Trump overall received $273.2m in donations from some of tech’s biggest names, including:

$242.6m from Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X (formerly Twitter) who has an estimated net worth of $350bn.

$5.5m from Marc Andreessen, the billionaire founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, also known as a16z. Andreessen’s co-founder, Ben Horowitz, initially supported Trump but flipped to Harris.

$5.1m from Jan Koum, the founder of WhatsApp who made the bulk of his fortune when Facebook acquired the messaging app in 2014 for $19bn.

Kamala Harris received a total of $120.9m, including:

$51.1m from the Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, who left the social media company in 2008 to start the workflow software company Asana.

$17m from Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn.

$11.7m from Chris Larsen, the billionaire chair of Ripple, a cryptocurrency company.

The FEC filings offer only a glimpse of the millions tech is pouring into Washington as it seeks to influence government and regulators. The accounting of US political giving is complicated and opaque and donors can find ways to give money without it being publicly reported.

There are a few ways a person can donate to a political campaign in the United States. The first is a direct contribution to a campaign, which is capped at $3,300 per candidate. The second is donating to a political action committee (Pac) that contributes directly to a political campaign, helping to pay for staffing, outreach, events and advertising.

The 2010 landmark supreme court case Citizens United v FEC made it much easier for industries and wealthy individuals to contribute to a political campaign, often in ways that are hard to track but that are entirely legal.

The court’s decision gave way to a third, more opaque way of donating: Super Pacs. Corporations and wealthy individuals can give an unlimited amount of cash to a Super Pac. The only caveat is that Super Pacs can’t contribute to a campaign directly – but they can spend all they want to on political advertising for their preferred candidate.

Individual and corporate spending on campaigns are thus virtually limitless. It’s how Elon Musk donated his $242.6m to Trump’s campaign, and how many others were able to spend millions supporting their candidate of choice.

For many of Trump’s wealthiest supporters, Trump’s rhetoric was overshadowed by his 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. The cuts significantly decreased taxes for the wealthy and for corporations.

Trump has also blessed his closest supporters with unfettered access to the White House since his win in November. For Musk, $242.6m was probably a small price to pay for the direct line he now has to the president-elect: Trump appointed Musk to co-head the new “Department of Government Efficiency”, or Doge, an advisory commission to evaluate government spending, with fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

It’s an about-face from just two years ago when Musk said that Trump should “hang up his hat and sail into the sunset”. For his part, Trump had bashed Tesla and SpaceX and said he could make Musk “drop to his knees and beg”.

But Musk isn’t the only billionaire who endorsed Trump after publicly criticizing him for years. Andreessen was a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and a critic of Trump’s anti-immigration stances. The Sequoia venture capitalist Doug Leone called the January 6 insurrection “horrific” and held Trump responsible for the attack in the aftermath, but ultimately went on to donate $3.5m to his campaign this year.

The tide of reversals is indicative of an ideological shift happening in Silicon Valley. Big tech long eschewed Washington but has become increasingly involved in politics as it has coalesced around crypto and AI, two relatively new technologies that have yet to see much government scrutiny or regulation.

Friendliness toward Trump has shown to be fruitful for industries looking to stave off regulation. Oil and gas executives donated millions of dollars to Trump’s campaign, with the former president promising to “drill, baby, drill”.

Crypto’s donations, and Trump’s changing views, have also arguably already borne fruit. On Wednesday, Trump nominated Paul Atkins, CEO of Patomak Global Partners, to be head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US’s top financial watchdog. Atkins is seen as crypto-friendly and would replace Gary Gensler, whose efforts to clamp down on the $3.5tn crypto market have set him at loggerheads with the digital currency community.

Though companies in the fossil fuel industry are typically the top corporate spenders in elections, the cryptocurrency lobby is quickly becoming the biggest spender in US elections. According to a report from the progressive thinktank Public Citizen, the crypto industry was the top corporate contributor in the 2024 election.

Much of crypto’s impact was seen in congressional elections – the crypto lobby spent $40m tanking the campaign of the incumbent Democratic Ohio senator Sherrod Brown – but crypto had its hands in the presidential races, too.

Though Trump was once a critic of crypto, calling it a “scam”, he has since embraced the industry as its advocates have entered his circle. Trump himself has launched a cryptocurrency.

