This seems overly simplistic focusing on the positive and choosing to omit info that could shed doubt on Andy.
She left the FTC in 2014 and worked 4 years at the Internet Association lobbying group which the EFF opposed.
The group claims that surveillance-based advertising technology, which slurps up and broadly spreads consumers’ personal data without their knowledge, should be exempted from the CCPA.
Even if someone had a past that was good. Choosing to then work to weaken privacy on behalf of lobby group that represented companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook should have normal privacy focused companies like Proton hesitate to make public endorsements of a person with conflicting history. What other privacy companies even bothered to make that type of endorsement?
Andy's support was also not only her, but his support of JD Vance with ties to Peter Thiel/Palantir and Republicans was under the public cloud of Epstein allegations, global tariff threats, threats of removing checks and balances with Project 2025, intention to ignore courts, and aligning with tech billionaires like Elon with questionable spying allegations and discrimination at Tesla. Most PR companies would have recommended not touching the subject matter if not necessary to do so.
Even Mullvad and Brave didn't make political endorsements through the company, so it takes someone with a really strong alignment with a group to make an unprompted company endorsement and not a personal one.