You're right. It's not even a quid pro quo if a contract stating the scope and purpose of the "donations" isn't attached. /s People here are just jumping on the bandwagon and assuming some very unkind things about the politicians and the executives alike; and that's just not fair.

The argument for classifying this as bribery (or some other form of inappropriate transfer of money to an elected official) is the same as the argument for the existence of the law that they are circumventing.

IE, there is a 5k limit for corporate donations. No problem, lets have $50k of private donations directed by a corporation. He laid it out pretty plainly. We need to get this guy 5k, but that's illegal so lets do it this sneaky way.

It may be illegal (probably not, but maybe). If it isn't illegal it should be. It's a practice that renders the practice ineffective.

Imagine you are a in corporate sales. IBM buyers are allowed to accept up to $500 worth goodies from any one salesman, but no more. So, you get all your buddies to chip in. If their manager found out, they would assume that this buyers is compromised, unethical and should be fired and investigated for possible prosecution. The policy needs to be updated, but there is an obvious workaround at play here.

Honestly, I don't even see how this is controversial. How can people see massive political donations (which are crucial to getting elected) in such circumstances as anything but a circumvention of democracy. This is not just, I really am shocked.

How is it not? This seems to be the normal state of affairs in US elections, but that doesn't change a thing.

Are you suggesting they didn't expect anything in return for their money?