[keiferski]

It's not so much that it's avoided entirely, just that the narrative has been about the corruption of the crypto industry and SBF himself and not what the money was used for and what that indicates about the political system as a whole.

[ethanbond]

Yeah, I get that it can feel "off," but practically I'd actually much prefer that we focus the money theft conversation on money theft and the campaign reform conversation on campaign reform.

I.e. the fraud isn't made worse by the fact it was turned into donations and, likewise, campaign donations of that sort aren't less troublesome when they're made with legitimately-earned money.

[keiferski]

I.e. the fraud isn't made worse by the fact it was turned into donations

Not sure how that's true. If he scammed a bunch of people to buy a boat, that's one thing. If he scammed people and then directly influenced a very close election, that seems a little worse?

[ethanbond]

I don't think it makes the scam worse.

For example, imagine this was the test case that people wanted to push on campaign finance reform. Politicians finally give in and say "yeah you know you're right, this was really wrong. From now on, funding campaigns via dark money channels with stolen money is punishable by death."

Is campaign finance fixed? Did we make any meaningful progress on any actually meaningful problem?

[keiferski]

Fixing campaign finance is a separate issue from the particular scenario that played out. I don't see how that's controversial or confusing.

As I said, this seems like a particularly relevant and influential example, considering that it affected a close election.

[ethanbond]

What would "good" look like for you?

[keiferski]

Good what?

[kemotep]

Campaign finance reform is a popular issue with voters, not so much policymakers. Same as voting and election reform.

What it says is that industries can perform regulatory capture by funding the right people in office. Crypto just doesn’t have the same clout at oil and gas and other groups.