‘Go buy Ivanka’s stuff,’ Kellyanne Conway said. Then Ivanka's fashion sales exploded

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: alphabetaone

Would there be an equal story on this matter had sales taken a sudden and decisive slump after this "endorsement"?

Why are you asking me, I didn't write the article. But I'm sure there would have been as it was a financial article. This isn't a partisan issue.

Do you really think we fashionable ladies get our advice from a political operative?

Do you really think I care where you get your fashion advice from?

Fire her?

Yes, fire her.

I'm more of a softie like BBFT. Doesn't seem like a hanging offense.

You can be anything you like, nor did I say that she should be executed, so yes, it is not a hanging offense....but a termination offense for breaking the law? Absolutely.

Was anyone actually harmed by this speech?

That depends....if you don't consider abuse of power, and use of position for personal financial gain 'harmful', then no.

If her endorsement meant that some other line lost money, and could prove it...there might be a case.

There doesn't need to be proven loss of income for anyone else....it's against the law, with that, that is all the case that's needed.

But if her endorsement simply increased sales across the country how is that a bad thing? Retailers and state governments will be happy for the extra income.

Do I really need to say it again? Or are you getting the idea by now...

originally posted by: Blaine91555

Endorsing a product or supporting it is a free speech issue I'd think. So is opposing it which both customers and stores have the right to do.

What you think is wildly immaterial. What is law, is material and as it stands right now, officials in the administration are bound by law not to endorse products.

originally posted by: schuyler
Sales would have increased anyway. NOBODY pays attention to what Kelly Conway says. Most people, including most GOP, don't even know who she is. "Attributing" (to put it nicely) increased sales to Conway is like her claiming the sun will rise tomorrow and you giving her credit. The increase in sales is due to two reasons. First, Ivanka herself. She's beautiful, intelligent, and articulate and has been in the public eye for several years, but has increased exposure because of her involvement in the campaign. People like her. The second reason is the Dems "boycott" and the result that several stores caved to Dem pressure to stop carrying her products just because they don't like her father. How insanely stupid is that? People don't like the storm trooper Democrat tactics so they bought her stuff. It's just like being told you can't read a certain book because some self-proclaimed censor decides you shouldn't have the opportunity. What happens next? The book is on the bestseller list. People may not even want her stuff, but they are saying, "Screw your god-damned boycott." That's the reality of this. Conway is a nobody.

This is true. I bought Ivanka's perfume. I didn't buy it because Conway came out and said to go buy Ivanka's stuff. I bought it because I thought it was stupid and asinine and ridiculous that stores were dropping her lines because of her father. If nobody boycotted Ivanka, I'd never have bought her perfume.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Could you please point us to the law she has broken?

You began by opining that there was an ethical issue here. Now it has progressed to breaking a law...what happened in just a few pages to change your mind?

Seems to me this is another of those first world problems that get far more press than is deserved.

OP, do you think Ivanka's record sales are to do with what Kelly Ann Conway said, or more to do with the fact that her products were banned after pressure from liberals?

I would say it was more to do with the latter (for obvious reasons), and I find it to be excellent news that every time liberals try to persecute another human being for political reasons, they lose. Very satisfying to know that so many people will take action against these liberals in ways that show them clearly their nasty ways are not welcome.

a reply to: diggindirt

5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: diggindirt

5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

Great news for Ivanka though wasn't it? Well done to her!
Happy days.
She must be loving it, knowing there is nothing the likes of you can do about it, apart from add more money to her bank account by continuing to whine.... actually I must go and buy something from her line for the wife...

a reply to: UKTruth

So pointing out that someone broke the law is now whining?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: diggindirt

5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

Can anyone explain to me in what way was this a private gain for Kellyanne Conway? The only one apparently gaining anything is Ivanka. What am I missing?

Edit add: does Kellyanne have some financial connection to Ivanka's line of clothing?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

So pointing out that someone broke the law is now whining?

Conway has already been rebuked for her offhand comment. It's over. What do you want? Firing? Prison? Funny how you guys go all authoritarian when it suits. It was a nothing comment made after ridiculous liberal calls for her products to be boycotted and stores folding to the persecution techniques. It backfired. You lost. Get over it.

Ah... spotted a nice gift for the wife.

a reply to: CynConcepts

(c)Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

Note the bolded part. A government employee is not allowed to endorse any product. It doesn't matter if they are the one personally gaining from the endorsement.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: CynConcepts

(c)Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

Note the bolded part. A government employee is not allowed to endorse any product. It doesn't matter if they are the one personally gaining from the endorsement.

