16 ms·
Bankman-Fried, others made 300 illegal political donations, new indictment says
- lazyeye 4y ago[flagged]
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoI find the verbiage a little confusing. I'm probably best-served, looking at the source. It seems as if he wanted to be on record as leaning left, but behind the scenes, going right, but I'm not sure that's what happened. Most big-money folks like to give in both directions; regardless of their personal leanings.
- pavlov 4y agoYou don’t think right-wing donors take steps to hide their donations?
- klyrs 4y agoRight-wing donors like SBF? Yeah that was also mentioned in the article.
- halfmatthalfcat 4y agoDid you read the article? He speaks as if he holds contempt for the left. Sounds like it was purely transactional, not based in ideology. Not to mention you're trying to pain an entire ideology on one person's (who turned out to be a complete fraud) motivations.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 4y agoWhat does the rest of that sentence > "... or to have his name publicly attached to Republican candidates." say about the contemporary right? Looks to me like the biggest fraudster of the century was hedging his bets. Why does that say anything about either side specifically?
- keneda7 4y agoYet we just have to take SBFs word for him donating equally the both sides. I do not find him trustworthy. I also would point out that his parents are both involved in left pacs. I'm sure he has no reason to lie. Of the donation we have evidence of he seemed to donate equally to candidates on both sides but heavily favored the left when it came to PAC donations. Summing up the PAC donation from the link below give us: Left: 44.8 Right: 23.2 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...
- klyrs 4y agoWhat do you mean "take SBFs word"? The article is citing claims by made by the prosecution who are accusing him of illegal donations. That's the literal opposite of taking SBF's word. But here you are spreading partisan FUD. Pardon my french, but lay off the conspiratorial crackpipe.
- keneda7 4y agoMaking illegal donations is not the same thing at all as donating equally to both sides. The indictment does not say he donated equally to both side like you are trying to imply in your post. He hedged his bets 2-1. For every dollar he gave to the right he gave 2 to left. I have provided the evidence to support this. You have not and cannot refute this. Pretty hard to have a discussion with you when you try and push a political narrative rather than discuss things in good faith.
- klyrs 4y agoWho said he donated equally? That's your accusation. I maintain my original stance: his behavior says nothing about "the left" or "the right." Your focus on who he donated to is entirely missing my point.
- blitzar 4y ago"did not want to be known as a left-leaning partisan, or to have his name publicly attached to Republican candidates" What does leaving off the second half of the quote say?
- roundandround 4y agoThe implication that being just slightly more liberal than your opponent means choosing a platform that isn't inherently embarrassing to anyone associated is quite fascinating but clearly a distraction from the conservative values that make America freedom fries.
- asveikau 4y agoThe sentence you are quoting from is him explaining why he gave to both sides.
- jandrese 4y agoHe realized that the majority of billionaires are right leaning partisans and didn't want to be ostracized and vilified like George Soros? I think the real reason is just timing. Bankman-Fried was an invertebrate opportunist, so he was going to latch on to whomever was currently in power. Had he run his scam 4 years earlier he would have been a Trump man through and through.
- brucethemoose2 4y agoI worry that GPT is going to pick up one of the most pervasive habits of internet commenters: weaponizing an out-of-context partial quote. Comments like this are everywhere in places the trainers scrape.
- Natsu 4y agoPeople are going to see what they want to see in this. There's an interactive list of donations here: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-politicians-who-received-money-from-ftxs-sam-bankman-fried-11670359945 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-politicians-w... He seems to have given most of his money to Democratic causes and then a minority to some Republicans who are generally in the anti-Trump wings of the party.
- hammock 4y agoFTX (its new CEO, not Sam) is trying to shakedown the elected officials he donated to to return their donations as a part of the FTX bankruptcy proceedings.[1] How much of these new charges are those officials that accepted the money, trying to wash their image and cover their butt? [1]https://www.investopedia.com/ftx-seeks-donations-returned-7106383 https://www.investopedia.com/ftx-seeks-donations-returned-71...
- adolph 4y agoIt isn't a "shakedown," it is a "clawback."
