> On the rationalist forum LessWrong, countless posts talk about the benefits of giving to political campaigns: to avoid taxes ...
This is incorrect, both as a description of my linked post and of how US taxes work. Campaign donations are not tax deductible, and don't allow avoiding paying capital gains taxes.
Thanks for the correction! This is an improvement, and I'm sorry for being a bit pedantic, but unfortunately it's still not fully correct. You have:
> On the rationalist forum LessWrong, countless posts talk about the benefits of political giving: the tax implications...
And:
> The post actually refers to giving stock to 501(c)s, including advocacy organisations such as 501(c)(4)s, being tax deductible
Donations to political 501(c)(4) organizations aren't tax deductible: there aren't tax benefits from political giving. At a low level, the individual is out the money and doesn't see any reduction in their taxes.
(I'm not really convinced these tax questions or my post are relevant to your article: you're talking about hard money donations, and my post is discussing advocacy organizations. There's still a general connection in the sense of "people in these communities are increasingly interested in and funding politics and policy" but it's not a very close one.)
I understand that the focus of this post is on hard money, but it's still surprising to see neither the scale of Leading the Future noted, nor the roles of Brockman and Lehane in setting it up / continuing to provide operating advice.
I think this sentence would be quite misleading to a reader without context, even though I agree it is technically correct as worded:
"OpenAI does not have a corporate PAC, but Anthropic announced the creation of its own, AnthroPAC, in April."
In contrast, Brockman and his wife have pledged $50,000,000 to Leading the Future - aka *10,000x more* from the president of the OpenAI than any individual Anthropic employee can give to the AnthroPAC.
$880K against the $25 million super PACs have spent on AI-related races. Hard money might be more efficient per dollar, but it has to be roughly 20x more efficient to break even on influence. Are there comparable races where that ratio held?
> On the rationalist forum LessWrong, countless posts talk about the benefits of giving to political campaigns: to avoid taxes ...
This is incorrect, both as a description of my linked post and of how US taxes work. Campaign donations are not tax deductible, and don't allow avoiding paying capital gains taxes.
Thank you for pointing that out! Apologies for the mistake. We corrected the text.
Thanks for the correction! This is an improvement, and I'm sorry for being a bit pedantic, but unfortunately it's still not fully correct. You have:
> On the rationalist forum LessWrong, countless posts talk about the benefits of political giving: the tax implications...
And:
> The post actually refers to giving stock to 501(c)s, including advocacy organisations such as 501(c)(4)s, being tax deductible
Donations to political 501(c)(4) organizations aren't tax deductible: there aren't tax benefits from political giving. At a low level, the individual is out the money and doesn't see any reduction in their taxes.
(I'm not really convinced these tax questions or my post are relevant to your article: you're talking about hard money donations, and my post is discussing advocacy organizations. There's still a general connection in the sense of "people in these communities are increasingly interested in and funding politics and policy" but it's not a very close one.)
We've clarified further!
Thanks! Looks good now!
I understand that the focus of this post is on hard money, but it's still surprising to see neither the scale of Leading the Future noted, nor the roles of Brockman and Lehane in setting it up / continuing to provide operating advice.
I think this sentence would be quite misleading to a reader without context, even though I agree it is technically correct as worded:
"OpenAI does not have a corporate PAC, but Anthropic announced the creation of its own, AnthroPAC, in April."
For instance, if prior reporting is correct (https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/03/anthropic-ramps-up-its-political-activities-with-a-new-pac/), AnthroPAC is being funded by voluntary contributions of staff, capped at $5K per employee - not by Anthropic-corporate money.
In contrast, Brockman and his wife have pledged $50,000,000 to Leading the Future - aka *10,000x more* from the president of the OpenAI than any individual Anthropic employee can give to the AnthroPAC.
$880K against the $25 million super PACs have spent on AI-related races. Hard money might be more efficient per dollar, but it has to be roughly 20x more efficient to break even on influence. Are there comparable races where that ratio held?