It was always inevitable. In the last few months we’ve had an extreme court justice crack KKK jokes and be accused of leaking court decisions. We’ve had another extreme Justice’s wife, who may be an insurrectionist, testify to congress.

So it stands to reason that bad decisions by extreme justices would always come in threes. And now it’s Brett Kavanaugh’s turn in the spotlight. It was a holiday gala, and the right-wing nuts were out in force. Conversation flowed, and the room was alive with chatter as alt-right crazies descended on the home of Matt Schlapp.

Schlapp is the chairman of the conservative political action coalition. Some of the happy-go-lucky guests whooping it up included Stephen Miller, Matt Gaetz — and Brett Kavanaugh. That’s right. One of our extreme court justices was seen partying it up with some bad company indeed.

Our beer-loving extreme court justice evidently thinks it’s fine to party with Republican officeholders. What’s next? A Caribbean vacation together? The optics on this are awful, which is probably why the story’s all over the news.

I mean, this is a private party of a right-wing bigwig. Kavanaugh had no business being there, but then again, as you’ve seen, the extreme court really doesn’t give a damn WHAT we think.

The rotten apples on the court have given up any pretense whatsoever of being fair and well — normal. They really do not care what the country thinks of them or how inappropriately many view their actions.

We should not give up on making changes at the worst court in the land, among them a code of ethics. In that regard, I point you toward a column by Jennifer Rubin that explains some options in terms of ideas on how to reform the court.

In the meantime, let Brett party to his heart’s content. Nobody takes this court seriously anymore, and their despicable behavior will only worsen if we do not do something.

The post Bad Company appeared first on Palmer Report.

In a change to its anti-doxxing policy made Wednesday, Twitter barred users from sharing a person’s “live” location, a broad, vague, and immediately confusing prohibition. The policy was amended on the same day Twitter banned @ElonJet, an account that tracked owner Elon Musk’s personal private jet, along with the account of its creator, college sophomore Jack Sweeney. Later, the @ElonJet account, but not Sweeney’s private account, was reinstated.

Twitter’s newly revised “Private information and media policy” now forbids users from sharing “live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.”

The new rule, which an Internet Archive snapshot of the page shows was not present the day before Sweeney and @ElonJet were banned, is at odds with Musk’s gesturing toward free speech absolutism. He claimed that his purchase of the social media giant augured a radically more permissive era for its users — specifically mentioning Sweeney’s account.

On November 6, Musk pledged that he would not ban @ElonJet. “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk,” Musk tweeted. On Wednesday, less than a month later, Musk reversed course entirely: “Real-time posting of someone else’s location violates doxxing policy, but delayed posting of locations are ok.” Hours later, @ElonJet was suddenly back, without explanation.

@ElonJet uses freely available public flight data to chart trips using Musk’s jet, whether he was aboard or not. Virtually every single aircraft in the sky broadcasts such location data through a legally mandated radio transponder. Other flight-tracking accounts created by Sweeney, such as one that tracks the planes of Russian oligarchs, remain offline.

The @ElonJet account had previously attracted Musk’s ire, particularly after Sweeney rejected a $5,000 offer from the world’s then-richest man to voluntarily shutter the account in January.

Late Wednesday afternoon, a Twitter Safety account clarified that tweeting someone’s precise location would be allowed so long as it was “not same-day” — a crucial term left undefined. The account added: “Content that shares location information related to a public engagement or event, such as a concert or political event, is also permitted” — though it’s similarly unclear what exactly fits the definition of a “public engagement or event,” or how the rule could affect news-gathering or the vast volume of ordinary inoffensive speech that merely observes that a given person is currently at a given place.

The total ambiguity of the rule — would it prohibit tweeting a picture you just took of Times Square, thereby disclosing the exact location of every stranger in it? — will give Musk a great deal of latitude in how and when it’s enforced.

The revised policy further says, “If your account is dedicated to sharing someone’s live location, your account will be automatically suspended” — a brand-new rule under which @ElonJet was unceremoniously banned, before being inexplicably later reinstated.

