5 ms·
Isn't buying political influence with money what most people with absurd amounts of money do? I don't like it one bit either, but it's hardly unique to SBF. Wi
by sdiacom 4y ago
Isn't buying political influence with money what most people with absurd amounts of money do? I don't like it one bit either, but it's hardly unique to SBF.
With SBF, there seems to be this attempt at drawing guilt-by-association because of his donations to the Democratic Party. I don't think this makes a lot of sense.
For an example on the other end of the parliamentary spectrum, say, if Musk's future Twitter profits (good luck with that) were to come from the savings from firing half of the company's employees, and he then donated those to the Republican Party, it would be absurd to blame the Republican Party for the loss of jobs that it indirectly benefited from.
Obviously firing employees is not equivalent to fraud, and donating illicit profits could be part of a scheme to launder them. But unless a causal link can be proven, it all looks like speculation to me.
- lazide 4y agoBuying useful things with money to make more money is pretty much the definition of a businessman, after all. And it seems like the ROI on politicians is amazing.
- jongjong 4y agoThat makes a good case for smaller, more decentralized governments with less power. That would increase the lobbying costs. The US is just insane if you think about it; if a lobbyist manages to get 1 beneficial law passed in the US, that law will affect over 300 million people! Think of the profit opportunity on a per-law basis... They only need to work a handful of politicians to get such results. It's too easy.
- lazide 4y agoIt’s the classic federalism vs decentralized argument for sure. Centralization can result in amazing efficiencies and higher standards, or amazingly large graft and powerful and effective despotism.