[keneda7]

Not who you quoted but roughly half the money did not go to Republicans. This article is either misleading or just wrong. The article links to opensecrets to support its claim. In that opensecrets link look under the PACs section (its the last section). The donations for the left add up to 44.8m and donations to the right add up to 23.2m. That is close to 100% more going to the left.

Now take out the left's donations and we still have have 23.2m in donations from a company committing fraud. All 23.2m to the right and where it went needs to be investigated without question. However claiming roughly half the money went to the republicans is not true.

[CogitoCogito]

Okay that makes sense. But that seems like a different objection. Re-reading the post by /u/wellthatsawrap1, it looks like maybe the implicit claim there is that a RINO is not a Republican? In other words, the claim seems to be that a "Republican" is only someone Trump approves of? Frankly that's kind of insane.

[colejohnson66]

> … maybe the implicit claim there is that a RINO is not a Republican?

That is what a RINO is: “Republican in Name Only”. Basically, whenever a Republican does something that isn’t “towing the party line”, the ones that are towing it claim the former isn’t a real Republican; They’re a RINO.

[keneda7]

Ya I didn't bother replying to them. I haven't tracked the PAC donations but I would be utterly shocked if only non-trump supporting republicans benefitted from the 23m. I would wager many trump supporting republicans got lots of money. I think the donations had to do more with where influence could be bought (crypto/finance related committees) than what trump thought of the politician.

[blitzar]

> The donations for the left add up to 44.8m and donations to the right add up to 23.2m

Republicans are just cheaper to buy