What’s more, it found February 2017 brand sales had increased by 557 per cent when compared to average orders in 2016. The brand was ranked as no 11 in sales on Lyst for the month of February, a sharp increase from no 550 in January. “Ivanka Trump brand has never ranked in as a top seller on our site,” Sarah Tanner, Lyst's US public relations director, told Refinery 29. “To see such an extreme spike in one month is completely unheard of and came as a huge surprise to us.”

Note the bolded part

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

So pointing out that someone broke the law is now whining?

Pointing it out isn't

Beating the drum for days when no one starts to pull out their handcuffs.....absolutely is.

The fact remains: Conway didn't gain personally, and her off handed remark wouldn't have been seen by anyone outside of a few viewers (who would have forgotten it before supper that day) were it not for the media giving it air time. Honestly, the greatest benefit to Ivanka Trump hasn't been Conaway uttering a single sentence on TV. Its been from all the screecing and finger pointing done by media.

Or, to put it differently: if Eric Holder can sell guns illegally to citizens of a foreign nation and not go to prison, i have no idea why on earth we are even talking about this. Obviously tere are no laws to break, if our nations highest legal counsel can do that kind of thing.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

So pointing out that someone broke the law is now whining?

Pointing it out isn't

Beating the drum for days when no one starts to pull out their handcuffs.....absolutely is.

The fact remains: Conway didn't gain personally, and her off handed remark wouldn't have been seen by anyone outside of a few viewers (who would have forgotten it before supper that day) were it not for the media giving it air time. Honestly, the greatest benefit to Ivanka Trump hasn't been Conaway uttering a single sentence on TV. Its been from all the screecing and finger pointing done by media.

Or, to put it differently: if Eric Holder can sell guns illegally to citizens of a foreign nation and not go to prison, i have no idea why on earth we are even talking about this. Obviously tere are no laws to break, if our nations highest legal counsel can do that kind of thing.

...and let's not forget it was the very same people who scream about women's rights that campaigned for Ivanka's products to be boycotted to make it more difficult for her to succeed. That level of hypocrisy and vitriol is why there has been a sharp spike in her sales, not because of a 30 second Conway statement.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Where am I beating any drum? Someone asked what law Conway broke. I cited the law. Someone else asked how that law applied to Conway. I cited the relevant sections. Are we not supposed to answer questions if it makes members of this administration look bad?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Where am I beating any drum? Someone asked what law Conway broke. I cited the law. Someone else asked how that law applied to Conway. I cited the relevant sections. Are we not supposed to answer questions if it makes members of this administration look bad?

Why do you care?

a reply to: UKTruth

Why do care so much about me answering another member's question that you saw the need to attack me?

i am simply amazed that people believe that ms conway has such power over people

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: diggindirt

5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

Can anyone explain to me in what way was this a private gain for Kellyanne Conway? The only one apparently gaining anything is Ivanka. What am I missing?

Edit add: does Kellyanne have some financial connection to Ivanka's line of clothing?

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

Kellyanne Conway broke the law. PERIOD!

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: alphabetaone

Could you please point us to the law she has broken?

You began by opining that there was an ethical issue here. Now it has progressed to breaking a law...what happened in just a few pages to change your mind?

Seems to me this is another of those first world problems that get far more press than is deserved.

Seems to me you should brush up on American politics and the OGE...the Office of Government Ethics is an ethical concern. It hasn't progressed, it has been consistenly about this precisely. Let's leave your desire for hyperbole out of this.

With that said, I would be happy to point you to exactly the document straight from the OGE's own website with the relevant excerpt below:

Subpart G - Misuse of Position

Subpart G contains four provisions designed to ensure that employee do not misuse their official positions. These include:
A prohibition against employees using public office for their own private gain for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-Government capacity, or for the endorsement or any product, service, or enterprise;
A prohibition against engaging in financial transactions using nonpublic information, or allowing the improper use of nonpublic information to further private interests;
An affirmative duty to protect and conserve Government property and to use Government property only for authorized purposes; and
A prohibition against using official time other than in an honest effort to perform official duties and a prohibition against encouraging or requesting a subordinate to use official time to perform unauthorized activities.

(bolding is mine for emphasis)

You can read the whole document here