It's some Supreme Court interpretation of free speech plus legislation. I remember Al Franken talking about this a bit in the context of a law requiring disclosure that he supported but was not successful.
Looks like the dynamic hasn't changed much since he talked about it.
It seems like a potential way to derail criticism coming from Republicans, doesn't it? Or perhaps make them look shady- this guy is an adept social engineer, after all
Because his Democratic friends told him to. They want to remove the label "Major Democratic Donor" from all of SBF's negative press. How do you not see something so obvious?
Do you think that this article (the OP) qualifies as positive press? I don't even think any Republicans have changed their minds.
It is for the political party that controls the DoJ and other federal prosecuting agencies.
If those Republicans were chosen because of their anti-Trump or other pro-Democrac stances then he was funding enemies of his enemies.