The editorial argues that previous political megadonors (Adelson, Steyer, Kochs) came from industries with obvious regulatory exposure, making their spending rational and predictable. Tech money was historically a rounding error, but a 36-month shift has made tech fortunes a top-three donor bucket — a structural change in who funds American politics, not just a bigger version of the old pattern.
The editorial highlights that roughly 100 individuals have given $1.2B — outspending the combined small-donor base (~$900M under-$200 contributions) of both national parties. At $1.2B this cycle versus $700M in 2022 and under $400M in 2018 at the same point, the concentration of political influence in a handful of hands is accelerating, not stabilizing.
By submitting the NYT investigation to Hacker News and drawing 74 points and 57 comments, the submitter surfaced the story's core finding — that a hundred people are outspending two parties' grassroots combined — as the signal worth community attention.
The editorial calls out that Fairshake and affiliated crypto PACs have raised north of $160M almost entirely from Coinbase, Ripple, and a small set of founder checks. Unlike the diffuse tech donor class, crypto has consolidated its spending into dedicated single-issue vehicles, representing a different and more targeted model of industry political influence.
The editorial names Musk, Andreessen, Horowitz, Thiel, Koum, Luckey, and the Winklevoss twins among the top 25 donors on the right, while Hoffman, Moskovitz, and a smaller software-era contingent anchor the Democratic column at roughly half the dollar volume. This asymmetry suggests tech's political alignment has shifted meaningfully rightward in the current cycle, not that the industry is simply politically engaged on both sides equally.
The New York Times mapped every disclosed megadonor contribution to federal super PACs and party committees in the 2026 cycle and came up with a number that stops you cold: $1.2 billion from roughly 100 individuals. That's more money, from fewer people, earlier in the cycle, than any midterm on record. The 2022 analog at the same point was closer to $700M. The 2018 cycle, back when "dark money" was still a shocking phrase, was under $400M.
The composition is what matters: tech fortunes now sit alongside hedge funds and fossil fuels as a top-three bucket, and in several individual rankings, above them. Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Peter Thiel, Jan Koum, Palmer Luckey, and the Winklevoss twins all appear in the top 25. On the other side, Reid Hoffman, Dustin Moskovitz, and a smaller contingent of software-era donors anchor the Democratic column, though at roughly half the dollar volume. Crypto PACs — Fairshake and its affiliates — have raised north of $160M on their own, almost entirely from Coinbase, Ripple, and a handful of founder checks.
Total small-donor giving (contributions under $200) across both parties is tracking at around $900M for the cycle so far. Do the arithmetic: one hundred people are outspending the combined grassroots of two national parties, and the gap is widening every quarter.
There's a tempting shrug here — billionaires give money to politicians, water is wet, move on. The shrug misses what's actually different this cycle. In previous eras, political megadonors were a specialized class: Sheldon Adelson ran casinos, Tom Steyer ran a hedge fund, the Kochs ran refineries. Their businesses had obvious regulatory exposure (gaming, tax policy, EPA rules) and their checks tracked that exposure. Tech money was a rounding error because tech didn't yet have the kind of regulatory surface area that made political spending rational.
That changed in roughly 36 months. Three fights — AI model regulation, crypto market structure, and platform liability — have turned software companies into regulated industries, and the political giving has adjusted on schedule. Andreessen Horowitz's political arm has gone from near-zero in 2020 to a top-five donor organization. Fairshake exists because the SEC spent four years treating crypto like securities fraud and the industry decided it was cheaper to buy a Congress than win in court. Musk's spending — reportedly over $200M in-cycle — correlates almost exactly with the federal contracting footprint of SpaceX and the autonomy regulations facing Tesla.
The second thing worth noticing is who's missing. The old guard of enterprise software — Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce leadership — barely shows up on the personal-giving ledger. Those companies have mature lobbying operations and prefer the corporate PAC route, which caps individual exposure and keeps CEOs off the Times' donor graphic. The founders writing nine-figure personal checks are, almost without exception, people whose companies either don't have mature government affairs shops or whose business models depend on regulatory outcomes that corporate PAC money can't buy fast enough. That's a tell. It says the issues at stake — export controls on compute, 230 reform, SAB 121, state-level AI liability — are moving faster than the normal lobbying apparatus can handle.
The third thing: this is happening against a backdrop of collapsing small-donor enthusiasm on both sides. ActBlue is down roughly 20% year-over-year at this point in the cycle. WinRed is flat. The grassroots engine that both parties built in the 2010s is sputtering, and the vacuum is being filled by people who can wire $50M without checking their account balance. The structural shift isn't just that billionaires are spending more; it's that they're a larger share of a shrinking pie, which makes them disproportionately decisive.
Community reaction on the HN thread is predictably bimodal. One camp reads this as the natural end state of Citizens United and wants structural reform (public financing, contribution caps that would survive a First Amendment challenge, which is a tall order). The other camp reads it as market-rational behavior — if the government is going to regulate your industry into oblivion, buying influence is just capex. Both reads are correct and neither is comforting. The reform camp has no vehicle; the market-rational camp is describing a feedback loop where regulatory ambiguity creates demand for political spending, which creates regulatory capture, which creates more ambiguity for the next industry down the pipe.
If you build infrastructure, train models, or ship anything that touches payments, this is now part of your operating environment and worth being literate about. A few concrete implications.
First, AI regulation is going to be messier, not cleaner, after this cycle. The donor map suggests both parties have accepted serious money from frontier labs and from the open-source / small-model coalition that opposes them. Expect federal preemption fights, state-level patchwork (California SB 53's successor, Texas's data-center bill, New York's algorithmic accountability push), and no coherent national framework before 2028. If you're planning compliance work, build for the patchwork, not the hypothetical federal rule.
Second, crypto's regulatory thaw is real and donor-driven, not merit-driven. The CLARITY Act and the stablecoin bill passed because Fairshake made it electorally expensive to oppose them, not because the underlying arguments got better. The practical consequence: on-chain integrations that were legally radioactive 18 months ago are now shippable, and the SEC's enforcement posture has shifted from "regulation by litigation" to something closer to active guidance. If you shelved a crypto feature in 2023, the political cover now exists to revisit it. The counter-risk is that the next administration — of either party — could reverse this quickly if the donor equilibrium shifts.
Third, platform liability (Section 230, age-verification laws, algorithmic transparency) is the sleeper issue. There's less megadonor money on this file than on AI or crypto, which paradoxically means it's more likely to produce bad law. The donor class isn't paying attention, which means the legislative process is being driven by state AGs and attention-economy politicians, and the resulting rules will be weird, inconsistent, and expensive to comply with. If you run user-generated content, over-invest in logging and takedown infrastructure now.
The awkward truth embedded in this reporting is that the technology industry is no longer an outsider in American politics. It is the establishment, or at least a controlling share of it, and the regulatory landscape of the next decade will be shaped by what roughly one hundred people decide is worth their money. That's a fact worth being clear-eyed about regardless of how you feel about any individual donor. The code you write runs in a legal environment, and the legal environment is now a product of your industry's own political spending. The question isn't whether to care — it's whether you'd rather be informed about it or surprised by it.
Top 10 dev stories every morning at 8am UTC. AI-curated. Retro terminal HTML email.