FTX and its debtors are urging political figures and PACs to return donations before Feb 28, with the threat of a prospective bankruptcy court lawsuit.
We visualized the funds donated by former FTX executives Sam Bankman-Fried, Ryan Salame and Nishad Singh, based on political group and ideology.
Former FTX Executives contributed more than $80 million to political groups in 2022, of which liberal groups received the majority at 63%.
Bankman-Fried even pledged to donate up to $1 billion during the 2024 election cycle. 👀
Source: Data via OpenSecrets.org, original study published on https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/ftx-political-donations

Tools used: Google Sheets, Figma

Damn. If FTX kept running like it was supposed too, democrats would’ve been swimming in it every election cycle.

They'll find a new source for their money, its not like he was giving it out of the goodness of his heart, these groups/specific people had him paying them. Money will flow no matter who it is or how illegal the means, fuck politicians!

FTX made a substantial percentage of democrat donations received.

I think SBF was the #2 biggest donor for Dems.

They’ll still get money but not like that FTX money and not soon.

If FTX continued to grow as expected, they would’ve given Dems so much money.

Ryan attempted to diversify tbh

I dont think I disagree always odd when I get down votes for nothing but okay.

I gave you an upvote.

I’m getting downvoted too. It’s weird, we’re talking about the data.

Ooohh I see now its because we aren't screeching about the evil republics and how the dems are innocent to all of this, even funnier since I was non-biases but fuck its reddit where free speach dies and the far left are "moderates"

Karma is back in the green now.

[removed]

"I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties."

You believe the guy charges with fraud? Lol.

Come on man. If you paid any attention to this story you know he rarely tells the truth.

This guys mom cofounded a democrat super-PAC.

He was in a polycule.

If you think he gave $41M to republicans. You are high.

Ain’t that the truth

I'll just make a dick joke tomorrow normal people usually help out, plus who the hell cares about social credit score/Commy points.

How about instead of thinking blue=good red=bad release anyone that got money from this twat are playing for the same team and are against your interests...like fuck

However, did he not go on record as saying he also secretly donated to GOP?

I find it hard to believe any publicly available financial information regarding FTX, this thing is like Enron^3.

Isn’t Nishad like 12 years old?

[deleted]

It was also the shakiest excuse ever. Like of course that money he supposedly gave to republicans without any proof was a dark donation

12 years old and richer than all of us combined.

You get negative virtual points from anonymous people on a forum.

"Free speech dies"

Donating to environmentalist causes would be conservative, far right fascism is extremist

Per Bankman-Fried's interviews, he donated about the same amount to Republicans but did so while hiding his identity: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sam-bankman-fried-republican-donations_n_6393898be4b0c28146435a2e

CREW has filed an FEC complaint about it.

That's not how "conservative" is used in the US political system.

>FTX

“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.

"All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.

Bankman-Fried’s undisclosed donations were made possible by the supreme court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, which made it easier for donors to give large amounts of money anonymously and has led to more than $1bn being poured into federal elections since 2010."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billionaire-sam-bankman-fried-dark-money-republicans

they lied so much and had such poor record keeping that it'll probably take years to get a conclusive, accurate answer on the amount they donated and who received the money

All donations to republicans was "dark/hidden".

"“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
Bankman-Fried’s undisclosed donations were made possible by the supreme court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, which made it easier for donors to give large amounts of money anonymously and has led to more than $1bn being poured into federal elections since 2010."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billionaire-sam-bankman-fried-dark-money-republicans

And headed to prison eventually. Baby faced weak young nerds do very well in general population.

We decide every day how we should use language. Personally I think far right fascism has always been extremist, not conservative at all

Is this something that always happens when people get to a certain point in wealth? While unlikely, if I ever get to that point in wealth I'd fuck off to a country that meets my needs rather than donating money to a political party. Fuck that.

He admitted to also privately giving the same amount to the republican party, the guy just understands outrage culture and appearances

It seems easy to believe that he gave to both parties, absolutely, considering his primary concern was regulation. Doing it in secret is also on brand.

Conservatives would dispute being far right fascists, though. It’s a weird jumble of people.

This has not been proven. It is strictly here-say

I don't think it makes sense to use the language a minority of white far right extremists want everyone to use. We can use more accurate language

here-say 😭😭

As a non-American, since Republican Party/candidates and Democratic Party/candidates are in their own categories, what political groups fall under the Conservative and Liberal categories?

Edit: Guys, I’m very specifically asking about the data on this chart. Not about the US political system in general.

as opposed to there-say

It’s called lobbying to get regulations in place/removed to make even more money.

that's what they're-saying

Hearsay^ and the man himself said it 😂

That's just like your opinion man

Republicans are conservative to ultraconservative.

Democrats are moderates to conservatives with a handful of liberals that don’t have any real power in the party

Yes I understand that, but what are the groups that don’t fall under Republican/Democrat categories here? Other political parties?

