A year ago I was only starting to understand what a force Pete Buttigieg was going to be. Since then I’ve been lucky enough to play a tiny part in his campaign and hear him in places ranging from South Bend to New York, from Des Moines to Los Angeles. It’s been a thrilling ride.

So as we head into 2020 I’ve curated 20 of my own personal reasons Pete deserves our support, accompanied by some quotes. Some are mixed. Some are tongue in cheek. But I hope you’ll take time to consider them all and — if so inclined — consider making Mayor Pete part of your very-end-of-decade giving.

Twenty Reasons to Support Pete in 2020:

1. Because he’s the son/grandson many boomers wish they had! Finding a “wellspring of enthusiasm among a critical bloc of voters more frequently associated with (Biden).” New York Times
2. Because he’s a candidate who “absorbs a pummeling” — and knows how to rebound. Politico
3. Because when it comes to faith, he’s the anti-Trump. “The challenge Buttigieg poses to many leaders of the Trump-supporting evangelical world isn’t simply in the realm of public policy; it is in his tone, his countenance, and the way he carries himself.” The Atlantic
4. Because Pete has demonstrated staying power, where others have fallen by the wayside “… look at what Buttigieg has accomplished so far — and the frustrations that have befallen the others over the same period. The mayor of a city of 101,166 has prospered politically.” Boston Globe
5. Because of his experience as a Mayor. “Running a city may be the right kind of experience for those who want to govern in this complex age.” Financial Times
6. Because the Buttigieg campaign has the best campaign theme song. “Pete Buttigieg’s high hopes..” The New Yorker
7. Because Pete’s service in Afghanistan sets him apart, and it’s recognized by an important Veterans’ group. The New York Times
8. Because he’s a positive disruptor that will bring the same sentiment to Washington. “As 2019 ends with the big names still topping the national polls, Pete Buttigieg’s sudden rise stands as the greatest disruption to the Democratic contest in the off year.” Politico via Twitter
9. Because he has shown staying power in Iowa and New Hampshire. “Buttigieg is the only candidate so far who has been able to get a surge in the polls, emerge from the pack and maintain that momentum.” Sentinel Source
10. Because he is clearly the candidate to lead us in the field of foreign policy and national security. “More than 200 foreign policy and national security professionals, including dozens of veterans of the Obama administration, on Monday are endorsing Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg for president.” USA Today
11. Because he’s come from outside Washington and yet has a plan to lead it. “He’s a legitimate outsider.” Former Senator Claire McCaskill on MSNBC
12. Because he shows how he can rise to Obama levels of rhetoric. “[Pete] spoke very beautifully tonight…Even asked about reparations…[he] didn’t duck it, and he said ‘you know the value of a dollar saved, what’s the value of a dollar stolen?’ Now listen, that’s some Barack Obama level poetry.” CNN’s Van Jones
13. Because he has the best plan for addressing college affordability. “[Pete’s proposal is] more affordable and more progressive than the other, more expensive ones out there.” The Washington Post
14. Because he did South Bend proud. Not least in this area. “There’s A Persistent Idea That Pete Buttigieg Ignored Black South Bend. It’s Not True.” BuzzFeed News
15. Because his latest plan to help an aging population “is wide-ranging, comprehensive and hits on many issues voiced by families, long-term care experts and other stakeholders to address the myriad pressures of caring for aging loved ones.” Forbes
16. Because he knows how to do a bus tour right. No but seriously, who else has done all-access like Pete this cycle? Des Moines Register
17. Because he’s leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, but importantly drawing the biggest crowds too. Seacoast Online
18. Because he’s a polyglot. Or hyperglot. OK, he just speaks a lot of languages and that’s good. “After the fire at Paris’s Notre-Dame cathedral, he dipped into French to answer questions from French media. He fielded questions from Norwegian journalists in Norwegian, which he’s said to have taught himself in order to read novels in the language.” The Atlantic
19. Because of Chasten. ‘Nuff said. “Pete and Chasten, who were married a year ago, have an incredibly sweet and supportive relationship which has won them–and their dogs–a devoted following of fans.” The Oprah Magazine
20. Because he’s not afraid to tackle the biggest institutions to make our country better. “He’s discussed eliminating the Electoral College, scrapping the filibuster, and remaking the Supreme Court so each party nominates the same number of justices and vacancies become less “apocalyptic.”’ Vox

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City. It’s easy to understand why this seminal moment of both struggle and progress for the LGBTQ community was chosen as the focal point for National Pride Month, which we now observe annually in June. But as our historical distance from events like Stonewall grows each year, it’s important that we continue to appreciate and learn from the experiences of those who have continued to fight for equality and understanding in the decades since.

