Democrats Plan To Return Over $1 Million From FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried (theverge.com) 69
Three top Democratic campaign arms said Friday that they would set aside more than $1 million in contributions from former crypto golden boy FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, as first reported by The Washington Post. The groups plan to return the money to FTX customers as part of ongoing legal proceedings. The Verge reports: The Democratic National Committee and two top Democratic campaign groups announced the moves days after Bankman-Fried was arrested and charged with eight counts, including wire fraud and campaign finance violations. "Given the allegations around potential campaign finance violations by Bankman-Fried, we are setting aside funds in order to return the $815,000 in contributions since 2020," a DNC spokesperson confirmed in a statement to The Verge on Friday. "We will return as soon as we receive proper direction in the legal proceedings."
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have also pledged to set aside the $103,000 and $250,000 each received from Bankman-Fried, respectively, according to The Post. Over the last two years, Bankman-Fried became one of the most prolific political megadonors in the US, contributing more than $40 million in personal donations to mostly Democratic campaigns and organizations. But shortly after FTX went bankrupt in November, Bankman-Fried told crypto reporter Tiffany Fong that he donated a similar amount of money to Republican groups as well.
While the extent of Bankman-Fried's GOP contributions has yet to be uncovered, Democratic candidates have been pressured to return any money they received from the crypto mogul. CBS News reported Thursday that most Democratic campaigns that received publicly disclosed contributions from Bankman-Fried have pledged to either return or donate the money to charity. Newly elected Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) confirmed Wednesday that he would donate Bankman-Fried's contributions to his campaign to the Zebra Coalition, a Florida-based group servicing homeless LGBTQ+ youth. [...] Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tina Smith (D-MN), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) all received $5,800 from Bankman-Fried since last year and have either already donated or plan to donate the funds, according to CBS News.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have also pledged to set aside the $103,000 and $250,000 each received from Bankman-Fried, respectively, according to The Post. Over the last two years, Bankman-Fried became one of the most prolific political megadonors in the US, contributing more than $40 million in personal donations to mostly Democratic campaigns and organizations. But shortly after FTX went bankrupt in November, Bankman-Fried told crypto reporter Tiffany Fong that he donated a similar amount of money to Republican groups as well.
While the extent of Bankman-Fried's GOP contributions has yet to be uncovered, Democratic candidates have been pressured to return any money they received from the crypto mogul. CBS News reported Thursday that most Democratic campaigns that received publicly disclosed contributions from Bankman-Fried have pledged to either return or donate the money to charity. Newly elected Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) confirmed Wednesday that he would donate Bankman-Fried's contributions to his campaign to the Zebra Coalition, a Florida-based group servicing homeless LGBTQ+ youth. [...] Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tina Smith (D-MN), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) all received $5,800 from Bankman-Fried since last year and have either already donated or plan to donate the funds, according to CBS News.
Only $1 Million? (Score:4, Interesting)
Read more closely! 40m was to everyone (Score:3, Informative)
They received at least 40x that amount, and possibly much much more. Wow, the virtue signal and hypocrisy is strong here
FTFA: "He personally gave at least $40 million to politicians and political action committees ahead of the 2022 midterm elections" The article didn't specify what percentage was given to the DNC candidates themselves vs PACs. He also donated to Republicans as well, although not as much...have they given any back?
Without more information, you have no idea what the ratio was. With PAC donations, they have no clue what ratio was from SBF. So perhaps your comment about "virtue signal" and "hypocrisy" is
Re:Read more closely! 40m was to everyone (Score:5, Informative)
There are billions of legitimate complaints about the Democratic Party...you've failed to express one.
He did. He expressed that Democrats received way more than he gave them, but those donations are public. Why?
From a report on this in time:
“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't want to have that fight not just because it would be a fight but it's something of an unwinnable fight because there is little about modern Republicans that is defensible anymore and these donations are just as much if not more a case of craven corporate strategy than an expression of SBF's political values (but it definitely is a part of that)
Now this is not to say conservative values are indefensible but Republicans don't represent those either.
Re:Read more closely! 40m was to everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying you trust the reasons Bankman-Fried is giving for his dark money donations despite all the evidence of the guy committing massive fraud and campaign finance violations and all the blatant lies he's told to date?
