Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Eternally65 t1_j9ty6j8 wrote

Reply to comment by Mr-Bovine_Joni in Becca Balint cooperating with federal prosecutors as new allegations against Sam Bankman-Fried emerge by HappilyhiketheHump

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