3 ms·
Y Combinator's PAC is throwing money at Republicans across the country
- roseway4 8d agoAnd Democrats. Basically, any politician who signs on to the pro-SmallTech agenda. Not unusual for a single-issue PAC.
- qwerpy 8d agoAre we supposed to be up in arms about this? > 66 different federal political action campaigns (PACs), nearly half of which are supporting Republicans. Seems balanced to me.
- heaney-555 8d agoWow, talk about a misleading headline!
- manux 8d agoBalanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent?
- sghiassy 8d agoI’d also like to know the answer to this
- qwerpy 8d agoDidn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”?
- sghiassy 8d agoBecause for many people, and especially for the cohort that is HN readers, the current MAGA republican, doesn’t differ just on policy decisions like a Bush or Regan, but is undermining the institutions that keep our checks and balances in place P.S: I hope this wasn’t too political of a comment. I know we want to keep HN political free. But it does need to be said there’s a difference between policy differences and desecration. Example from today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-cnn-politico.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-...
- xp84 8d agoOne party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things. Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of.
- zetsurin 7d agoMaybe one party doesn't have the claim to being ethical, but one party (Republicans) have an indisputable claim on being unethical.
- tzs 7d ago> One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. No, but one party does have a disputable claim on being ethical. The other party doesn't even have a disputable claim any more.
- legitster 8d agoThe goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale. Even if the government is unethical, it's still a good idea to push for good policy (unless you're an accelerationist). Obviously we're talking about businesses here so what they are pushing for is probably ethically neutral in itself. But supporting everyone equally seems like the least bad option.
- VCFundedGenYer 8d agoSupporting fascists by 50% is pretty damn alarming to me.
- qwerpy 8d agoThat would be terrible! However I don’t see evidence of that in the article.
- delecti 8d agoThe fact that the PAC donated to Pramila Jayapal shows that clearly supporting fascism isn't the point of the donations. But I would absolutely say that each of Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Lindsey Graham are (were in the Graham's case) fascistic in their positions. All of them support(ed) Trump, who readily accepted a description of "fascist" from Mamdani, on camera (if his status as such weren't already self-evident).
- hn_throwaway_99 8d agoWhile I agree, I still think it sucks that we are essentially now in a "pay-to-play" political environment. Any rich person who may be highly affected by government regulations (which is basically all of them) now is expected to donate a huge chunk of money if they even want to be listened to. This is why most of the money is going to incumbents (i.e. the people most likely to actually be in office in Jan). I'm not saying there haven't always been aspects of this but Citizens United really let this money explode exponentially. I really hope we can get a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United once we return to sanity. Also, the rationale behind CU looks woefully stupid and weak now. I honestly believe it is the Dred Scott of our day. The USSC has always interpreted "free speech" with an eye to potential unfair harms (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that), and the idea that rich people should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to their preferred candidates certainly hits that level IMO.
- tastyface 7d agoSome news articles just from today: > The civil war in the far-right is coming down to Jews: https://forward.com/culture/851192/the-civil-war-in-the-far-right-is-coming-down-to-jews/ https://forward.com/culture/851192/the-civil-war-in-the-far-... > ‘Unforgivable Sin’: Pentagon Reportedly ‘Hiding’ US Deaths in Iran War: https://www.commondreams.org/news/pentagon-hiding-us-deaths-in-iran-war https://www.commondreams.org/news/pentagon-hiding-us-deaths-... > Trump ally Stephen Miller leads sweeping push to accelerate removal of migrant children: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/19/stephen-miller-trump-migrant-children https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/19/stephen-mill... > Trump says he’s banning MS NOW, CNN and Politico from White House: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-cnn-politico.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-... > Trump says his son’s wedding party being bankrolled by a Russian oligarch is ‘totally allowed’: https://apnews.com/article/trump-jr-wedding-oligarch-fbd62b7fec21f439762289a068f30e5e https://apnews.com/article/trump-jr-wedding-oligarch-fbd62b7... Human rights abuses, extrajudicial murders, egregious corruption, gutter racism, suppression of speech, erosion of democracy, and stupidity beyond any satire: same shit nonstop every single day for the past two years. Anyone who supports Republicans with full knowledge of what they've been doing is actively supporting evil. And yes, any informed person with an iota of morality should be up in arms about this.