Take a minute to ask yourself why you'll accept an offered explanation that goes along with your bias as the truth even though there is no proof that it isn't just one more lie meant to hide something nefarious going on in the background.
Re: (Score:3)
Liars absolutely can tell the truth ... (Score:2)
So you're saying you trust the reasons ...
Liars absolutely can tell the truth, when the truth is coincidentally on their side.
Take a minute to ask yourself why you'll accept an offered explanation that goes along with your bias as the truth even though there is no proof that it isn't just one more lie meant to hide something nefarious going on in the background.
LOL, what a massive example of psychological projection, ie your rejection of a statement that goes against your political bias. His statement, "reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight." is entirely plausible. Plus if the democrats know you are donating to both sides that erodes your image as a progressive financial messiah wh
Re: (Score:2)
He did. He expressed that Democrats received way more than he gave them, but those donations are public. Why?
From a report on this in time.
No that's not a legit criticism of a the democrats only returning $1m. The reality is there is zero reason to return anything. It's a drop of piss in the ocean compared to political donations, makes little to no difference to anything, and the entire premise of campaign finance violations is something that sits on the shoulders of SBF. Furthermore there's zero evidence how much of any number is involved with any ill gotten gains.
There's no legit complaints here. It's a whole lot of noise from one side of th
I didn't know the gift was stolen (Score:2)
The reality is there is zero reason to return anything.
The reason is that politicians should not benefit from corruption. Another reason is that stolen money should be returned to the victims, period, That to keep it is a kind of money laundering. "Well I didn't know the gift was stolen", if true, keeps you out of jail, it does not mean you get to keep the stolen goods.
And donating it to charity rather than returning it is effectively re-gifting to friends who will funnel it back to you, again more laundering.
It's a drop of piss in the ocean
Irrelevant. Large amount or small, the money is s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> They received at least 40x that amount, and possibly much much more. Wow, the virtue signal and hypocrisy is strong here
The RNC received quite a bit, too.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The RNC received $0 [opensecrets.org] from SBF. Only an AC would call that "quite a bit".
Re:Only $1 Million? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yeah, I donated just as much to the GOP, but I did it anonymously, and you can't prove it. I have no idea why I didn't do the same for the Democrats."
Meanwhile, the only Republican politicians they _can_ trace back to SBF were "spoiler" candidates, backed only to lose against Democrats - and that added up to a couple of hundred thousand bucks, tops...
Re: (Score:2)
That's his story, no reason for it not to be true, very few corporations donate to one party, that's just logical. More money I imagine went to Democrats because SBF seem like a guy who would support them.
I'm alright with that fact, the Republicans are supported by so many funders who are just real pieces of shit; The Mercer family, Sheldon Adelson, Koch Brothers and almost all contributions from the Sackler family to name a few. Democrats get to have a couple of their own, but do Republicans really want
Re:Only $1 Million? (Score:4, Informative)
SBF isn't a corporation. Neither is George Soros, who gave 100% of his political donations to Democrats and allied causes. SBF was "only" 99% Dem. And yes, there is a reason for his story to not be true: Most donors are very partisan. In contrast, there really is no reason for someone's dark money contributions to be so radically different than their donations with mandatory disclosure.
If you want to see a real mix, look at donations from the Sackler family that you mention: https://www.opensecrets.org/do... [opensecrets.org] . They didn't give in 2022 or 2020, and hardly gave anything in 2018, but their donations in the 2016 cycle were quite well-distributed (except for president; there was a donation to Clinton, but not to Trump). For them, 2014 was much like 2016.
I'm not sure why you would lie about such an easily checked thing.
Re: Only $1 Million? (Score:2)
Okie. So did the GOP's poorest candidates return the money?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, in the alternate MAGA land dimension your chud brain lives.
Re: Only $1 Million? (Score:2)
Yeah... if people like that get any worse they'll have erect barricades around the Capitol.
Re: (Score:2)
The RNC received $0 [opensecrets.org] from SBF. Only an AC would call that "quite a bit".
Quoted from your link.