- hammock 4y agoThe shakedown part is that FTX is privately seeking the money back with the explicit threat that it will reveal the officials' names publicly (in court filings) if they don't cooperate. >FTX said in a news release that it would privately contact the recipients of political donations made in its name, including from some of the company’s top-ranking officials, to get the millions donated to them returned. If the money isn’t returned, FTX said it would take the recipients to court to get the funds back.
- anonporridge 4y agoThe real question is, why weren't these illegal donations found and red flagged well before he blew up so publicly and the feds started picking through his financial life with a fine toothed comb? The fact that they're just being uncovered now, and probably would have gone under the radar if he didn't blow up, signals to me that this kind of illegal donation happens all the time by the wealth class without getting caught and prosecuted, either because it's just that hard to detect, because it's nobody's job to care, or because the watchdogs actively don't care because all of their handlers do it too.
- grugagag 4y agoBut of course. There’s the small risk that they get finecombed but the risk/reward ratio is too good not to do it. The system seems to be designed for this.
- anonporridge 4y agoI don't think the system is intentionally designed this way. That's just the reality of life with limited resources. When benefit of action > risk of action, it becomes competitively advantageous to do the action, even if illegal. You could miscalculate the inputs of that equation, but sometimes it's hard to tell if someone who blew up miscalculated or if they are simply one of the 0.1% that lose the bet while 99.9% got away with it and reaped the reward. Human law doesn't change this natural law. You could say that the only way to become absurdly rich is to fundamentally understand this natural law, even if you never end up breaking human law. You have to take risks others aren't willing to take. But this intimate understanding of the importance of risk also means it's likely that the ultra wealthy engage in explicit, well informed, and deeply intentional law breaking at much greater rates than the average person.
- colpabar 4y agoCongratulations! You're now a conspiracy theorist.
- anonporridge 4y ago
- fdgsdfogijq 4y agoWhats crazy is how embedded in the democratic party his parents are. Its hard for me to imagine they didn't have some kind of input on all this "donating". They are also top lawyers, so they would have known this was illegal.
- colpabar 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33707786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33707786 (required disclaimer: yes yes i know republicans are bad too)
- fundad 4y agoThey're so powerful they own a home on Stanford campus.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI like how every time this topic comes up someone literally whereabouts with "But he donated to Republicans!"... Yes, that's true. But show me one that wasn't on the couple of communities that directly effected crypto. I don't know why it's so hard for people to be reasonable about this. He was the number 2 Demacrat source of money behind only George Soros. He gave almost nothing to Republicans that he needed. And FTX hedged bets towards useful Republicans. It's OK for everyone to be honest.
- tempoponet 4y agoBy his own admission he used dark money to clandestinely donate to Republicans because of optics. I don't think you can ask us to show you the receipts and make an appeal for honesty knowing this.
- denlekke 4y ago"He gave almost nothing to Republicans that he needed. And FTX hedged bets towards useful Republicans." sources ?
- hnburnsy 4y agoIt is ridiculous that news organizations don't link to the source material. It seems like they want you to trust their interpretation without any questioning or can't have you clicking away from their site. Here is the indictment document... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590940/gov.uscourts.nysd.590940.80.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...
- ChickenNugger 4y ago>41. In total, SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, a/k/a "SBF," the defendant, and his coconspirators made over 300 political contributions, totaling tens of millions of dollars, that were unlawful because they were made in the name of a straw donor or paid for with corporate funds. In dozens of instances, BANKMAN-FRIED's use of straw donors allowed him to evade contribution limits on individual donations to candidates to whom he had already donated. As a result of this fraudulent conduct, BANKMAN-FRIED and his co-conspirators caused false information to be reported by campaigns and PA Cs to the FEC, which had the result of impairing and impeding the FEC' s reporting and enforcement functions. >CC-1 ultimately became-at least in name--one of the largest Democratic donors in the 2022 midterm elections and made donations to further BANKMAN-FRIED's agenda that CCI otherwise would not have made. This is worse than election rigging. There are reasons there are donation limits, and this dude deliberately, knowingly went around them to help the Democrats in the midterms.
- steponlego 4y agoWell sure it was illegal, and sure it helped them a lot. Like that Israeli election rigging company the Democrats used which has been in the news. But it’s important to move forward, we can’t like, Pfeh, UNDO illegal election rigging!
