[prepend]

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.

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-politicians-w...

[grumpyprole]

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

[bhelkey]

> SBF has claimed

I put little weight on the words of a convicted fraudster who is in jail awaiting sentencing.

[grumpyprole]

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.

[bhelkey]

If he primarily donated to one party, the donations advance Sam's political views.

If he equally donated to both parties, the donations advance FTX's interests.

I believe that Sam would advance his own interests then lie to make himself appear neutral.

[grumpyprole]

Yes I concede this is possible too.

[Sporktacular]

His partner took care of the Republicans. They split their responsibility to fairness.