Oculus founder Palmer Luckey donated $100,000 to fund Donald Trump’s inaugural celebrations through shell companies named after elements from classic video game Chrono Trigger, The Washington Post and Mother Jones report. News of the donation broke today, almost a month after Luckey announced he was leaving Facebook, but the money was handed over on January 4th — when he was presumably still under contract with the social media company.
The money was provided by a company called Wings of Time — named after a fantastical machine used in SNES RPG — on January 4th. While Luckey’s name was not recorded in the inauguration committee filings, California records show that Wings of Time is managed by another corporation called Fiendlord’s Keep — another Chrono Trigger reference — of which Luckey is the sole officer. State records also show that Wings of Time is based at a Long Beach address that Luckey has used for other companies, including Luckey Arms LLC.
The donation came four months after Luckey admitted that he had funded a pro-Trump group dedicated to “shitposting” and “meme magic.” Speaking in September, Luckey said he had given $10,000 to the Nimble America association because it had “fresh ideas on how to communicate with young voters through the use of several billboards.” Those billboards were reportedly used to repurpose internet memes to attack Hillary Clinton.
He publicly apologized for the donation, saying that he was “deeply sorry that my actions are negatively impacting the perception of Oculus and its partners.” Luckey insisted at the time that he did not support Trump, and would be voting for a third-party candidate in last year’s presidential election. “I am a libertarian who has publicly supported Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the past, and I plan on voting for Gary in this election as well,” he said.
The apology was followed by a period out of the public eye for Luckey. He had been an outspoken and outsized public figure in the years since he founded Oculus, but his sudden disappearance from both social media and Facebook’s own events led some to question whether the company was trying to bury its connections to the man. That silence continued until March this year, when Facebook confirmed that he would be leaving the company, almost three years after it bought the firm he founded for $2 billion. Facebook said that Luckey would be “dearly missed,” and that it “wished him all the best,” but did not say whether the decision was voluntary.
It’s also not clear whether his social media exile was self-imposed or not, but it should be noted that today’s news coincides with Luckey’s return to Twitter. His first tweet since September could be read as cryptic reference to a potential gag order, indicating that some entity had previously stopped him from posting what he wanted to, or could simply be an expression of interest in an anime series. If you were so inclined, his Obi-Wan Kenobi avatar could also be seen as a statement of intent, to come back stronger after being struck down.
Subsequent replies have been more pointed, questioning the Washington Post’s reporters for not waiting on Luckey’s own comment on the January donation, and defending his earlier Nimble America contributions. In another tweet, Luckey was asked directly why he was funding Trump’s celebrations. “Probably the same reason companies like Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Coca-Cola, etc do,” he replied — that is, for business reasons.
Comments
Palmer is free to donate to whoever he wants. I’m free, as a result of that donation, to never ever spend a cent on anything Oculus. Cheers
By BadFlounder on 04.19.17 11:23pm
But he obviously isn’t ‘free’ to make such donations when he knew himself and the company he founded would suffer negative repercussions for that. Hence the use of shell companies to obfuscate his donation.
I’m no fan of Trump, but this attitude you’re espousing is intolerance of his own political views. I can understand distaste at the ‘NimbleAmerica’ connection, but to extend it to this donation?
Funny that nobody seems to carry out the same ethical or ideological surveys of the boards of Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart and other retailers to drive their purchase decisions.
By texazzpete on 04.20.17 2:58am
Intolerance of what someone is (or believes) that effects no one and intolerance of what someone does (or plans to do) that actively effects other people are not comparable.
By SonOfAVondruke on 04.20.17 4:28am
Attacking or boycotting Oculus – a company that Luckey is now no longer affiliated with – because of Luckey’s political leanings is not a good thing to do.
Even while he worked there, the company was so much bigger than one man.
It does seem a fashionable thing to beef the young man. Peter Thiel donates to the Trump campaign yet I haven’t seen anyone leading a vendetta against any of the 95 companies he invests in.
By texazzpete on 04.20.17 5:09am
If this was the sole issue with Luckey it probably wouldn’t create so much resentment. But when added on top of the sale to FB, "around $300", shitposting fun time with Milo Y, well… yeah, fuck Oculus for keeping this shitbag around for as long as they did.
By gigafactory on 04.20.17 7:26am
lol he’s literally the reason Oculus and the current generation of VR exists. Hating someone because they believe something different from you is the defenition of intolerance. Being mad at him for how he spends his personal time and money is so beyond duplicitous when at the same time we try to keep who we love and what we do in our own home away from government control. Your attitude is the hypocrisy that justifies the right’s views on personal liberties vis a vi religion
By YozMan on 04.20.17 9:55am
Look harder
By Blernsball on 04.20.17 10:44am
How isn’t he? HOW Sway? Freedom to do isn’t freedom from consequence. No one has to be tolerant of his views. His indirect donation proved he was a liar who supported another liar. I am in no way bound to be tolerant of his decisions because he has the right to make them, that’s some ass backwards logic. It’s my prerogative to be intolerant, as it is his to spend his money how he wants to. That doesn’t absolve him from the repercussion of others not supporting him or the company he founded because of actions that logically frame him as ignorant, deplorable & unfavorable in their eyes.
