Ramaswamy alleged that Haley’s campaign was receiving substantial support from Wall Street heavyweights Reid Hoffman and Larry Fink – individuals he associated with left-wing causes and the ‘woke industrial complex’ respectively. He claimed that these relationships influenced Haley’s political positions, notably her recent comments about tying government-issued IDs to online speech.
In response to Haley’s assertion that meeting with these donors does not impact her, Ramaswamy said, “It’s after that meeting later that day, that she says that every American needs to be doxxed by having their ID, their government issued ID tied to what they say on the internet.”
Haley retorted by dismissing the criticisms as jealousy from other candidates. However, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis supported Ramaswamy’s claims, suggesting that Haley would “cave to those big donors when it counts.”
Ramaswamy went on to accuse Haley of adopting a fascist approach to governance, likening her to the Biden regime. He argued that her proposal to link social media activity to government-issued IDs was a threat to freedom of speech, stating, “That is not freedom, that is fascism, and she should come nowhere near the levers of power, let alone the White House.”
Haley defended herself by clarifying that her intent was to make social media companies publicize their algorithms and combat foreign bots. She denied ever stating that the government should require users’ names. However, both Ramaswamy and DeSantis refuted her claims, pointing out her previous statements that suggested otherwise.
DeSantis also criticized the potential implications of Haley’s proposal, arguing that it would lead to a significant expansion of government powers and threaten the principle of anonymous speech, a cornerstone of American democracy.
The debate ended with both sides maintaining their positions. Haley insisted that her proposal was aimed at enhancing national security by eliminating foreign bots, while Ramaswamy and DeSantis reiterated their concerns about the potential threats to freedom of speech and privacy.