The problem becomes that these things aren't cleanly separable and policy support is basically fungible; the anti-coffee-import-tax politician might oppose forcing almond growers in California to reduce water usage, or the pro crypto politician might be for federal anti-abortion measures. You can't earmark the money for some kinds of votes but not others; funding a politician's re-election gets you everything they vote for or nothing at all.
So it becomes not so much "no politics" as "the corporation's politics ahead of any other"; exacerbating drought conditions in California is "political" and not worth discussing even as the politician responsible for it is funded in order to obtain import-tax-free coffee, or banning abortion is considered an acceptable price to pay (and don't you dare bring up this consequence at work, for that would be "political") for pro-crypto policies.
I don't even necessarily object to companies saying "I accept that X happening is the cost of obtaining corporate goal Y", it's just ludicrously dishonest to pretend that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".