Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX paid out millions to buy political influence

But SBF wasn't a president. Seems like that's an important difference. Plus, nothing can make Trump look like a choir boy.

 

I'll indulge him for a bit. He seems a tad disingenuous, though. I'm not going to read the entire thread, so maybe someone makes this point: what did anyone know about SBF's shenanigans back when the donation was made? Further, has Biden been made aware of the fraud and refused to return the funds? Who would he return it to?

In a word, the OP seems pointless.

 

Do you honestly think facts will make a difference? I bet he doubles down.

 

You're right. I'm done with this clown. IGNORE

 

Most here are. Makes me laugh.

 

Crazy this isn’t getting more mainstream news coverage.

 

They would have a direct line on South American blow and hookers.

 

Financial fraud doesn't begin to approach an attempted coup. Not even close

 

This post right here tells us everything we need to know. If the pubs in fact received millions, then yes, they too should return it. But it speaks volume that this is not being covered by the other networks.

 

I really don’t get the point of this thread. There are lots of things the democrats do that frustrate me. I don’t care about this one iota.

This SBF fooled lots of people. As far as most people knew he was one of the “good guys”. It’s not as if Biden took money knowing or thinking this guy was a fraudster.

Republicans take money from shady billionaires all the time. Democrats do too. Hell our last president was found guilty of running a fraudulent charity, and has fleeced others to the tune of billions of losses in failed businesses and bankruptcies.

And now people expect outrage from this?

 

If @okeechobee is really concerned about the influence of campaign contributions and by the way there is absolutely no evidence that Biden supported policy favorable to FTX despite Bankman-Fried's contributions, would he support a Constitutional amendment specifically providing the campaign contributions are not a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment and therefore could be subject to meaningful limitations and regulation through legislation? Just asking. Maybe I'm completely mistaken but I have the feeling that in general he has no problem with dark money and SuperPACs. Although Democratic candidates also benefit from political contributions of that nature, Republican donors use those vehicles to funnel money to their chosen candidate to a much greater extent than do Democrat leaning donors.

 

After a week of lede stories about ftx and democrats, Fox has this well down the page

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was also prolific donor to Republicans: 'I have a duty'

 

Dude I’m not following any of that at all.

I don’t doubt Desantis can win. I don’t know if he will win. I highly doubt 53/45. Republicans have only won one popular vote since 1988. The United States is not Florida.

 

Not going to happen. He is too polarizing to win in a landslide.

 

The free speech wasn't in reference to SBF's crypto con, it was in reference to his donations to the Biden campaign but you probably already know that. The question is, and you didn't answer it, is whether there should be an unlimited right to contribute to political campaigns? Although there are some statutory limitations they can be so easily circumvented that anyone or any organization can contribute as much as they want to political campaigns. In other words what the Supreme Court referred to as "free speech" is in fact legalized bribery.