Situational Ethics Regarding Donor Anonymity: FTX Seeks Claw Backs From Bankman and Fried’s Favored Charities
Joseph Bankman has Indiana Jones good looks at 1:14 in the commercial.
Funny, how we all — every one of us, I think — convince ourselves that one little white lie is justifiable when we tell it, but not when somebody with different beliefs or goals tell the same lie. Take Barbara Fried, one half the parental unit for SBF of FTX infamy. Bankruptcy Trustees are seeking to claw back charitable and (c)(4) donations Fried and her partner, Joe Bankman, made or somehow advocated. Here is one quote, attributed to Fried, that Trustees rely on in their Bankruptcy petition seeking to claw back charitable and political contributions:
I would counsel strongly against giving in a disclosed form under your own name, both for the MTG’s [Fried’s PAC]s sake and yours. (Of course the obvious and truthful answer to why you are giving the money– to defeat state legislators who are committed to subverting the will of the voters— won’t get you very far with the press and won’t get you anywhere with Republicans.)
I don’t think Fried was lying because she suspected the alleged illegitimacy of the donations. But she seems a progressive, likely against dark money, and here she is counseling the same thing. I think she was willing to keep secret the identity of donors under a law she disagrees with and for what she believed was a noble cause. Yeah, that’s our problem.
Anyway, the donations were funded by FTX depositors according to the complaint, and a boatload — $5.5 million — went to Stanford University Law School. Stanford let it be known this week that it intends to return every penny. Attorneys for the Trustee and Stanford are talking it over. Here are some snippets from the indictment:
8. Bankman used his status as an insider to funnel vast sums of FTX Group money to his chosen causes, including his employer, Stanford University. Bankman also showered his friends and family with gifts, which were paid for by the FTX Group. As just one example, he gave a former Stanford Law School student who later became outside counsel to the FTX Group “a free trip to France,” which included airline tickets and tickets to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in France costing several thousand dollars.
9. Bankman’s domestic partner, Fried, was likewise a Stanford Law School professor who willingly enmeshed herself in the FTX Insiders’ world. Describing herself as her son Bankman-Fried’s “partner in crime of the noncriminal sort,” Fried served as the single most influential advisor regarding Bankman-Fried’s and the FTX Group’s political contributions, and repeatedly “dunned,” or called upon, Bankman-Fried and Singh to contribute millions of dollars directly to Mind the Gap, Inc. (“MTG”), a political action committee that she co-founded and for which she served as President and Chairwoman, or the organizations MTG supported.
11. Bankman and Fried, tenured professors at what currently is ranked as the top U.S. law school, either knew—or ignored bright red flags revealing—that their son, Bankman-Fried, and other FTX Insiders were orchestrating a vast fraudulent scheme to profit and promote their personal and charitable agendas at the Debtors’ expense.
12. Bankman and Fried also pushed for tens of millions of dollars in political and charitable contributions, including to Stanford University, which were seemingly designed to boost Bankman’s and Fried’s professional and social status at the expense of the FTX Group, and by extension, its customers and other creditors. Additionally, Fried, concerned with the optics of her son and his companies donating money to the organization she co-founded and other causes she supported, encouraged Bankman-Fried and others within the FTX Group to avoid (if not violate) federal campaign finance disclosure rules by engaging in straw donations or otherwise concealing the FTX Group as the source of the contributions.
There are a few other allegations regarding Fried’s insistence that political donations be made in the dark:
Noah will only give in a non-disclosed form, and I would strongly urge you to do the same– or substitute someone else’s name. (I’m skeptical how long that will help. One of these days soon, some reporter is going to think to look more closely at FEC reports, do a search for donations by company, and just reframe this as the FTX juggernaut rather than the SBF juggernaut, or even worse suggest you are using Nishad/Caroline as fronts.). Nondisclosed form would mean to the 501(c)(4).
I would counsel strongly against giving in a disclosed form under your own name, both for MTG’s sake and yours. (Of course the obvious and truthful answer to why you are giving the money– to defeat state legislators who are committed to subverting the will of the voters— won’t get you very far with the press and won’t get you anywhere with Republicans.) You could get Nishad or Caroline to contribute to the PAC some of the total amount you are willing to give, but that has its own costs and risks.
Life sure can change in an instant.
darryll k. jones