Its a non-zero sum game, why worry about such binary events of completely charitable or not.
Trump has set the precedent that this is not necessary anymore.
Now for the political science: If you want to win brownie points with both the wage slaves and the “orange man bad” crowd that would be elated to see everything the opposite of Trump, you can jubilantly release your tax returns if they look good or relatable.
Bloomberg rejoined the democratic party this year.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/10/michael-bloo...
He also expressed his interest in running for president in 2020.
This is obviously a PR move to win favor amongst the college age people and to gauge his prospects. I'm sure his team is going to poll people, especially students to see how this PR stunt goes and if the numbers look good, he'll declare in a couple of months.
It's no secret that the extremely wealthy tend to have sociopathic tendencies. They don't do anything for charity or out of the goodness of their heart. They always have ulterior and selfish reasons.
To inspire/shame others into doing the same?
Imagine if you had to "keep up with the Joneses" in charitable giving rather than size of house or car or boat.
Yes... $1.8 billion is exactly what everyone pays to "gauge their prospects". It's not like it's like 3x times as much as Obama's entire 2012 campaign.
> It's no secret that the extremely wealthy tend to have sociopathic tendencies.
It's not a secret only in the way that it's not a secret that Elvis is alive.
> They don't do anything for charity or out of the goodness of their heart. They always have ulterior and selfish reasons.
Are we still talking about just "the wealthy" or is there any other specific group you had in mind writing this?