Didn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”?
Because for many people, and especially for the cohort that is HN readers, the current MAGA republican, doesn’t differ just on policy decisions like a Bush or Regan, but is undermining the institutions that keep our checks and balances in place
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-...
One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical.
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.
The goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale.
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.
The fact that the PAC donated to Pramila Jayapal shows that clearly supporting fascism isn't the point of the donations. But I would absolutely say that each of Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Lindsey Graham are (were in the Graham's case) fascistic in their positions. All of them support(ed) Trump, who readily accepted a description of "fascist" from Mamdani, on camera (if his status as such weren't already self-evident).
While I agree, I still think it sucks that we are essentially now in a "pay-to-play" political environment. Any rich person who may be highly affected by government regulations (which is basically all of them) now is expected to donate a huge chunk of money if they even want to be listened to. This is why most of the money is going to incumbents (i.e. the people most likely to actually be in office in Jan). I'm not saying there haven't always been aspects of this but Citizens United really let this money explode exponentially. I really hope we can get a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United once we return to sanity.
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.
I’m curious if someone can truthfully explain this. What’s the main motivation for all the money being thrown at R’s from these and other high up tech people?
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.
Wooing the Republicans (despite them being scoundrels openly) is the wealthy and powerful tacitly saying they believe that the Democrats are toothless. The Democratic Party has shown no real leadership, has no real popularity (again, despite an open scoundrel being the President opposing them giving them a perfect target for energizing undecided voters!) and has no interest in changing their tactics or platform to increase their popularity. While the Democrats are likely to make gains and have a better shot than they deserve at winning the presidency in 2028, they are very much unloved and will be at risk of being deadlocked in Congress and then kicked right back out in later election cycles.
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...
I posted a longer comment above which kinda answers this but without repeating myself too much, Republicans mainly serve to keep Democrats from being able to consolidate power, and Democrats have now shown us what 15 years of a (D) trifecta gets you.
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 progressive 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 caused enough housing to be built to just keep home prices 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 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 all blocked by Republicans.
He’s literally doing the meme of republicans stopping democrats from legislating and then pointing to the lack of legislation as why they should be blocked.
Also lol at the trifecta for 15 years comment from him.
Because that's how corruption and graft works in the US. Donating to political campaigns doesn't count as bribery. The donation is what gets them access to the candidate, so instead of writing a letter or calling their office you can have 30 seconds to a few minutes of their time at an election campaign fundraising dinner or over a phone call where they want to thank their donors during which you can press them to support whatever you personally want.
They're giving them money in exchange for the opportunity to try to convince the candidate to support what they want.
> leaders at the San Francisco-based tech incubator are trying to build a tech-forward future
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.
Tech tended to be blue and seen as an ally of at least liberal/center-left politicians until the mid-20-teens, and my memory is that it was tech that shifted way to the right and it was after that occurred that the left started its tech-hate. There was some anti-tech on the left before that but it wasn't the mainstream.
I loathe even bringing this "G-word" up, but my memory from the time is that Gamergate and all the stuff adjacent to it was a huge part of that. It wasn't rational and it wasn't motivated by concerns rooted in the real world. It was vibes and culture war crap.
I didn't get any of it at the time and was wondering why everyone was losing their minds over such stupid nonsense.
Of course I'm sure there's people around here who would argue that "woke" came first, then a huge counter-reaction in the tech world, and then what I said above. My memory, again, is that "woke" and the "alt-right" rose concurrently at the same time. I'd have to write a book to get into why I think that might have been.
They don't mean ethically. They mean the republicans are the ones in power right now, so going to them is going to be more effective at getting the changes they want than going to democrats.
Garry Tan is extremely socially conservative, seemingly unabashedly so. I would not be surprised if Garry had donated to Trump, etc.
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.
On what evidence do you make this claim? Garry is a Christian, but not all Christians are socially conservative. I know Garry and went through YC. If "socially conservative" means anti-LGBT, anti-welfare, anti-immigrant, I've yet to see any evidence.
Nothing like government run housing, markets, price fixing, rent control, pushing industry out, eliminating unfovorable resource use, selective government benefits, like the opposing side
Uh, yes it is quite a lot like it and more invasive/harmful. Trump has also removed many transparency and accountability mechanisms, etc. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for supporting it at this point.
I'd push back on that. Trump is the uhh... Trump... of 'economic central planning and limiting economic freedom'. He's clearly an idiot who can't even utter a single sensible sentence about economic policy of any kind.
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.
It's somewhat amusing to read a defense of the GOP focused on a state over-taxing. Federal over-spending is possible without short-term tax increases b/c the federal government runs a big deficit. If the Federal government had to keep a balanced budget, Trump's policies would have raised everyone's taxes far more than anything the state of California would ever dream of.
(future generations will be taxed for all of Trump's gravy train)
Are we supposed to be up in arms about this?
> 66 different federal political action campaigns (PACs), nearly half of which are supporting Republicans.
Seems balanced to me.
Balanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent?
Didn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”?
Because for many people, and especially for the cohort that is HN readers, the current MAGA republican, doesn’t differ just on policy decisions like a Bush or Regan, but is undermining the institutions that keep our checks and balances in place
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-...
One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical.
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.
Maybe one party doesn't have the claim to being ethical, but one party (Republicans) have an indisputable claim on being unethical.
> One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical.
No, but one party does have a disputable claim on being ethical. The other party doesn't even have a disputable claim any more.
The goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale.
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.
I’d also like to know the answer to this
Wow, talk about a misleading headline!
Supporting fascists by 50% is pretty damn alarming to me.
