In fact three of the top five donors for Gore were also in the top five for Bush, and wealthy/corporate donors often give to both major party candidates.
This is a tangent, but how was it rational for Gore to look favourably on them for their donations?
The point is that they gave large amounts, and gave large amounts to both candidates for President. Logically, they were not giving out of a preference for either candidate to win, but because they expected to profit from it in the future. As altruists we need to avoid the assumption that others who donate to political candidates, as I am sure a number of people in this group do, do so as altruists and not for purely selfish reasons.
I know, but that doesn’t really answer my question—rationally, Gore should have been indifferent between (a) them giving the same amount to him and Bush and (b) nothing to either candidate.
This is a tangent, but how was it rational for Gore to look favourably on them for their donations?
The point is that they gave large amounts, and gave large amounts to both candidates for President. Logically, they were not giving out of a preference for either candidate to win, but because they expected to profit from it in the future. As altruists we need to avoid the assumption that others who donate to political candidates, as I am sure a number of people in this group do, do so as altruists and not for purely selfish reasons.
I know, but that doesn’t really answer my question—rationally, Gore should have been indifferent between (a) them giving the same amount to him and Bush and (b) nothing to either candidate.