Details of MSFT's Antitrust Lobbying 711
An anonymous sent in linkage to "A new ZDNet article detailing new evidence presented to the judge presiding over the Microsoft anti-trust case. It shows that Microsoft made political contributions during last year's (well, 2000's) elections on a scale never seen before... over $6 million. As comparison, this is four times the amount spent by Enron.
It also reveals that Microsoft has been hiring every political lobbyist, and every law firm, with anti-trust expertise and putting them to work on unrelated projects- anything to make them unavailable to work for critics of Microsoft."
And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:5, Interesting)
We elected the politicans who made the laws in the first place which allowed campaign contributions to be illegal. Infact, during the last election, we didn't want the guy who was willing to do away with them. We wanted to play Bush vs. Gore instead.
Before you run off pointing fingers at Microsoft for doing what they are within the scope of the law to do, ask yourself where the core of the corruption sits. Its not with them, or the politicians. Its us, and our lack of desire to make our elected officials accountable for their actions.
Lobbying wouldn't exist if we as a people decide not to allow it. Anything beyond it would be bribery.
Cheers,
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Federal government were actually limited in scope (refer to Constitution here), then there would be a lot less to lobby for, to "contribute soft money" for, etc.
I would like to not only limit the power of the government, but prevent lawyers from holding office.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is dead on. I do not underastand those who say that the answer to bad ans stupid laws are is more of the same. People will bribe governments so long as governments have the power do something for them.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2, Insightful)
And when the government does not have any power anymore, we will have to bribe whatever entity governing instead of the government. I prefer to pay tax than "microsoft tax" or mob "protection" tax.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
True but would you rather the bribes that polititican take be legal, as they are now, in the form of "Soft Money"? Or would you rather the that the dishonest people in government really act like crooks and be forced to solicit and accept illegal bribes? I would much rather see that we call it what it is (a bribe) and treat it that way, then wave our arms and declare that the real problem is elsewhere.
Yes I understand that this is not to the point of the original argument, that government is to big and must be reduced, but change will most likely be incremental and not all at once. Let's take our victories where we can.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Justice system is so bogged down that Congress can pass laws that they know will not be repealed by the Justice Department for years (when they can claim it was their predecessors who passed it in the first place). The President has become more of a figurehead than the Queen of England.
What is even worse is that there is so much childish, partisanship in Congress that nothing ever gets done except when they have a common goal which is usually to benefit the corporate giants that line their pockets.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Informative)
I do agree about the childish partisanship, except that I get the feeling that it's all a ruse to distract us from noticing that common goal you mention. (lining their pockets w/ corporate money)
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2, Informative)
No, the real - the only - remedy to this crisis of democracy is to curtail the financial power of the lobbies and private donators. Here in Quebec we had campaign financing reform thirty years ago, placing severe limits on how much politicians can receive from companies and individuals, and it has greatly enhanced the integrity of the political class. Sure, nothing's perfect, but it's still a lot better than it was before!
Cutting out the source of evil, i.e. lobbies and companies "buying" influence (when that influence should come from the citizens alone if representative democracy is to be, well, democratic) by putting severe caps on campaign contribution is the simplest yet most efficient way to clean up Washington of its grimy layer of corruption. Well, the first layer, at least. If you don't think that's true, then ponder why most of the political class spends so much effort preventing this from happening...
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
So when you reduce the power of the federal government... where does it go?
I seem to recall that the early power struggles in our countries infancy were primarily federal government vs. state governments. If more power were granted to the states, Microsoft and other corporations would merely switch their focus to brib^H^H^H^H contributing to state and local officials (Not that they're overlooking them now, mind).
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Informative)
You act as if the government is some kind of third party in our lives like a referee in a football game. Ostensibly, the government is us . . . "We the People." So by advocating the reduction of the power of government you're advocating a reduction of the power of the people. I take that personally as I am one of those people. The people of the United States of America are already on their knees bowing to the power of the corporation. Why would you advocate reducing our only means of defending ourselves from exploitation?
We the People!
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Informative)
Your argument that Libertarians are in favor of reducing power is simply incorrect.
I want my locally elected official to have the power that he/she should have as written in the Constitution. *I*, personally, want to power to decide certain things about my life, leaving the goverment out of those decisions.
As a result, these powers need to be taken away fro the federal government. This is not a *reduction* in power, but a reallocation.
The entire start of this thread was that if you reduce power to the federal government, you reduce power to corporations to bribe those same individuals. Your argument that we need a overly-protective federal government to protect us from those same corporations is exactly opposite to that thinking and the evidence pointed out in the original article.
