Hacker News Reader

Comment by SV_BubbleTime | Hacker News Reader

Not sure why this was downvoted. Yes, he donated 2/3 to Dems and 1/3 to Republicans. Assumption is for protection, and regulatory direction.

He was only behind Soros in terms of total dollars to Dems.

His mother started a couple of Dem PACs just 13 days before her son became CEO of FTX (imagine the coincidence!). Her money, as far as it is traceable is also very significant.

... This was I suppose part of his "effective altruism" (if you can say that with a straight face). Instead of downvotes, imagine the comments and rage if he had donated to Trump instead.

View on HN

I'd rather imagine a world where Citizens United was decided differently and this donation wasn't legal in the first place.

You're assuming the money wouldn't have gotten there anyway, which I'm not sure is a good assumption.

Also, remember Citizens United was about publishing a movie critical of a political candidate just before the election. I'm not sure a world where the government forbids publishing about political candidates is a great alternate reality, either.

That world isn't imaginary: it exists in plenty of other democracies and they are doing fine. (Candidates in France for example are publicly funded and there are rules about how much can be spent to promote particular candidates).

that's a very incomplete view of Citizens United - the specific issue was not that it was published before an election - it was that paid for by a non-profit organization (Citizens United is a PAC). individuals are allowed to publish a movie, or view on their own w/o prohibition. Corporations and non-profits were not granted that right. Citizens United reversed that law, allowing corporations and non-profits (mostly PACs) to be able to express more political views. It's not crazy to think that organizations are not a person and therefore shouldn't be afforded rights that were intended for actual individual human beings.

> Instead of downvotes, imagine the comments and rage if he had donated to Trump instead.

That's what his co-CEO was for; he played the same role with Republicans. $15M to a PAC he controlled (https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00809020&tw...) that donated exclusively to Republican campaigns.

Yes. Thank you. That is the 1/3 (but actually less since his mother’s the PAC money for Dems and Biden directly is not counted) that I mentioned.

This is also the company that had a round 7 million on their excel sheet for a fund called TRUMPLOSE.

All I’m asking is for your honesty that some people who are looking the other way on this would be appalled. If you aren’t saying that some people would be associating Trump himself to these fraud-derived donations, you just aren’t being honest.

> This is also the company that had a round 7 million on their excel sheet for a fund called TRUMPLOSE.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2022/11/15/analysis-ftxs-tr...

"For those looking for a shadowy tale that involves crypto in the halls of power in D.C., TRUMPLOSE is going to disappoint. It’s not a new world order talisman that shows FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried are complicit in laundering money to the Democratic party through Ukraine donations. Rather, it’s one part of FTX’s prediction market it ran during the 2020 U.S. election."

> that shows FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried are complicit in laundering money to the Democratic party through Ukraine donations

No one mentioned that. But you’re right. It’s irrelevant that FTX donated to Democrats, Democrats have spent as much on Ukraine since this summer than any full year for the entire US military operation in Afghanistan, and that Zelensky used non-combat US aid funds to invest in FTX.

There is literally nothing there, it’s all true, but it’s not what any conspiracy theorists think it is. I’m glad we have same voices that are here to help us know what to think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com