White House Silent on Returning $5.2M in SBF Donations to Biden: What’s the Hold Up?

The implosion of cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the subsequent legal woes of its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), continue to send shockwaves across various sectors, including the political landscape. One particularly sensitive area is the hefty sum of campaign donations SBF made to various political figures and parties. Among the recipients was President Joe Biden, who benefited from a significant $5.2 million contribution during his 2020 presidential campaign. Now, with SBF facing serious charges, the question on everyone’s mind is: Will President Biden return these funds?

The Unanswered Question: Will Biden Return SBF’s Millions?

During a recent White House press briefing on December 13th, the question was directly posed to Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre by Associated Press reporter Zeke Miller. Miller inquired whether President Biden would follow through on returning the $5.2 million in donations, especially considering the allegations that these funds might have originated from misappropriated customer money. He further asked if the President would encourage other politicians who received similar donations to do the same.

However, Jean-Pierre skillfully navigated around giving a direct answer. Instead of addressing the core question, she invoked the Hatch Act, a federal law designed to limit the political activities of federal employees in the executive branch.

Here’s a breakdown of the exchange:

• Reporter Zeke Miller: “Will the president return the gift? Does he call on all politicians who received campaign contributions that may have come from consumer money to repay those funds?”
• Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: “The Hatch Act protects me here. I am restricted in what I can say. Anything related to political donations, I’d have to send you to the DNC.” (referring to the Democratic National Committee)
• Reporter Zeke Miller: “But I’m seeking the president’s view.”
• Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: “I am protected by the Hatch Act. I simply can’t talk about political donations or anything linked to that from here. Even his opinion, even his ideas about the contributions, donations — I cannot talk about it from here.”

This response, or rather lack thereof, leaves the question hanging in the air. But what exactly is the Hatch Act, and why is it being cited in this context?

Decoding the Hatch Act: A Shield or a Smokescreen?

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially known as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law. Its primary goal is to maintain a non-partisan federal workforce by preventing civil servants in the executive branch from engaging in certain political activities.

Key points about the Hatch Act:

• Restricts Political Activities: It limits federal employees’ involvement in political campaigns, particularly while on duty or using federal resources.
• Protects Impartiality: The Act aims to ensure that federal employees are not unduly influenced by political considerations in their official duties and that government services are administered impartially.
• Specific Prohibitions: While it doesn’t completely ban political activity, it prohibits activities like using official authority to influence elections, soliciting or receiving political contributions, and engaging in political activity while in uniform or on duty.

In the context of Jean-Pierre’s response, the Hatch Act is being used as a reason why she, as a White House official, cannot comment on political donations. She directs the reporter to the DNC, suggesting that inquiries about campaign finance should be addressed by the political party itself, not the White House press office.

However, critics argue that while the Hatch Act might restrict Jean-Pierre’s ability to engage in political campaigning from her official platform, it doesn’t necessarily prevent her from stating the President’s position on a matter of public interest, especially when it involves ethical considerations related to potentially tainted donations. Is it truly a legal barrier, or is it a convenient way to avoid a potentially uncomfortable question?

SBF’s Campaign Finance Charges: A Cloud Over Donations

The timing of this unanswered question is particularly significant as it coincides with serious charges leveled against Sam Bankman-Fried himself. On December 13th, the same day as the press briefing, SBF was charged with multiple violations, including:

• Campaign Finance Violations: Allegations of breaching campaign finance regulations.
• Contribution Regulation Breaches: Specific violations related to how political contributions were made.
• Hindering the FEC: Accusations of obstructing the work of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
• Donations in the Name of Others: Claims of making political donations using straw donors or in the names of other people, which is illegal.

These charges paint a picture of potentially illicit activities surrounding SBF’s political donations. The fact that he was a major donor, ranking as the second-largest “CEO-contributor” to Biden’s 2020 campaign (only behind Michael Bloomberg), adds another layer of complexity and public scrutiny to the situation.

The Ethical Dilemma: What Should Be Done With Potentially Tainted Money?

The core of the issue boils down to an ethical question: Should political campaigns and parties keep donations if there’s a credible possibility they originated from illegal or unethical activities?

Arguments for returning the donations are compelling:

• Ethical Stance: Returning the money sends a clear message that the campaign and the President do not condone or benefit from potentially illicit funds.
• Public Trust: It can help maintain public trust in the political process by demonstrating accountability and a commitment to ethical fundraising.
• Setting a Precedent: Returning the donations could set a positive precedent for other politicians and parties facing similar situations in the future.

However, there can be complexities:

• Legal Loopholes: Campaign finance laws can be intricate, and the legality of returning donations might not always be straightforward.
• Political Optics: Returning donations could be interpreted by some as an admission of guilt or a sign of weakness, even if it’s ethically the right thing to do.
• Where Does the Money Go? Determining the rightful recipient of returned funds can also be a logistical and legal challenge.

Looking Ahead: Will Silence Turn into Action?

For now, the White House’s silence on the issue of returning SBF’s donations is deafening. While the Hatch Act might offer a technical explanation for Jean-Pierre’s reticence, it doesn’t fully address the underlying ethical and public perception concerns.

As the legal proceedings against SBF unfold and more details emerge about the source of his wealth and donations, the pressure on President Biden and the Democratic Party to address this issue will likely intensify. Will the White House eventually break its silence and announce a decision regarding the $5.2 million? Or will the question of SBF’s donations continue to linger as an unanswered and potentially damaging shadow over the political landscape?

The coming weeks and months will be crucial in determining whether this silence is a temporary tactic or a long-term strategy. One thing is clear: the FTX saga and its political entanglements are far from over, and the question of what to do with SBF’s millions remains a significant and unresolved issue.