As for everyone arguing that moving power to the states will only mean that MS will resort to bribing them - remember who it is pushing for a weak settlement (Department of Justice and the White House) and who it is pushing for more extreme measures (the states and the states' Attorney Generals). This is direct evidence against that claim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in Switzerland which is a true democracy. In Switzerland every person has the right to vote yes or no to certain decisions. The government is only there for the details. Sure Swiss vote quite a bit, but the power is with the Swiss people and only the Swiss people. And in that case lobbying has absolutely no effect unless of course the lobbyists decide to give money to each Swiss.
True democracy works and it should be used more often in other countries.
Re:We have no one to blame but our dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting everything under the control of "one person, one vote" is simply mob rule. Democracy should have limits, as should every form of government.
Having an all-powerful central government, but making it "democratic," does not change the fact that it's still an all-powerful central government. It just means there's more people to bribe.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
When the government gets out of the tax-regulate-and-subsidize business, and sticks to preventing and punishing theft, injury, etc., then it will be performing its proper role. As long as a corporation can buy an advantage in the marketplace -- including shielding itself from liability -- then there will be a place for lobbying, bribes, etc.
Would you prefer a corporation, with no obligation to listen to you, make important choices for you
Absolutely not. I'm in favor of stripping corporations of their legal personhood, actually.
I believe that campaign finance reform is in itself at least a start to solving many of these sorts of problems.
Hmmm. Not really. It just stirs the pot a little. Strip corporations of their personhood, so they have no first amendment rights, and prohibit them from engaging in any political activity. I.e., make it the way things used to be.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2)
Excuse me? Have you seen what happens when capitalism is allowed to run unregulated? Enron? Microsoft? Standard Oil? Unregulated capitalism is far worse than regulated government - at least with the latter you know who's in charge.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regulation is, like it or not, extending punishing of theft and injury laws to companies. Regulating companies stops them from harming their workers, their neigbours, their customers because they can. It also stops them from doing violence to other companies - which, let's be honest, is exactly what MS is currently on trial for, using its strength to force other companies out of the market or their products onto customers at nasty terms.
You actually contradict yourself. To quote, "As long as a company can buy an advantage in the marketplace
Subsidies are a harder argument, but here goes...
Remove subsidies of all kinds (I'm including Social Security benefits here, they seem analagous) and you cause problems. You know all about needing money to make money? Well, how do you get that first step without money from _somewhere_? Anyway, you create people who simply can't earn a living (and where this isn't necessarily a permanent condition), so they either die or live from crime. Think what happens in a recession here - the very poorest either die or cause a crimewave. A crimewave causes clear problems for society as a whole, and ends up with a number of them locked up. So, what do you end up with? A larger prison population (expensive to maintain) and a smaller labour force, which pushes up wages and makes it harder to get ourt of recession. Eventually, you end up with smaller economic capacity this way because you simply don't have the workers you need. Whereas if you give them the money / resources they need to see out the recession, they remain economically active throughout the problems (so help maintain economic capacity) and are available to work afterwards, so keeping costs down due to a large labour force. Oh, you've also likely lost the majority of the crime which is good on its own but also reduces your expensive-to-maintain prison population.
Or maybe health benefits. If the poorest can't get treatment then you have an increased potential for epidemic which can spread into the wider population. They're not likely to be particularly healthy to start with (worse diet & living conditions, can't afford better) so they're more susceptible, plus the poorer sections of society tend to live together, helping it spread quickly among them. Deny them medical treatment and ailments can run through them at ridiculous rates, then spread into the wider population. Also, deny them medical treatment and some will die, some will be disabled in some way and some will have to miss work. In each case you've removed someone from the available cheap labour pool, maybe others who now have to care for them too...
What about subsidising companies? Well, statistically speaking, I understand that the major driver for economic growth is small companies, not large. Except that they can't exist without seed capital from somewhere... Remove government subsidies and some won't survive, so lower economic growth as a whole.
Or another example, farm subsidies. The EU Common Agricultural Policy is a mess, I won't deny it. However... In the UK, we have many areas where sheep are farmed on open hillsides traditionally. These are only viable due to subsidies, because the animal densities are too low. Remove the subsidies and the sheep go. Remove the sheep, though, and the land quickly becomes covered in long grass and bracken. At which point it's considered less beautiful and is certainly less suitable for walking. You then have no farming income - and an area that only has tourism left, but can't any more attract people to look at the views and walk the hills because the environment has changed. You need the sheep as lawnmowers...
The current system is a long way from being perfect. Heck, I'm a LibDem (http://www.libdems.org.uk/) so I'm working to change it in many ways. But, strangely enough, many of the current aspects of government have been set up because they look like a good idea and retained because they prove that they are a good idea! I'd LOVE to see corporations stripped of legal personhood, too, for example, and see no reason for them to make any political donations. Heck, while we're thinking about corporate political influence, it seems daft that sitting legislators can hold directorships in companies, or that individual companies can own large chunks of the news media. Or that foreign-owned companies can own any. Who says that an Australian run media isn't spinning the news to favour Australian interests over local? As you can see here, we have clear examples of corporate political speech needing legal controls to benefit the people...