A Twitter spokesperson could not be reached for comment; the company no longer has a communications team.

The post Tweaked Twitter Privacy Rules Would Ban Elon Musk’s Bêtes Noires — or Not appeared first on The Intercept.

On Wednesday Donald Trump declared in all caps that “America needs a superhero” and said that he’ll be making a “Major Announcement” on Thursday. It’s set off a lot of morbid speculation about what Trump will announce. Is he dropping out of the 2024 race? Surrendering himself for arrest? We wouldn’t get that lucky.

Some of Trump’s allies are suggesting that he’ll announce he’s running for Speaker of the House. This wouldn’t be shocking. It’s difficult to imagine Trump getting the necessary 218 votes, because there are too many House Republicans in moderate districts who don’t want that hanging around their necks when they seek reelection in 2024. If these types spent their 2022 campaigns strategically trying to move on from Trump, why would they suddenly marry themselves to him?

That said, Kevin McCarthy is showing ongoing weakness by failing to round up 218 votes, and it’s leaving the door open for someone like Trump to at least try to wrangle up 218 votes of his own. At the least, Trump would get a couple weeks of headlines out of it before his bid failed. Most people would be too worried about looking foolish and tanking their legacy by launching a can’t-win Speaker bid like this. But Trump knows he’s on a path to prison anyway, so it’s not as if he has to worry about his legacy.

If anything, Trump and McCarthy battling each other for Speaker would only increase the odds that five House Republicans end up partnering with the House Democrats to elect a dark horse compromise candidate such as Liz Cheney. McCarthy’s best angle for becoming Speaker continues to be reminding his own caucus that they can either pick him or let the Democrats pick someone. But if Trump is also in the mix, the odds are greater that five House Republicans would work with the Democrats just to make sure Trump doesn’t end up with it.

But there are plenty of other possibilities for Trump’s announcement tomorrow. Some observers suspect he’ll announce a running mate – perhaps Kari Lake – in the hope of making his laughable 2024 “campaign” look more legitimate. If Trump running for Speaker is the worst scenario for the GOP, then Trump pushing forward with his 2024 presidential campaign by announcing a running mate might be the second worst scenario for the GOP. He’s broadly unpopular, so they’re selfishly trying to move on, but he doesn’t seem to want to let them.

Anything is possible, but this is all just speculation for now. For all we know, this could end up being yet another empty Trump stunt in which he gets all eyes on him for 24 hours and then he ends up announcing something as mundane as a book deal.

One thing to keep in mind about Trump is that because he knows he’s going to lose everything anyway once Special Counsel Jack Smith takes him down, he has nothing to lose. He can announce something unrealistic or ridiculous. He can grab everyone’s attention for something like this and then just announce he’s eating an ice cream sandwich. But while Trump has nothing to lose, he’s also rapidly running out of bandwidth. Most people already don’t care about his 2024 “campaign.” Any more announcements that no one cares about, and people are going to stop listening to Trump entirely.

The post Donald Trump’s “Major Announcement” could spell major trouble for the GOP appeared first on Palmer Report.

Russia shuts down any proposals for a ‘Christmas ceasefire’ in Ukraine and Kyiv hit in first major drone attack on capital in weeks

Continue reading…

Jackal Pan/Visual China Group via Getty Images

• WeWork cash flow is dwindling, and it plans to shutter more sites as it struggles to bounce back.
• Its market capitalization now stands lower than Regus, another flexible office space provider.
• This is a sign the market is rewarding careful management over rapid growth.

WeWork had once touted itself as the future of real estate.

Now WeWork faces cash crunch as it struggles with dwindling users and expensive long-term leases, watching as its market cap plunged from $2.3B at the start of December to $1.35 billion at the end of trading on Wednesday.

WeWork’s problems stand in sharp contrast to another company that offered flexible workspaces for decades before WeWork entered the market: Regus.

The company now has a market cap of $2 billion at the end of trading on Wednesday, after being forced to wince through articles like “How did WeWork beat Regus?” in 2019.

