Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9tadnj wrote

At this point, there is no evidence the Congresswoman knew about the fraud. It appears she was used as a pawn in the FTX fraud agenda.

I am disappointed the Congresswoman is unwilling to answer questions from journalists at VT Digger.

Hiding behind a spokesperson is really bad optics Becca.

−14

Bologna1127 t1_j9tcta8 wrote

Imagine you’re running for congress a criminal handed you $26k of ill-gotten money, and then became the focus of a Federal investigation. Then imagine you win the congressional seat and have a lot of work to do, because your constituents are scrutinizing your every move as a new representative. Wouldn’t you leave this issue of $26k from a criminal to people who are better at navigating a quagmire of campaign finance laws and Federal investigations so you could focus, say, on the work you were elected to do?

69

you_give_me_coupon t1_j9vur0a wrote

> Imagine you’re running for congress a criminal handed you $26k of ill-gotten money

I would disavow the fucking money. There is no money from top-end crypto ghouls that isn't dirty. If Balint didn't know this, she is an idiot. (But I know she's not.)

−2

SemperFuu t1_j9tun32 wrote

😂 now replaces Congress for Legal System and replace “running for Congress” with “access to Justice”. the hypocrisy is staggering. Do as I say, not as I do. Y’all really will regulate yourself out of everything and thank the politicians as they do it. You know what happens if you’re a civilians and this happens? You go to court, you get sued by the state and civil, your life is put on pause and still have to get paid to pay your lawyers.

This just shows me she’s just as bad as every other politician ever.

−8

Eternally65 t1_j9th9ba wrote

I might want to discover why someone - a criminal, as you say, although I didn't know that at the time - is handing me $26k. Nobody hands out that kind of money in Vermont just for fun.

−14

Mr-Bovine_Joni t1_j9tj0be wrote

It’s a congressional race. Handing out money is exactly what people do

25

Eternally65 t1_j9tku6c wrote

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a limit on donations from an individual, like under $3,000? And even then, aren't the donors required to identify themselves and their employer?

−10

Mr-Bovine_Joni t1_j9tn2iy wrote

Did you happen to read the article linked? It explains the situation pretty clearly. The money came from the LGBTQ Victory Fund

From the article:

> Silver reiterated what she and her boss have said for months: “The Balint Campaign has never had any contact with Mr. Bankman-Fried and has never solicited donations from him or his FTX associates. The campaign has no knowledge of how Mr. Bankman-Fried's political contributions were solicited or given.”

Also:

> We are keeping [fund from SBF and associates] in our sequestered account awaiting DOJ guidance on what to do,” Silver continued. “But we very much are looking to get this money back to the people who were harmed by this alleged fraud and are really hoping that the U.S. Attorney's Office can get to the bottom of what happened so that we can move forward.”

14

Eternally65 t1_j9ty6j8 wrote

I read it. It seems to me that the Victory Fund spent money, but the $26,000 was contributed by mostly un-named individuals including Bankman-Fried. If you have a different interpretation, I'm all ears.

Something stinks here, but that is to be expected when dealing with politicians, as far as I can tell. I don't know why I keep getting surprised and disappointed.

All I can do is continue to vote against every incumbent in every election. Except Bernie. I like Bernie.

−6

yerkah t1_j9ubzli wrote

Nothing stinks here at all from the perspective of the Balint campaign, regardless of your thoughts on her. Campaigns not only are under no obligation to investigate the motives or sources of random contributions from individuals, it can be potentially illegal for them to do so. The $26K donated via these personal contributions is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds donated to the Balint campaign by individual donors, let alone the very high number of people within and outside of Vermont who did so. Individual donors could have donated via PayPal to Balint's campaign through her website, using an unnamed PayPal account, as long as donations are below the threshold limit for campaign financing. This could have happened to Sanders or any other progressive candidate receiving many small donations from individuals through grassroot campaign fundraising. This is how campaign finance works, and the statements by her campaign manager were direct and sensible. There is a good argument that Balint isn't responsible for returning any of the FTX funds, legally speaking. But politically, they don't want to hold onto money if the DOJ concludes that the donor procured it through fraudulent means.

There is simply a (reasonable) bias that all politicians are inherently "crooked," so when applying that bias, it's easy to assume the worst despite no evidence to that effect.

6

Eternally65 t1_j9uh238 wrote

"When buying and selling is controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

I am continually amazed at the gullibility of the politically active, on both sides of the political spectrum.

The Balint campaign clearly was able to identify the source of the funds - yes, it "could have happened" some other way. But it didn't. I would posit that 99% of politicians are crooked, starting with the "slightly bent" at the local level, and rising up to "twisted like a pretzel" DC politicians. Balint is no different: she, like all successful politicians, wants to win. At all costs. Pay any price. Compromise any principles. "I don't think of it as selling out, I prefer Buying In."

By DC standards, normal politicians (and their staffers) are those that can be bought - corrupt politicians can only be rented.

0

cpujockey t1_j9un3gc wrote

> bias that all politicians are inherently "crooked,"

Well when we get to the parts about lobbying and all - it really paints a picture, but that's not the case here. In time there will be some lobbyist that will corrupt her and turn her into a DC pawn. Give it time.

0

HomeOnTheMountain_ t1_j9tewwf wrote

No, the optics are the 26k, the spokesperson is just how you handle constant inquiries and about as standard as standard gets.

39

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j9vwzlq wrote

It was not just 26k. It was the super pac that give over 1 million to her campaign and allowed her to become a household name.

> Seven Days reported Tuesday that the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which spent just shy of $1 million on Balint's behalf in the race, had recently benefited from a $1.1 million donation from Nishad Singh, a top executive at the cryptocurrency exchange FTX

https://vtdigger.org/2022/08/25/a-crypto-moguls-hidden-hand-in-vermonts-congressional-race-stunned-observers-its-a-common-trick/

−1

HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9tw3n8 wrote

In DC maybe. Becca has been open and available to the VT media leading up to and after her election.

Suddenly, she’s to busy and has to leave this national story for the spokesperson.

26k direct and another $1,000,000 dropped on your primary campaign. Yeah, it’s really bad optics.

−5

you_give_me_coupon t1_j9vu591 wrote

> At this point, there is no evidence the Congresswoman knew about the fraud. It appears she was used as a pawn in the FTX fraud agenda.

For fuck's sake. Everyone called me a nutjob or a rightoid when I said during the campaign that taking money from any crypto ghoul was a terrible thing to do, but I was right and this is why. There is basically zero money at the top of the crypto world that isn't sleazy ill-gotten gains. It should be seen like taking money from a cartel boss - even if you don't know what the money will be spent on, or have direct knowledge of any specific crimes, it's a good idea to publicly disavow support from people who have people's heads cut off with chainsaws.

(And no, I didn't want Molly Gray either.)

−2

tnowlan9 t1_j9tdqm5 wrote

I’m not sure balint was a completely innocent bystander in all of this. Recall that her campaign used a “red box” on its website to solicit super pac support.

−11