the article is about the Haitian Bridge Alliance filing criminal charges because of the effects the "Haitian immigrants eating our dogs" lie has caused. This has nothing to do with party sides and everything to do with cause and effect. Jd vance openly said on tv that if he has to lie to get people's attention then he'd do it, and now we're seeing what happens when you mobilize a large part of the country to harass and discriminate against legal Haitian immigrants who are just trying to live their lives like anyone else.
Now as far as slander goes, the courts would need to decide if malice was involved in the statements that at least one of them has openly admitted to being* false.
Of course this could all just be avoided by not telling lies.
I think in the context of the OP, not all donations have strings attached in the sense of trying to exert control. Maybe smelting orphans is undesirable but for donations previously received there's nothing the donor can do about that other. And picking and choosing who you donate to isn't a form of exerting control either.
Whereas large university donations do usually have agreements signed that could drastically change school policy. These are "donations" to exert control in some form or another