9 ms·

FTX US Donated $1M to a Super-Pac Aligned with Mitch McConnell in October

65 points by quyleanh 4y ago

quyleanh 4y ago
> Donation came just days before FTX declared bankruptcy > Bankman-Fried became sixth largest donor in midterm elections Why there is no investigation? Why he still can speak on NY Times event?
- capableweb 4y ago
  > Why there is no investigation? There most certainly is. Stuff like this takes time though (see Elizabeth Holmes) and worse, SBF seems to be not on US soil at all so would need an extradition. > Why he still can speak on NY Times event? It'll be most interesting to see what he has to say now. I don't think someone committing illegal acts (currently or in the past) should be grounds for a full on ban for speaking in public. Worst case scenario (for him) he says something he shouldn't have, and further goes into the rabbit hole. Best case scenario for us, we get insights we didn't have before. Also, banning people based on what's illegal would mean Edward Snowden couldn't do any public speeches anymore in US-based events. Is that what you really want?
  - robswc 4y ago
    >Also, banning people based on what's illegal I think he shouldn't be speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars. Seems like a pretty easy decision. People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      > speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Maybe I'm just morbidly curious, but I'd like to hear even out everyone, guilty of crime or not. Doesn't mean I'll take what they say to heart. But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. > People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less. Does that mean it's right?
      - robswc 4y ago
        >Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Sure. I don't see why that has to be hosted by the NYT though. He could make a YouTube video at any time explaining all of that. The NYT talk was scheduled before all of this happened tho, so I don't think that was their original plan. >But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. I don't think we have to talk legal or illegal. He stole billions of dollars from his customers. There's 0 silver lining there. >Does that mean it's right? No, it just highlights the bias of institutions.
  - quyleanh 4y ago
    No, it's not what I want. I think very simple. He did lost billions of thousands of people and there is no excuse, no apology, no compensation plan. The US media like WSJ still says good for him, NY Times invites hime to talk nonsense. There are many evidences about he has private property, money... People has pointed out his untrustworthy but nothing happened. I don't understand. To be honest, I really don't understand what they're doing now in US. Both people and government...
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The NYT invite was sent prior to the fraud information coming out.
- hellothere1337 4y ago
  - fear_and_coffee 4y ago
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I'm having trouble imagining what you could mean by this other than invoking antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement? Most people don't make a distinction between light skinned people and white people, and this is an, ahem, quite specific and nuanced distinction that only makes sense to me personally because I've made a study of white supremacist ideology. ETA: GP originally read "white privilege", meaning the implication of this comment was, there's no white privilege, because he's Jewish (unless there were other edits)
  - dang 4y ago
    Posting an abusive comment and then abusively editing it out is the sort of thing we ban accounts for, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- landemva 4y ago
  Investigation after the handcuffs would be appropriate. And it would surprise me if the IRS is unable to find fraud in undeclared gifts like the reported $16M condo his parents somehow got in their names.
kyleyeats 4y ago
- robswc 4y ago
  I've got some bad news for you, buddy
- potency 4y ago
  He was second only to George Soros for donations made to Democrats this election cycle. Would you like to revise your statement?
- jmaygarden 4y ago
  I agree. Of course, SBF overwhelmingly supported Democrat candidates... https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-among-top-political-donors-before-bankruptcy-11668949205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon... I prefer to read your comment as an epic troll.
leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
Oh, come on. Mr. Bankman-Fried was the No. 2 overall top donor to Democrats in the election cycle, only behind George Soros, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Salame was the No. 11 overall donor to Republicans. And also look at the names of the candidates too, on both sides. https://www.livemint.com/market/cryptocurrency/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-among-top-political-donors-before-bankruptcy-11669031663161.html https://www.livemint.com/market/cryptocurrency/sam-bankman-f...
- robswc 4y ago
