Keep in mind that there is no fraud requirement on behalf of the debtor or the recipient to recover a "fraudulent transfer". The requirements are that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer (which will be simple to prove in this case) and that the transfer was made for less than equivalent value, which is also clear in this case since the Court will not consider "political influence" to be equal to $73 mm, probably valued closer to $0.
I'd be surprised if the Dem PAC's had direct knowledge of the Bankman fraud, although they should have been very suspicious. However, greed trumps common sense in politics. I will be curious to see what political influence he achieved with his contributions.
It will also be curious to see if any of the "woke" charities return the money he donated. By law the charities don't have to return the money in most cases; however, any legitimate charity should have "ill gotten" provisions which would influence their decision to return the donations.