Michael Wolff's always worth reading on what Rupert Murdoch is thinking, and he makes sense here:

The notable thing about Rupert Murdoch donating a million bucks to the Republican Governors Association is not that he’s risking general censure and opprobrium with this donation, but that he’s donating money at all. Murdoch hates the idea of giving away money for nothing. The simple public relations idea of courting goodwill by donating an infinitesimal part of your wealth to a charity of your choice is anathema to Murdoch. He thinks the rich guys who do it are phonies....

Just say a little bird told me … the money doesn’t come from Rupert.

The company is claiming the donation has nothing to do with its news side, going so far as to audaciously say, “There is a strict wall between business and editorial.” The “corporate side” made the donation, News Corp.’s hapless spokesman insists. But the central advocate for giving the dough has been none other than Fox Chief Roger Ailes. In the past, Ailes has been stymied or neutralized in his quest to have the company put its corporate money where its mouth is, because the No. 2 in the company until last summer, Peter Chernin, was a Democrat.

With Chernin gone, and with Fox News outperforming most other parts of the company, Ailes is the central voice...

This makes sense in part, also, because Murdoch's political interventions are often cold-eyed business moves. But it's hard to see what he could want from the Governor of Mississippi. The takeaway, of course, is the exact opposite of the official line: This money comes not from the corporate parent, but straight from the company's highest-profile voice, Fox.

UPDATE: Some relevant context here: Wolff's an interesting read on News Corp. in part because Rupert Murdoch, his mother, and his children gave him unprecedented access for his recent biography. Murdoch, however, according to sources close to News Corp., disliked the finished product and the company's official relationship with Wolff has been chilly ever since.

And, as is clear here, and worth repeating: His sourcing is essentially informed conjecture, and the attribution doesn't go beyond "a little bird."