Quote:
Originally Posted by prototoast
It is broadly true that members of congress may push for legislation that is favorable to their donors, or block legislation that is unfavorable to their donors. This is true whether or not those donors are later charged with crimes.
Unless the members of congress have some information about a donor's criminal activity that is unknown to law enforcement, I don't think it's fair to judge those members more harshly just because the donor was later revealed to be a criminal.
I think it's fair to judge those politicians if you didn't like the laws they were trying to pass, and it's fair to judge politicians who you think are, in general, too influenced by donors. But 6 months ago, I don't think even FTX's biggest critics would have guessed that their entire accounting system was one step above being scribbled on a napkin, with $8 billion on a line labeled “hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account”.
|
Fair enough and well stated. But, again, it’s my understanding that SBF was actively working with members of Congress to write friendlier crypto regulation. If I’m mistaken, I’ll stand corrected.