3 ms·

It’s a silly idea that being the second largest donor to a political party in the US buys you special favors? Why else would anyone give that kind of money to p

It’s a silly idea that being the second largest donor to a political party in the US buys you special favors? Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return?

harry8 4y ago
>Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return? There's a polite theory it is done for altruistic reasons to make the country a better place for all and that it is the exercise of free speech and you are also free to give Trump, Biden, Pelosi & McConnell vast amounts of cash. But yes we're all adults here.
vkou 4y ago
I'd expect that the something in return buys you a king's seat at the regulatory table, not quite a get-out-of-jail-scott-free-for-stealing-billions card. I'm sure that in a few years, once the courts get everything sorted out, we'll learn which of our prejudices is closer to reality. As of today, though, we're both just speculating.
- leesalminen 4y ago
  Fair enough. You are correct it is all speculation. We’ll see.
- awinder 4y ago
  Bingo, and the line from electoral politics -> regulation is straight, legal, and requires one step. While filtering political donations through judicial + investigative bodies with egads of separate oversight & career employees & little to no electoral influence would be impossible to manage. Not for 28 million, you would have to buy a loooooot of people off and get extremely lucky. That’s why it doesn’t happen. The get out of jail free card, that is.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RobLach 4y ago
Sure but FTX was throwing money to both parties https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/04/11/ftx-co-ceo-donates-4m-to-republican-pac-ahead-of-midterm-elections/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/04/11/ftx-co-ceo-donate...
- leesalminen 4y ago
  It’s unclear to me how that affects anything? If anything it lends credence to the idea that he was making these donations solely for special favors and not for altruistic reasons.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
> Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return? Because they think the candidates they support will make the world better either personally for you or in a more general sense? Oil companies give money to manchin because they know he agrees with them and if he wins will fight for their legislation, whether they funded him or not.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Oil companies give money to manchin because they know he agrees with them and if he wins will fight for their legislation, whether they funded him or not. Neither they or you know that. And nobody but you assumes that Manchin fights for his beliefs, rather than for what benefits him personally. And no, I'm not assuming the opposite. I instead choose not to fantasize about his internal states, or speculate about what he would do if an industry that has always supported him ceased to support him.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Sure, it's just speculation. That's what was being asked for. There are reasons to donate to politicians other than quid pro quo.
jeffbee 4y ago
Sorry but the "wildest conspiracy theory" is that Democrats sent money to Ukraine, Ukraine deposited the money at FTX, and SBF donated the money to Democratic congressional campaigns. Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory. That some guy with access to a lot of cash tried to buy influence is not a "conspiracy theory" because it is unilateral. And, if that's what he was trying to do, it seems like a really poor strategy since you cannot really buy influence over law enforcement that way.
- cliftonk 4y ago
  I've heard a lot of wild conspiracy theories, but that one is new to me. To be fair, I do not believe the conspiracy theories, just that the inaction we're seeing is feeding credibility to the people peddling them.
- TacticalCoder 4y ago
  > Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory. I'm personally much more interested in the billions or the tens of billions that disappeared (in the bank account of tether/Deltec?) than in the petty amount that went to the democrats but... It's a fact that media were posting articles explaining how crypto was helping Ukraine (and there was a government ran website in Ukraine accepting crypto donation). SBF's very mom was running a political fundraising thinggy. It's also a fact that at least one US congressman is saying Gary Gensler was allegedly working hand in hand with FTX to allow SBF/FTX regulatory capture of crypto exchanges. I'm not saying they did: I'm saying a US congressman says he has records indicating that. These are facts. Now did these donations to Ukraine found their way back to FTX? (and if that's the case there's at least some truth to the conspiracy for it's a fact that SBF was donating stolen money to her mommy's fundraise) I think it's a bit early to dismiss with the back of the hand the information people are digging out. The one thing that seems certain is that if we were to depend on the journalists from the New York Times to investigate on that we wouldn't go very far. The usual angle is also going to be used for sure: "The wildest conspiracy theories are false, hence nobody besides SBF did anything wrong". People are trying to connect the dots. And with 130 companies, blinded journalists, a political party receiving $40m in donation, etc. there are certainly dots that do need connecting. Congress hearings in december for a start. Should be interesting (even if I don't have high hopes).
zopa 4y ago
Donations buy you access, not specific outcomes. Just the ability to get a hearing for whatever kinda-reasonable-ish parts of the stuff you want there might be is really, really valuable. And yes, both are corrupt, but one is business as usual and the other is a serious federal crime that prudent members of congress avoid.
- puglr 4y ago
  "Getting a hearing" and "not getting a hearing" are specific outcomes.
  - zopa 4y ago
    "This tax credit gets extended" is an outcome. "30 minutes with the Member and their chief of staff to discuss the vital importance of this tax credit to industry X" is not an outcome. You can problematize and subvert any scheme of categorization if you like, so go wild if it makes you happy, but honestly who has the time?
HWR_14 4y ago
I think that donating money one time buys you a photo. I think donating every cycle and especially anticipated into the future buys you access - which is correlated but not the same as outcomes.

