5 ms·

Is this the same FTX US that is the #3 donor to political parties? 2/3 (D) 1/3 (R) https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations https://ww

Is this the same FTX US that is the #3 donor to political parties? 2/3 (D) 1/3 (R) https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizat...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xyst 4y ago
yes
no_butterscotch 4y ago
$70,099,115 70 million in one year. Yikes. Seems like the company was full of bad decisions.
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  Less bad decisions and more making sure they had political cover for their Ponzi and no one investigated them too hard.
  - bhouston 4y ago
    Yup, money to politicians does tend to make them look away.
  - awinder 4y ago
    These donations were pretty clearly part of a forward-play on having a prominent seat at the table for writing regulations, it’s not really a secret that they were planning to try to starve out Binance through crypto regulation. Also while it’s kind of a thing to buy influence to the legislative process, buying your way out of justice isn’t really. There’s way too much apparatus outside of electoral politics. FTX wasn’t investigated because what were they going to be investigated for, it’s an unregulated offshore financial outfit with no signs of distress until it went boom, like most “Ponzi schemes”.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
Yes. There are whole articles online (by both sides) about how he became a critical Democratic party supporter almost overnight. According to MarketWatch, he was the second largest donor to the Democrat Party. Good for him I guess that Dems did well in the election. Though, I would love an independent probe to ensure there's no quid pro quo.
- vnchr 4y ago
  Your hypothesis is the second largest donor to the Democrat Party gave without expectation of quid pro quo?
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    I didn't try to suggest it because HN would probably downvote me to oblivion if I did. I personally, however, think that a quid pro quo is pretty likely - and Republicans would shout this from the rooftops if they had a little more sense in my opinion. Stealing a ton of money, giving a ton to Democrats, potentially helping win an election, and then not investigating or properly punishing the thief is a perfect crime... so, if I am the Dems, I would throw or at least try to get 150+ years in prison Madoff-style at a minimum.
    - anon291 4y ago
      > Republicans would shout this from the rooftops if they had a little more sense in my opinion. The Republican party has been defunct since 2008. I say this as a republican. Yes, they have local machines in isolated areas, but the party itself is non-existent on a national level, except when they scrape by due people being disaffected by the democrats. The Republicans have not been a true majority party for decades. You will certainly see certain republicans shouting this, myself included. You will see smaller local groups shout this. But the national party does not really exist
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Why does anyone donate to a political party? They must expect some quo; isn't that your implication? Perhaps it's a systemic problem?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rglover 4y ago
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I think it's really amazing that she started a PAC and 13 days later her son became one of the largest political donors to the Democrats. What great timing for her.
  - rglover 4y ago
    https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mgc.gif https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mgc.gif
soco 4y ago
Why would an organization donate to BOTH competitors sizeable amounts like this? Okay, it's more to the dems, but quite a sum for the gop as well. Do they just want a soft landing regardless who wins? Wouldn't that be the same if not funding at all? Or maybe not, they can tell later any winner "look I paid ya"...
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  From a "trader" perspective, the best policy if you are bribing is bribing any current AND future candidates, discounted by some factor for probability of being in power at some point in the future, and discounted by the time value of money (so people currently in power gets more.) That's probably the type of amoral, risk reward based thinking that goes through someone like SBF's head. Source: was a quant at some hedge fund in a past life.
- syockit 4y ago
  Donations from employees, not the company itself. The company can't force the employees to donate in a specific way (or maybe they can. I don't the know US laws, but that would sound unethical)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

xyst 4y ago

yes

no_butterscotch 4y ago

$70,099,115 70 million in one year. Yikes. Seems like the company was full of bad decisions.

asdajksah2123 4y ago
Less bad decisions and more making sure they had political cover for their Ponzi and no one investigated them too hard.
- bhouston 4y ago
  Yup, money to politicians does tend to make them look away.
- awinder 4y ago
  These donations were pretty clearly part of a forward-play on having a prominent seat at the table for writing regulations, it’s not really a secret that they were planning to try to starve out Binance through crypto regulation. Also while it’s kind of a thing to buy influence to the legislative process, buying your way out of justice isn’t really. There’s way too much apparatus outside of electoral politics. FTX wasn’t investigated because what were they going to be investigated for, it’s an unregulated offshore financial outfit with no signs of distress until it went boom, like most “Ponzi schemes”.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Yes. There are whole articles online (by both sides) about how he became a critical Democratic party supporter almost overnight. According to MarketWatch, he was the second largest donor to the Democrat Party. Good for him I guess that Dems did well in the election. Though, I would love an independent probe to ensure there's no quid pro quo.

vnchr 4y ago
Your hypothesis is the second largest donor to the Democrat Party gave without expectation of quid pro quo?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I didn't try to suggest it because HN would probably downvote me to oblivion if I did. I personally, however, think that a quid pro quo is pretty likely - and Republicans would shout this from the rooftops if they had a little more sense in my opinion. Stealing a ton of money, giving a ton to Democrats, potentially helping win an election, and then not investigating or properly punishing the thief is a perfect crime... so, if I am the Dems, I would throw or at least try to get 150+ years in prison Madoff-style at a minimum.
  - anon291 4y ago
    > Republicans would shout this from the rooftops if they had a little more sense in my opinion. The Republican party has been defunct since 2008. I say this as a republican. Yes, they have local machines in isolated areas, but the party itself is non-existent on a national level, except when they scrape by due people being disaffected by the democrats. The Republicans have not been a true majority party for decades. You will certainly see certain republicans shouting this, myself included. You will see smaller local groups shout this. But the national party does not really exist
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Why does anyone donate to a political party? They must expect some quo; isn't that your implication? Perhaps it's a systemic problem?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rglover 4y ago

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I think it's really amazing that she started a PAC and 13 days later her son became one of the largest political donors to the Democrats. What great timing for her.
- rglover 4y ago
  https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mgc.gif https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mgc.gif

soco 4y ago

Why would an organization donate to BOTH competitors sizeable amounts like this? Okay, it's more to the dems, but quite a sum for the gop as well. Do they just want a soft landing regardless who wins? Wouldn't that be the same if not funding at all? Or maybe not, they can tell later any winner "look I paid ya"...

polygamous_bat 4y ago
From a "trader" perspective, the best policy if you are bribing is bribing any current AND future candidates, discounted by some factor for probability of being in power at some point in the future, and discounted by the time value of money (so people currently in power gets more.) That's probably the type of amoral, risk reward based thinking that goes through someone like SBF's head. Source: was a quant at some hedge fund in a past life.
syockit 4y ago
Donations from employees, not the company itself. The company can't force the employees to donate in a specific way (or maybe they can. I don't the know US laws, but that would sound unethical)