  As a cliché independent, I can't imagine the media storm if the 2nd top donor to republicans during such an important election got all of that donation money by essentially defrauding millions of customers. I've only seen articles that cast them as "misguided whizz kids" at best and "just trying to do the right thing" at worst. They went for the throat with Elizabeth Holmes, why not now? It's arguably 100x clearer and easier too.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    With the amounts involved, SBF would have been the fifth-largest donor on the republican side.
    - robswc 4y ago
      I think that just speaks volumes as to how much "big money" Dems have had on their side recently...
  - quyleanh 4y ago
    I think the connection between SBF and FTX with the Biden's government is too complicated so they cannot do it normally. Even the democrats biased medias go white-wash for him, direct people by something else.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Conservatism is the most proximate threat to American democracy. Do not be surprised if the media goes after the right first.
friedman23 4y ago
Here comes the spin!
- NetOpWibby 4y ago
  Wheeeee!
quyleanh 4y ago
https://archive.md/wcxYo https://archive.md/wcxYo
Zamicol 4y ago
1 million is cute. FTX's Bankman-Fried spent around $37 million during the last election cycle, almost all of which went to boosting Democratic candidates and causes. That made him the party's second-largest donor https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-democrats-midterms-campaigns https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-de...
- prirun 4y ago
  > FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and members of his team rose from relative obscurity in Washington to be among the biggest donors in U.S. politics, contributing more than $70 million to election campaigns in less than 18 months. > Mr. Bankman-Fried personally gave $40 million to politicians and political-action committees ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, mostly to Democrats and liberal-leaning groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign donations. Ryan Salame, another top FTX executive, donated more than $23 million, mainly to Republicans and conservative groups. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-among-top-political-donors-before-bankruptcy-11668949205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon... I'm not political, because all politicians are liars IMO. But let's not turn this into yet another partisan issue. Rich people give money to both sides, all the time, so that they win no matter who wins.
  - russdill 4y ago
    However, the attempts to reform and limit campaign financing have been very partisan
    - prirun 4y ago
      I don't know which side is doing this, other than I'm pretty sure it's the one with the lower budget. And if one day the parties are in the reversed position, they will both flip sides and be advocating for the opposite of today. The Dems say there is election fraud if Reps win, and Reps say there is fraud if the Dems win. Both sides are so predictable on all issues: if it benefits them personally, they are for it. If it hurts them personally, they're not. Has nothing to do with us.
kennywinker 4y ago
I thought his whole deal was “effective altruism” aka get rich then use the money to make the world better… mcconnell is not making the world even slightly better - he enabled trump for 4 years, and then turned on him after his coup attempt failed. Not to mention he undemocratically refused to confirm obama’s supreme court pick, which is bad enough on its own, but has also resulted in women across the US being forced by the government to bear children against their will. None of that is a good look for someone claiming to be motivated by altruism
- 0x5345414e 4y ago
  SBF more or less admitted in the leaked Twitter DMs that the “effective altruism” was just PR (surprising no one, I hope)
- ourmandave 4y ago
  SBF doesn't represent effective altruism anymore than the hacker claiming "there's suspicious activity on your account" represents your bank.
- landemva 4y ago
  Effective altruism was hijacked to provide cover for the rich party crowd. Same for many of those charities in Africa, unfortunately. McConnell is a neocon protecting the swamp. He worked against Trump and for the swamp. Anecdote that having been on elevators with McConnell, I suspect he was picked on during elementary school recess and spends his decades in DC giving payback.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
Why is the media working so hard to brunt criticism of SBF? Donor status aside, is there any other reason besides money and politics ???
- landemva 4y ago
  The left embraced SBF and have some embarassment about the looting. If a poor black man stole funds like this, he would be locked up awaiting trial.
2devnull 4y ago
We should ditch anyone that takes contributions. Get a pool of qualified political leaders, draw from this at random. Enforce term limits. This crap has to stop.
tb_technical 4y ago
It's important to point out that lots of interests donate 51% one side, and 49% on the other in America. America has a real problem with political graft... Saying "only they do it!" plays into the silly game.

