I really, really hate that our future has ended up in the hands of people like him, Andreessen, Thiel, Musk, etc.
Now I can refer to this list to let me know who, and what, to vote against...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_Khanna
Based on this warning from Garry to Ro re: wealth tax
https://finviz.com/news/277038/y-combinators-garry-tan-warns...
So this appears to be all about the wealth tax and taken down anyone who supports it.
AIPAC is also mad at Ro so it seems that Garry Tan can find common cause with them:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GRXZqcQiU/?mibextid=wwXIfr
The will to fight for what one believes in - I think we can all agree that is an admirable human trait that would result, for those who do follow his views, in him being labeled as a hero and defender of people's rights.
Bravo, Garry.
Campaign financing, U.S. style, is just legalized bribing. In any healthy democracy it would be illegal. In the U.S. is just the way things are.
I do think that if this current system is the result of democracy + the internet we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s currently failing everyone but the ultra wealthy.
> But the operation is also a media venture: Garry’s List started with a blog pillorying public-sector unions as “special interests,” attacking the ongoing teachers’ strike, and denouncing the proposed billionaire tax.
- Public sector unions are special interests. This is a plain fact.
- The current teacher's strike in San Francisco, even if it succeeds, will only push the district into insolvency, prompting a state takeover. The state will then cut much more aggressively. Maybe this would be a good thing though, although probably not what the union intended. Advocates of the strike are literally demanding the district spend its reserves on a couple years of raises.
- I'm certainly no billionaire, but the proposed tax will do nothing more than push the extremely small and mobile group of billionaires to take their business elsewhere. It's unlikely to raise tax revenues over the long run.
That tells you all you need to know about how trustworthy the site is.
You had your chance, it is gone now.
I used to hold a lot of respect for Paul Graham and his essays, but I've realized his stances on things are pretty elementary, and largely come back to his ego or wealth management. People like Graham and Tan don't seem to really care about human flourishing, and they certainly don't seem to have any coherent vision of the future. Graham, like Andreessen, was technically good enough during a veritable tech gold rush, and Graham's lieutenants like Tan and Altman were lucky more than anything--just in the right place at the right time versus having started anything of value.
I am *absolutely* cynical and jaded when it comes to tech nowadays, so no need to call me out there. These people remind me of the high modernists, that tech will solve all problems, and we don't have to care too much as to how we solve those problems. Just handwave, and AI will solve all problems. But I think how we solve problems matters, and the entrepreneurship meritocracy that Tan and Graham allude to does not exist, and it never did.
I just find it abhorrent that while 15% of American households are food insecure, a company like Anthropic spent millions on a superbowl ad just lamenting OpenAI's ad strategy. Or that the Trump administration dropped a FTC case against Pepsi and Walmart for colluding to price out grocery competition. Or that Facebook and Google have been shown to have pushed for apps to addict people to their slop content. Or that tech capex this year alone rivals the Louisiana Purchase or the amount America spent on building out the railroads[1].
We're not solving the right problems because capital is entirely disconnected from the every day reality of Americans in this country. But by all means, let's aim to replace 50% of white collar workers with AI and handwave that prices will come down.
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-spending-tech-companies-compa...
jesus christ. assuming he's not going to start syndicating this, who is this even pandering to?
Money will go into politics. Nobody can stop this, and it should be out in the open and traceable.
Obviously, no bribe at all is the best, but is this happening anywhere?
“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects”. -- Louis Brandeis
All they can talk about is how they’re all going to leave the state if it happens, but then are more than willing to try to spend more stopping it than they would just contributing their fair share in taxes.
Don’t like it? Great, leave - but stop trying to buy elections.
I mean, I kinda agree with him about most of the centrist stuff. But really, Gary? This is what you need to be spending your money and time on?
It just wasn't for the wellbeing of the rest of Italy what he did
Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electorate where most people can't even name their US House rep, much less their representatives in state and local politics.
I do so by taking Jeff Bezos' money and giving him a penny. Also by not supporting restaurants that have a Wall-street ticker nor any alcohol producers that have a Wall-street ticker.
The only question is whether your city has the courage to use it.
Take Action
Share this with your city officials—demand they adopt Flock Safety
Unless I missed it they don't even bother with the pretense of disclosing his financial self-interest in promoting Flock anywhere on the site.This is often claimed but has yet to be shown to actually be true. Billionaires want to live in the nicest places with the best amenities just like everyone else.
But let's pretend for the moment that it is true. Good. Billionaires are not a net positive influence anywhere.
Rich people can spend money to influence elections, yes, but how can they do it? through political donations, super-pacs and bribes. Bribes are already illegal. political donations and super-pacs can give politicians the juice they need to get their messaging out, but getting the message across isn't enough to win an election. The people need to vote. Billionaires can spend as much money as they want to support candidates, but a billionaire still only has one vote to cast.
