Not really. He gave $40M to democrats and $200k to republicans. [0]
If his aim was to influence crypto policy then he would have donated very differently. It appears he was lobbying for his own political ideology and not just to benefit his crappy company.
We don't really know what the split was. SBF has claimed he donated significantly more to the republicans. From your link above:
The GOP donations were "dark-money" contributions, making his claim difficult to verify. Such secret contributions, allowed by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens
United ruling, wouldn’t show up in the FEC disclosures used to compile MarketWatch’s list
What would he have to gain by lying about spending even more customer money? I see it as a boast of how well he was playing the game; and also an admission that he was trying to buy influence.
How is that irrelevant? Usually when someone is caught bribing politicians with billions of dollars of stolen money, it's considered kind of relevant where that money went?
Can you specify what exactly it is that you think is "irrelevant"? Because it sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. First you say it's irrelevant where the money went, now you sound like it's relevant after all?
If his aim was to influence crypto policy then he would have donated very differently. It appears he was lobbying for his own political ideology and not just to benefit his crappy company.
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-politicians-w...