3 ms·

There's been a concentrated effort by the Republican party to try to link the FTX collapse to the other party, even though the Republican party actually receive

There's been a concentrated effort by the Republican party to try to link the FTX collapse to the other party, even though the Republican party actually received more contributions from FTX during the general election. Almost all of SBF's donations were during the primary, and he made almost no donations during the general election. This means his money might have helped influence who showed up on the November ballots he didn't spend anything to help one party win over the other. In contrast, almost all of the FTX's GOP spending, and all of the FTX executive's donations to the GOP, were during the general election cycle, and specifically to the GOP House races. This means that the GOP owes it's current majority in the house directly to stolen money donated to it by FTX and FTX executives.

TMWNN 4y ago
>Almost all of SBF's donations were during the primary, and he made almost no donations during the general election. This means his money might have helped influence who showed up on the November ballots he didn't spend anything to help one party win over the other. That's not how it works. There is no rule that says that donations made during the primary season cannot be spent by the campaign after the primary.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Right, but in this case, the Democratic PACs listed were only active in the primaries; they sat out the general election.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    You're evading the point. Money given to a candidate during primary season can and does get spent during the general election, too.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them. In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems, and explains why McCarthy is focusing his efforts on committee assignments rather than on going after FTX.
      - TMWNN 4y ago
        >Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them. Money doesn't work that way. Money is fungible. There is nothing about contribution x that distinguishes it from contribution y once both are received, or prevents x from being used for the same purpose as y. Further, >In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems The other way around. Money given later in an election cycle means there is less time to use it.
        gamblor956 4y ago
        No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent. So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws.
        TMWNN 4y ago
        >No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent. Yes, in terms of individual contribution limits, and various other rules. However, not in the context that we have been discussing, which is using primary contributions in the general election. As the FEC explains <https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...>: >As previously noted, should the candidate lose the primary election, contributions accepted for the general election must be refunded, redesignated or reattributed within 60 days and may not be used to repay primary election debt. Therefore, candidate committees should ensure they have enough cash on hand to make those refunds if needed. >Candidates running in the general election, however, may spend unused primary contributions for general election expenses. The contributions would continue to apply toward the contributors’ limits for the primary. [My emphasis] In addition, the campaign of a candidate running in the general election may use general election contributions for primary election debts; the contributions would still count against the contributor’s general election limits. As I said, this is why donating earlier is better than donating later, and why your claim that "The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them" is meaningless. Of course you won't pay attention to the above, since you've already pontificated that >So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws. Sheesh.
rs999gti 4y ago
SBF was the second largest Democrat donor, only second to Soros https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors?cycle=2022&view=fc https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor...
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  Both these things— SBF donated more to Republicans than he did to Democrats and that he was the Democrats’ largest donor— can be simultaneously true. And that’s not exactly a great look for the GOP, since it means the plutocratic donor class is heavily on their side.

TMWNN 4y ago

>Almost all of SBF's donations were during the primary, and he made almost no donations during the general election. This means his money might have helped influence who showed up on the November ballots he didn't spend anything to help one party win over the other. That's not how it works. There is no rule that says that donations made during the primary season cannot be spent by the campaign after the primary.

gamblor956 4y ago
Right, but in this case, the Democratic PACs listed were only active in the primaries; they sat out the general election.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  You're evading the point. Money given to a candidate during primary season can and does get spent during the general election, too.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them. In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems, and explains why McCarthy is focusing his efforts on committee assignments rather than on going after FTX.
    - TMWNN 4y ago
      >Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them. Money doesn't work that way. Money is fungible. There is nothing about contribution x that distinguishes it from contribution y once both are received, or prevents x from being used for the same purpose as y. Further, >In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems The other way around. Money given later in an election cycle means there is less time to use it.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent. So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws.
        TMWNN 4y ago
        >No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent. Yes, in terms of individual contribution limits, and various other rules. However, not in the context that we have been discussing, which is using primary contributions in the general election. As the FEC explains <https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...>: >As previously noted, should the candidate lose the primary election, contributions accepted for the general election must be refunded, redesignated or reattributed within 60 days and may not be used to repay primary election debt. Therefore, candidate committees should ensure they have enough cash on hand to make those refunds if needed. >Candidates running in the general election, however, may spend unused primary contributions for general election expenses. The contributions would continue to apply toward the contributors’ limits for the primary. [My emphasis] In addition, the campaign of a candidate running in the general election may use general election contributions for primary election debts; the contributions would still count against the contributor’s general election limits. As I said, this is why donating earlier is better than donating later, and why your claim that "The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them" is meaningless. Of course you won't pay attention to the above, since you've already pontificated that >So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws. Sheesh.

rs999gti 4y ago

SBF was the second largest Democrat donor, only second to Soros https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors?cycle=2022&view=fc https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor...

Analemma_ 4y ago
Both these things— SBF donated more to Republicans than he did to Democrats and that he was the Democrats’ largest donor— can be simultaneously true. And that’s not exactly a great look for the GOP, since it means the plutocratic donor class is heavily on their side.