Money to Candidates FRIED, SAMUEL BANKMAN STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 01-21-2022 $2,900 John Boozman (R) Federal
Money to Candidates FRIED, SAMUEL BANKMAN STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 01-21-2022 -$2,900 John Boozman (R) Federal
Money to Candidates FRIED, SAMUEL BANKMAN STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 01-21-2022 $5,800 John Boozman (R) Federal
Money to PACs BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 02-08-2022 $5,000 Heartland Values PAC (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX CEO 06-13-2022 $5,800 John Hoeven (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 10-02-2021 $5,800 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 09-02-2021 -$2,900 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 09-02-2021 $2,900 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 09-02-2021 $2,900 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 $2,900 Lisa Murkowski (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 $5,800 Bill Cassidy (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 $2,900 Bill Cassidy (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-03-2021 $2,900 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 $2,900 Lisa Murkowski (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 08-10-2021 -$2,900 Richard Burr (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 -$2,900 Bill Cassidy (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 10-02-2021 -$5,800 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 09-02-2021 -$2,900 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 $2,900 Susan Collins (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX US CEO 08-02-2021 $5,800 Richard Burr (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX CEO 07-01-2022 $2,900 John Hoeven (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX CEO 07-01-2022 -$2,900 John Hoeven (R) Federal
Money to Candidates BANKMAN-FRIED, SAMUEL STANFORD, CA 94305 FTX CEO 06-13-2022 $5,800 John Hoeven (R) Federal
Re: (Score:3)
None of which are the RNC or even state parties. Words have meanings, you know?
SBF didn't donate to the DNC directly, either, but the DNC was speaking on behalf of groups he did donate to -- the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, maybe a few state parties. SBF didn't donate to any Republican equivalents of those.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, it was funny that you included all the -$2,900 and -$5,800 entries that indicate Republicans already returned money from him. In contrast, only two Democrats gave back money from him. And it's a hilarious reflection on his bookkeeping that he donated to Susan Collins five times, grossly exceeding the legal limit, which was probably a factor in many of the returned donations.
However, if you want to know why the DNC got $0, this [dailykos.com] is a good explainer of why he didn't donate to them this year. The Republ
Nice try there, anonynous coward (Score:4, Interesting)
THIS [unusualwhales.com] ought to debunk you, for anybody who cares to honestly look.
RINOs like Susan Collins are hardly the "farthest right".
Now that he's in trouble, SBF is saying he gave a lot to Republicans too (no proof at all, and no evidence). His big problem is that when he really had to document things, he filed papers with facts on them. The fact is: he was using investor money to buy influence and protection in Washington DC and in the media by buying the politicians favored by the DC uni-party (the bureaucracy and the press are overwhelmingly Democrat - 90%+ of the people in DC voted for Hillary, Obama, and Biden) which is why he funneled so much to the Dems that he apparently became their #2 funder after Soros. So far, it seems to be working for him as well as possible - even though it's all fallen down, DC got him arrested BEFORE he was scheduled to testify under oath to congress (this NEVER happens, because prosecutors LOVE the idea of some idiot spouting-off under oath to congress THEN ending up in court, where the congressional testimony becomes additional ammo sealing their fate). It's also interesting to see how long he's been allowed to live free in the Bahamas after screwing so many people...
Remember: this fraudster was scamming people for YEARS and being treated like a demigod (go look at the videos and web pages with all the investor types and journalists and Democrat politicians gushing over the guy) with NO DAMNED GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OR PRESS SCRUTINY and probably never would have gotten any tough questions had he not made an error or two that opened an opportunity for a competitor to expose him. Hell, even after he was exposed, House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters [D - CA], was still complimentary of the guy and said she would not subpoena him. Of course, you COULD just chalk that up to her own personal corruption (her family running a bank while she oversaw banking in Congress was always err interesting...) but it really stinks here given how vital SBF was to the dems this past election cycle.
Re: (Score:1)
They received at least 40x that amount, and possibly much much more. Wow, the virtue signal and hypocrisy is strong here
Individual candidates received most of that largesse. Now the Democrats will have to fall back on their more traditional sources of graft and laundered dark money.
Re: (Score:1)
While Republicans were sticking with graft and laundered dark money all along.
Oh hey, remember this conviction? From about a month ago?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/1... [cnbc.com]
Re:Only $1 Million? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Nononononono, you donate a tiny bit of it so you can virtue signal and get free press worth much more than the money you donated to another of your own groups you were going to give it too anyway.
