This article covers one side of the story, offers no relevant counterpoints, and quotes sources that have the agenda of dictating who companies donate to. This is biased in pushing a political agenda...

i think there is a ton of nuance here - it's hard to donate to any politician you agree with 100%. in terms of LGBQT support, it's hard to knock these tech companies for being regressive on these matters.

While I appreciate the investigation into this issue, looking at data and providing quotes from pro-LGBTQ orgs, this is a very one-sided view on this issue. It omits that the tech companies have other motivations for funding, but highlights only that they have funded someone who has tried to pass anti-LGBTQ reforms. I'm not saying the tech companies are right but this article lost credibility because it had a political agenda presented.

The headline makes it seems as if the tech companies are against LGBTQ people, as opposed to them just hedging their bets by giving money to people in power.

The headline makes it seem like individual tech companies are giving millions of dollars to individual candidates that vote against LGBTQ issues. They are giving thousands to individuals. The data analysis is interesting and what they say is definitely true. Later in the article they discuss the companies' points of view (giving money to a person for one reason doesn't mean you support everything they do). I wish this article talked more about the 'why can companies even donate to campaigns' debate.

The article is based on facts.

whatever jared saids