As an American, I don't know what that means either. I'm assuming "liberal groups" and "conservative groups" are PACs that support one party or the other, but aren't officially associated with that party.

And that highlights another disgusting part of our campaign finance system. Donations to PACs are less restricted and much easier to hide. They're supposed to be separate from specific parties and candidates, but many candidates run their own PACs. It's a giant, unlimited loophole in the system. Everyone knows it. But nobody can close it because of a bad Supreme Court decision.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are not political groups.

Lick the boot

Not really you have to run in one of those two parties for any real chance of being elected.

People like Bernie sanders say they are democratic socialists but run as a democrat while people like Rand Paul say their are libertarians but run as republicans.

American libertarianism is just another form of conservatism. American libertarians don’t support actual libertarian policies like open borders or making all highways toll roads

And if we change the meaning of words every day, they lose all meaning.

Ok so no one else understands what groups are being referred to in this chart?

So if these are PACs then it’s effectively the same as donating to the party, just splitting hairs really?

[ Removed by Reddit ]

What the user said above you is incorrect.

Found the person with a boot licking fetish

Still reliable so long as it’s not where-say

In theory, no. In practice, absolutely.

What the fuck is wrong with you

Ok. Do you know what this graph is referring to? Cause I keep getting factoids about the right vs left leanings of US Political parties instead of answers lol. Help!

FTX bought the whole Government that would in both parties.

Crypto is regulated as a commodity under the agriculture committee, so the politicians FTX got the closest with were those on the agriculture committee.

Specifically so when his Ponzi scheme blew up he would get favorable treatment regardless of who's in office

That man?

Merriam-Webster.

So the liberal/conservative groups on this chart is the agriculture committee?

[removed]

They're all supposed to be liberals. America is a liberal democracy, ideologically speaking.

That some conservatives don't care about human rights, the separation of powers, or democracy in general anymore is another discussion.

It's correct, other than not knowing what a liberal is outside an extremely American definition.

No. It's poorly sourced nonsense from someone that doesn't know even know what liberal means.

A significant amount yes.

The committee counts as both?

He’s obviously not trustworthy but as a political fundraiser I’ll just say that

1. for donors like him it’s very normal to play both sides because you believe it will stop you from getting regulated

2. Republicans are always much more likely to funnel their money through IEs than to raise into disclosable accounts because their donors are less willing to be publicly associated, so this is how it would likely look mechanically if he was

3. It was widely believed in DC circles that he was playing both sides prior to him making this claim, Teddy Schleifer has covered this extensively if you want a source.

I’m ultimately not remotely worried about losing him as a donor. The most effective Dem groups all have limits and most of the IE groups are leaches trying to grift money of billionaires that don’t do anything but charge themselves consulting fees. Probably 5-10% of this was actually spent in a way that helped win elections.

Yeah what do far right extremists mean when they say woke as a slur?

Is this like when someone points out racism and you say "YOU'RE the racist!"

I don’t think those people are another discussion because the ultra conservative wing runs the Republican Party. It was different 30 years ago, but after republicans stole the 2000 election from Gore they let the far right run the party

[removed]

No it’s cause a lot of Redditors like you are obsessed with “bootlicking” for some reason like you can’t think about anything else but bootlicking.. Maybe the thought of it intrigues you?

Liberal and conservative are temporally relative terms in the context you’re using them. Conservatives try to conserve ideas and arguably that would include ideas like human rights, democracy, and federalism. Liberals try to push new ideas, or currently unpopular ideas, into the mainstream.

The fact of the matter is there are conservative and liberal members in each party. I am a conservative republican and TRUST ME… there are many elected republicans that I disagree with more than some moderate democrats.

Sorry, what how is that related to this chart?

This chart stinks. The fact that non-partisan is on there (that category does not exist) is ridiculous.

Are you really co-CEO when the other one is CEO? 😀

Since you’re not adding anything now to the conversation. Ill repeat my reply to the last silly goose who said this.

You believe the guy charges with fraud? Lol.

Come on man. If you paid any attention to this story you know he rarely tells the truth.

This guys mom cofounded a democrat super-PAC.

He was in a polycule.

If you think he gave $41M to republicans. You are high.

You believe the guy charges with fraud? Lol.

Come on man. If you paid any attention to this story you know he rarely tells the truth.

This guys mom cofounded a democrat super-PAC.

He was in a polycule.

If you think he gave $41M to republicans. You are high.

Yes. All committees have members of both parties usually with the party in majority running the committees

So this graph would divide up the number of members in each party on the committee by how much was donated to them and apply it that way?

Yeah playing both sides of the government is a really bad idea /s

Half?

Sure, he played both sides. The silly thing to believe is, he gave $40M to republicans.

Roughly speaking yeah

Going to echo the above comment. What the fuck is wrong with you.

