it is weird that mr phipps first denied the existence of the funding, then put it in the past, but it's not automatic that when an organization gets money from a source, it will bend over to it, it's just something that needs to be more carefully managed than most organizations seem to even care about managing. IMHO, accepting donations from a corporation that is hostile to your cause is a way to take money away from whatever it is that the corporation pursues, and use it in favor of your cause. it can't be a bad thing. the risk is not in accepting a donation, but in becoming dependent on it, so that when the corporation finally decides to demand a return on the investment, asking for favors and threatening to cut the funding off, the funding turns into corruption of the organization. getting recurring funding from many dispersed sources who actually support your cause is harder but safer than getting corporate "investments", but I believe that given enough dispersed support, it is possible to mitigate the risk that donations turn into corrupting forces. odds are the corrupting investments sooner or later will dry up anyway if they don't offer the expected return, so you have to count on that, and be aware and prepared for that.

CC: @webmink@meshed.cloud