- api 8d agoI’m curious if someone can truthfully explain this. What’s the main motivation for all the money being thrown at R’s from these and other high up tech people? What I want is specific reasons not the usual Reddit “they’re rich therefore evil blah blah” zero-insight answers. Okay, but why? Almost nobody wakes up and says “I’m going to be evil today!” People have motives and objectives and belief systems.
- b-h-l-d-r 8d agoIsn't it endless loop of US politics that especially clear during current presidency? Make money to control policies. Control policies to make more money.
- fenwick67 8d agoRepublican policies probably benefit them, and the donation also curries favor with the politician.
- erulabs 8d ago> leaders at the San Francisco-based tech incubator are trying to build a tech-forward future They're donating money to anyone who isn't anti-tech / anti-business / anti-datacenter / anti-AI That ~50% of those folks are R being the newsworthy part is the real question. Why should Silicon Valley support people who clearly loath the technology industry just because they're blue? The simplest explanation is the most obvious one, and the one this article explains: Tech leaders are donating money to tech-friendly politicians.
- api 7d agoTech tended to be blue and seen as an ally of at least liberal/center-left politicians until the mid-20-teens, and my memory is that it was tech that shifted way to the right and it was after that occurred that the left started its tech-hate. There was some anti-tech on the left before that but it wasn't the mainstream. I loathe even bringing this "G-word" up, but my memory from the time is that Gamergate and all the stuff adjacent to it was a huge part of that. It wasn't rational and it wasn't motivated by concerns rooted in the real world. It was vibes and culture war crap. I didn't get any of it at the time and was wondering why everyone was losing their minds over such stupid nonsense. Of course I'm sure there's people around here who would argue that "woke" came first, then a huge counter-reaction in the tech world, and then what I said above. My memory, again, is that "woke" and the "alt-right" rose concurrently at the same time. I'd have to write a book to get into why I think that might have been.
- resters 8d agoGarry Tan is extremely socially conservative, seemingly unabashedly so. I would not be surprised if Garry had donated to Trump, etc. Note that whatever it once meant to be "conservative", wanting less government control of markets, etc., today's GOP is the party of economic central planning and limiting economic freedom, and also authoritarian rights violations on US soil. There is absolutely no excuse for supporting the Trump approach / agenda unless one intentionally wishes to see laws broken and democracy subverted.
- roseway4 8d agoOn what evidence do you make this claim? Garry is a Christian, but not all Christians are socially conservative. I know Garry and went through YC. If "socially conservative" means anti-LGBT, anti-welfare, anti-immigrant, I've yet to see any evidence.
- resters 7d agoGarry has made many gripes about the homeless and other kinds of gripes that do not suggest he has Christian values underlying his views.
- xp84 8d agoI'd push back on that. Trump is the uhh... Trump... of 'economic central planning and limiting economic freedom'. He's clearly an idiot who can't even utter a single sensible sentence about economic policy of any kind. The GOP itself though, really serves one important role: They interfere with Democrats getting and holding power. The Democratic Party has become the party of unserious economic policymaking, especially in California, where they've doubled and tripled down on their "no amount of taxation is enough" ideas - they will likely pass a wealth tax this year, setting a precedent for outright confiscation of property. "Just for billionaires!" Until they are accustomed to that extra money but the billionaires have all left, of course. Then where's it gonna come from? If I had money to blow on politics, I'd give to Republicans in this cycle, even if I was pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gun, irreligious, and pro-free-trade[1], because the Democrats have, much as the Republicans did in 2015, let their loons take the wheel and I don't want them to be given more power and influence. Trump will pass away of natural causes someday and at that point, grown-ups will take over the policy discussions at the GOP. The opposite is happening in the Democratic party -- the old, retiring Dems understood economics and also how to negotiate with Republicans to get things done. The young ones that replace them learned everything they know about economics and politics at protest marches or perhaps on TikTok. And it shows. [1] And I am several of those things!
- frugalmail 8d agoPACs are evil, but at least going to Republicans is better than the alternative right now.
- gkoberger 8d agoI know you're downvoted on a dead thread, but... can you give me a few examples where Republicans are better than Democrats?
- joshAg 8d agoThey don't mean ethically. They mean the republicans are the ones in power right now, so going to them is going to be more effective at getting the changes they want than going to democrats.
- deleted 8d ago[deleted]
- b-h-l-d-r 8d agoOh this post is flagged and disappeared from the front page.