Under Adam Neumann, WeWork expanded rapidly before investors eventually grew concerned over the growth strategy. After Neumann’s ouster, WeWork struggled to right-size its ambitions to reality. 

The company had negative cash flow of $4.3 billion from July to September this year, per The Wall Street Journal. WeWork was able to borrow from its biggest investor Softbank to keep afloat, though it has burned through more than $10 billion from the bank to date. WeWork said it would end the year with $300 million cash, less than one-third of what it held at the end of 2021. 

Regus, owned by IWG Group, faced many of the same headwinds as WeWork. Yet its parent company has still outperformed WeWork since WeWork began publicly trading.

To be clear, Regus is facing its own struggles. Like almost all office space operators, Regus has been crushed by the pandemic, with a net loss of $254 million on $2.7 billion in revenue in 2021. But compare that to WeWork, which lost $4.4 billion on $2.7 billion in revenue in 2021, pulling of the dubious feat of having operating expenses nearly double its revenue. 

Regus was always more professional and utilitarian take on co-working spaces, while WeWork banked on a more casual approach to a workspace to attract customers. With Regus, you got a coffee maker. With WeWork, you got kombucha on tap.

In a sign IWG and Regus got something right, Reuters reported IWG bought several former WeWork locations in London and New York in 2021 as part of a spate of new co-working spaces the company opened to meet flexible office demands. 

Meanwhile, WeWork plans to shutter some of its sites to control its spending and faces the real possibility of defaulting on its debt.

Regus has a long climb in front of it in a world where the future of the office is murky. But right now, its focus on fundamentals and not chasing growth at all costs means the market values it more than WeWork.

US Air Force/Capt. Coleen Berryhill

• Since arriving in the 1970s, the A-10 has earned a reputation as a tank-killing ground-attack plane.
• In recent exercises, the A-10 tried out a new role: deploying decoys to distract enemy air defenses.
• The change comes as the US military is shifting its focus and forces to operations in the Pacific.

The A-10 Warthog has made its reputation as a tank-killer, but now the Air Force is testing 50-year-old plane for another mission: launching decoys to protect other aircraft.

During exercises in the Pacific in early November, A-10s were equipped with the ADM-160 Miniature Air Launched Decoy.

Described as a sort of cruise missile, the 8-foot-long MALD weighs less than 300 pounds and has a range of 500 miles. It is equipped with a Signature Augmentation System that mimics the radar signature and flight profiles of specific US aircraft. (The MALD-J variant has a jammer.)

The idea is to launch salvoes of MALDs ahead of a US airstrike to confuse the enemy about how many aircraft are coming and from where.

During Green Flag-West from November 2 to 9, a DATM-160 — a training version of the MALD — was loaded onto an A-10 on an island off the coast of Naval Air Station North Island in California.

A US Air Force crew chief prepares to launch an A-10 for Green Flag-West in California on November 9.

US Air Force/Senior Airman Zachary Rufus

“The A-10 can carry up to 16 MALDs, the same quantity as the B-52, and 12 more than the F-16,” according to an Air Force news release.

But interestingly, the MALD isn’t being envisioned as a means to protect the A-10. Rather, the Warthog would use its decoys to support other aircraft, such as fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s or bombers.

During another exercise over the Philippine Sea on November 9, A-10 pilots simulated using MALDs in “an integrated strike mission simulation” with B1-B bombers.

“Having a combat-proven platform like the A-10 provide support through their MALD decoys increases the probability that our aircraft and weapons successfully strike their targets,” Maj. Daniel Winningham, 37th Bomb Squadron B-1B instructor pilot, said in a release.

Maj. Taylor Raasch, an instructor with the Air Force 66th Weapons Squadron, which participated in Green Flag-West, said that the way the A-10 can “help support the fifth-generation fight in support of a pacing threat is provide the unique capability to carry a multitude of weapons and work in austere environments.”

‘How are we going to find the boats?’

An A-10 carrying a DATM-160 on California’s San Clemente Island on November 7.