That would be terrible! However I don’t see evidence of that in the article.
The fact that the PAC donated to Pramila Jayapal shows that clearly supporting fascism isn't the point of the donations. But I would absolutely say that each of Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Lindsey Graham are (were in the Graham's case) fascistic in their positions. All of them support(ed) Trump, who readily accepted a description of "fascist" from Mamdani, on camera (if his status as such weren't already self-evident).
While I agree, I still think it sucks that we are essentially now in a "pay-to-play" political environment. Any rich person who may be highly affected by government regulations (which is basically all of them) now is expected to donate a huge chunk of money if they even want to be listened to. This is why most of the money is going to incumbents (i.e. the people most likely to actually be in office in Jan). I'm not saying there haven't always been aspects of this but Citizens United really let this money explode exponentially. I really hope we can get a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United once we return to sanity.
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.
And Democrats. Basically, any politician who signs on to the pro-SmallTech agenda. Not unusual for a single-issue PAC.
Oh this post is flagged and disappeared from the front page.
Interesting right?!?
Use https://news.ycombinator.com/active with showdead set to yes, and recommend others do so.
No way to vouch for flagged posts so that’s the second best option
I’m curious if someone can truthfully explain this. What’s the main motivation for all the money being thrown at R’s from these and other high up tech people?
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.
Wooing the Republicans (despite them being scoundrels openly) is the wealthy and powerful tacitly saying they believe that the Democrats are toothless. The Democratic Party has shown no real leadership, has no real popularity (again, despite an open scoundrel being the President opposing them giving them a perfect target for energizing undecided voters!) and has no interest in changing their tactics or platform to increase their popularity. While the Democrats are likely to make gains and have a better shot than they deserve at winning the presidency in 2028, they are very much unloved and will be at risk of being deadlocked in Congress and then kicked right back out in later election cycles.
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...
(These aren't my personal opinions. I'll also note that the YC super PAC seems to donate to Dems and Republicans seemingly equally.)
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
I posted a longer comment above which kinda answers this but without repeating myself too much, Republicans mainly serve to keep Democrats from being able to consolidate power, and Democrats have now shown us what 15 years of a (D) trifecta gets you.
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 progressive 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 caused enough housing to be built to just keep home prices stable, not even decreasing just stable.
Nothing about this is based in truth.
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 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 all blocked by Republicans.
He’s literally doing the meme of republicans stopping democrats from legislating and then pointing to the lack of legislation as why they should be blocked.
Also lol at the trifecta for 15 years comment from him.
Because that's how corruption and graft works in the US. Donating to political campaigns doesn't count as bribery. The donation is what gets them access to the candidate, so instead of writing a letter or calling their office you can have 30 seconds to a few minutes of their time at an election campaign fundraising dinner or over a phone call where they want to thank their donors during which you can press them to support whatever you personally want.
They're giving them money in exchange for the opportunity to try to convince the candidate to support what they want.
Republican policies probably benefit them, and the donation also curries favor with the politician.
Isn't it endless loop of US politics that especially clear during current presidency?
Make money to control policies. Control policies to make more money.
> leaders at the San Francisco-based tech incubator are trying to build a tech-forward future
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.
Tech tended to be blue and seen as an ally of at least liberal/center-left politicians until the mid-20-teens, and my memory is that it was tech that shifted way to the right and it was after that occurred that the left started its tech-hate. There was some anti-tech on the left before that but it wasn't the mainstream.
I loathe even bringing this "G-word" up, but my memory from the time is that Gamergate and all the stuff adjacent to it was a huge part of that. It wasn't rational and it wasn't motivated by concerns rooted in the real world. It was vibes and culture war crap.
I didn't get any of it at the time and was wondering why everyone was losing their minds over such stupid nonsense.
Of course I'm sure there's people around here who would argue that "woke" came first, then a huge counter-reaction in the tech world, and then what I said above. My memory, again, is that "woke" and the "alt-right" rose concurrently at the same time. I'd have to write a book to get into why I think that might have been.
PACs are evil, but at least going to Republicans is better than the alternative right now.
I know you're downvoted on a dead thread, but... can you give me a few examples where Republicans are better than Democrats?
They don't mean ethically. They mean the republicans are the ones in power right now, so going to them is going to be more effective at getting the changes they want than going to democrats.
Garry Tan is extremely socially conservative, seemingly unabashedly so. I would not be surprised if Garry had donated to Trump, etc.
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.
On what evidence do you make this claim? Garry is a Christian, but not all Christians are socially conservative. I know Garry and went through YC. If "socially conservative" means anti-LGBT, anti-welfare, anti-immigrant, I've yet to see any evidence.
Garry has made many gripes about the homeless and other kinds of gripes that do not suggest he has Christian values underlying his views.
Nothing like government run housing, markets, price fixing, rent control, pushing industry out, eliminating unfovorable resource use, selective government benefits, like the opposing side
Uh, yes it is quite a lot like it and more invasive/harmful. Trump has also removed many transparency and accountability mechanisms, etc. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for supporting it at this point.
I'd push back on that. Trump is the uhh... Trump... of 'economic central planning and limiting economic freedom'. He's clearly an idiot who can't even utter a single sensible sentence about economic policy of any kind.
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!
It's somewhat amusing to read a defense of the GOP focused on a state over-taxing. Federal over-spending is possible without short-term tax increases b/c the federal government runs a big deficit. If the Federal government had to keep a balanced budget, Trump's policies would have raised everyone's taxes far more than anything the state of California would ever dream of.
(future generations will be taxed for all of Trump's gravy train)