It's right there in the summary. Several candidates will be donating theirs, not returning to cheated investors. (Although I had to pause before typing investors because they're really just idiots and gamblers but you know what I meant).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm outraged & incensed! This is NOT the American way: Those bribes should never have to be payed back. Public exposés in the press, accusations, & indignant outrage, sure, but actually giving any of the money back? That's not how the US political system is supposed to work. It's almost treason!
Why not just do what a lot of other countries have done and limit political "donations" (read: bribes), say $1000 per company and $10,000 per individual.
Money is a huge problem in American politics (as well as British politics) because there's too much of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's total, split among PACs and donations between the DNC and RNC.
They probably looked closely at their donation records and found that they could find $1M was directly attributable to him and to return that (or rather, to give it to him in trust - basically signalling to the court that there's this pool of money available).
The rest of the money went through the big money mixers known a
Who's next? (Score:2)
As someone who lives in LA, I've been waiting for the crash, to see how they rename "Crypto.com Arena" (formerly and always known as "Staples Center").
I never really understood the cryptocurrency hype.
Re: Who's next? (Score:2)
I never really understood the cryptocurrency hype.
A fool and his money are easily parted.
There's a sucker born every minute.
And you can have it now for 12 easy payments of 19.95, plus shipping and handling. ...
Do you understand now? This is America and you're a grown-ass adult; no one will stop you from wasting your savings on slot machines, lottery tickets, and caffienated booze.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who lives in LA, I've been waiting for the crash, to see how they rename "Crypto.com Arena" (formerly and always known as "Staples Center").
I never really understood the cryptocurrency hype.
Hopefully Red Cross can find the money to get the naming rights so they can promote blood donations.
Yes, give money to the gamblers (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody "invests" in cryptocurrency. They gamble. Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and many people who actually know finances have made this clear.
For the RNC to seek to reimburse gamblers makes no sense.
Why don't they reimburse the families of people beaten up and killed by cops? They didn't stupidly squander their money to swindlers.
Why don't they reimburse the veterans, who gave up years of their life in the service of our country and now can't get decent medical care.
Why don't they reimburse the taxpayers. WE p
Re: (Score:2)
My thought exactly. As soon as I read that, I thought: those TFX customers were probably all the same sort of nasty swindlers as the Frying Bankman. Them sumbitches played and lost, and now they're gonna be rewarded for it?
Screw that. Give the money to the needy or for cancer research or something.
$5.2 million to Biden (Score:1, Troll)
$1 million is small potatoes, Biden got $5.2 million.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Any word when he will make good on that?
Re:$5.2 million to Biden (Score:5, Informative)
$1 million is small potatoes, Biden got $5.2 million.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Any word when he will make good on that?
The intro sentence of the article:
The White House on Tuesday wouldn't say if President Biden will ask his aides to return $5.2 million in donations made to his presidential election campaign from disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried in 2020.
Is completely wrong and misleading (from the Daily Mail no less!! I know you're as shocked as I am!!!)
Here's why the entire article is built on a false premise. You literally can't donate $5.2 million to a candidate's campaign.
What you can do is donate unlimited amounts to PACs. PACs are supposed to be independent of the candidates and unable to coordinate, but it's a bad jokes since they're typically launched by former advisors in order to explicitly back the candidate, but there's still some real separation going on.
Either way Biden can't tell the PACs that support him to return the cash any more than the DNC can tell the various Democratic PACs to return their money. If they did it might literally be a violation of campaign finance law.
oooooh, so you're saying... (Score:3)
That Josh Hawley cannot return PAC money [columbiatribune.com] after being exposed as supporting an insurrection...
and...
Texas state politicians could not possibly tell their Stars over Texas PAC to return donations [chron.com]...
Politicians have a LONG history of telling their associated PACs to return donations in lots of situations - the usual one is where it's discovered [publicly, of course] that some unsavory fellow or group has made a donation and the press has turned-up the heat over the matter. It's amazing what politicians can fi
Re: (Score:2)
That Josh Hawley cannot return PAC money [columbiatribune.com] after being exposed as supporting an insurrection...
Nope, because according to the article that's a PAC denoting to his campaign fund, which he has control over. Pretty much the opposite of this scenario.
and...
