Simpler possibility: they're donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise regardless of party affiliation because that's how rent seeking and regulatory capture works?
Right - they're donating to help Google, not to help or harm trans people. They're a business, not an activist non-profit.
But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more like "donating so that the candidate will support legislation (not just one piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google before they're deciding which legislation to support.