harry8 4y ago

>Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return? There's a polite theory it is done for altruistic reasons to make the country a better place for all and that it is the exercise of free speech and you are also free to give Trump, Biden, Pelosi & McConnell vast amounts of cash. But yes we're all adults here.

vkou 4y ago

I'd expect that the something in return buys you a king's seat at the regulatory table, not quite a get-out-of-jail-scott-free-for-stealing-billions card. I'm sure that in a few years, once the courts get everything sorted out, we'll learn which of our prejudices is closer to reality. As of today, though, we're both just speculating.

leesalminen 4y ago
Fair enough. You are correct it is all speculation. We’ll see.
awinder 4y ago
Bingo, and the line from electoral politics -> regulation is straight, legal, and requires one step. While filtering political donations through judicial + investigative bodies with egads of separate oversight & career employees & little to no electoral influence would be impossible to manage. Not for 28 million, you would have to buy a loooooot of people off and get extremely lucky. That’s why it doesn’t happen. The get out of jail free card, that is.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RobLach 4y ago

Sure but FTX was throwing money to both parties https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/04/11/ftx-co-ceo-donates-4m-to-republican-pac-ahead-of-midterm-elections/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/04/11/ftx-co-ceo-donate...

leesalminen 4y ago
It’s unclear to me how that affects anything? If anything it lends credence to the idea that he was making these donations solely for special favors and not for altruistic reasons.

HDThoreaun 4y ago

> Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return? Because they think the candidates they support will make the world better either personally for you or in a more general sense? Oil companies give money to manchin because they know he agrees with them and if he wins will fight for their legislation, whether they funded him or not.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Oil companies give money to manchin because they know he agrees with them and if he wins will fight for their legislation, whether they funded him or not. Neither they or you know that. And nobody but you assumes that Manchin fights for his beliefs, rather than for what benefits him personally. And no, I'm not assuming the opposite. I instead choose not to fantasize about his internal states, or speculate about what he would do if an industry that has always supported him ceased to support him.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Sure, it's just speculation. That's what was being asked for. There are reasons to donate to politicians other than quid pro quo.

jeffbee 4y ago

Sorry but the "wildest conspiracy theory" is that Democrats sent money to Ukraine, Ukraine deposited the money at FTX, and SBF donated the money to Democratic congressional campaigns. Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory. That some guy with access to a lot of cash tried to buy influence is not a "conspiracy theory" because it is unilateral. And, if that's what he was trying to do, it seems like a really poor strategy since you cannot really buy influence over law enforcement that way.

cliftonk 4y ago
I've heard a lot of wild conspiracy theories, but that one is new to me. To be fair, I do not believe the conspiracy theories, just that the inaction we're seeing is feeding credibility to the people peddling them.
TacticalCoder 4y ago
> Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory. I'm personally much more interested in the billions or the tens of billions that disappeared (in the bank account of tether/Deltec?) than in the petty amount that went to the democrats but... It's a fact that media were posting articles explaining how crypto was helping Ukraine (and there was a government ran website in Ukraine accepting crypto donation). SBF's very mom was running a political fundraising thinggy. It's also a fact that at least one US congressman is saying Gary Gensler was allegedly working hand in hand with FTX to allow SBF/FTX regulatory capture of crypto exchanges. I'm not saying they did: I'm saying a US congressman says he has records indicating that. These are facts. Now did these donations to Ukraine found their way back to FTX? (and if that's the case there's at least some truth to the conspiracy for it's a fact that SBF was donating stolen money to her mommy's fundraise) I think it's a bit early to dismiss with the back of the hand the information people are digging out. The one thing that seems certain is that if we were to depend on the journalists from the New York Times to investigate on that we wouldn't go very far. The usual angle is also going to be used for sure: "The wildest conspiracy theories are false, hence nobody besides SBF did anything wrong". People are trying to connect the dots. And with 130 companies, blinded journalists, a political party receiving $40m in donation, etc. there are certainly dots that do need connecting. Congress hearings in december for a start. Should be interesting (even if I don't have high hopes).

zopa 4y ago

Donations buy you access, not specific outcomes. Just the ability to get a hearing for whatever kinda-reasonable-ish parts of the stuff you want there might be is really, really valuable. And yes, both are corrupt, but one is business as usual and the other is a serious federal crime that prudent members of congress avoid.

puglr 4y ago
"Getting a hearing" and "not getting a hearing" are specific outcomes.
- zopa 4y ago
  "This tax credit gets extended" is an outcome. "30 minutes with the Member and their chief of staff to discuss the vital importance of this tax credit to industry X" is not an outcome. You can problematize and subvert any scheme of categorization if you like, so go wild if it makes you happy, but honestly who has the time?

HWR_14 4y ago

I think that donating money one time buys you a photo. I think donating every cycle and especially anticipated into the future buys you access - which is correlated but not the same as outcomes.