Much of the attention devoted to Stonewall focuses on the violence and intimidation that the LGBTQ community has worked to overcome, but the push for acceptance in the workplace is just as important a thread in the narrative. I had this on my mind when I joined a panel at StartOut’s Congressional Summit on LGBTQ Innovation recently. It’s both empowering and deeply personal to talk about how my own experiences as a gay man have influenced my career, and the value I’ve found in supporting organizations like the Victory Fund (disclaimer/shameless self-plug: I am a Victory Fund board member) to try and hand down a better world to the next generation. I’m glad to get opportunities like these to do it and hopefully provide some helpful perspective for others.

I’m humbled to hear the stories of those who came before me who embarked on careers at a time when the very thought of being out at work meant career suicide. These perspectives are a powerful reminder of how easy it can be to take the gains that we have made for granted.

Being among the first to break the “rainbow ceiling” came with many risks, both professional and personal, and it makes me respect the courage and determination these men and women needed to have all the more. They are role models for us all.

It’s worth reflecting on the power these role models have to effect change. Simply by living open and honest lives as LGBTQ individuals, they’ve introduced many of us to the idea that we could do the same. They made a statement — one that many of us have desperately needed to hear at certain points in our lives — that no one’s dreams or the impact they can have on the world should be limited by their sexual orientation. Their efforts were a key part of recasting LGTBQ rights as a civil rights consideration and reshaping public perception of the LGBTQ community.

Millions of people in the LGBTQ community were directly influenced by these examples. This had a host of second and third-order effects, where more of us felt empowered to live openly in every aspect of our lives. More people across the country and the world got to know the LGBTQ people in their lives and in their own families and were more easily able to appreciate the human side of decades of discrimination and struggle. It was almost a sort of “chain reaction” of increasing public exposure and acceptance that helps explain the rapid pace at which both legal protections for LGBTQ individuals and social acceptance of the LGBTQ community have advanced in the past few decades in just the past 15 years.

As with so many civil rights movements, progress can be frustratingly uneven. Resounding victories that vindicate years of work are tempered by stultifying setbacks. Case in point: much of corporate America has made a dramatic about-face in its approach to accommodating LGBTQ employees and the LGBTQ community. Far from the open hostility of the past, there’s a collective enthusiasm for not just protecting but celebrating our role in the workplace and in the world. And in the political sphere, the appearance on the scene of Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the first openly gay candidates for president aiming for a major party’s nomination (and whose campaign I have been fortunate to get the opportunity to volunteer on and provide support), represents a remarkable step forward for LGBTQ representation in some of the most important parts of our society.

But these advances come hand in hand with continuing challenges. Despite the good work being done by many individual employers, there are still no broadly defined federal protections for LGBTQ employees in the workplace. Several states and cities have stepped in to fill this gap, but in 26 states, it is still legal for an employer to fire an employee for being LGBTQ. Recall as well the so-called “Bathroom Bill” in North Carolina in 2016, which would have forced transgender individuals to use only the restroom facilities that correspond to the sex identified on their birth certificates. The measure was ultimately defeated, but not before stirring up a particularly ugly political debate across the country and engendering a high-profile boycott of the state by the NCAA (which imperiled the state’s chances of hosting future college basketball tournaments).

Two steps forward, one step…sideways? That may be a funny way to reflect on Stonewall and National Pride Month, but it feels fair when there is much work that remains to be done and more that we can push for every day to continue the march toward equality. It’s easy to want to rest on the laurels of major victories like the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell. Yet, harder at times to find the determination to keep up the pressure on remaining areas where LGBTQ rights are still lacking or even openly in danger of being rolled back. But as those men and women who pushed back during Stonewall can attest (as can all those who followed in their footsteps), progress doesn’t happen on its own. It’s the result of a sustained, focused effort to show the world that something different — something better — is possible.

