The Times purports to explain:
Releasing damaging information about candidates of the opposing party into the heat of a campaign is an age-old political practice, but the sensational nature of the disclosure of sex tapes — reportedly featuring [Susanna] Gibson and her husband, a lawyer — is highly unusual.
Most of the rest of the article is about whether Republicans committed a crime by cluing voters into what Ms. Gibson was doing on Chaturbate.
It is true that “[r]eleasing damaging information about candidates of the opposing party…is an age-old political practice.” But the Times’s characterization of “releasing damaging information” presumes that Gibson was entitled to engage in public sex for money without the fact becoming known to voters. In fact, the “release” of damaging information was done by Gibson when she uploaded her videos (there were more than a dozen) to Chaturbate, to be watched by the public. And, yes, this situation is “highly unusual.” It is unusual because most politicians do not use porn sites to engage in sex acts for money.
Matt Walsh sums up Gibson’s defense: Dem Candidate Claims It’s A ‘Sex Crime’ To Talk About The Fact That She’s A Porn Star.