I-say show the receipts

Yes let's trust the Friedmans word, btw i am Nigerian prince I have a proposition

[removed]

That's not it, it's that the terms they are using are intentionally useless and vague.

You're not supposed to understand what they really mean

That's debateable. Friedman had deeply liberal beliefs and openely talked about donating to groups with very liberal values.

The chart don't represent political parties at all, just the ideological leanings of the groups they donated to.

Edit: in fact, I'm pretty certain most people are misunderstanding what this shows. They're trying to make it sound like the money either went to the Democrats or the Republicans. That data will be in there, but they'll be in there alongside organisations like the ACLU.

Groups like this. https://www.startguide.org/orgs/orgs00.html

[removed]

You can't just listen to what a liar says, then beleive the opposite. That's makes absolutely no sense.

You just need to understand their motivations as to why they would (or wouldn't) lie

SBF has little reason to lie here and what he's saying makes perfect sense.

He just wanted his "business" to be legitimate in the eyes of the law and be regulated he wanted it to, and to achieve the most legitimacy he tried to buy out both parties. Makes perfect sense.

I think you're mixing "conservationist" and "conservative".

The reason conservative is used is partially historical naming and partially because they typically want to "conserve" the status quo.

Lately however they have become more and more regressive so there are certainly some who could go in the fascist bucket imo

Liberalism just means granting more freedoms. It can pretty much be right or left, but in America liberal is an ideology between moderate and progressive

What’d he say?

Sorry it hurts your feelings bud but that's neither hear nor their

Yes, that's the exact same logic as when people say "Why do you keep talking about racism? Why are you obsessed with race? Maybe YOU'RE the racist?" It's Charlie Kirk logic.

He was fantasizing about getting thrown in prison so he could rape people, including minors

And we have to believe him?,

[removed]

Does this graph include the dark money donations to Republicans that was designed to be hidden?

Traditions republicans are conservative and Dems are liberals.

That's however changed and we see if it changes back. Dems are still mostly liberals, and likely have become more liberal during said change. The republicans however have really become not conservative any longer. The best descriptor of them now would be anti-liberal.

They don't really put out platforms any longer. By and large their main function is to oppose whatever it is the democrats are trying to do or support.

That seems like a loaded definition that necessarily implies that liberalism is good in some sense.

Either way, these definitions can mean different things and there isn’t one true way of defining them because they’re used in different ways — even in America.

Salami looks like the kind of guy who wants people to be subservient.

Yeah I know all that. I’m just asking what “political groups” are being referred to in this graph since it separates out the Parties themselves.

It’s not hearsay if it came straight from Bankman-Fried.

Being a conservative republican is like being lawful evil in D&D and being blissfully unaware.

Ah ok. Blue is Dems and red is repubs.

Again as many have pointed out it's pretty normal for the super rich to give to both parties only a lot of time they hide the money given to one party.

The US has a dark money issue because of scotus.

https://www.reveddit.com/v/dataisbeautiful/comments/114cs54/oc_which_political_groups_did_former_ftx/j8wkwkv/#t1_j8wkwkv

Lol yes I know about blue and red! But this chart shows a difference between “democratic party” and “liberal political groups” and same with Republican/conservative groups. So what are these “political groups” if not the party themselves?

Nice!! So these guys got away with stealing nearly 80 million. Quick scam and they were out.

[removed]

Well technically there are different groups but really in the US there are kind of really only the two.

This is because of how us elections work where splitting tickets to more than 3 people running tends to hurt the most popular side. It's not like parliaments where they build a coalition after people vote.

So if you look at the US senate you have almost all rep or dem and then 1 or 2 independent.

Also looking at voters you do have like the green party but that's not really a thing when talking about presidential or congressional political. Those groups are really just spoiler candidates. You also have independents, not registered for any of them, but that just means they don't get to vote in most primaries, and really then vote Dem or rep.

There has been a move in some areas to move to ranked choice voting. Alaska and Maine have both done this. If this happens nationally it will have a huge boost for those other spoiler parties and likely make a more functional democracy.

[removed]

Lol?

The republican party is far closer to the current moderate position than the Democrat party.

What is the moderate position on issues today.

Unions. Sure, you should be able to unionize if you want, but also leave if they don't represent you. Who champions right to work? The Republicans.

Transgender. The moderate position is opposition to procedures on children without parental consent. But otherwise, "you do you mate". Which is slightly closer to the republican position than the Democrat one.

Ukrainian war. The moderate position is "I dont care about Ukraine, but it is the biggest issue facing our closest allies in Europe and so we should help." Which is in this case slightly closer to the Democrat position than the republican one.

Taxation. The average American likes lower taxes. The moderate position is tax breaks for lower and middle class earners. This is closer to the republican position and is pretty much right on populist conservatism. The Republicans want lower taxes for everyone, but often favor high income earners. The Democrat position is higher taxes for everyone but with a larger impact on higher income earners.