My point is, billionaires can pay for all the political campaigns in the world, but the electorate gets the final say. It's up to us to A) run for office and B) vote for the best candidate (but tell that to the 64% turnout in the 2024 presidential election)
Republicans have bought/installed the SCOTUS which allowed for favorable decision in Citizens United v FEC.
This corporation dominated landscape is quite awful. Corporations have more rights than woman right now.
I would love to see that discussed
For example: https://nypost.com/2026/02/01/us-news/stunning-number-of-cal...
https://finviz.com/news/277038/y-combinators-garry-tan-warns...
The ultra-rich are taking too great a share of every nations wealth. And they keep taking more.
Taxes are the only option to redistribute wealth.
Or are you talking about enabling strong unions and anti-monopoly laws with teeth to reverse the growth?
As I doubt Garry's in favour of that either.
Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.
It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.
Wealth inequality, billionaires trying to skew politics… kind of a problem that needs collective action.
Or maybe a statement of just how much the US population is uninformed/misinformed.
If the later is true, the US 'electorate' really is dumb as dirt...
Money doesn't just buy ads. It influences the decision of who is a candidate in the first place. It buys operational range. It pays salaries for the right friend of X, the right family member of Y, etc. It buys other bribes, etc.
Graybeard here: took me a while to get it, but, usually these are chances to elucidate what is obvious to you :)* ex. I don't really know what you mean. What does the California state government look like if rich techies had even more influence? I can construct a facile version (lower taxes**) but assuredly you mean more than that to be taken so aback.
* Good Atlas Shrugged quote on this: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check [ED: or share, if you've moseyed yourself into a discussion] your premises."
** It's not 100% clear politicians steered by California techies would lower taxes ad infinitum.
My freedom to tell Tan (or you) that he's being an idiot stems from the same place as his freedom to spend his own money on what he wants.
Garry Tan, the local venture capitalist who has for years railed against progressive politicians on social media and served as the intersection between tech and center-right politics in the city, is formalizing his influence operation.
Tan, the CEO of the vaunted startup incubator Y Combinator, announced Wednesday he had spun up a dark-money group called “Garry’s List” that he described as a “voter education group” that is “dedicated to civic engagement, voter education and support for common-sense policies and candidates” in a press release. Such groups give donors a way to anonymously support causes without giving directly to a candidate or a measure.
“I want to work to ensure Californians know the importance of investment and entrepreneurship to our state’s current and future economy,” Tan wrote.
As a 501(c)4 nonprofit, Garry’s List will be able to spend money directly on candidates and ballot measures. It could also print voter guides, host in-person events, take out ads, and run programs training the next generation of elected officials. Tan said he plans to do all of the above.
But the operation is also a media venture: Garry’s List started with a blog pillorying public-sector unions as “special interests,” attacking the ongoing teachers’ strike, and denouncing the proposed billionaire tax. Tan has for years called on tech executives to create “parallel” media and “replace the unelected parts of the system,” like unions and nonprofits. “We need our own machine,” he said in 2023.
Tan has long been a voice espousing tough-on-crime, law-and-order politics in San Francisco. He has spent nearly half a million dollars in local races since 2015, and is known locally for his brashness: He once tweeted that seven of the city’s supervisors — all progressives — should “die slow, motherfuckers” in a late-night polemic. The tweet, which Tan said was a joke, prompted hateful mail and police reports.
He is now eyeing statewide change. Tan said he would “take the same education and engagement we used to turn around San Francisco” to all of California, and told the San Francisco Standard he pined for the “energy that I felt when we were first working on the recall of Chesa Boudin and the school board” in 2022.

The Jan. 27, 2024, post on X from Garry Tan that he said was a joking reference to Tupac lyrics.
Sam Singer, the “master of disaster” publicist who is working with Tan, did not disclose amounts or the source of funds for Garry’s List but said it had received donations from more individuals than just Tan. “There’s been a large amount of support from, as Garry calls them, ‘radical centrists’ to have an organization like this that is neither Democrat nor Republican, but is a pragmatic, centrist, and common-sense place,” said Singer.
Singer said “all 58 counties” in California are “on Garry’s map” and that the group would operate “from the Mexican border to the Oregon border.”
Garry’s List is the latest entry in a well-funded network of political donors that has helped push spending for local elections into the stratosphere.
Similar operations have seen mixed success. TogetherSF, a similar nonprofit backed by venture capitalist Michael Moritz, crashed and burned after the 2024 elections when its $9.5 million ballot measure to reform the city charter lost to a progressive counter-measure backed by about $117,000. Moritz subsequently pulled support.
Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, once the top-spending group in city politics, is still a major player and took in $1 million last year. GrowSF, another operation that once counted Tan as a board member, recently announced it would spend $2 million in the 2026 election cycle.
Tan launched his group with two co-founders — one a seasoned lobbyist, the other a rough-and-tumble local type.
Shaudi Fulp is a Sacramento lobbyist leading operations at Grow California, a separate political action committee meant to fight the proposed billionaire tax, among other issues, that is wholly funded to the tune of $10 million by crypto executives Chris Larsen and Tim Draper.