US Air Force/Senior Airman Zachary Rufus

While the MALD may be a useful way to protect US aircraft and drive enemy air-defense networks crazy, choosing the A-10 to haul decoys is curious.

The Warthog was designed in the 1970s as a ground-attack aircraft to smash Soviet armored columns invading Europe. That meant it needed a powerful 30-mm cannon and anti-tank missiles, as well as armor plating and a rugged design to survive thick Soviet air defenses — and even with that armament, Air Force planners expected heavy losses.

While the A-10 has respectable range — about 700 miles, which can be extended by aerial refueling — a longer-range decoy-laden aircraft, such as a cargo plane or a drone, might be more useful, especially across the vast Pacific.

Instead, the venerable A-10, which first flew in 1972, seems to be in search of a mission.

US airmen load an ADM-160 MALD on an A-10 at a base in Wisconsin on March 1.

US Air National Guard/Tech. Sgt. Samara Taylor

For years, the Air Force has sought to scrap the Warthog, believing the aging plane might not survive against modern Russian and Chinese air defenses. And for years, the Warthog has kept flying, buoyed in part by a popular image as an aerial tough guy that can dish out punishment and take it, too. (Congress finally relented this month, allowing the Air Force to begin retiring A-10s in the coming year.)

As the US military pivots its focus to the Pacific, some argue that the A-10 would be useful in a war against China, especially if it were armed with long-range missiles.

The mission in support of the B-1B “was a fantastic way to demonstrate how the A-10 is capable of shifting from a close-air-support team mindset to a strike team. We are building on our old principles to transform into the A-10 community the joint force needs,” Capt. Coleen Berryhill, an A-10 pilot, said in a release.

November’s Green Flag-West exercise also marked a shift. Since 1981, the Air Force has used the exercise to train to provide air support to Army units. This time, the A-10s trained to support the US Navy, including as a ship-killer.

US Air Force Capt. Coleen Berryhill flies near a formation of B1-Bs and A-10s over the Philippine Sea on November 9.

US Air Force/Capt. Coleen Berryhill

While the Warthog’s cannon and missiles could pulverize most warships, maritime strike would be a new mission — and one that would be vital in a conflict with China.

“A concern we had in the planning phase of Green Flag was ‘how are we going to find the boats?'” said Capt. Joseph Cole, assistant director of operations for the Air Force’s 549th Combat Training Squadron. “We know we can kill them, but how can we find them and target them?”

The exercise also saw the A-10 operate from an “austere” island off the California coast, reflecting the Air Force’s growing focus on using rugged or improvised airfields in the Pacific. But this also raises questions about supplying the A-10 with fuel, munitions, and especially maintenance in forward areas.

The A-10 was designed a half-century ago for an armor-focused conflict. Ironically, that sort of warfare is now taking place in Ukraine, but US officials have declined to send manned aircraft to Ukraine, and some Ukrainians have cast doubt on the Warthog’s utility.

The US military’s focus on the Pacific will only increase, but whether the A-10 has a role there remains to be seen.

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds a master’s in political science. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.

One of the enduring mysteries of the internet is how and why certain motifs catch on and go viral. I suppose if anyone could answer that question they could predict and replicate the phenomenon and quickly become masters of the world.

For instance, many people pretend to know exactly how Donald Trump captured the imagination of the American people and rose to prominence sufficient to (barely) win the office of the presidency. They are all wrong, of course. Were it otherwise they (or someone like them) would replicate it. Many have tried.

But it’s still true: a failed blowhard, a racist, an inept and incoherent fool, used the internet and social media to become president of the United States. We have lots of racist, inept and incoherent fools among us, but none are serious contenders for the presidency in 2024. None have gone viral the way Trump went viral. It could happen, but no one really knows the formula.

But the game Trump played with the truth, which was nothing new by the way, is available to everyone, including Vladimir Putin. And Putin is using it to some effect among the simpler folk in Russia. He began his horrific war with Ukraine by vilifying Ukrainians as “Nazis” whom he could easily destroy and claiming he could do it in “two days.” When those two days came and went and he still found himself not only still embroiled in the conflict but actually losing it, he had to change the narrative.