Fifty Years on from Stonewall, How Far We’ve Come Depends on Your Perspective was originally published in Clyde Group on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Enough with the headlines asking if it’s time — it’s clear that the political torch has been passed down to the next generation. The midterms left the House of Representatives with almost five times as many Millennials as it had in its prior session. No one, regardless of age, who marched with the Parkland students on the issue of gun control, or with Greta Thunberg on climate change, had any doubt about who the grown-ups in the room were.

This generational shift comes at a pivotal moment in U.S. history, so absolutely nothing about the “how” or the “who” of this transition should be taken for granted. No matter which way the pendulum swings in 2020, the effects of the upcoming election will be felt in our country for many years to come, and understanding the gravity of the situation is imperative.

For nearly three decades, political pundits have declared younger voters are essential to the outcome of American elections. It still hasn’t happened. In 2016, just 46% of eligible voters from that generation voted, compared to 69% of eligible Baby Boomers.

But today, signs of an impending youth wave indicate it will finally be different this time. Compared to 2014, youth participation in the 2018’s midterms was up 188%, indicating that 2020 might actually be the ‘Year of the Millennial.’ The Millennial generation is now officially the country’s largest. It already represents more registered voters than any other age group. The argument can be made that it has the most skin in the game, since it will be the generation that answers for the many economic, social, and environmental decisions made by previous generations.

The generation is ready for its political moment. Millennials have already bested the lazy, entitled and narcissistic labels ascribed to them by older generations. They’re surviving soaring rents and record levels of student loan debt, and their difficulties shifting into the middle class are a predictable economic consequence that may well explain why so many are still living at home.

But take care before making any more assumptions about how this group will vote. Yes, the House Millennials are all progressive Democrats. Yes, Millennials and Gen Xers run counter to Boomers and Silents on immigration, race, government size, and many other issues. Yet, it would be a major mistake to assume today how Millennials will vote or that they’ll vote as some kind of monochromatic bloc, or that they will automatically vote for one of their own.

If we learned anything from 2016, it should be the need to avoid Personality Politics Fixation Disorder. The problem isn’t Trump and the solution isn’t the anti-Trump. The problem is why Trump was elected: too many Americans feel the system is stacked against them. Too many Americans feel failed by what has transpired in our nation’s government in recent years. At the same time, younger voters worried about the legacy they’re being handed are taking an increasingly proactive and leadership role in political and civil society.

This doesn’t mean it’s time for old white men to hang up their skates. Age is neither the golden ticket nor the fatal flaw. In the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders won more votes among under-30s than Clinton and Trump combined, and Joe Biden is leading in the polls today. Biden’s bump doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to win, especially in an election dominated by youth voters, any more than does Barack Obama’s demonstrated confidence in his potential to be President.

This year’s election will feature a kind of presidential candidate that has not been seen before, and who has generated a considerable amount of buzz already. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana is being hailed as THE Millennial candidate. He’s young, smart, articulate, inspiring, open about his strong faith and his committed, same-sex marriage. He has served his country and has executive experience in the rust belt from which Trump drew many disaffected voters.

But neither Buttigieg, nor the pundits who have elevated him in this race, should assume that Buttigieg’s generational peers will fall into line, Pied-Piper-like, even if they are charmed by his age, his bio, or his charisma. In a CNN Town Hall last month, Buttigieg said: “It’s important we don’t drown people in minutiae before we’ve vindicated the values that animate our policies … I expect it will be very easy to tell where I stand on every policy issue of our time. But I’m going to take time to lay that out.” I humbly suggest that he not wait too long or wait to be asked. A policy focus, as much as ethics and passion, is what’s driving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political tsunami. Millennials are more of a “show me and tell me generation” than a “me generation.” They want to see clear plans and paths toward substantive change, and they have a sharply tuned BS radar.