Posters in general and moderators in particular, _please_ think a little harder about this 'smaller government rules' (whoops, pun unintentional...) argument. It may sound good - and some of it may indeed be good - but look at the details and much of it is utter rubbish. Really.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2, Interesting)
Being a politician should be a volunteered public service, and no one should ever be allowed to make any money from doing such work. This would remove the "career politicians", cut down on cost (no salaries for them) and would force them to still be a working constituent as well as a politician.
Making a career out of politics is simply sickening
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
That would create a class based government system (as if it isn't already). Because then only rich people could afford to serve the government, because the working class would have to work to eat.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2)
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:5, Informative)
Have any of you American
I couldn't blame MS for this. They are just playing the game, and playing it well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not directed to the poster per se but to all who carp along these lines, in increasing numbers today:
Oh, whine whine whine. Of course people are going to find loopholes. Of course money will creep in again. Of course new dastardly means of influence peddling will be found.
How absolutely fratzen stupid is it to throw up your hands and say, "Oh, well, the system can't be made perfect so we shouldn't even try to improve it."
If new loopholes arise, plug them. Plain and simple. Yes, you'll actually have to keep figthing this battle. Yes, it will be honest-to-God actual work to be a member of a democracy. Horror of horrors.
Stop bemoaning the lack of perfectibility. It doesn't get us anywhere and it actually impedes what progress can be made.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2, Interesting)
So they could say they were supporting one party over the other because they thought it's policies would benefit them.
But in general companies (in the US and the UK) support both main parties.
So either they are doing this without expecting anything in return (which is wasting shareholders money), or they are expecting to gain something for their money (which is bribery).
So how is this legal??
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2)
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2)
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2)
Gore was one of the guys willing to do serious campaign reform.
Re:And, we have no one to blame but ourselves. (Score:2)
Besides...as has been pointed out elsewhere, bureaucrats work in CYA mode, and overwhelmingly prefer one kind of error (giving thumbs down to something that is worthwhile) to the other (approving something that later turns out to be bogus). How many people have died prematurely because of that?
Enron? (Score:3, Insightful)
So? What does Microsoft have to do with Enron? Oh, I get it..It's popular to bash Enron right now.
More to the point, what did you expect MS to do? Suddenly start playing fair?
Oh, you got me, here's where I hid the bodies, etc.? Please.
Re:Enron? (Score:3, Informative)
1. It has recently become a very well known entity.
2. It was also large and had lots of money.
3. It spent quite a bit of money lobbying.
4. It puts people in the mindset the article is looking for.
Re:Enron (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, Enron is the posterchild for the reason for campaign finance reform. If our politicians are swayed by the campaign contributions of Enron's scale, what corruption is seeded by a larger sum of money? If the advertising power of the campaigns is knocked askew by some soft money, isn't it knocked asunder by larger sums?
For a few stories linking Enron to campaign finance, you can look at this topic list on Salon.com [salon.com]. The topic is campaign finance. The headlines mostly discuss Enron in recent weeks.
Re:Enron (Score:2, Informative)
Yet another reason... (Score:4, Funny)
This news probably doesn't surprise too many people in this crowd, I think we all knew that MS was pretty generous with soft monies, but it's very nice to see an article like this. The best part of the entire article? The paragraph about the $25k given to buy off South Carolina's Attorney General.
P.S. Anyone else amazed by the fact that there is a place called Chevy Chase, Maryland?!
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2)
And that someone MS worked/lobbied there? their 2001 site says::
"he Village contains about 200 single-family residences and a few religious and professional
establishments."
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
One way to build the party is to run "issue ads". For the uninitiated, "Bill Clinton blows goats. Al Gore says Clinton is the best President ever." is an issue ad. On the other hand, "Bill Clinton blows goats. Al Gore says Clinton is the best President ever. Vote Gore." is supporting a political candidate, and thus is subject to hard money limits.
Now, on the one hand, the regulation of this spending means that there is no way that I could take out an ad saying "Vote for " on TV, because it's more costly than the rules allow. (This is blatantly unconstitutional.) On the other hand, I could take out an ad saying " is a total wad" and I'd be perfectly legal. Political parties can also take out such ads.
So you want to ban "soft money". Sorry, you can't. The Supreme Court has already held that "money is expression" in that preventing someone from airing their views violates the first amendment.
