inc., of which he is the CEO. Ring, Inc., is owned by Amazon.
AB 873 was a bill aimed at protecting everyone’s privacy from Big Data and Big Tech, who often do not care about our personal information but rather seek to profit from tracking us and watching us.
AB 873 would have been tough on Ring, Inc. That is why Amazon spent serious money lobbying Sacramento to have it changed. It is why people questioned Irwin’s actions as a potential conflict of interest since it could adversely affect her household income directly.
As Politico reported on the matter:
“Irwin’s prominent role in California’s privacy debate has raised ethical questions about when lawmakers should recuse themselves from legislative decisions and committees.”
Irwin was “blasted” by certain consumer-privacy watchdog groups. Politico further wrote:
“One of the proposals that Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) carried this year was blasted by consumer-privacy groups as an attempt to gut the law by exempting more kinds of data from the new requirements. In an early version of the bill, the lawmaker also proposed striking from the act a provision requiring companies to disclose or delete data associated with “households” upon request, a change likely to have eased the regulatory burden on smart-device companies like Ring.” Politico
It was obvious to Politico that Irwin was likely up to no good. They reported:
"Voting records show that Irwin has participated in matters that would appear to affect her spouse’s firm or parent company.
But Irwin was one of just six lawmakers out of 80 to vote against the so-called Alexa bill by Republican Jordan Cunningham (R-Templeton) that would have prohibited smart speaker devices installed in homes, such as Amazon’s Alexa, to retain or sell recorded conversations without a customer’s consent, among other restrictions."
You read that correctly. Irwin was ok not stopping Alexa or other tech devices from retaining or selling "recorded conversations without a customer's consent..." Yikes. This is appropriately bone-chilling real-life sci-fi political intrigue appropriate for Halloween time.
After being questioned on the obvious conflict of interest, Irwin’s response was of the highest arrogance. As if to lift her nose in the air and look down on anyone questioning her motives – because she has mastered the base influences that regularly corrupt the rest of the human race – she boldly stated her role in the Assembly “is independent of any job or role my husband may have,” according to Politico.
How dare anyone doubt the integrity of Irwin. Others may be subject to such conflicts of interest, but she is of a higher level, impervious to human nature’s corruptibility. Checks and balances be damned! Jacqui Irwin is her own self-guiding, built-in check and balance.
The moral of the story is simple. When Jacqui Irwin is not voting for a woke agenda, she apparently is looking out for her household’s financial interests at the expense of consumer privacy. It is more important that Big Data have control over us, making billions listening to us, watching us…
conflict of interest
State forms show that Jacqui Irwin's household benefits directly from Amazon, which owns her husband's company. The income shown on the form herein demonstrates a substantial financial stake ins on the line for the Irwin household when legislative matters appear before Jacqui Irwin's committee and on the Assembly floor
Is Jacqui irwin under control of extreme special interests?
Follow the Money
As the article above shows, major news outlets have questioned the integrity of Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin. She certainly has not shied away from conflicts of interest. It may because she has drifted so far from the reality of representing people in her district due to the extreme political and financial interests of hard-left organizations that control much of the business of Sacramento.
Take a quick look at all the money she has received over the years in the State Assembly. The ratio of special interest money to that received from the average person is astonishing – with over 50% coming from special interests, it is easy to understand how she could be led down the path of corruption.
Serving herself seems to be a specialty of hers. Doubt this? All we must do is consult her Form 700’s – her Statement of Economic Interests.
Since being elected to the Assembly, Jacqui Irwin has taken over $100,000 in gifts from special interests. She scolds a Politico reporter for daring to question her integrity when it is obvious she has benefitted from so many special interests feeding at the trough of government money. We can say one thing about Irwin: she is shameless and apparently proud of it.
The $100 you are painfully forced to shell out in filling up your gas tank in an effort to stay afloat during a time of terrible inflation Jacqui Irwin eats in a sitting with extreme special interest groups. Her Form 700’s showcase that Jacqui Irwin has enjoyed numerous and regular $100+ dinners.
How much food can one person eat for $100? What is Irwin eating? Inflation may be out of control, but this is excessive, and Jacqui Irwin is clearly out of touch with the average person.
How much money do you make? How much money does the average person make? Maybe to her $100,000 in gifts is but a trifling, but to the average person this is a fantastic sum that would be easily corruptible.