So Buttigieg has the generational edge in a race that is likely to be defined as the Year of the Millennial. But to be able to count on the support of those voters moving forward, he will need to illustrate how he will implement their shared vision of addressing climate change, comprehensive and humane immigration reform, and racial and gender equality. Buttigieg has shown the needed humility and passion. If he moves quickly enough to outline the equally essential substance and concrete action, the Millennial vote might just be his for the taking. In turn, it could deliver the nomination, and potentially the White House. But that’s too early to predict, and far too early to assume.

On Millennials, Minutiae and Mayor Pete: Never Assume was originally published in Clyde Group on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Pinkwashing is a relatively new phenomenon; it refers to the practice of corporations not living up to their purported promises with regards to LGBT+ rights. The assumption behind the moniker is some companies claim to be supportive of the LGBT+ community for purely commercial gain, without a tangible commitment to spurring progress. “In other words, putting their pride effort and dollars where it actually matters,” says Jim Obergefell, a gay rights advocate and advisor to organizations and companies.

Companies seeking to counter charges of pinkwashing can best serve the progress they hope to create by taking actions nobody will hear about. Why would this be the case? Surely large, powerful companies should publicly encourage progress? Not so, says Open for Business and several of their member companies. At an event hosted by the EU and Clyde Group on this topic, Ed Pilkington of British drinks company Diageo warned that “do no harm” sometimes means that private channels are the safest.

For example, Western companies championing gay rights in countries hostile towards these issues (Nigeria, for example, where 9 out of 10 people are anti LGBT+) risk endangering the gay employees or LGBT+ rights groups they publicly support. The real battleground for LGBT+ progress lies in other, often developing, countries, where Western-based companies operate and have large commercial footprints in the public sphere. Businesses operating in Indonesia, Nigeria and Kenya — where gay rights have come under considerable fire — have so much power that there are questions surrounding their moral responsibility to act.

That doesn’t mean that Western brands can do nothing in these markets. In fact, Pilkington points out that his company has a deliberate strategy to leverage employees as authentic ambassadors of the company’s values through diversity and inclusion training. Support can also be given “in kind” to civil rights groups operating in developing countries; deputy EU Ambassador to the US Caroline Vincini explains that “support (to organizations) can be offered through mentoring, legal services, offering space or expertise.”

These limitations might be a cruel irony to a brand manager eager to showcase their company’s record on these issues. But it speaks to the nuanced approach to diversity and inclusion required in an age where pinkwashing is unfortunately common, and companies are wary of it.

These guidelines don’t mean that pinkwashing isn’t an issue for companies operating in the United States; they have plenty of room to grow, and plenty of space to fail too. At the SXSW festival in Austin this past week, pinkwashing was a hot button topic among many LGBT+ advocates, including my panel on LGBT+ rights and the private sector.

The anchor example was pinkwashing at gay pride parades; increasingly, brands have chosen to participate in the annual pride parades of cities where they have a strong operations presence with a high number of employees or suppliers, or where they want to grow their customer base. Countless companies — from Coke to Colgate have participated in these festivals and, as a result, have drawn scrutiny.

“It’s not enough to slap a rainbow logo on a pride float anymore,” says Hugh Steeler, an LGBT+ advocate. “Companies can actually incur greater risk in the delta between their public statements and private actions.” If your company markets itself as an “out and equal” brand but doesn’t truly promote LGBT+ rights in everything from supply chains to training programs, it is vulnerable.

In the last decade, the leading strategists for corporate diversity and inclusion have come to understand pinkwashing as a potential challenge to their brands; one that requires attention to navigate its complexities. Recent analyses by Open for Business, an organization that works with brands to affect change in countries where gay rights are lagging, shows how concern surrounding pinkwashing is growing. Google Trends data shows that web searches for the term “pinkwashing” steadily rose in recent years, “indicating a growing concern that LGBT+ issues are being co-opted.” In fact, the regular “spikes” in Google and Twitter data reflect increased interest during pride season.

In the United States, most large companies have acknowledged these realities and worked to improve (though there is room for growth: a study from last year shows that about half of American LGBT+ employees remain closeted at work). Effective companies acknowledge that the promotion of LGBT+ rights is good for their bottom lines and understand that their influence should sometimes be wielded in private ways. The best brands combine those lessons and create an authentic and powerful narrative.

