American businessman denies financing De La Espriella's campaign and challenges Petro

Dan Newlin, an American businessman, denied having contributed $1.8 million to the campaign of elected president Abelardo De La Espriella, as suggested by Gustavo Petro. In a public letter, he challenged the president to show evidence.

The American businessman Dan Newlin has responded with a categorical denial to the accusations from Colombian president Gustavo Petro, who suggested that he had financed the campaign of elected president Abelardo De La Espriella with $1.8 million in advertising on Meta. In a letter addressed to the president, Newlin stated that he has not contributed a single dollar to that campaign and challenged him to present evidence.

A categorical denial and a direct challenge

In his letter, Newlin asserted that

“I have not contributed a single dollar, not a single cent, either directly or indirectly, to your campaign”

. The businessman emphasized that his support for De La Espriella has been purely personal and based on his admiration for the politician, but without any financial backing. He insisted that the claim that he financed the campaign through Meta is completely false.

Newlin also denied having authorized third parties to make contributions. To support his version, he offered his financial records for any verification. Additionally, he directly challenged Petro:

“I challenge you to present to the Colombian people evidence that supports these manifestly false accusations”

.

The origin of the controversy

It all began when Petro posted a message questioning whether Newlin had invested $1.8 million in Meta to campaign in favour of De La Espriella and against Iván Cepeda. The president recalled that the Colombian Constitution prohibits foreign financing of presidential campaigns and asked for clarification on whether that supposed contribution was recorded in the official accounts.

Newlin, for his part, demands that Petro retract his statements and offer a public apology if he cannot present evidence. The controversy now rests in the hands of public opinion, while both sides maintain opposing positions.

What does this mean for the reader?

For Colombians, this exchange of accusations highlights the need for transparency in the financing of electoral campaigns. If Petro's claims were true, it would be a constitutional violation. Conversely, if Newlin is telling the truth, the president should rectify. The ball is now in Petro's court, who will have to decide whether to present evidence or back down.

For now, the businessman has made it clear that he does not intend to yield:

“Colombians deserve to know the truth”

, he wrote, and called for the episode to be clarified as soon as possible.