Whoever is backing him is taking on the risk of SBF jumping bail (and I'd assume the house is under surveillance and he's wearing ankle monitors), in exchange for either silence or valuable goodwill on the tiny off-chance he gets out of this.
SBF's political donations are both more evenly distributed than previously reported[1], and seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulatory attention than driven by ideological/political concerns.
(And this framing makes intuitive sense: the politicians least likely to be cryptocurrency aligned lean center-left.)
Edit: Pulling the relevant grafs out:
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
> Given that he donated nearly $40 million to Democrats in the 2022 election cycle—and he admitted to giving an equal amount to Republicans—his total political contributions may have actually been around $80 million.
PR move to make him seem impartial, so that people would stop complaining about the donations because some people might type out things like this:
> SBF's political donations are both more evenly distributed than previously reported[1], and seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulatory attention than driven by ideological/political concerns.
I don't think he needs this: anybody with more than a passing awareness knows that he's an EA type, and those types infamously cast themselves as "above" the normal political fray. Even before this reporting, I don't think people had strongly held beliefs that SBF's donations to the DNC were anything other than expedient (given that they're the ones in power).
He may not, but people he donated to would like it. The implication here is that we ought not bother looking any further into his claims that his donations might be some form of corruption funded by conning a large number of people out of billions of dollars because 'both sides' benefited financially therefore it is all awash.
> anybody with more than a passing awareness knows that he's an EA type
He's not any type that you or I can "know" because he is a duplicitous conman. Or, I suppose, he is the duplicitous conman type.
At this point, it's up to your own imagination to determine whether or not he was lying about this particular piece of information. You seem to have decided he must be telling the truth because despite all of the other lies about his business, there isn't a logical reason (to you) that he would put out a statement, with no actual evidence, about making "dark" money donations to the other side prior to making massive public donations to the one side during an election year.
Just like you, I don't know if he's lying or not. I do know that if he has a vested interest in confirming his statements, he most certainly could release further documentation showing he made "dark" money donations. I mostly do not believe him because the lack of effort in proving it and the completely stupid notion of referring to his donations as "dark" money, like somehow I'm supposed to believe there's no paper trail, at all, of his donations. This is absurd.
> He's an "end justifies the means" type, and that means you can never trust a damn thing he says, ever.
A very large fraction of the population has personal ethics that boil down to some variant of act utilitarianism/consequentialism. SBF is just the most visible and venal form; it's probably an error to assume that such a broadly held ethical position means that its adherents are incapable of not lying.
He was the second biggest Democratic donor in the 2022 elections, and since he supports the Democrats, he doesn’t want them to suffer any reputational damage from their #2 donor being a notorious con man, so he made up a conveniently unfalsifiable story.
As for what advantage it grants him, just wait and see. Marc Rich got a lame duck pardon from President Clinton in exchange for his generous political donations, so maybe Biden will do the same for SBF.
> He was the second biggest Democratic donor in the 2022 elections, and since he supports the Democrats, he doesn’t want them to suffer any reputational damage from their #2 donor being a notorious con man, so he made up a conveniently unfalsifiable story.
I think these explanations benefit from persona tests: can you think of someone in your life whose political stance is meaningfully affected by either (1) SBF donating massive sums to the DNC (true!), (2) being a scam artist (true!), or (3) potentially having donated equally massive sums to the GOP (maybe!)?
Mine aren't, and I don't think most peoples' are either.
So your contention is that absolutely nobody would care if the Democrats in particular were heavily financed by white-collar crime? And that the Democratic Party doesn't care whether or not they're associated with an alleged, indicted criminal? That's facially absurd. Even if it wouldn't cause anyone to change their vote (which seems unlikely given the marginal-but-still-very-real swings in election results every two years), it would affect enthusiasm and engagement among people who would otherwise support the Democrats. Whereas with this lie about mysterious "dark money" donations to Republicans, most people who support the Democrats will just accept that claim uncritically and continue to support the Democrats because that's the story that minimizes their personal cognitive dissonance.
Also, you need to explain why somebody would donate equally to both parties in the first place, when both parties are engaged in a zero-sum game with each other for control of the federal government.
No: my contention is that nobody seriously believes that the DNC (or GOP) sat down and went "hmm, this is dirty money, but we'll take it anyways." Both do legal and reputational review, and almost certainly determined (correctly!) that both the law and ordinary people distinguish between "scammy but not openly criminal man in scammy industry gives money to politicians" and "definitely criminal man gives money to politicians."
Put another way: we have no special reason to believe that either the DNC or GOP leadership saw SBF as anything more than a convenient piggy bank. SBF in turn probably saw both as insurance, and time will tell on that.
> Also, you need to explain why somebody would donate equally to both parties in the first place, when both parties are engaged in a zero-sum game with each other for control of the federal government.
This is actually pretty easy to rationalize from the EA worldview: if you've convinced yourself that you can maximize good by maximizing your personal wealth (laws and norms be damned), it makes sense to maintain whatever regulatory framework (or lack thereof) enables you to do that. Giving money to both sides is a not unreasonable course of action in that context.