Pinkwashing at a Crossroads: the Future of Brand Involvement in LGBT+ Progress was originally published in Clyde Group on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

At a festival traditionally dominated by creative titans of film, media and tech, the “political invasion” — as one disgruntled tech CEO called it — was inescapable. Politics are not new at SXSW, but the presence of political players continues to rise, year after year. Here are a few takeaways:

Changing the focus: Innovators get the most attention, regardless of their field. This year, creatives in music, film, and tech, who have dominated SXSW for decades, were sometimes overshadowed by politicians.

• Political stars like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Will Hurd, and an array of presidential candidates including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper descended upon Austin.
• Facebook hosted a dedicated public policy party to “kick-off” SXSW, taking over an upscale bar in the heart of Austin.

A Microphone for All: POLITICO Playbook hosted a conversation and panel series at The Experience by Dell and CNN hosted a live presidential town hall on Sunday night, providing a microphone to every 2020 contender.

• “POLITICO Exchange takes our Playbook newsletter outside of DC to convene newsmakers at the intersection of state and federal government,” said Jake Sherman, co-author of POLITICO Playbook from the stage ahead of a conversation with Sen. Mazie Hirono.
• “We want to give every single candidate a platform. It seemed logical for CNN to come in and have a town hall at SXSW,” CNN Digital Executive Vice President Andrew Morse told Axios.

Dwelling on 2018: From the historical election of women into the House of Representatives to the electoral lessons of the 2018 midterms, it was clear that we aren’t done unpacking the events of November and what they mean for the future of American politics.

• Stacey Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate from Georgia, discussed her book and gave advice on underrepresented demographics (LGBT+, minorities, women) seeking office and change in their communities.
• A panel of representatives, political commentators, and organizers all unpacked the “pink wave” and what it means for the future of government.

Too Big to Fight: Part of the political blitz at SXSW related to calls for regulation (and even antitrust investigations) of Big Tech companies, all of whom have long participated in the festival.

• Attendees of a Vox Media party shouted “break them up!”
• The EU flew the European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, in for two live conversations with Recode’s Kara Swisher and CNN’s Meredith Artley.

Politics, whether we like it or not, is now a core part of SXSW’s DNA; it is a natural extension of the festival. Like tech, media and film before it, politics isn’t going anywhere. The best thing future attendees, thought-leaders, and businesses can do is recognize and embrace it.

Tech and Politics’ Relationship Takes the Stage at SXSW was originally published in Clyde Group on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Today’s midterm elections will be the country’s most expensive, with an estimated $5.2 billion spent. The biggest spenders, surprisingly, haven’t been candidates, political action committees or advocacy groups. Instead, corporations have pumped publicity dollars into election-related initiatives, marketing and advertising.

Companies engaging in election-related visibility is not new, but the degree of corporate attention to these midterms during the last few months is a sign that the relationship between companies, consumers and politics is undergoing a significant and permanent change.

The past few election cycles offer examples of this shift in marketing mentality. The presidential election of 2012 found brands engaging in a light-hearted and product-centric way. Cheetos predicted that Barack Obama would be elected “Commander in Cheese.” Boston Market launched a menu item allowing customers to declare themselves left or right (chicken) wing. These product marketing campaigns capitalized on elections the same way they would the holiday season.

Get Out The Vote

By the 2016 election, corporate tones had changed. Brands used their marketing clout to urge people to vote. The companies who proved most successful also highlighted their products in creative ways. Doritos used students’ registration status to offer free chips on college campuses declaring, “If you’re not registered to vote, you get no choice.” Ben & Jerry’s launched Empower Mint flavor, complete with pint cups printed with instructions on how to register to vote.

In just four years the tone became more civic-minded. Tongue-in-cheek, yes — and sometimes product-centric — but incrementally more serious with a pointed goal of driving customers to vote, rather than merely to buy a product.

Time to Vote

And now, some leading corporations’ approach to the midterms has shifted again, as exemplified by the Time to Vote coalition announced in late September. This group of 350 companies — including Lyft, Levi Strauss, Patagonia and Walmart — announced it would provide paid time off to ensure employees had time to vote.

The effort could be viewed in a partisan light. Higher turnout generally is known to favor Democrats. The coalition has come under attack from the right, though it insists the effort is nonpartisan.

