Report: Bobby Kotick Has Two Secret Companies Making Big Republican Donations

Report: Bobby Kotick Has Two Secret Companies Making Big Republican Donations

Yes, you read that right. CNBC recently uncovered that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick established not one but two secret companies through which he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns.

The two companies, 807080A LLC and Norgate LLC, were both found detailed in FEC filings, the former listed under the same California address as Kotick’s 803011 Foundation and the latter tied to a location that’s just one minute away on foot. According to Campaign Legal Centre, a government watchdog group, Norgate LLC also shares a personal mailbox with Kotick and his foundation.

“[807080A LLC] has been around since 2008 and manages some of Mr. Kotick’s investments,” Kotick rep Mark Herr told CNBC via email earlier this week. “Mr. Kotick contributes to Democratic and Republican candidates and is supporting David McCormick because he is a very close friend.”

When asked about Norgate LLC, however, Herr provided no further details.

CNBC’s reporting says Kotick used these two companies to donate upwards of $US600,000 ($832,920) to political action committees supporting Republican candidates such as Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell — who, it cannot be overstated, is one of the cruelest politicians in the United States — and Dave McCormick, a former business exec currently running for Senate in Pennsylvania’s GOP primary. These contributions are much larger than those Kotick made to both Republicans and centrist Democrats under his own name.

Despite a long and illustrious career of scummy behaviour, Kotick’s public standing only recently started to plummet due to reports of Activision Blizzard’s widespread culture of sexual harassment and generally shitty behaviour towards female employees. Reports indicate Kotick himself was also responsible for fostering this environment. That he was giving more money to absolute chuds like McConnell than previously assumed doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

The fun part of this story is that this is just something rich people do. Like, all the time. They set up these shady organisations that exist only on paper to cover their tracks when, say, helping prop up evil politicians or fudging tax returns. And it’s not only allowed but encouraged by our current economic system. As always, it’s a big club and you ain’t in it.

Kotick is expected to step down from his position at Activision Blizzard following its impending $US68.7 ($95) billion acquisition by Microsoft. Both the Microsoft deal and his resignation stand to add hundreds of millions more dollars to his already inconceivable, ill-begotten wealth.


    • You’re deliberately misrepresenting the issue.

      Kotick has given numerous bit donations to both Democrats and Republicans, generally in the range of US$1000-$2000, under his own name over the last five years.

      He also has two secret companies directing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars almost exclusively to Republican candidates.

      The issue is not that he donated to Republicans. The issue is that he’s been running a shell game to create the impression of bipartisanship while also deliberately hiding the fact that the vast bulk of his donations favour one political party only.

      Also, secret donations are generally frowned upon in democracies. The fact that the US has relatively weak political donation disclosure laws doesn’t excuse the fact that Kotick has been deliberately undermining what disclosure system the US does have by taking advantage of loopholes.

  • Your first mistake is forgetting that the US is a Republic, and not a Democracy.

    The second is me thinking I care for what you have to say. I generally don’t.

    You don’t think prominent rich people are running shell companies to make secret donations to prominent Democrats? Of course they are. Can guarantee you that there are many video game (and other company) execs doing that exact thing. *Shrug*

    • It honestly doesn’t matter because folks will call it whatever suits their agenda at the time.
      For example the same folks who call it a republic when faced with democratic institutions they don’t like, will also call it a democracy when faced with the federal republic institutions they don’t like and will pull out all kinds of crap when either side isn’t beneficial to them.
      (They all love doing it)

      If we really have to give it singular definition, then “Shit Show” fits just fine.

    • The distinction you are making is obviously irrelevant to the topic that we are discussing, and who am I to argue with your sources from the sovereign citizens subreddit. Still, way to go moving the goal posts.

      Since we’re playing semantic gotcha, however, you’re making a distinction that doesn’t actually exist.

      For most practical modern purposes the terms ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ are interchangeable. To the extent that anyone might be able to wring out some minor differences between the two, the terms are not mutually exclusive. It’s entirely possible for a country to be a Democratic Republic, in fact, that’s the most common form of government in the West.

      • Nawww… Poor little Angry.

        I’d like to ask you to not comment or reply to any of my posts from now on. You’re a “reasonable”. I care not for anything you have to say. You are an incredibly intolerant person, and I shall tolerate you no longer. Happy to live rent free in your head.

        Anything further would constitute harassment.


Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!