> 66 different federal political action campaigns (PACs), nearly half of which are supporting Republicans.
Seems balanced to me.
P.S: I hope this wasn’t too political of a comment. I know we want to keep HN political free. But it does need to be said there’s a difference between policy differences and desecration. Example from today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-...
Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things.
Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of.
Even if the government is unethical, it's still a good idea to push for good policy (unless you're an accelerationist).
Obviously we're talking about businesses here so what they are pushing for is probably ethically neutral in itself. But supporting everyone equally seems like the least bad option.
Also, the rationale behind CU looks woefully stupid and weak now. I honestly believe it is the Dred Scott of our day. The USSC has always interpreted "free speech" with an eye to potential unfair harms (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that), and the idea that rich people should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to their preferred candidates certainly hits that level IMO.
What I want is specific reasons not the usual Reddit “they’re rich therefore evil blah blah” zero-insight answers. Okay, but why? Almost nobody wakes up and says “I’m going to be evil today!” People have motives and objectives and belief systems.
Make money to control policies. Control policies to make more money.
They're donating money to anyone who isn't anti-tech / anti-business / anti-datacenter / anti-AI
That ~50% of those folks are R being the newsworthy part is the real question. Why should Silicon Valley support people who clearly loath the technology industry just because they're blue? The simplest explanation is the most obvious one, and the one this article explains: Tech leaders are donating money to tech-friendly politicians.
There's a list of things. I can't find much about this specific Super PAC, but things in the past I've heard concerns about:
Prevent limitations to QSBS
Protect H1B / access to global talent
Banning non-competes
Expensing software development
Removing antitrust / regulatory barriers
Light regulation on AI / pro data centers
Note that whatever it once meant to be "conservative", wanting less government control of markets, etc., today's GOP is the party of economic central planning and limiting economic freedom, and also authoritarian rights violations on US soil.
There is absolutely no excuse for supporting the Trump approach / agenda unless one intentionally wishes to see laws broken and democracy subverted.
The GOP itself though, really serves one important role: They interfere with Democrats getting and holding power. The Democratic Party has become the party of unserious economic policymaking, especially in California, where they've doubled and tripled down on their "no amount of taxation is enough" ideas - they will likely pass a wealth tax this year, setting a precedent for outright confiscation of property. "Just for billionaires!" Until they are accustomed to that extra money but the billionaires have all left, of course. Then where's it gonna come from?
If I had money to blow on politics, I'd give to Republicans in this cycle, even if I was pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gun, irreligious, and pro-free-trade[1], because the Democrats have, much as the Republicans did in 2015, let their loons take the wheel and I don't want them to be given more power and influence.
Trump will pass away of natural causes someday and at that point, grown-ups will take over the policy discussions at the GOP. The opposite is happening in the Democratic party -- the old, retiring Dems understood economics and also how to negotiate with Republicans to get things done. The young ones that replace them learned everything they know about economics and politics at protest marches or perhaps on TikTok. And it shows.
[1] And I am several of those things!
They're giving them money in exchange for the opportunity to try to convince the candidate to support what they want.
An example, "... A record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025 ... Importantly, these party shifts do not indicate that Americans are warming to the Democratic Party. In fact, favorable ratings of the Democratic Party are no better than those of the Republican Party, and are among the worst Gallup has recorded for the Democratic Party historically." from https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-politi...
Taxes are higher than ever, cost of living has spiked even more here than other places, tens of billions wasted on CAHSR with nothing to show for it, and no good news on homelessness, poverty, or housing costs either.
Crime has been gradually going down per capita (at least what people have bothered to report), but that's a nationwide trend. If Dems are as good at governing as they claim to be, they ought to have more to show for their efforts than "we had the same results as Texas did."
And the latest Democratic superstars like Mamdani enter the picture, with "government run grocery stores" as his big innovation?
So, my question is why wouldn't one want to deprive these people of more power?
Edit: I'd like to add a reasonable example of what a successful (D) trifecta should have got us, lest you think I'm just some conservative who doesn't want them to accomplish any of their supposed goals:
As the largest state in the union, California has tremendous power. It could have come up with a 'MediCare for all'-like plan, which would cover all Californians who don't have MediCare. Basically a single public agency that insures all of us, and is run efficiently and transparently and which returns all premiums paid that aren't spent on care as a dividend check back to the taxpayers proportionally to what you paid in. If they accomplished nothing but that in 15 years I'd consider them worth supporting for that alone.
If they couldn't pull that off, successfully building HSR from SF to LA in a decade, by whatever means were necessary, would have been a pretty good accomplishment!
Or finally, if they could have built enough housing to keep home prices just stable, not even decreasing just stable.
I won't bother with the rest, but in the past 15 years Dems have only had 2 years of a "trifecta" while republicans have had 4.
Dems have had more presidential terms, the senate has been split, and Republicans have held the House for 11 of the past 15 years. The Supreme Court has been a Republican majority the whole 15 years (with an exception of a tie after Scalia died).
Republicans have the incredible ability to have overwhelming control and agency yet still act like the victims.
EDIT: In response to your edit... you claim about how Republicans exist solely to keep Democrats in check, and then you list a bunch of things Democrats weren't able to accomplish because they were blocked by Republicans. Your logic is that Dems are bad because they couldn't make certain things happen, but those things were blocked by Republicans.
(future generations will be taxed for all of Trump's gravy train)
roseway4•1h ago