If you only look at cash flows, you'll have to make arbitrary judgement what constitutes bribery and dependence and what does not. For example: are state-funded

If you only look at cash flows, you'll have to make arbitrary judgement what constitutes bribery and dependence and what does not. For example: are state-funded media companies independent or do they serve the government? What about state-subsidized media companies? What about the German model, where the state sets the height, helps with the collection, but doesn't directly fund the media companies (they're funded via a totally-not-a-tax "fee" that applies to every household, whether it has the ability to consume the media products or not)? Political donations aren't going to a person, they're going to their campaign, so they can't just pocket the money and write a thank-you-note. There's also a very benign reading of political donations: you give to a candidate because you expect them to be the best for the country, and what's best for the country is usually good for you as well, ergo you benefit. If there's a stated and clear quid pro quo, it's bribery, but otherwise: meh. In this case, as far as I understand, it wasn't Trump that made the decision who TikTok would be sold to, he just decided it had to be an American company.