x.com/jimrandomh/status/2106841776611086356

The phrase "absolute right ... for any reason or no reason" is too broad to be legally accurate.

A funding round is carried out through contracts. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, all persons in the United States must have the same right "to make and enforce contracts" as white citizens, and the statute expressly says this protection applies against nongovernmental discrimination. The Supreme Court has also explained that this statute covers "the discriminatory refusal to enter into a contract with someone" and offering a contract only on discriminatory terms.

That means there is at least one clear category of reasons that a private funder does not have an absolute legal right to use: refusing to contract on the basis of race. Because even a single legal exception defeats the word "absolute," the claim is incorrect as stated.

This correction is narrow: it does not mean every refusal to invest is unlawful, or that every funding decision is regulated the same way. It means only that saying funders may legally refuse "for any reason or no reason" is too sweeping, because U.S. civil-rights law forbids at least some discriminatory refusals to contract.