[OC] Which Political Groups did Former FTX Executives Donate to?Submitted by coingecko t3_114cs54 in dataisbeautiful
tilapios t1_j8vomom wrote
Evil-Abed1 t1_j8vpmhl wrote
You believe the guy charges with fraud? Lol.
Come on man. If you paid any attention to this story you know he rarely tells the truth.
This guys mom cofounded a democrat super-PAC.
He was in a polycule.
If you think he gave $41M to republicans. You are high.
airduster_9000 t1_j8w7j03 wrote
>FTX
“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
"All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.
Bankman-Fried’s undisclosed donations were made possible by the supreme court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, which made it easier for donors to give large amounts of money anonymously and has led to more than $1bn being poured into federal elections since 2010."
Evil-Abed1 t1_j8wq4nj wrote
Since you’re not adding anything now to the conversation. Ill repeat my reply to the last silly goose who said this.
You believe the guy charges with fraud? Lol.
Come on man. If you paid any attention to this story you know he rarely tells the truth.
This guys mom cofounded a democrat super-PAC.
He was in a polycule.
If you think he gave $41M to republicans. You are high.
BrandenburgForevor t1_j8wy8i7 wrote
You can't just listen to what a liar says, then beleive the opposite. That's makes absolutely no sense.
You just need to understand their motivations as to why they would (or wouldn't) lie
SBF has little reason to lie here and what he's saying makes perfect sense.
He just wanted his "business" to be legitimate in the eyes of the law and be regulated he wanted it to, and to achieve the most legitimacy he tried to buy out both parties. Makes perfect sense.
Blood_Seeker_00 t1_j8vsq0n wrote
How about instead of thinking blue=good red=bad release anyone that got money from this twat are playing for the same team and are against your interests...like fuck
CCSC96 t1_j8wmg50 wrote
He’s obviously not trustworthy but as a political fundraiser I’ll just say that
-
for donors like him it’s very normal to play both sides because you believe it will stop you from getting regulated
-
Republicans are always much more likely to funnel their money through IEs than to raise into disclosable accounts because their donors are less willing to be publicly associated, so this is how it would likely look mechanically if he was
-
It was widely believed in DC circles that he was playing both sides prior to him making this claim, Teddy Schleifer has covered this extensively if you want a source.
I’m ultimately not remotely worried about losing him as a donor. The most effective Dem groups all have limits and most of the IE groups are leaches trying to grift money of billionaires that don’t do anything but charge themselves consulting fees. Probably 5-10% of this was actually spent in a way that helped win elections.
Fluorescent_Tip t1_j8we1qe wrote
It seems easy to believe that he gave to both parties, absolutely, considering his primary concern was regulation. Doing it in secret is also on brand.
Wumple_doo t1_j8w1q6k wrote
It was also the shakiest excuse ever. Like of course that money he supposedly gave to republicans without any proof was a dark donation
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments