Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1M to Trump's Inaugural Fund | Hacker News Reader

Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1M to Trump's Inaugural Fund

macrumors.com

18 pointslatexr24 comments

For Biden's inauguration the top ask was $1 million for companies and $500,000 for individuals. About 12 individuals paid the $500,000 price. The total was $61.8 million. Donations came from unions as well.

Biden’s Inaugural Will Be Mostly Virtual, but Money From Donors Will Be Real https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/us/politics/biden-inaugur...

Pfizer, unions, others donated $61.8 mln for Biden's inaugural https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pfizer-unions-others-donate...

Biden Inaugural Committee donors include Google, Microsoft, Boeing https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/biden-inaugural-don...

Personal comment: Clearly Trump takes way more, but this is only difference in quantity, not unrepresented behavior. Clearly America has money in politics problem even without Trump. Journalism not providing the context is another problem.

> but this is only difference in quantity

As if that excuses anything. That reminded me of the time some country (Sweden?) with gun control had its first shooting in thirty years and the reaction in the US was “see, gun control doesn’t work”. For a large portion of things, quantity can be everything. “The Dose Makes the Poison”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

Either way, that is not the point.

> Clearly America has money in politics problem

Yes, it does. And whoever you give money to reveals who you support and is an indication of your beliefs and your character. Tim Cook either supports Trump (or his ideas), cares about money above all else, or is a spineless coward. It does matter which one it is, but neither of them is good.

Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. he does MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things to enrich his shareholders than donating measly $1m to Dementia Don :)

> Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders.

This is a personal donation. You can’t weasel an excuse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders¹ from it. No one has shares on his life.

Tim Cook is a human being and has to answer to his consciousness too. His Twitter bio quotes Martin Luther King.

https://x.com/tim_cook

> “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK.

He also claimed in the past that ROI wasn’t his primary concern.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

¹ And those are getting old. The guy is filthy rich and powerful, there’s no one stopping him from being ethical. He might get fired, big whoop. Makes zero difference to his ability to live comfortably the rest of his life.

This is a personal donation Cook made in Apple's benefit in the role of CEO. He would not do this if he was not Apple CEO. You can see the same in elections in the US and other countries. People in lobby groups and their lawyers give large public donations to candidates in behalf of their clients.

Donation buys access. This established way to do business.

Yes, I agree with all of that. My points still stand:

1. You can’t claim a donation of personal money is a responsibility to shareholders. Shareholders don’t control your personal life.

2. More importantly, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is a bullshit reason whose only purpose is to justify unethical behaviour. If you go against your values because of money, they’re not your values.

3. Tim Cook likes to claim he fights the good fight. He’s an influential and powerful person whose actions can influence the lives of millions of people, so what he says should be compared to what he does.

1. Is any person any less morally responsible for their decision when they work for the company or when they work as individuals. My answer is no. There is only legal and company branding decision, not moral ones.

2. Should companies and actions of their executives be treated as amoral (not having moral factor in their decision) or moral as a starting point. I think amoral.

3. Does anyone think that value statements from companies convey actual intentions? If not, why to always treat as PR and not talking points.

While I think you’re engaging in good faith, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing and haven’t been from the start. I don’t think continuing this point is a good use of the remainder of any of our Sunday’s, so I’ll just wish you a good one wherever you are.

If so, this is very much against Apple’s business conduct policy.

if you really think TIM COOK made a private donation to Trump… I got some crypto to sell you :)

Clearly you didn’t understand the point at all and didn’t read the rest of the conversation. The matter isn’t about the reason the donation was made, but the excuse used to defend it.

I for sure understand what you mean but is there any excuse Tim could make that would be “acceptable”? We all know why he made tbe donation and any excuse we know is a lie. perhaps a better lie would have been “better” but nonetheless in the end a lie is a lie

I’m not concerned with Tim Cook’s excuses, I’m referring to excuses other people make to defend the behaviour. As far as I can see Tim Cook didn’t give any reason for the donation, it’s everyone else coming up with something, including the crummy and tired “obligation to shareholders”.

I feel like my comment provided a missing context that journalism rarely provides today. You seemed to interpret it as an excuse.

It looks to me like journalists do provide context in some cases. Because the lack of context makes some people and policy look better than they would without context, it's worth trying to remember which people and policy don't get contextualized, and which do.

For example, with some context, we can't tell that particular politicians floated policy proposals that were met with widespread pushback, then disavowed the policy. Later, when the uproar dies down, the politician quietly enacts the policy. Without the context, we don't see that politician as nearly always untruthful.

By selective contextualization, particular politicians can be framed as fabulists, or framed as driven by circumstances, and therefore blameless.

The difference is that Biden did not run on a fascist platform that promised to throw tens of millions into camps and imprison his political enemies.

He was also not a twice-impeached felon who started a violent insurrection and tried to steal an election.

Trump is a far-right criminal and not in any way a normal president. He would be rotting in a prison cell (if not strapped to the electric chair) were it not for the blatant corruption of the judiciary. Instead, he’s sitting on his golden throne and soliciting bribes from groveling and pathetic tech CEOs.

Don't you think you're exaggerating a little with the hyperbolic language?

If anything, I am downplaying his crimes for the sake of forum civility. He tried to steal the election. This is a documented fact. Members of his own party found him guilty of doing so and provided tangible evidence (phone calls, etc.) of his crimes.

We all watched January 6 play out on TV. We all know about the fake electors. We saw the “honorable” judge Cannon defer his trial again and again and again.

Except now that he won, we all apparently have to pretend that this shit was par for the course and/or never happened. Well, I saw it with my own eyes and it would take a pickaxe for me to forget it.

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42589464

pay homage to the King

So purchase of Apple hardware supports Trump now? Perhaps a rename to "The Trumpbook Pro" is in order.

Fantastic news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com