For People: When a public figure with immense influence swings wildly from one political pole to another, it contributes to the general sense of political instability and distrust. It makes it harder for average citizens to discern genuine political movements from personal grievances or strategic maneuvers. It's like watching a weather vane spin in a hurricane; you're not sure which way the wind is actually blowing.

Corruption Risk: While direct corruption isn't proven, the narrative certainly raises eyebrows. A billionaire who publicly denounces a party as corrupt, then returns to funding it after private "reconciliation" dinners, fuels suspicions that political influence is transactional. It suggests that personal relationships and strategic negotiations, rather than ideological alignment, dictate where massive political donations flow. Who benefits? The politicians receiving the checks. Who loses? Potentially, the public's faith in principled political engagement.

Short-Sighted Decisions: The "America Party" idea, though flawed, at least acknowledged a systemic issue with both major parties. Abandoning it for a return to partisan funding suggests a short-sighted approach to fixing deep-seated political problems. Instead of investing in long-term structural change, it defaults to reinforcing the very system he initially criticized. This just kicks the can of fundamental political reform further down the road, creating a future where similar, dramatic flip-flops become expected, and perhaps, even rewarded.