And change the narrative he did. The actual truth, of course, is that he screwed up. He underestimated the Ukrainians, a near fatal mistake that has cost him significant losses in men and materiel. He isn’t the first to make that mistake. Napoleon underestimated the British at his very first encounter with them — Waterloo — and it was an unqualified disaster for him on that account.

Putin’s new narrative is that he’s now fighting NATO troops. That lie is so brazen and obvious that many Russians believe him. He claims that the reason he didn’t defeat the Ukrainians in the first two days wasn’t because he was wrong about them. That would be admitting that his analysis was flawed. No, the reason he’s losing is because American and European troops have joined the fight, and they brought with them state-of-the-art firepower.

It’s almost as if Putin asked himself “What would Donald do?” When Donald loses it has nothing to do with him. It’s the corrupt system that cheated him out of the election through “fraud” and by “rigging the system.” Trump couldn’t have lost the election because he’s “perfect.” By the same flawed logic, Putin can’t be losing the war because he’s perfect.

It’s a game humans let dictators get away with because they’re either stupid or too frightened to dare to contradict them. It’s part of the toolset of the fascist, the despot, the autocrat, the oppressor. Those tools are known and have been used to one degree or another since humans first began to terrorise other humans. The great harm Trump did to the world was to remind us that those tools are still available and they still work.

But it’s also evidence of the depths of Putin’s own delusion. The only way he will ever back off is if he does so in a way that convinces him and his people that he somehow won. We don’t have to do that for Trump, but the world community may have to do that for Putin. This costly and toxic war isn’t just damaging to the world community, it could be deadly dangerous.

It goes without saying that Putin’s war is costing the earth’s precarious climate incalculable damage. There’s also the clear and present danger that Putin could escalate the war to the use of nukes. Putin needs to be stopped with whatever means possible, including tangible concessions and sops to his ego that might be difficult for the international community to stomach.

But the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Besides, we can always take them back after he dies or is deposed. But one way or another Putin needs to be stopped. And, as ever, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, stay safe.

The post The depths of their delusion appeared first on Palmer Report.

“We suffer every year,” a fellow customer complained, as we both stared glumly at the strange Hanukkah display before us. It looked like a blue-and-white Christmas: a forest of glistening trees, snow globes, wreathes, candles and gnomes galore.

While everything in this fantasyland was designed to appeal to Hanukkah shoppers, there was not a single, genuine Hanukkah item in sight.

My kids and I were shopping at the local New York branch of a national retailer, our first stop on a family mission to find Hanukkah decorations for our home. At a time of rising antisemitism, I especially wanted to find a way, however modest, to show my sons that we are proud to be both Jewish and American. For my family, publicly displaying hanukkiyot (the traditional nine-branched candelabras) in our windows, decorating our home for Hanukkah and wearing Hanukkah-themed apparel (which I design) are an integral part of being openly Jewish in America.

We visited over a dozen brand-name stores to check out their Hanukkah displays. I appreciate that a number of these stores were willing to give Hanukkah a prominent display at the end of an aisle — or even half of an aisle. But the selections were pretty narrow. And this year in particular, too many were Hanukkah products in name only — i.e., rebranded Christmas items.

“Hanukkah stocking hangers” are not for Hanukkah; we do not place stockings on a mantle waiting for Judah Maccabee to come down the chimney.

“Hanukkah gnomes” are cute though sometimes creepy; either way, they are not for Hanukkah. Even when the gnomes are holding dreidels, hanukkiyot, or Jewish stars, they are still not suitable for Hanukkah. 

Advent calendars are not for Hanukkah. There is no Advent season or official Hanukkah countdown.

Hanukkah wreaths and ornaments are not for Hanukkah. And, most important, Christmas trees — even if they are blue and have a sparkly Jewish star atop them — are not for Hanukkah.

