4 ms·

SBF's political donations are both more evenly distributed than previously reported[1], and seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulator

SBF's political donations are both more evenly distributed than previously reported[1], and seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulatory attention than driven by ideological/political concerns. (And this framing makes intuitive sense: the politicians least likely to be cryptocurrency aligned lean center-left.) Edit: Pulling the relevant grafs out: > “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.” > Given that he donated nearly $40 million to Democrats in the 2022 election cycle—and he admitted to giving an equal amount to Republicans—his total political contributions may have actually been around $80 million. [1]: https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donations/ https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donatio...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulatory attention than driven by ideological/political concerns They were almost entirely about messaging to outside the political class.
ufmace 4y ago
He's been caught constantly lying about everything over and over again, but we should definitely take his word that he's donated just as much to Republicans but there's no proof of it at all.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Again: it's not clear what strategic value this lie would have. Legal discovery will presumably provide a more final answer here.
psychlops 4y ago
Surely we can trust what he says about his political donations. He's been so honest.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don’t think SBF is honest, but what advantage would that specific lie grant him?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - philwelch 4y ago
    He was the second biggest Democratic donor in the 2022 elections, and since he supports the Democrats, he doesn’t want them to suffer any reputational damage from their #2 donor being a notorious con man, so he made up a conveniently unfalsifiable story. As for what advantage it grants him, just wait and see. Marc Rich got a lame duck pardon from President Clinton in exchange for his generous political donations, so maybe Biden will do the same for SBF.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > He was the second biggest Democratic donor in the 2022 elections, and since he supports the Democrats, he doesn’t want them to suffer any reputational damage from their #2 donor being a notorious con man, so he made up a conveniently unfalsifiable story. I think these explanations benefit from persona tests: can you think of someone in your life whose political stance is meaningfully affected by either (1) SBF donating massive sums to the DNC (true!), (2) being a scam artist (true!), or (3) potentially having donated equally massive sums to the GOP (maybe!)? Mine aren't, and I don't think most peoples' are either.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        So your contention is that absolutely nobody would care if the Democrats in particular were heavily financed by white-collar crime? And that the Democratic Party doesn't care whether or not they're associated with an alleged, indicted criminal? That's facially absurd. Even if it wouldn't cause anyone to change their vote (which seems unlikely given the marginal-but-still-very-real swings in election results every two years), it would affect enthusiasm and engagement among people who would otherwise support the Democrats. Whereas with this lie about mysterious "dark money" donations to Republicans, most people who support the Democrats will just accept that claim uncritically and continue to support the Democrats because that's the story that minimizes their personal cognitive dissonance. Also, you need to explain why somebody would donate equally to both parties in the first place, when both parties are engaged in a zero-sum game with each other for control of the federal government.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulatory attention than driven by ideological/political concerns They were almost entirely about messaging to outside the political class.

ufmace 4y ago

He's been caught constantly lying about everything over and over again, but we should definitely take his word that he's donated just as much to Republicans but there's no proof of it at all.

woodruffw 4y ago
Again: it's not clear what strategic value this lie would have. Legal discovery will presumably provide a more final answer here.

psychlops 4y ago

Surely we can trust what he says about his political donations. He's been so honest.

woodruffw 4y ago
I don’t think SBF is honest, but what advantage would that specific lie grant him?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- philwelch 4y ago
  He was the second biggest Democratic donor in the 2022 elections, and since he supports the Democrats, he doesn’t want them to suffer any reputational damage from their #2 donor being a notorious con man, so he made up a conveniently unfalsifiable story. As for what advantage it grants him, just wait and see. Marc Rich got a lame duck pardon from President Clinton in exchange for his generous political donations, so maybe Biden will do the same for SBF.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > He was the second biggest Democratic donor in the 2022 elections, and since he supports the Democrats, he doesn’t want them to suffer any reputational damage from their #2 donor being a notorious con man, so he made up a conveniently unfalsifiable story. I think these explanations benefit from persona tests: can you think of someone in your life whose political stance is meaningfully affected by either (1) SBF donating massive sums to the DNC (true!), (2) being a scam artist (true!), or (3) potentially having donated equally massive sums to the GOP (maybe!)? Mine aren't, and I don't think most peoples' are either.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      So your contention is that absolutely nobody would care if the Democrats in particular were heavily financed by white-collar crime? And that the Democratic Party doesn't care whether or not they're associated with an alleged, indicted criminal? That's facially absurd. Even if it wouldn't cause anyone to change their vote (which seems unlikely given the marginal-but-still-very-real swings in election results every two years), it would affect enthusiasm and engagement among people who would otherwise support the Democrats. Whereas with this lie about mysterious "dark money" donations to Republicans, most people who support the Democrats will just accept that claim uncritically and continue to support the Democrats because that's the story that minimizes their personal cognitive dissonance. Also, you need to explain why somebody would donate equally to both parties in the first place, when both parties are engaged in a zero-sum game with each other for control of the federal government.