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.
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.