When I spoke with Leigh Eric Schmidt, author of Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays, he told me, “I don’t think there is anything inherently Christian about trees, gnomes and wreaths. But American Christians have often tried to Christianize popular holiday symbols and goods.” Although these items might have not been originally intended as for Christmas, they have since been designated as such, which is why Hanukkah-ized versions of these items seem so inappropriate. Schmidt also shared that the market is “relatively indiscriminate when it comes to holiday goods” — in other words, stores just want to sell things. 

Some stores, for example, fill their Hanukkah displays with blue-and-white anything. These items, ranging from tall velvet chairs, to ceramic plates, to blue-and-white gift bags, are usually repurposed from another section of the store, and have no connection whatsoever to the holiday of lights. These Hanukkah color-fillers could be considered harmless, and perhaps even extra decorative. However, when faced with low and inauthentic Hanukkah inventory to begin with, they’re the tree-topper on the tree.

It should come as no surprise that there are Facebook groups in which members share photos of their absurd Hanukkah finds. Someone recently posted a picture of a Hanukkah display at a Texas store filled with blue-and-white Santa Claus figurines. Another shared photos of blue-and-white “Hanukkah Hand-Crafted Peppermint Candy Canes in an Indiana store.”

One friend sent me a photo from a Colorado branch of a national chain which featured yahrzeit candles on its Hanukkah display. In my neighborhood, the kosher-for-Passover foods included in this same chain’s Hanukkah display were similarly out of place and distasteful. Retailers tend to indiscriminately throw together all Jewish products, with little regard for what is actually appropriate for Hanukkah, or any other holiday, for that matter.

Although most brands are more committed these days to trying to demonstrate inclusivity, Hanukkah displays are increasingly missing the mark. 

To be fair I’ve seen a few menorahs which are kosher in terms of candle count and candle placement. And there are plenty of Hanukkah paper goods, gelt, cookies and cuddly plush latkes (a new find this year!) that are totally acceptable. Even the “Happy Llammakah” ugly sweaters are growing on me. But most of the merchandise I’m seeing marketed towards Jewish shoppers doesn’t cut it — including the Hanukkah candles and tea towels I’ve found imprinted with the adapted Christmas phrase “Oy to the World.”

Are American Jews actually buying this stuff? The verdict is still out on this.

Should it be out there in the first place? In my rabbinic opinion: No.

I have been beyond disappointed with the selection offered by American retailers that continues to, for the most part, consistently not match with the ritual items and decor most Jewish families use to celebrate the holiday.

Hanukkah is not a Jewish Christmas. The Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, teaches that it is a mitzvah to publicize this miracle. Which makes it all the more important for Hanukkah merchandise to be authentic, or at least, inoffensive.

In the early 20th century, brands helped Hanukkah to reinvent itself in America by encouraging American Jews to buy foods, gifts and toys for their holiday celebrations. One hundred years later, there is no need for a “Christmas-ization” of Hanukkah. It is a well-established holiday on the American winter calendar.

Perhaps for next year — or even this week — we can keep the Christmas trees, wreaths, stocking hangers and gnomes in their proper aisles.

To contact the author, email editorial@forward.com. 

The post Please stop rebranding Christmas items for Hanukkah appeared first on The Forward.

Disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried faces a litany of charges tied to the collapse of his cryptocurrency exchange. But along with being an outsized figure in crypto, Bankman-Fried (nicknamed SBF) is also one of the largest political donors in American politics, and has been accused of violating campaign finance laws as part of a scheme to illegally funnel millions of dollars to candidates and political action groups ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

The indictment claims that Bankman-Fried falsely reported political contributions that were actually being sourced from Alameda Research, an investment firm that he controlled, using customer money. Federal prosecutors said he also made corporate contributions to candidates and political action committees in New York that were reported in the name of another person.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“These contributions were disguised to look like they were coming from wealthy co-conspirators, when in fact the contributions were funded by Alameda Research with stolen customer money,” said Damian Williams, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, at a press conference on Tuesday. “All of this dirty money was used in service of Bankman-Fried’s desire to buy bipartisan influence and impact the direction of public policy in Washington.”

