IMO it is fine to run for president, and to vote for whoever you want. But running a campaign that is really intended to just give the edge to another guy, is dirty politics intended to fool voters with an illusion of choice.
When the richest people in the country engage in those tactics, isn't democratic, it's plainly oligarchic.
So it's a dishonest campaign because some rich people are giving him money? By this logic RFK Jr's campaign should be seen as a dishonest campaign as well since he's raised more money from more people than Phillips has.
Exactly the same story though.
>RFK Jr. pulls more votes from Trump than Biden in three-way race: Poll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4289365-rfk-jr-trump-v...
Before COVID, I would have guessed the biggest reservoir of anti-vax sentiment was among very liberal Democrats (think the people who are super into yoga, organic food, and naturopathic doctors).
COVID became a culture war issue, which lead to partisan Democrats lining up on the pro-mask, pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine side, but I have no idea if that disrupted the views of existing anti-vax Democrats (of the "vaccines cause autism" variety).
RFK's promoters switched to promoting Phillips when they realized RFK was drawing more conservatives for the antivax stuff, than democrats for the Kennedy name.
Unfortunately, in a two-party system one is compelled to vote for the official party candidate if they want their party to win. So voting for a challenger during primaries is great in that it helps send a message to the party, but in the general one must hold their nose and vote for the party's nominee.
If he runs in the general election it will be as a spoiler candidate