Forrest Liu is a 30-something regular on local political campaigns who got his start in politics as an intern for former Mayor Ed Lee. In the years since, Liu acquired a reputation as an organizer focused on protecting Asian seniors from street harassment, and a reputation as a bully, for, among other things, challenging District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan to a fistfight. Liu has been hit with at least two police reports for harassment, which led some to think that his political career was on the wane. “I think Forrest is a type who’s going to burn out really quickly in politics,” said political consultant David Ho, in a 2024 profile.
Garry’s List is structured as a 501(c)4 nonprofit, a tax designation that lets the group bankroll campaigns while affording donors a measure of secrecy they would not enjoy if giving directly. They are traditionally known as “dark-money” groups because they can spend on elections without revealing all their donors.
The 501(c)4 rules are complicated but generally require that these groups spend less than half their funds on elections. While they can give to candidates directly, they are more commonly used to fund “independent expenditure” committees, which can spend unlimited funds on campaigns so long as they are not found to have communicated with those campaigns directly.
The rest of a 501(c)4’s funding must go towards “social welfare” activities, which can include the “voter education” guides and events Tan has promised. Because these often raise the public profile of a group, the portion of a 501(c)4’s spending that is “charitable” is often more significant in laying the groundwork for long-term political power than donations made during a single election.
Tan says that’s the plan. He told the Standard he aims to stand up “political infrastructure for the next 20 years.”
https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
This is not a normal state of affairs.
From 2024: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659
Consistent results indicate that, yes, money tends to matter, but it's the source of that money that tends to be doing the heavy lifting.
The underlying effects of where the money comes from seems to matter a lot more that that the money exists. If a campaign does not have money, they likely that that campaign does not have supporters. However the opposite is not true. If a campaign has money, it is still not certain whether or not that campaign has any supporters, because that money could all be coming from narrow interest groups.
If something can't go on forever, it will eventually stop. That applies to any system that gives stupid people the same political voice as the rest of the electorate. I mean, it seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?
s/relations/elections/ -- because Elon et. al don't just intervene in the elections of the country they live in, but actually any country he's interested in -- and uses the U.S. as a bludgeon in that effort, see U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-South Africa relations
I'm talking about the actual issue being discussed! Garry Tan isn't launching a group to influence Wyoming politics.
Around the same time Citizens United was decided, we also got McCutcheon v. FEC, which invalidated campaign contribution limits basically completely. If we take the logic of Citizens United at its word - that money is speech - then letting someone drop billions of dollars to change an election is like firing a sonic weapon at a bunch of protesters to silence them. So, right off the bat, we have a situation where protecting the "speech" of the rich and powerful directly imperils the speech of everyone else.
But it gets worse. Because we got rid of campaign financing limitations, there has been an arms race with campaign funding that has made all speech completely, 100% pay-to-play. We have libre speech, but not gratis speech.
This isn't even a problem limited to merely political speech. Every large forum by which speech occurs expects you to buy advertising on their own platform now before you are heard. If you, say, sell a book on Amazon or post a video on TikTok, you're expected to buy ads for it on Amazon or TikTok. You are otherwise shut out of the system because discovery algorithms want you keep you in your own bubble and you're competing with lots and lots of spam.
The biggest example of this in the US is the health system that is more expensive and has worse outcomes than other countries. There is a huge and growing gap in the us between ultra wealthy and the rest of the population and it is a virtuous circle for the ultra wealthy with their ability to spend unlimited in politics.
That's why I'm a socialist and I would invite anyone who thinks things might not be going in the right direction to consider that as well.
(it's not the working class)
You think you are reducing the influence of the rich, but you are actually just raising the price of entry. A millionaire can donate to a PAC and buy TV ads, but a billionaire can buy or start a newspaper, TV station, or social media network. What are you going to do then, tell the newspapers what they are allowed to print?
If a nuclear capable country like France decides that someone like Elon Musk is acting against the best interests of their country they can ask him nicely to stop and if he continues they can use force to reduce the perceived threat.
This all seems completely in line with the day-to-day norms of contemporary society as well as historical norms.
I don't know if you don't find this absurd, but a bunch of pedophile protecting people have shaped the actual presidency and are continuing to do so. Feeling slightly annoyed is the least offensive way I could put it
Answer: because they're stupid.
The ones who weren't stupid were impossible to herd to the polls, or at least a lot more difficult. As a result they were outnumbered. Any system that removes the influences you cite will leave the same stupid voters in place, ready to fall for the next con man who comes along.
The problem isn't the money. The problem is the power. I'm tired of giving stupid people so much power over my life.
This is kind of exactly my point though. Citizen of what republic? Soros and Elon are both wealthier than most states and affect politics globally. They literally cannot be prosecuted, they are barely accountable to any legal bodies.
How many crimes do you think Putin has done? I mean Trump has 33 or 34 felonies on record, does it matter? What about Saudi princes?