The campaign finance allegations come a day after Bankman-Fried was arrested on criminal charges in the Bahamas.

Here’s what we know about Bankman-Fried’s political contributions.

SBF was a huge political donor according to public records

Bankman-Fried contributed more than $70 million to election campaigns in less than 18 months, placing him among the nation’s top political donors. He personally gave at least $40 million to politicians and political action committees ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, mostly to Democrats and liberal-leaning groups, making him the second overall top donor to Democrats, only behind George Soros, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bankman-Fried also donated a significant amount to fundraising committees and super PACs affiliated with both parties. The biggest single recipient was Protect Our Future, a Democratic-aligned super PAC that claims it was “designed to help elect candidates who will be champions for pandemic prevention.” The group received $27 million from Bankman-Fried, and supports effective altruism, a philanthropic movement premised on the use of reason and data to allocate money, which Bankman-Fried also supports. Beneficiaries of Protect Our Future include Carrick Flynn, who lost a Democratic primary in Oregon’s 6th District, George Rep. Lucy McBath and Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett.

Bankman-Fried also gave a combined $7 million to the two main super PACs supporting Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2022 elections.

In addition, he personally contributed the individual maximum of $5,800 to more than a dozen members of Congress including Senators Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, and Sen. John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, who lead the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has a role in regulating cryptocurrency. Stabenow and Boozman introduced a bill together this year that was intended to give FTX a path toward regulatory compliance in the U.S.

Other lawmakers that received maximum donations from Bankman-Fried include Democratic Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Cory Booker of New Jersey; and Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

In total, federal election filings show that Stabenow and Hassan were the candidates to receive the most money directly from Bankman-Fried this year, at over $20,000 each.

SBF claims he gave tens of millions in untraceable donations to Republicans

Although federal election receipts show that Bankman-Fried donated almost exclusively to Democrats, he claimed on a November phone call with YouTuber Tiffany Fong that he donated an equal amount to Republicans and Democrats.

“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”

Given that he donated nearly $40 million to Democrats in the 2022 election cycle—and he admitted to giving an equal amount to Republicans—his total political contributions may have actually been around $80 million.

Stuart McPhail, senior litigation counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that filed an FEC complaint against Bankman-Fried last week, says his claims and the campaign finance charges could spur changes to election laws.

“There are a number of loopholes and limits that Sam Bankman-Fried was able to exploit that Congress can fix,” he tells TIME. “He directed money to influence elections but hid where that money came from.”

SBF was a major Biden donor

The former crypto king made one of the largest donations to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in 2020, contributing $5.2 million, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The White House on Tuesday refused to answer questions about whether the President would return those political donations in light of the federal charges, claiming the Hatch Act prevented the executive branch from commenting on political campaign activities.

Crypto spends more on political donations than nearly any other industry

Just a few years ago, cryptocurrency was a relatively obscure topic in Washington. But with FTX’s large contributions and Bankman-Fried’s steady lobbying efforts, people and groups tied to crypto firms were among the biggest donors in politics during the most recent election cycle. Campaign donations from the crypto world exceeded those of the defense and auto industries combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Political donations from FTX or its top executives accounted for most of the industry’s political spending.

Read more: Crypto Goes to Washington

Many lawmakers are returning SBF-linked donations

A number of lawmakers from both parties are facing growing pressure to give up their campaign contributions from Bankman-Fried and other FTX executives in light of allegations that he stole customer funds.

The campaign of Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic candidate for Texas governor this year, said it returned a $1 million SBF donation four days before Election Day, according to The Texas Tribune. Other lawmakers donated the money to charity, including Reps. Chuy Garcia, Democrat of Illinois, and Kevin Hern, Republican of Oklahoma.

A litany of other lawmakers, including Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, have previously said they would give the donations they got from Bankman-Fried to charity.

However, the indictment does not list which of Bankman-Fried’s donations were allegedly made illegally. It also does not list the names of additional co-conspirators who may have been used to funnel the money.