In May, Trump became the first presidential candidate to accept donations in bitcoin. Shortly after, the twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the billionaire founders of the cryptocurrency exchange Gemini, donated a combined $2.5m, much of it in actual bitcoin, to Trump’s campaign. Tyler Winklevoss has called Gensler “evil” and both twins have lobbied hard for light-touch regulation of the industry.

The twins had some of their bitcoin refunded by Trump’s campaign committee after they exceeded the maximum cap for donating.

Over the summer, Trump praised the Winklevosses as “male models with a big, beautiful brain”.

Harris too indicated that she would be more supportive of the industry than her counterpart in the White House. It seemed to pay off: Chris Larsen, chair of Ripple, a cryptocurrency company that manages its own digital token, gave at least $11.7m to Harris’s campaign.

“She knows people who have grown up in the innovation economy,” Larsen said in October, of Harris. “I think she gets it at a fundamental level, in a way that I think the Biden folks were just not paying attention to.”

Crypto advocates were “willing to hedge their bets and play both sides”, said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “In any individual race where they thought one candidate was the crypto candidate, they weighed in heavily and often got real results.”

But dark money is not just a thing of the conservative right. The Guardian’s analysis omitted a key donation from Bill Gates, the second-wealthiest person in the world, who reportedly donated $50m to Harris’s campaign. That’s because his donation does not appear in FEC data, since he donated the money through a non-profit, which doesn’t have to disclose donors.

“There are many avenues of giving. A big one of them is non-profits, that are secret and the limits are almost nonexistent,” Gilbert said. The US “has a complex system, and it exacerbates our problem of too much money in politics, by making huge swaths of it secret”.
___

>>1366989
Why are Democrats so buddy-buddy with Bill Gates?
A shame they'd even accept his dark money.

>>1367000
It's a high IQ thing. You wouldn't understand.

>>1367002
Hating dark money except when it's given to you seems low IQ.

>>1367012
It might seem that way to an extremely low IQ person.

>>1367015
I mean, double standards are generally considered low IQ.
I'm going to need a source and peer reviewed study regarding this.

>>1367017
>I'm going to need a source for A priori knowledge
You would if you were low IQ.

>>1367018
Low IQ take.

>>1367012
republicans literally never play by the rules and hold others to double standards. i'm not sure why democrats have such a hard time figuring this out

Disingenuous as fuck. Kamala's campaign spent 1.2 billion. She outspent Trump 5:1. This faggotry article is trying to create a false narrative about Trump

>>1367038
Source for your bullshit?

>>1367040
Shut your retarded mouth, you terminally online shill. It's all public knowledge at this point and it's actually over 1.5 billion

>>1367038
It is disingenuous but only because Elon's circle should be much larger than it appears on the graph.

>>1367041
>dude trust me I saw it on facebook
ok boomer

>>1367042
Asking for sources like that shows how retarded you. It was all everyone talked about for two weeks after the election. They're obviously still spending money if retarded shills like you are still shitting up the place

>>1367044
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/us/politics/trump-harris-campaign-fundraising.html
>The Democrats, their allied super PACs and other groups raised about $2.9 billion, versus about $1.8 billion for the Republicans.
So as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>1366989
I'd really be interested in the amount of money that was spent airing pro trump messages on Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, all the podcasts, and the rest of the rightwing media sphere. Before the election they said Kamala raised over a billion dollars in campaign funding, much more than Trump apparently. But that doesnt paint the whole picture. Trump has an enormous propaganda machine by his side that will pump out pro Trump messaging for basically no cost to him. I want to know the amount of money that goes into the rightwing propaganda machine. It's sure as fuck more than a billion dollars.

>>1367046
We will never know due to groups like Donors Trust, which funded Project Veritas, which are set up specifically to hide donor information.

>>1367045
What part of that isn't exactly what I said retarded shills?

>>1367044
Gonna need a source for this.

>>1367048
Well let's see. First you said Kamala spent 1.2 billion. That was false. Then you said she outspent Trump 5:1. That was also false. Then after that you said Kamala spent 1.5 billion. That was also false.

>>1367050
You retarded shills can't read for shit. I already corrected that above. It further proves my original point that the article is even worse and is Democrat propaganda. I know you need those small victories to get your 1 rupee for shilling. You still waited a billion more dollars than Trump and lost

>>1367052
You didn't correct anything.
>$2.9 billion, versus about $1.8 billion
This is not the 5 to 1 margin you are pretending it is.

