“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” -- Warren Buffet

During the six years I worked at Amazon Web Services (AWS), I completed an annual anti-bribery training. I would watch a video year after year that pedantically laid out what bribery is and why not to do it. I was an engineer/scientist, not someone who typically worked with external partners, but I still had to take the training. My main impression from the video was that never shall an Amazonian ever bribe or put themselves in a situation that could even be interpreted as offering a bribe. Amazon does not bribe. Full stop. The legal, moral, and reputational costs for the employee and company are just too high.

On January 24, 2026, Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, attended a screening of Melania (Trump) at the White House. Amazon paid $40 million to license the film days after the 2024 presidential election. This was the highest ever price paid for a documentary. Melania Trump made $28 million. This is not a serious business venture: the project is expected to earn substantially less than Amazon’s investment.

That same day, Alex Pretti was shot and killed by Federal ICE agents.

I presume the anti-bribery policy hasn’t changed at Amazon. I presume a deal paying millions to the wife of the incoming president is scrutinized by the army of Amazon’s attorneys. I presume there was no explicit quid pro quo. Policy-wise and legally, I’ll presume this is not a bribe. So let’s call it “buying favor.”

A Departure from Principles

The Melania transaction wasn’t a one-off. Between August and October 2025, Amazon also donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration and an undisclosed amount to the White House Ballroom project. When Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned the Ballroom donation, Brian Huseman, Amazon VP of Amazon Public Policy, responded in his disclosure letter:

Amazon has invested in American communities and made contributions that reflect our continued commitment to celebrating America’s future, including our recent contribution in support of the White House Ballroom project.

What is telling is the absence of Amazon’s famous tenets. The sentence is a non sequitur; it fails to tie a ballroom renovation to Amazon’s community-focused work, some of which is quite good. This stands in stark contrast to Amazon’s historically principles-first culture. Every day, decisions were grounded and tied back to the Leadership Principles. You were expected to live, eat, and breathe these principles—to tie every decision back to them. Buying favor is transactional; it is not principled.

The Business Case Against Favor-Buying

I believe buying favor is immoral, but in a capitalistic framework, many accept it as a “cost of doing business.” However, I also believe it is bad business.

Amazon’s famous 1997 shareholder letter drives home the point “…[T]hat a fundamental measure of our success will be the shareholder value we create over the long term.” Amazon won by making aggressive, strategic bets and reinvesting profits, not through political connections.

Amazon is famous for its “Flywheel”—a virtuous cycle where lower prices lead to a better customer experience, which drives traffic, attracts sellers, and creates scale that allows for even lower prices.

Buying political favor acts as friction on this flywheel. It diverts capital, and more importantly, attention, away from the customer and toward political optics that offer no structural, durable advantage. A presidential term is only four years; the House often flips during midterms. You cannot buy a permanent moat in a free market (just ask AT&T/Bell Systems after their antitrust lawsuit in the 70s and breakup in the early 80s).

Furthermore, a focus on political favor creates a culture tax. Amazon’s success was built on a “Day 1” mentality. When leadership engages in transactional political plays, it signals to ~1.5 million employees that success is about who you know, not what you build. High-performing talent joins tech giants to solve hard problems, not to serve as a political slush fund. When the principles guiding the rank-and-file are ignored at the top, the resulting cynicism acts as a slow-drip poison to institutional morale.

The Regulatory Paradox

Finally, there is the pragmatic reality: buying favor rarely buys safety. History shows that “strategic” donations often trigger the very scrutiny they seek to avoid—Brian Huseman’s response to Senator Warren being Exhibit A. By engaging in high-profile, non-commercial transactions, Amazon invites intense bipartisan skepticism. It provides ammunition for antitrust advocates who view such moves as an exercise of unchecked market power. Instead of building a moat, these transactions build a target, transforming a tech company into a political lightning rod.

The Market Speaks

Even short-term, the proof is in the pudding: at the time of this writing, Amazon stock is up 1% over the past 12 months (from Jan 30, 2026), compared to 15% for the S&P 500, reinforcing the point that political proximity is a poor substitute for market leadership. This 14% underperformance represents more than just a sluggish stock price; it is the opportunity cost of a leadership team distracted by political optics rather than operational excellence.

I close with one of Amazon’s Leadership Principles that Amazon leadership can recall while facing political headwinds:

Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit: Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting.

Disclosure: The author is an Amazon, Inc. shareholder.