By that argument, Oracle is owned by shareholders, so that money should be either getting reinvested or returned to the shareholders, not funding political camp

By that argument, Oracle is owned by shareholders, so that money should be either getting reinvested or returned to the shareholders, not funding political campaigns that their shareholders may not even support. (The rest of your comment can be similarly reinterpreted). In reality, both organizations know that at the scale they operate (super-national), one of the legitimate means to advocate for their constituents' interests is to ~~bribe lawmakers~~ make political contributions, so they dedicate some of their resources to that.