65 points by quyleanh 4y ago

> Donation came just days before FTX declared bankruptcy > Bankman-Fried became sixth largest donor in midterm elections Why there is no investigation? Why he still can speak on NY Times event?

capableweb 4y ago
> Why there is no investigation? There most certainly is. Stuff like this takes time though (see Elizabeth Holmes) and worse, SBF seems to be not on US soil at all so would need an extradition. > Why he still can speak on NY Times event? It'll be most interesting to see what he has to say now. I don't think someone committing illegal acts (currently or in the past) should be grounds for a full on ban for speaking in public. Worst case scenario (for him) he says something he shouldn't have, and further goes into the rabbit hole. Best case scenario for us, we get insights we didn't have before. Also, banning people based on what's illegal would mean Edward Snowden couldn't do any public speeches anymore in US-based events. Is that what you really want?
- robswc 4y ago
  >Also, banning people based on what's illegal I think he shouldn't be speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars. Seems like a pretty easy decision. People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    > speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Maybe I'm just morbidly curious, but I'd like to hear even out everyone, guilty of crime or not. Doesn't mean I'll take what they say to heart. But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. > People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less. Does that mean it's right?
    - robswc 4y ago
      >Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Sure. I don't see why that has to be hosted by the NYT though. He could make a YouTube video at any time explaining all of that. The NYT talk was scheduled before all of this happened tho, so I don't think that was their original plan. >But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. I don't think we have to talk legal or illegal. He stole billions of dollars from his customers. There's 0 silver lining there. >Does that mean it's right? No, it just highlights the bias of institutions.
- quyleanh 4y ago
  No, it's not what I want. I think very simple. He did lost billions of thousands of people and there is no excuse, no apology, no compensation plan. The US media like WSJ still says good for him, NY Times invites hime to talk nonsense. There are many evidences about he has private property, money... People has pointed out his untrustworthy but nothing happened. I don't understand. To be honest, I really don't understand what they're doing now in US. Both people and government...
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The NYT invite was sent prior to the fraud information coming out.
hellothere1337 4y ago
- fear_and_coffee 4y ago
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I'm having trouble imagining what you could mean by this other than invoking antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement? Most people don't make a distinction between light skinned people and white people, and this is an, ahem, quite specific and nuanced distinction that only makes sense to me personally because I've made a study of white supremacist ideology. ETA: GP originally read "white privilege", meaning the implication of this comment was, there's no white privilege, because he's Jewish (unless there were other edits)
- dang 4y ago
  Posting an abusive comment and then abusively editing it out is the sort of thing we ban accounts for, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
landemva 4y ago
Investigation after the handcuffs would be appropriate. And it would surprise me if the IRS is unable to find fraud in undeclared gifts like the reported $16M condo his parents somehow got in their names.

kyleyeats 4y ago

robswc 4y ago
I've got some bad news for you, buddy
potency 4y ago
He was second only to George Soros for donations made to Democrats this election cycle. Would you like to revise your statement?
jmaygarden 4y ago
I agree. Of course, SBF overwhelmingly supported Democrat candidates... https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-among-top-political-donors-before-bankruptcy-11668949205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon... I prefer to read your comment as an epic troll.

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago

Oh, come on. Mr. Bankman-Fried was the No. 2 overall top donor to Democrats in the election cycle, only behind George Soros, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Salame was the No. 11 overall donor to Republicans. And also look at the names of the candidates too, on both sides. https://www.livemint.com/market/cryptocurrency/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-among-top-political-donors-before-bankruptcy-11669031663161.html https://www.livemint.com/market/cryptocurrency/sam-bankman-f...