There are PLENTY of people who don’t support all of the retailers you named for logical reasons of their own. You’re assuming, which is ignorant.
By Black Dude on 04.20.17 5:15am
Yeah, I really don’t understand. They’ll completely ignore and never boycott all of the other companies that donated. Ignorance is bliss?
By Disdain on 04.20.17 8:02am
Because those companies do it for business, and speak out against Trump politically. They don’t hide what they do.
Palmer wasn’t doing it for business. He wouldn’t have hidden it. He wouldn’t have gone for me memes. It wouldn’t be personal, rather than from the corporation.
And in no way do I need to tolerate his support of an intolerant person to be tolerant myself.
By MosquitoControl on 04.20.17 8:55am
Luckey has nothing to do with Oculus. He strapped on his golden parachute and bailed.
Of course you’re free to avoid Oculus if you want, just don’t say it’s because of Luckey because that doesn’t make any sense.
By ahlam99 on 04.20.17 2:59am
The dude still owns shares in Oculus, so its success benefits his pockets. Him not having a job there doesn’t change that.
By Black Dude on 04.20.17 5:28am
Yeah and these same people probably use Facebook or Instagram. There are also many other people and companies that donated. People should at least be consistent with their fake outrage.
By Disdain on 04.20.17 7:43am
Ones outrage doesn’t have to meet your expectations. If someone decides they dislike A so they won’t support B, something they know A has massive ties to, investments in & profits from, that’s an absolutely logical & personal choice. It’s their decision, it’s their protest how they feel they can best do so. They don’t need to live up to you or any other cynical individuals expectations. If B directly reminds them of A, who profits substantially from B how isn’t their protest against it rational? The real question is why folk like you are so bitter when individuals decide to abstain from products or services they know are directly tied to those they dislike? Does it harm you in any meaningful way? Why do you feel oh-so compelled to argue symantics? (All rhetorical questions by the way. I seriously don’t feel like having a conversation with narrow-minded individuals like you.)
By Black Dude on 04.20.17 4:06pm
I’m not bitter at all. I’m just simply pointing out the hypocrisy and selective outrage. But thanks for hurling insults at someone you know nothing about, it’s very classy.
By Disdain on 04.20.17 4:26pm
You are completely and utterly full of crap.
He doesn’t "own shares in Oculus" because Facebook acquired Oculus. He may own shares in Facebook, but you don’t know that.
In any case not buying Oculus is a moronic way to show your disapproval of Luckey.
By ahlam99 on 04.20.17 9:13am
So please what’s a smart way of showing my disproval of Luckey? Saying "shame shame" and getting myself a Rift to play Eagle Flight?
By Black Dude on 04.20.17 4:09pm
He owns shares in facebook now but a lot of people who you may be politically against own huge holdings in Silicon Valley. Peter Thiel owns shares of half the stuff you use. Trying to avoid companies based on who owns their shares is beyond idiotic when you’re not talking about majority ownership or something similar.
By pixelated_soul on 04.20.17 9:36am
You need a better excuse than Palmer Luckey for not buying anything Oculus.
By Disdain on 04.20.17 7:37am
No company is free from playing the political game. Not if its business depends on the influence of higher offices (and they all do). So backing a victorious candidate has its obvious perks and it’s no doubt why many chose to donate to democrats.
Some donate to republicans or will donate to multiple parties so they can always have a winning hand.
Neither possibility has ever influenced my purchasing decisions. If it did then I’d object to anyone trying to buy influence… and I’d quickly run out of places I could shop. So I’m more concerned with getting the best product, because it’s not realistic or fair to expect that everyone in a free society should only spend money with companies who share their political views while ignoring the quality of their work.
That would be economic fascism.
By Evil13rt on 04.20.17 9:18am
I agree. However, lying about it makes him scum.
I’m sure Trump can hire him for a political position. He already has the one skill a politician needs.
By Mergatroid Mania on 04.20.17 12:39pm
I’m never getting an Oculus and I buy all sorts of gadgets… but I’ll be sure to NEVER get one now. I’ll get an HTC Vive when the time comes.
By mrxiro on 04.19.17 11:45pm
Palmer has nothing to do with Oculus anymore. And at $200 more for the Vive with it’s lesser hand controllers, and HTC showing no signs of seeing the need to lower that for consumers, that’s a big price to pay for this misinformed hate.
By OkinKun on 04.20.17 4:07am
Can’t begin to describe the disdain I have for ignorant pathological liars with financial influence.
By Black Dude on 04.20.17 12:34am
leaves quietly
By flathunt on 04.20.17 4:37am