N(eva)DA

Site leaders at Nevada precinct caucuses (according to two articles I just read) are being asked to sign an NDA before being allowed to pick up the election materials needed to conduct a caucus.
Now, this is new news, so more details may come to light (or not, as the whole purpose of an NDA is secrecy) and I must admit, it’s not clear what it’s all about, but it sure looks shady as hell to me. What with Pete Buttigieg paying $42,500 for a vote stealing app in Iowa and the Iowa Democratic Party saying flat out they won’t correct all the errors, and a member of Buttigieg’s campaign team being appointed to something called ‘voter security,’ and 5 out of 6 candidates on the debate stage saying they are perfectly happy with the DNC ignoring the will of the people and choosing their candidate in a smoke filled back room, like the good old days, there is certainly room for skepticism.
And there were differences in the two articles I read. One called it a non-disclosure agreement, which is what NDA usually means, and another called it a non-disparagement agreement, i.e. you can’t talk bad about any of the other candidates, which is a violation of free speech and kind of against the whole spirit of a caucus is. But even in the non-disparagement agreement article, they admitted that there was a clause in there which prohibited the site leaders from talking to the press. Which makes it a non-disclosure agreement. And if there’s anything we learned from Wednesday’s debate, it’s that NDA’s are bad.
One article said that it was voluntary, but the other quoted site leaders as saying they couldn’t get the materials unless they signed. Voluntary. Yeah, like all the women who signed NDA’s for Bloomberg were voluntary.
This is looking like a repeat of Iowa, and that’s bullshit.