robswc 4y ago
As a cliché independent, I can't imagine the media storm if the 2nd top donor to republicans during such an important election got all of that donation money by essentially defrauding millions of customers. I've only seen articles that cast them as "misguided whizz kids" at best and "just trying to do the right thing" at worst. They went for the throat with Elizabeth Holmes, why not now? It's arguably 100x clearer and easier too.
- kibwen 4y ago
  With the amounts involved, SBF would have been the fifth-largest donor on the republican side.
  - robswc 4y ago
    I think that just speaks volumes as to how much "big money" Dems have had on their side recently...
- quyleanh 4y ago
  I think the connection between SBF and FTX with the Biden's government is too complicated so they cannot do it normally. Even the democrats biased medias go white-wash for him, direct people by something else.
bitwize 4y ago
Conservatism is the most proximate threat to American democracy. Do not be surprised if the media goes after the right first.

friedman23 4y ago

Here comes the spin!

NetOpWibby 4y ago
Wheeeee!

quyleanh 4y ago

https://archive.md/wcxYo https://archive.md/wcxYo

Zamicol 4y ago

1 million is cute. FTX's Bankman-Fried spent around $37 million during the last election cycle, almost all of which went to boosting Democratic candidates and causes. That made him the party's second-largest donor https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-democrats-midterms-campaigns https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-de...

prirun 4y ago
> FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and members of his team rose from relative obscurity in Washington to be among the biggest donors in U.S. politics, contributing more than $70 million to election campaigns in less than 18 months. > Mr. Bankman-Fried personally gave $40 million to politicians and political-action committees ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, mostly to Democrats and liberal-leaning groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign donations. Ryan Salame, another top FTX executive, donated more than $23 million, mainly to Republicans and conservative groups. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-among-top-political-donors-before-bankruptcy-11668949205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon... I'm not political, because all politicians are liars IMO. But let's not turn this into yet another partisan issue. Rich people give money to both sides, all the time, so that they win no matter who wins.
- russdill 4y ago
  However, the attempts to reform and limit campaign financing have been very partisan
  - prirun 4y ago
    I don't know which side is doing this, other than I'm pretty sure it's the one with the lower budget. And if one day the parties are in the reversed position, they will both flip sides and be advocating for the opposite of today. The Dems say there is election fraud if Reps win, and Reps say there is fraud if the Dems win. Both sides are so predictable on all issues: if it benefits them personally, they are for it. If it hurts them personally, they're not. Has nothing to do with us.

kennywinker 4y ago

I thought his whole deal was “effective altruism” aka get rich then use the money to make the world better… mcconnell is not making the world even slightly better - he enabled trump for 4 years, and then turned on him after his coup attempt failed. Not to mention he undemocratically refused to confirm obama’s supreme court pick, which is bad enough on its own, but has also resulted in women across the US being forced by the government to bear children against their will. None of that is a good look for someone claiming to be motivated by altruism

0x5345414e 4y ago
SBF more or less admitted in the leaked Twitter DMs that the “effective altruism” was just PR (surprising no one, I hope)
ourmandave 4y ago
SBF doesn't represent effective altruism anymore than the hacker claiming "there's suspicious activity on your account" represents your bank.
landemva 4y ago
Effective altruism was hijacked to provide cover for the rich party crowd. Same for many of those charities in Africa, unfortunately. McConnell is a neocon protecting the swamp. He worked against Trump and for the swamp. Anecdote that having been on elevators with McConnell, I suspect he was picked on during elementary school recess and spends his decades in DC giving payback.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

Why is the media working so hard to brunt criticism of SBF? Donor status aside, is there any other reason besides money and politics ???

landemva 4y ago
The left embraced SBF and have some embarassment about the looting. If a poor black man stole funds like this, he would be locked up awaiting trial.

2devnull 4y ago

We should ditch anyone that takes contributions. Get a pool of qualified political leaders, draw from this at random. Enforce term limits. This crap has to stop.

tb_technical 4y ago

It's important to point out that lots of interests donate 51% one side, and 49% on the other in America. America has a real problem with political graft... Saying "only they do it!" plays into the silly game.