>>1366989
Anyone who supported Kamala better watch out lol.

>>1367053
You are a retard being paid to shill here. She spent over a billion more than him. BILLION

>>1367055
So to review, you got the amount she spent very wrong twice, and also she didn't outspend trump by multiple factors like you thought.

>>1367057
he's a liar, what do you expect. and that doesn't even include the amount of money spent on media bribes

>>1367057
Over a Billion more, Ranjeet. Explain why your shill article doesn't mention that.

>>1367059
you're not american

1367058
Are you another retarded shills or just a butthurt tranny? I posted "over 1.5 billion" myself here >>1367041. You are both ESL, so it's an easy mistake to for both of you to make

1367060
That won't work on me, shill. You lost the election and she spent over a billion more than Trump. No shill revenue for you now

>>1367058
...or Trump's NFTs, or his chinese bedspreads, or his chinese MAGA hat sales, or any of his other grifts

1367064
Over a Billion more, retarded shill. Imagine how much more hidden money Kamala spent.

>>1367062
>>1367063
>>1367065
wow, imitating my ridicule of you yet again? i love when you copy me shill. these are the last replies you get from me though

1367066
At least your ESL ass is smart enough to admit defeat. Get fucked, shill

apparently the shill is a proud virgin

>>1366989
Good to know. The proper way to punish those socialists is to expropriate all their wealth.

>>1367000
I’m not defending the practice, Citizens United is going to ruin us, but Republicans opened the doors for this kind of corruption. The Dems would be stupid not to also use it to their advantage. Basically it’s bad for the country but good for the party.

Is this a good time to reportage my house and use the $ ton buy crypto?

>>1367083
I meant remorgage, but also cash all my bonds in and buy?

>>1366989
Damn that's crazy haha. If only there was board dedicated to the discussion of politics you could post this on

>>1367146
You don't think this is /news/worthy??

>>1367017
>I'm going to need a source and peer reviewed study regarding this.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.21
Not strictly on IQ, but it's close.

>>1367054
And everyone else wants to worry about what they regular do that will be painted as unacceptable once that witch hunt expands scope in desperate attempts to stay relevant by throwing more to the lions.

>>1367072
I do hope you retain this sentiment as your currency steadily devalues and your wealth expropriates to the pockets of trump and friends.

>>1367083
Yes, depending on your crypto choices. Leave enough to find somewhere sane to live.

>>1367183
What makes you think it is? Doesn't tell me anything I didn't know before: politicians in the pockets of industry. It just added some numbers.

>>1367332
>What makes you think it is?
>FEC filings offer only a glimpse of the money tech is pouring into Washington as it seeks to influence government
You're right, nothing to see here. Go back to watching dancing titty girls on TikTok. Tune out what the politicians are doing.

>>1367341
Well? how does that differ to how it was done previously?

I can tune out to what your politicians are doing, it doesn't impact me. I don't because unlike you I do pay attention to the world around me, I'm not conceited enough to think I'm the center of it. That and when I look over in your direction there's commonly something f'kin hilarious to mock.

>>1367366
>I do pay attention to the world around me
lol you chose to come into the thread to tell everyone this isn't news ffs

>>1367374
That's not why I came. Just responding to a post whilst here.

/me notes lack of supporting evidence that this is newsworthy.

>>1367038
This is specifically about tech companies donating money, not overall donations. Based on this report, most of her money wasn't from tech companies and more likely from political organizations/PACs

>>1367040
After .00000001 seconds on google I found this. Research is not hard, retard
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/harris-campaign-finances.html

>>1367570
congrats on not being able to follow a thread, sperglord
>>1367045

>>1367569
No one gives a shit about how you losers twist the story. This is just a propaganda piece against Elon and Trump

>>1367578
You have been indoctrinated to blindly defend Elon and Trump.

>>1367573
So the original poster said 1.5 and you think you refuted that anon by saying they had MORE money? Lol, not the win you think that is.

>>1367580
You have TDS and you're pearl clutching. I'm not writing retarded articles about him that make no sense

>>1367662
What does The Daily Show have to do with it?

>>1366989
Thank God for Elon Musk.