Except the donations to Republican or 'right' candidates were supposedly anonymous or "dark", and therefore we have to trust his claims that they happened.
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
He's been caught constantly lying about everything over and over again, but we should definitely take his word that he's donated just as much to Republicans but there's no proof of it at all.
Because the divide went from "I believe in a balanced budget and you don't" to I believe you have no right to live or have bodily autonomy and I will do everything in my power to strip you of your rights.
There are no sides anymore it's supporting racists, bigots and misogynists or not.
Because between 2020 and 2022 the world experienced the greatest transfer of wealth between the poor and middle class to the wealthy as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.
Or if you don't like that one we could try...
Because the wealth gap between classes is the greatest it has been since the days of the robber barons and individuals who cannot afford basic medical procedures have to hope an influencer wants clicks and will pay for their surgery so they won't be blind.
Or if you don't like that one we could try...
As the world burns from rampant climate change, one side actively blocks any effort to halt or god forbid repair the damage done while enriching corporations and the 1%. All while the 1% jet set around doing the equivalent damage of entire countries to the climate. In the mean time the youngest generation of Americans, by and large believe they will never be able to own a home or have children.
> Because between 2020 and 2022 the world experienced the greatest transfer of wealth between the poor and middle class to the wealthy as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.
It wasn’t the virus or the pandemic that caused this. This was caused by societies insane reaction to it. Virtually all second order effects from the pandemic are caused by our reaction not by the virus.
> Because the divide went from "I believe in a balanced budget and you don't" to I believe you have no right to live or have bodily autonomy and I will do everything in my power to strip you of your rights.
That is a straw man made up by those who have a vested interest in dividing us all. 99% of the people you meet are way more moderate than either “side” portrays them.
Most people are just trying to survive and have some fun at the same time.
The real problem is our voting system forces this artificial divide where the candidates of both parties drift into bozoville. It’s hard to run for office and win as a moderate because the fringe ends of the spectrum will attempt to paint that person as being an extremist too, only “the bad kind”.
What do you mean, strawman? How can you say elected politicians who, for example, enacted trigger laws to ban abortion in the wake of Roe v Wade being over turned don't exist? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I see comments like this and it's hard to accept that they are operating in good faith.
Someday your “side” will do something you absolutely disagree with. You’ll know you are right too… but your (former?) side will consider you a member of the other “side” and you’ll become a political outcast. Never again will you be able to discuss politics in polite company… It happened to me.
Sincerely, a pro LGBQT, pro infrastructure, pro choice, anti vaccine mandate, anti-mask, anti-mandate, pro-gun former democrat.
Racists, bigots and misogynists can at least theoretically be voted out eventually, but only with fair and free elections!
To this end, Republicans benefit greatly from gerrymandered districts. They also introduce legislation that would make it harder for people to vote (and are sometimes successful). There's also the recent trend of not accepting election results.
As such, they are actively fighting against democracy.
But what really gets me is that you somehow think that an article from April 2022 with such a milquetoast support for you comment as: "Yet the plain reality is that, if [Democrats] had decided not to do any of it, Republicans would not only have retained their existing advantage in the House map, they would have expanded it" leads you to such a smug reaction, especially when, spoiler alert, Republicans still win the house in Nov 2022 with the help of their own redistricting in places like FL, TN, GA, TX.
Yeah, you see Republicans not accepting election results, you see Republicans enacting voter suppression laws, effectively limiting who can vote, and you see Republicans passing a comical redistricting map in Florida, and you weigh all this against Democrats gaining a new seat in growing state like Oregon or whatever, and you're acting like I'm the one another planet for thinking that these are not equal and that there's a problem here?!
It is possible to be an individualist without calling for women, racial minorities, and gay people to be reduced to second-class citizens, but unfortunately given the popular rhetoric of self-proclaimed "individualists" you can be forgiven for not realizing this. You don't need to be a communist to be in favor of gay marriage, the right to abortion, the self-determination of gender identity, and so on. Back in the day we just called that "libertarianism" before the term was co-opted by anarcho-capitalists.
It is interesting how one can support gay marriage, the right to abortion, the self-determination of gender identity, and so on without being a communist; but one cannot be vaguely affiliated with a group that opposed Roe v Wade without being a racist, a bigot and a misogynist that wants to strip everyone of their rights and reduce them to second-class citizens.
When was it about "I believe in a balanced budget and you don't"? Was it at the same time when the divide was about gay marriage? Or the intervention in Iraq? Civil Rights? Women's suffrage? Reduction of the non-white immigration? When were those simple times of balancing budgets?
not that i think it's necessarily applicable in this particular instance...but
one political party is flirting with authoritarianism, denying election results, pushing bigoted policies, marching with tiki torches, taking away all social safety nets, repealing abortion, refusing to do anything about healthcare insurance or even insulin prices, refusing to take any action on gun violence...oh, and insurrection.
It begs the question, who would want to willingly work with anyone endorsing that party?
In a sane world, we wouldn't have to ask the question. We do not live in a sane world.
I don't know, I think it stinks to initially permit them to be anonymous but then retcon it later. There's a good argument for never having allowed them to be anonymous in the first place, but this is going back on an earlier agreement.
