No, not entirely, but it absolutely can and does factor into one's decisions in life, including who to contribute to politically.
> I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support.
The vast majority aren't the ones typically contributing to political candidates/PACS. Contributions tend to be from those with wealth, which are inherently not the majority. In this particular case, that wealth is at least in part derived from the employers these employees work for. It's also not coincidence that those higher up in a company, and thus more invested in the company doing well, are the ones getting paid more.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...
The fact that Comcast can institute data caps on broadband while offering a similar service, on-demand video over cable, without caps is absolutely insane.
Alphabet happens to be number 9 on your list, so what's your point?
The "Comcast" amount is $31K out of over $8 million, and is 100% from individuals, not Comcast itself.
You're implying Warren has been bought-off in some way, but your own link clearly refutes that.
Will you explain?
(It's Alphabet, parent of Google)
The list you linked shows the common employers of the individual contributors to her 2018 campaign.