5 ms·

>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 doll

>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 ago
Well 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.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Ahem 37. Likewise, it was the preference of SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, a/k/a "SBF," the defendant, to keep contributions to Republicans "dark." In keeping with that preference, CC2, who publicly aligned himself with conservatives, made contributions to Republican candidates that were directed by BANKMAN-FRIED and funded by Alameda. Why are you only complaining about one side of his secret and illegal political activity and not the other? You quoted from paragraphs 35 and 41 of the indictment (though you reversed their order), so you must have passed over the paragraph above when you read it.
denlekke 4y ago
"tens of millions of dollars of illegal campaign contributions to both Democrats and Republicans."
- ChickenNugger 4y ago
  The lack of a breakdown into which got how much is a either a journalistic failure, or deliberate obfuscation.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Well, its “deliberate obfuscation” by the DoJ, who did the investigation, and hasn’t released the details beyond what is in the indictment (the majority is dark money donations, so even figuring out in CC-1 and CC-2 are [which people have done with a fair degree of confidence] and tracing their publicly-disclosed donations [which they probably have done] won’t get you anywhere close to the answer.) And, I guess, a “journalistic failure” to compromise sensitive criminal investigation material.
    - ChickenNugger 4y ago
      Political donations are a matter of public record for a reason. So yes, it's a either a journalistic failure or deliberate obfuscation.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Political donations are a matter of public record Dark money donations aren’t, that’s why they are called “dark money”. > So yes, it’s a either a journalistic failure or deliberate obfuscation. Right. The whole purpose was deliberate obfuscation by SBF, and there is continued (though routine in a criminal investigation) obfuscation by the DoJ, which has filed charges based on its penetration of SBF’s obfuscation, but not provided breakdowns by party publicly. The non-dark money portions could be approximately pieced together from public info using the (likely correct) conclusions as to who CC-1 and CC-2 are and their public donations during the time in question (not perfect, because its possible that each also made donations that were not part of the SBF scam in the same time period), but that doesn’t really help since it doesn’t account for the dark money portion.

steponlego 4y ago

Well 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.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Ahem 37. Likewise, it was the preference of SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, a/k/a "SBF," the defendant, to keep contributions to Republicans "dark." In keeping with that preference, CC2, who publicly aligned himself with conservatives, made contributions to Republican candidates that were directed by BANKMAN-FRIED and funded by Alameda. Why are you only complaining about one side of his secret and illegal political activity and not the other? You quoted from paragraphs 35 and 41 of the indictment (though you reversed their order), so you must have passed over the paragraph above when you read it.

denlekke 4y ago

"tens of millions of dollars of illegal campaign contributions to both Democrats and Republicans."

ChickenNugger 4y ago
The lack of a breakdown into which got how much is a either a journalistic failure, or deliberate obfuscation.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Well, its “deliberate obfuscation” by the DoJ, who did the investigation, and hasn’t released the details beyond what is in the indictment (the majority is dark money donations, so even figuring out in CC-1 and CC-2 are [which people have done with a fair degree of confidence] and tracing their publicly-disclosed donations [which they probably have done] won’t get you anywhere close to the answer.) And, I guess, a “journalistic failure” to compromise sensitive criminal investigation material.
  - ChickenNugger 4y ago
    Political donations are a matter of public record for a reason. So yes, it's a either a journalistic failure or deliberate obfuscation.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Political donations are a matter of public record Dark money donations aren’t, that’s why they are called “dark money”. > So yes, it’s a either a journalistic failure or deliberate obfuscation. Right. The whole purpose was deliberate obfuscation by SBF, and there is continued (though routine in a criminal investigation) obfuscation by the DoJ, which has filed charges based on its penetration of SBF’s obfuscation, but not provided breakdowns by party publicly. The non-dark money portions could be approximately pieced together from public info using the (likely correct) conclusions as to who CC-1 and CC-2 are and their public donations during the time in question (not perfect, because its possible that each also made donations that were not part of the SBF scam in the same time period), but that doesn’t really help since it doesn’t account for the dark money portion.