You kind of went off the rails there in the final sentence. Are you saying that any of this adds credence to the silly idea that Democrats are beholden to SBF campaign money?
It’s a silly idea that being the second largest donor to a political party in the US buys you special favors? Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return?
I'd expect that the something in return buys you a king's seat at the regulatory table, not quite a get-out-of-jail-scott-free-for-stealing-billions card.
I'm sure that in a few years, once the courts get everything sorted out, we'll learn which of our prejudices is closer to reality. As of today, though, we're both just speculating.
Bingo, and the line from electoral politics -> regulation is straight, legal, and requires one step. While filtering political donations through judicial + investigative bodies with egads of separate oversight & career employees & little to no electoral influence would be impossible to manage. Not for 28 million, you would have to buy a loooooot of people off and get extremely lucky. That’s why it doesn’t happen. The get out of jail free card, that is.
Donations buy you access, not specific outcomes. Just the ability to get a hearing for whatever kinda-reasonable-ish parts of the stuff you want there might be is really, really valuable.
And yes, both are corrupt, but one is business as usual and the other is a serious federal crime that prudent members of congress avoid.
"This tax credit gets extended" is an outcome. "30 minutes with the Member and their chief of staff to discuss the vital importance of this tax credit to industry X" is not an outcome. You can problematize and subvert any scheme of categorization if you like, so go wild if it makes you happy, but honestly who has the time?
Sorry but the "wildest conspiracy theory" is that Democrats sent money to Ukraine, Ukraine deposited the money at FTX, and SBF donated the money to Democratic congressional campaigns. Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory.
That some guy with access to a lot of cash tried to buy influence is not a "conspiracy theory" because it is unilateral. And, if that's what he was trying to do, it seems like a really poor strategy since you cannot really buy influence over law enforcement that way.
> Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory.
I'm personally much more interested in the billions or the tens of billions that disappeared (in the bank account of tether/Deltec?) than in the petty amount that went to the democrats but... It's a fact that media were posting articles explaining how crypto was helping Ukraine (and there was a government ran website in Ukraine accepting crypto donation).
SBF's very mom was running a political fundraising thinggy.
It's also a fact that at least one US congressman is saying Gary Gensler was allegedly working hand in hand with FTX to allow SBF/FTX regulatory capture of crypto exchanges.
I'm not saying they did: I'm saying a US congressman says he has records indicating that.
These are facts. Now did these donations to Ukraine found their way back to FTX? (and if that's the case there's at least some truth to the conspiracy for it's a fact that SBF was donating stolen money to her mommy's fundraise)
I think it's a bit early to dismiss with the back of the hand the information people are digging out.
The one thing that seems certain is that if we were to depend on the journalists from the New York Times to investigate on that we wouldn't go very far.
The usual angle is also going to be used for sure: "The wildest conspiracy theories are false, hence nobody besides SBF did anything wrong".
People are trying to connect the dots. And with 130 companies, blinded journalists, a political party receiving $40m in donation, etc. there are certainly dots that do need connecting.
Congress hearings in december for a start. Should be interesting (even if I don't have high hopes).
I could see Ukraine donations that hadn't been withdrawn getting caught up in all of this, but I'm highly doubtful there was some weird shell game going on. Not because it wasn't possible, but because it wasn't necessary. SBF was openly throwing cash around to buy political and media influence. There wasn't any need to skim government cash when he could use ~$8b of customer's deposits as his slush fund.
I've heard a lot of wild conspiracy theories, but that one is new to me. To be fair, I do not believe the conspiracy theories, just that the inaction we're seeing is feeding credibility to the people peddling them.
I think that donating money one time buys you a photo. I think donating every cycle and especially anticipated into the future buys you access - which is correlated but not the same as outcomes.
> Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return?
Because they think the candidates they support will make the world better either personally for you or in a more general sense? Oil companies give money to manchin because they know he agrees with them and if he wins will fight for their legislation, whether they funded him or not.
> Oil companies give money to manchin because they know he agrees with them and if he wins will fight for their legislation, whether they funded him or not.
Neither they or you know that. And nobody but you assumes that Manchin fights for his beliefs, rather than for what benefits him personally. And no, I'm not assuming the opposite. I instead choose not to fantasize about his internal states, or speculate about what he would do if an industry that has always supported him ceased to support him.
>Why else would anyone give that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return?
There's a polite theory it is done for altruistic reasons to make the country a better place for all and that it is the exercise of free speech and you are also free to give Trump, Biden, Pelosi & McConnell vast amounts of cash.
It’s unclear to me how that affects anything? If anything it lends credence to the idea that he was making these donations solely for special favors and not for altruistic reasons.
Not just the democrats. Republicans, Bahamian officials, members of the media, regulators, etc. The most recent New York Times piece did not mention fraud or criminality a single time, painting SBF as someone who simply got in over his head.
