I'm confused why it matters if Vance is funded/pushed by some random retard if he's doing 90% of what the people would hypothetically vote for him would want him to do.
It reads to me like you would rather sink a good candidate for the sake of avoiding big donors, when any candidate of any value would have those donors, or be rich themselves. Its like people who would rather Kamala win than Trump do anything at all in Israel's favor. Like Kamala would be more in your favor than Trump, or any less pro Israel.
Perfect candidates don't exist, get over yourselves
Every single US politician in congress has been lobbied, and it's protected via the first amendment. How greatly that impacts the individual politician is ultimately up to the politician, but the unfortunate thing is US politicians are in a prisoner's dilemma of sorts, where if they refuse to act on behalf of their donors then their money can potentially go to the opposing side who might act where they wouldn't, and with a few notable exceptions, those who spend more tend to win more, especially when it comes to smaller-scale elections.
Theil's donations/connections to Vance could be reminiscent of Elon's donations/connections to Trump. It might just be a relative nothing burger in the end, where Theil's investment in JD could simply be to back what he perceives to be a winning horse. Another theory is that it could pay dividends in other ways that aren't overtly political. For example: did you know when Trump won in 2024, Tesla's stock value rose by 29% within a day of the results being announced? Musk was also going to get a (voted on, still blocked by a random judge) bonus of $55 billion dollars that same year. The total amount he invested in Trump's campaign? $288 million (apparently, maybe more if you count the indirect positives of the Twitter purchase), which isn't peanuts to anyone like us but it's damn near negligible compared to how much Elon can pull out his ass at any given moment if he sold some Tesla stock. If backing Vance ultimately makes Theil richer just through association, and Vance's campaign gets hundreds of millions as a consequence, then there's no drawback for either of them honestly.
We could apply the same logic to Thomas Massie. He's a contentious figure, but lauded by some on the Right since he opposed giving financial aid to Israel and Libertarians like him because
they're retarded a fan of his "no pork" rhetoric. His biggest donors however are mostly composed of equity firms who pretty much need everything to remain stable and effectively
as is to guarantee the stable growth they rely on for their LPs. Equity firms usually assure their LPs a return within a certain period, and one of the most reliable ways of doing this is buying up property, waiting for its value to rise, and then selling. What raises up property prices to guarantee a return? Growing population. How do you grow it in a period when birth rates are lowering? Immigration, legal or otherwise. Ergo you could conclude Massie is covertly pushing for legal immigration and hindering attempts to stop illegal immigration on behalf of the equity firms who make up the plurality of his lobbying support. Or he might not be, and is just the way he is absent of any lobbyist influence and just his individual politics.
The individual politician is often ignored when it comes to who their donor is. From our perspective a politician kissing the Jew-wall and saying, "I love Israel" is cucked and embarrassing, but the return from their perspective is millions from AIPAC for essentially lip-service (give nothing) and maintain a status-quo foreign policy (do nothing different). For a congressman who receives AIPAC money, they essentially have no responsibility to do anything when receiving it, except maybe voting yes on some aid package. Things have changed in recent times obviously, and we'll need to see how potential bipartisan resentment towards Israel might affect things in the future, but the cost-benefit of acting on behalf of the lobby and what is effectively free money for the party/campaign are factors.
If I were to be extra scrupulous and assume a universal servitude to lobbyists, then every single politician nearing retirement age (5-10 years away) should immediately be ousted. A lot of boomers hold personal interest alongside incentive to maintain the security and growth of their pensions, which are are mostly tied to equity firms, who also lobby in their own interests. Factor in how these firms make their cash (real estate; investment in large, "safe" companies; buying devalued companies to regain their value for sale) then it makes sense why Boomercons are so caustic in responding to attempts to change the status quo, since the way they see it, it's their money on the line if things go tits up and it negatively affects their retirement.
TLDR: It either doesn't matter at all, or it matters a lot – case-by-case basis for most politicians.
