Consider two scenarios:

You contribute $X to a political figure because you want to draw there attention to an issue because...

A) you think society stands to benefit from making certain changes the political figure can enact

B) you think you personally stand to not only get back your $X but personally fatten your wallet significantly in other ways as a result of changes the political figure can enact

Is the distinction between cases where A applies and B doesn't apply vs. cases where B does apply (and A may or may not actually apply) with respect to ethics actually hard to grasp?

In A, the $X is a personal sacrifice made for what you think is the greater good. In B, the $X is an investment for which you think you could have a high personal ROI for regardless of whether it actually makes things in general better or worse. Only B stands to create corruptive influences.

One difference is the chronology of the donations with respect to the candidate's actions. Candidate Obama didn't campaign on covering pre-existing conditions so a donation to his candidacy had no bearing on someone who has pre-existing conditions and wishes to make donations based on that.

Thanks for offering a straw man that it's just about how I feel though.

And Peter Thiel promotes Donald Trump whose FFC appointee Pai is doing his best to destroy net neutrality, and Pai has direct control over whether that occurs whereas this action by the Missouri AG is not in favor of net-neutrality per se.

You've got some nerve presenting weak and inaccurate straw man arguments and whining about "my feelings."