- dragonwriter 4y ago> This is worse than election rigging. There are reasons there are donation limits, and this dude deliberately, knowingly went around them to help the Democrats in the midterms. …and Republicans. CC-1 was the cutout for SBF’s donations to Democrats to the left of his preferred public image as a center-right Democrat, CC-2 was the cutout for SBF’s donations to Republicans to the right of that preferred public image.
- Dwedit 4y agoDoes anyone else think that this guy's name sounds like a name that Strong Bad would make up when prank calling Marzipan? "Hello Marzipan! This is your bank man... Sam...Bankman Fried."
- teachrdan 4y agoSame with Bernie Madoff -- a guy who literally burned people and made off with their money.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoNomen est omen.
- shiftpgdn 4y agoNominative determinism in action.
- bpodgursky 4y agoI would be cautious here — the financial normative descriptivism of Ashkenazi Jewish names is in large part an artifact of their (restricted and often discriminated) interactions with the rest of europe at the time. Yes there were a lot of Jewish bankers (and still are). Is it because of discrimination (getting forced into certain economic sectors)? That's complicated... but we should probably not make too much fun of them all the same.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoWho said anything about Jews?
- bpodgursky 4y agoIt is the origin of, and clearly indicated by, the name in question.
- factsarelolz 4y ago
- londons_explore 4y agoGiving the donation should not be the illegal bit... Accepting the donation should be the illegal bit... Which means I'm hoping to see 300 politicians heading to jail any day now...?? Right??
- mock-possum 4y agoIt’s unethical to offer a bribe, it’s only unethical to accept a bribe if one actually follows through on the action the bribe is intended to encourage. Unfortunately, policing the second part is practically impossible, and the effect of successful bribes is too harmful to risk - so accepting a bribe must be condemned in the same breath as offering.
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoAccepting a bribe without intent to follow through is dishonest and therefore unethical. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Giving the donation should not be the illegal bit… I disagree. Giving donations of with stolen corporate funds (listed as "loans" in documentation of the transfers, but with no supporting terms or accounting for the liability that should have been created with a loan, or anything beyond the notation on the transfer supporting that it was treated as a lona) should be illegal. Fraudulently misrepresenting the giver of donations should be illegal. Both of these were on the giving side. > Accepting the donation should be the illegal bit… Which means I’m hoping to see 300 politicians heading to jail any day now…?? From the accepting side, most of these looked like legitimate donations. that was the whole point of the fraud, to conceal where the money was really coming from, in both a personal sense (e.g., that it was being donated by SBF) and in a broader sense (that it was with stolen corporate funds.)
- khuey 4y agoHow, precisely, should a political candidate have determined that the donation was not compliant with the law?
- steponlego 4y agoIs it really illegal if you use crypto?
- alephnerd 4y agoHehe, I said something like this happened when the indictment was filed and I was downvoted on here by Crypto bros.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I said something like this happened when the indictment was filed Since SBF tweeted that he did this (well, the straw donations to Republicans to preserve his image as a center-right Democrat; I don’t think that he also announced that he did the same thing to Democrats left of his preferred image) before the indictment was filed, that’s not really surprising.
- jefftk 4y agoAre you talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945442 ? I think the reason this was downvoted was: 1. You double posted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945430) 2. Your initial version of the comment was asking whether people had read the article. Also, reading the comment it doesn't look like you were describing anything very similar to what's in the inditement?
- paulpauper 4y agoFor people hoping that this will ensure a longer sentence, likely these charges will run concurrently with one of the bigger ones. That is usually how it's done. He's probably still going away for a long time, likely.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> For people hoping that this will ensure a longer sentence, likely these charges will run concurrently with one of the bigger ones. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t result in a larger sentence; looking at the rules in the Sentencing Guidelines, it looks like the campaign finance violations would be a separate offense group under the guidelines, and final total sentence is determined by starting with the offense level for the offense group with the highest guideline level, and then adjusting it up for other offense groups based on how many other groups there are and how close they are to the offense level of the highest group, and even offenses so far below the level of the highest level group as to not warrant counting in the final offense level can be factors in setting where in the range of the highest offense level the sentence lands. With just a cursory review, it looks like the basic misappropriation of funds would be in the mid-40s and the campaign finance one would probably be 30+ (in both cases ignoring some adjustments that apply about the same to both groups, and don’t effect the relative level), so probably far enough to be only a factor in the range not setting the offense level (though it might get close enough to have a half-unit, and which would be a one-level boost.) Also, the rule is that once the total punishment is determined by the guidelines range, all sentences for individual counts are concurrent if the count with the greatest statutory maximum has a long enough maximum to fit the total calculated punishment. That seems unlikely in this case (I don’t think any of the individual offenses allows life imprisonment, and the basic misappropriation looks like it easily tops the maximum 43 offense level which calls for life imprisonment; 30 additional points for the amount – the maximum possible – does a lot for that.) Otherwise, sentences run concurrently sufficiently to accommodate the total punishment up to the statutory maximum for each individual offense.
- idlewords 4y agoIt's hard to overstate how clumsy this attempt at garnering political influence was. Reading the indictment (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590940/gov.uscourts.nysd.590940.80.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...), it sounds like SBF made three kinds of illegal donations: 1. Hard money donations through a straw donor to specific campaigns. 2. Individual donations to party committees through straw donors. 3. Large donations to SuperPACs. Under American campaign finance law, hard money donations (1) are capped at $6000 per candidate/election pair (I'm using 2023 figures, but they aren't substantially different from 2021-22). This form of giving is publicly disclosed and carefully observed. So if you give Jane Senator a fraudulent max donation, you're creating a huge political problem for her for at best a few thousand dollars worth of potential benefit. No sane politician on the take does it through hard money donations. The situation for (2) is kind of similar. The caps are bigger ($41,300 per year per committee), but the party committees have such a vast budget that no one is going to take a phone call in return for a max donation, and again you're doing it through the most public, best-disclosed route. At best maybe your straw donor can write "Crypto is great :-)" on the memo field of the check, on the slim home that the DNC or RNC intern sent to deposit it will see it. Honestly these first two attempts read like someone tried to deduce how to influence politicians from first principles. (3) at least isn't amateur hour, you can give unlimited amounts to unaffiliated political action committees, and this is how billionaires dabbling in politics traditionally burn their money. But again, this was all done through wire transfers that are easily traced from Alameda to the straw donors, rather than by showing up with suitcases full of cash or bitcoin. I fail to see how any of this was supposed to succeed. In the best case, no one notices that the donations came from straw donors, and you have successfully poured your millions into the maw of the political system, never to be seen again. You will get your straw donor put on a bunch of mailing lists but get approximately zero return for this money. In the worst case, you've burned a bunch of politicians by making unsolicited direct donations that are tiny (a few thousand bucks) in the grand scheme of things but forever tar them with the stench of your fraudulent enterprise. Instead of buying influence, you've created strong incentives for most of Congress to salt the earth around you. Unless there's some 3-D chess aspect to this political giving that I don't understand, it looks very much like the people involved in this scheme just winged it based on how they thought buying political influence was done. It reminds me of the scene in Office Space where they try to look up 'money laundering' in the dictionary.
- ok_dad 4y agoAh yes, another tit for tat. This particular scam artist happened to fall on the left side of the line. Over the past decade, we have seen other dickhead scammers fall on the right and left at various times. Today, the right gets to party and point out how the left sucks, but maybe tomorrow we'll find a right-leaning person who the left can eviscerate. It doesn't matter who he supported. What matters is that we fight against every scammer, liar, and dishonest fuck that we can. The tribe mentality in America is what's going to cause it to fall, not abortions, drugs, terrorists, Muslims, KKK members, or whomever you want to point the blame at. It's going to fall because Americans are fighting each other instead of the real enemy: the wealthy oligarchs who just want to extract as much as possible from us before they fuck off to some island they own somewhere.
- jmyeet 4y agoFurther adding to debunking the myth of meritocracy. You have to be stupid, arrogant, lazy AND unlucky to violate our anemic campaign finance laws. We allow unlimited contributions to super PACs. From there you can contribute to basically anything. I heard it once said that if you ever have impostor syndrome 10 minutes with a startup founder will cure you. SBF seems to be no exception.
- elecush 4y agoThey invited this guy to talk in front of the Senate -- what for
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- egberts1 4y agoReminds me of the Obama.Com website being hosted in Hong Kong and taking political donations … back then … away from U.S. soil.