COVID. The moderate position is that you should do things like vaccination and mask wearing, but you should not be forced. Which again, fits closer to the republican position of "you should do this if you are at risk, but its not the place of the state to force it".

You seem to forget that US citizens are some of the most conservative people on average of all western nations.

Not only that his donations to Dems were mostly in contested primaries to beat the more liberal candidates.

Ok. I know everything you’re saying. I think you are just misunderstanding my question. It’s ok!

Why do you think dark money is so important to the Republican Party?

[removed]

The last republican president literally separated minority children from their parents and put them in concentration camps. That’s as ultra conservative as you can get.

Also, helping out your friends when they get in trouble is the moderate position. It’s not like we’re giving them boatloads of cash. We are mostly just giving them old equipment from the vietnam war that we won’t use anymore.

It says a lot about you that you think abandoning your friends at a time of need is the moderate position

Man's a pathological liar. Im sure the republican party has a shit ton of dark money, but this man can't be trusted for shit.

This just shows how little you understand.

Child trafficking across the southern border was a serious issue. It's not some 1% of children crossing the border situation. It was significant. So they separated the children from the "parents" so they could ensure that the child wasn't being trafficked.

Once they confirmed the parents and child's identity they were reuinted.

Also they weren't put In "concentration camps". They were in holding facilities that held then for a week or 2 so they could get identification done, and then send them home.

These were the same holding facilities used during the Obama administration. Which if you know anything about deportation statistics you know that Obama and Trump weren't wildly different.

You drank the partisan kool-aide. Trump wasn't some special evil. He continued standard border policy, he just shined a brighter light on it.

That’s many lies.

Neither Obama nor Biden separated children from their parents. They both separated children from human traffickers but that’s completely different.

Also, some of the children kidnapped by the trump administration aren’t reunited with their parents.

Clearly you care very much about these commie points lol

Obviously not I keep posting on political posts lol. Drain them all lol my point is they are meaningless. Also thanky for the spelling I'm an idiot

"They both separated children from human traffickers but that is completely different". They didn't leave the kids with the traffickers and then do their investigation. They, just like Trump, do the separation immediately. Children and adults are processed separately. This is literally standard procedure and has been for decades.

"Also some of the children kidnapped by the...... reuinited with the parents" got any evidence that parents who can prove they are the legal guardians of a child were not reunited with the child? Because other than a potential few cases of allowing the child to stay in the US with family who got in legally (grand parents, cousins, etc). I dont think you can find any evidence of this. You might find some sob story, but never do they provide legal documents from the Government of Mexico or Nicoragua, etc to prove this. So the US cannot in good conscience return the child to potential traffickers.

SBF has admitted that he donated to Republicans as well, but it was done under the table.

>So if these are PACs then it’s effectively the same as donating to the party, just splitting hairs really?

Exactly. The above user mentioned a bad Supreme Court decision, and they nailed the problem right on the head. Look up Citizens United.

Check out this article How Stephen Colbert Taught Americans About Super PACs to learn more, and bonus points because Stephen Colbert is awesome and showed us how ridiculous it all really is.

Indians get shitted the most by liberals yet they are funding liberals. Can't help idiots.

Regardless of my grammar he wasn’t under oath when he made those comments and no evidence was provided to support the claim. Additionally, he did not respond to comment as noted in the linked article.

People can heresay themselves…

It would make absolutely no sense for him to lie about such a thing.

““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.””

Spoken like a true MAGA.

Additionally…

“Stuart McPhail, senior litigation counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that filed an FEC complaint against Bankman-Fried last week, says his claims and the campaign finance charges could spur changes to election laws.

“There are a number of loopholes and limits that Sam Bankman-Fried was able to exploit that Congress can fix,” he tells TIME. “He directed money to influence elections but hid where that money came from.””

https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donations/

It just sort of seems like you don’t want it to be true so you won’t believe it’s true. If you have evidence that he lied, state that evidence.

How does that apply here? How is this a court of law, anyways? This is a subreddit. It’s not even a Wendy’s. You being wrong here doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. The lengths you’re going to avoid being wrong tells me you’ve been down this path plenty before.

Youre a moron

Jfc the lengths you are going tells me you have been done this path before

I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but many of those groups aren't "liberal" so much as they are socially progressive or charitable.

It's especially suspicious in that they have separated "liberal" from "Democratic" and "Republican" party and candidate giving specifically, a detail that you will see with a brief glance through the comments has escaped most of the great minds of Reddit. Especially especially because so many political parties outside the US that broadly share those views simply go by the Liberal Party.

The inescapable conclusion is that OP either has a clear agenda and knowledge and has phrased his post deliberately misleadingly or they simply have an extremely inaccurate definition of liberal... and an agenda.