[pcai]

> while you as an employee can not support candidate B because of their trans healthcare stance - an imaginary distinction with no material political impact whatsoever.

To be fair, coinbase's opinion is actually that an employee cannot support candidate B WITH COINBASE'S MONEY.

[yunwal]

But you can support candidate A with coinbase's money, despite the fact that candidate A has non-crypto related opinions. What's worse is that candidate A might not even have a real pro-crypto stance, they just realize that crypto companies take this "no politics" stance, so it's essentially legalized bribery encouraged by the companies that take the stance

[pcai]

Its coinbase's money though? Are they not supposed to be able to specify how their own money is used? I'm just not sure I understand what the objection is. I don't endorse it but I don't see how this is inconsistent or hypocritical or legalized bribery or whatever

[yunwal]

I mean, yes they can use their money however they want, its their right. All I’m saying is that “No politics” isn’t actually no politics, and I’m generally hesitant to work for or do business with any company who claims to have a no politics rule, especially if they participate in politics to further their personal interests. What it actually means is they will end up supporting mostly shady politicians who can’t get small donors to support them.