Well, they might be right, if they are referring only to the money that are invested in the company itself (i.e. by issuing new shares, not by buying out existing shareholders).

Out of the $800M Twitter investment, only half of it was an actual VC investment, so we are looking at $400M.

Let's see the others:

- Groupon got $950M, but I think 3 quarters of that went to buying out existing shareholders

- Clearwire got $900M from Intel and Motorola. Even though Intel Capital is an actual VC fund, I am not sure about Motorola having a VC fund, and in any case this sure sounds like a strategic investment, rather than a VC one

- Western Intergrated Networks got $889M, but if you like at the investors, they are private equity rather than VC: Blackstone Group, Madison Dearborn Partners, Oak Investment Partners and Providence Equity Partners

So, I think they are right if they are referring to traditional VC investments. The only problem is that I am not exactly sure what a traditional VC investment means.