Regardless, the politically charged nature of the initiative — a marketing campaign cleverly designed to energize employees while communicating values to consumers — is a compelling reflection of the new demands customers expect brands and companies to meet. Brand publicity in this election cycle is a harbinger of what is to come.

Consider the changing nature of the average customer demographic. Consumers are holding companies to a higher standard to earn their loyalty. Two-thirds of consumers say it’s important for brands to take public stands on social and political issues, a Sprout Social study says. While most consumers say that brands rarely or never influence their opinions on social issues, customers still expect brands to take stands. This is particularly true of those respondents who identify as liberal.

Credibility Gap

Of course, brands have to be mindful of how and when they mobilize political rhetoric. Remember Pepsi’s Jenner ad? Relevance is the key to reception. Consumers believe brands are most credible when taking on an issue that directly impacts their customers and employees (a “double bottom line” that possibly explains why the Time to Vote initiative has been so successful).

Just how far companies should go politically is unclear, both from a business standpoint and a consumer perspective. It’s not a surprise that some of the companies participating in Time to Vote already have taken stands. For example, Patagonia is suing the President for his executive order shrinking the size of several national monuments. Walmart’s chief executive criticizedPresident Trump after Charlottesville and Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU to help fight the Muslim travel ban.

Such bold actions can cut both ways for brands. Almost one-third of millennials will not buy goods or services from companies if they are aware that the company has political positions different from their own, a Morning Consult survey found. That presents significant downsides for companies that are expected to take stands; they’re likely alienating a portion of their customers, no matter what they do.

Leaving Money on the Table?

This is a high-wire act for corporations. Consumers demand that their brands take stands, but — as outlined in the research above — only on issues that are relevant to customers and employees. Shareholders, though, expect that companies will sell the maximum amount of products to the most people — a goal that inevitably becomes harder when brands take a stand that risks alienating consumers.

Winning brands will be those that best navigate this political thicket. They will capitalize on civic engagement without alienating stakeholders. Just how complicated that becomes will be a topic of debate for the 2020 presidential election, during which partisan politics are sure to be even more pronounced.

This article originally appears on PR News.

Who’s Spent the Most on the Midterms? Would You Believe Brands? was originally published in Clyde Group on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Facebook announces that fewer accounts were compromised in its ever biggest data breach… but it’s too late.

Facebook announced a data breach in late September — 50 million users were thought to have been hacked. On Friday, the social network says 20 million fewer accounts were breached than originally thought. But this will still be a crucial turning point.

For the 30 million users, the data accessed was highly sensitive. The data thieves stole a wide range of personal information such as the last 10 places that users had checked into, their current location and their 15 most recent searches on the network.

While Facebook says hackers did not gain access to financial information, such as credit card numbers, the risk of phishing attacks is estimated to be high among victims of the breach.

Why It Matters

• This isn’t the largest data breach by a long shot, but it’s perceptually critical because it affects the largest number of users on the world’s most popular platform.
• Colin Bastable, CEO of Lucy Security, tells us: “Millions of phishing attacks will be launched, pretending to be from Facebook. Up to 20 percent of recipients will click and a large number of those will be successfully attacked.”
• The revelations come amid an increasingly hostile environment for Facebook, and will likely further heighten threats of regulatory or legislative action. This week’s stock market rout of tech stocks doesn’t help.

Clyde Group Insights

Facebook is right to be watching its back.

It’s already under fire from governments and regulators across the world, facing accusations of tax evasion and significant encroachment of privacy rights. In the U.S. Facebook is fighting multiple investigations.

Russian meddling in elections using the social media platform and fake accounts to promulgate political division in the United States has already made lawmakers and opinion influencers dubious of the social network and public outrage over the handling of the Cambridge Analytica data exposure solidified those perceptions. Add to that a healthy dose of scepticism about the social network’s potential addictive qualities, and Facebook is under siege.

This breach won’t be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for Facebook in Washington. Lawmakers are too focused on the upcoming elections to use Facebook as a whipping boy in the immediate future, but you can bet a Democratic House majority will be coming for the social network in the new year. This data breach announcement only helps their case against it.

What do the latest Facebook revelations mean for the company’s political future? was originally published in Clyde Group on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.