Texas state politicians could not possibly tell their Stars over Texas PAC to return donations [chron.com]
In that case it sounds like the PAC was concerned the donations were illegal.
But more importantly, the PAC treasurer who made the decision was also a State Legislator.
I'm curious how that works in practice because I assume there's still restrictions of some kind.
Politicians have a LONG history of telling their associated PACs to return donations in lots of situations - the usual one is where it's discovered [publicly, of course] that some unsavory fellow or group has made a donation and the press has turned-up the heat over the matter.
Possibly, but this is closes I could find, Beto O'Rourke apparently returned $1 million from SBF [texastribune.org]
How about stopping legal bribes??? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) give every registered voter $10 ( adjust +/- for all ) per level that is up for election. If voting for Pres, and Rep, then $20. $30 for all 3.
2) voter can then decide how much of the 10 to give to each declared candidate at a level. $10 to 1 OR $5 to 1, and $5 to another, etc.
3) No other money can go to candidate.
4) You can only give to those that you can vote for. Nobody else. Assuming a write-in, it has to be somebody that has declared that they are running for that office.
5) No money from parties, unions, outsiders, foreigners, etc.
This is how we stop politicians from representing wealthy or foreign or business, as opposed to us Americans.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a stupid idea that contravenes free speech and freedom of association.laws.
Re: How about stopping legal bribes??? (Score:2)
What you can not do, is give them $ outside of the legal amount you are allowed to do. Which for a politician or candidate would be limited.
Re: (Score:1)
The Supreme Court says otherwise. Money is speech they say.
Re: How about stopping legal bribes??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I find the whole thing tears me hard in both directions. On the one hand I'm a solid not-quite-absolutist on free speech but realistically it is obvious how money has corrupted and polluted our government. I would like to see a middle ground that allows people to support their candidates and politics without the outrageous corruption we have now.
I do like the idea of caps that you're proposing. Perhaps caps on individuals but eliminate the grouping of dollars and kill off the PAC system. That way an ind
Re: (Score:2)
This is a stupid idea that contravenes free speech and freedom of association.laws.
No, that was Citizens United. It warped the idea of free speech by making it corporate.
Re: (Score:2)
No money from them goes to candidates or no one except the candidate can spend money on independent expenditures?
Because the latter is likely going to be a bear to actually implement in practice, as it basically covers the independent politicking of every entity except for the candidates' official campaign. For example, the ACLU might say "hey, this George Bush guy wiretapped everyone's phone, don't vote for him", but that's clearly a political me
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, it is LONG past time for America to have ONLY public funding for Candidates.
It's long past time for America to fundamentally overhaul most of its political system, a system that has degraded into two groups of shitbags, through shit at each other without every achieving anything. Campaign funding is the least of the issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the purpose of this money is ostensibly for candidates to have the resources to spread their message, then I don't see the point of this scheme.
People who are well known enough to get a significant portion of the money will have more money to advertise, seems like just voting for a candidate with extra steps.
Re: (Score:2)
Most American politicians start off poor in CONgress and within 1-2 election cycles are QUITE rich, even without having written books, or anything else.
Why?
Because so many are willing to 'fund' the congress crtters election, which it turns out, that any extra money is theirs to keep. And they keep a LOT.
Moving to public funding, with registered voters deciding who gets what, does several things:
1) it levels the playing field amongst voters.
2) i
stop buying politicians (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Supreme Court has already ruled that limiting people or groups from spending their own money on messaging for/against a candidate is a free speech violation.
here's how it'll go down.... (Score:2)
let's see.... $1 million.... minus administration fees.... deducting interest and penalties.... minus legal fees... account for damages and mental anguish....
that comes to 3 cents.... would you like that in pennies or FTX coin?
The money has already been spent (Score:2)
The money was used during the 2022 campaign. Returning it now just means that they no longer need it to accomplish campaign goals.
Ah fuck... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
look who its posted by.. none other than BeauHD. hes been pushing this bullshit for far too long. which is why slashdot died even more so than it had. and a lot of us left years ago. i only came to see if he was seething about elon.
Political crooks giving money to finance crooks (Score:2)
Seems like a wash.
Let's see... (Score:1)