The Shays-Meehan (sp?) bill would instead ban unregulated contributions to political parties. There would be no prohibition on companies, unions or PACs running all the issue ads they want, or all the get out the vote campaigns they want, on behalf of a party, so long as the party does not direct their activities. Could somebody explain to me how preventing one body of private citizens (a political party) from doing something, while allowing another (say, a PAC) to do that thing, would be constitutional? It smacks of a bill of attainder, and certainly violates the first amendment in the event that what's being prevented is the expression of political views.
It seems to me that the better way to handle election finance issues is to require all money used for political purposes to be disclosed, and to prosecute those guilty of influence peddling or accepting bribes. In most cases, it won't be clear cut, but it would certainly be possible to recall politicians who are abusing their office by acting on behalf of those who spent money for them. And realistically, what would probably happen is that candidates would get more money directly, and outside spending would decrease.
-jeff
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2)
Why? It was there first. In fact, Chevy Chase the comedian probably named himself after it; his birth name was Cornelius Crane Chase, you know.
Chris Mattern
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all of these groups want the government to line their pockets, they have issues that they want addressed and they to influence how they are addressed. That is what democracy is about, and since there is a first ammendment the government is not going to tell us that their views should or should not be listened to
Comment 3 million! (Score:3, Interesting)
A contrarian viewpoint. (Score:5, Interesting)
The candidates take the money and use it to buy ads so they can reach the public. This is not a serious problem, it's what comes after that is a serious problem -- the quid pro quo that the donor expects.
So the problem is not money, it is the influence of people who have money.
Making money harder for candidates to raise doesn't mean the need for money goes away -- quite the contrary. The candidates have to work harder for every dollar. The marginal value of every additional dollar raised is higher to the candidate because of the general scarcity of funds. On the flip side, the cost of buying influence drops. Let me propose this law of political fundraising:
As proof, let us suppose that Enron and Microsoft succeeded in buyin our federal government for a few paltry millions. This is unconscionable! It should cost billions to have this kind of influence; influence buying should require bribery on such a grand scale it either prices people out or requires a brazeness so affronting to the common votor that it becomes self defeating.
We should also repeal the notion that corporations are persons with respect to campaign contributions -- it's a legal invitation to bribery.
Re:A contrarian viewpoint. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's especially disgusting when you realize the actual costs to us collectively. For a few millions, corporations buy their way into legal tax and accounting loopholes and exceptions worth TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars. It's estimated that there are at least $50bn in taxes uncollected due to shuttling profits to offshore holding companies. I think the "economic stimulus package" Bush proposed gave almost that much away to a few big companies like IBM. It is also quite common for companies like Pepsi(!) to use "restructuring" to avoid paying any income tax.
It would be cheaper to pay all of our Sentators and Congresspeople a million dollars a year and give a million dollar government sponsored budget to every candidate with more than 25% poll numbers in every race for each seat than to keep the current system of influence peddling.
Hell, if you paid people that much, you could even forbid them from working after they retire and avoid the corporate board/Presidential cabinet recycling loop that is an even bigger bribery scam than campaign contributions.
I hope the mainstream press picks this up (Score:3, Informative)
Hopefully this will get picked up by the AP or something. I mean this alone in most people should arouse serious feelings of mistrust for any company. Microsoft makes software. It shouldn't even be making *any* sorts of political contributions or anything. I seriously doubt that within three weeks the attorney general had suddenly decided MS wasn't violating any laws without persuasion
If, at the very least, this and the enron scandal should be a wake up call for americans to consider political party financial reform.
Re:I hope the mainstream press picks this up (Score:2, Interesting)
What was Condon's track record before? If Condon expected (as I imagine) to be softer on monopolies, then of course Microsoft would support him and then he would act his conscience and support the comprimise.
What about other people who received contributions? Did they behave differently than expected once they received the contribution?
Most "buying" of politicians is buying of elections (not all, however). If the public would vote properly, I would argue, this would not be a problem. Unfortunately, advertising works, especially against news outlets.
This just in....Microsoft spent MONEY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, it's underhanded, maybe even a bit immoral, the problem is, *IT'S NOT ILLEGAL*!!
Both sides are throwing money at this, unsurprisingly MS is throwing more. First off, it would be a violation of their fiduciary responsiblities if they didn't defend themselves as vigrorously as possible. Heck, they've already crossed the line of good taste/credibility in their PR and lobying campaigns in the past, why stop now?
If we really want to do something about activities like this we need to correct the current political system. Now, I'll just remain in the legions who complain about it and don't have a good solution (the problem is WAY beyond my meager geek abilities to grok). The one item of interest I have heard is that the current proposed reforms may have allowed people to donate MORE money instead of less.
We vote with our pocketbooks, Microsoft votes with its. They just happen to have a slightly bigger one. Finally, it's ironic that the concept of "free" speech is used to defend monetary contributions...
Re:This just in....Microsoft spent MONEY!!! (Score:2)
Re:This just in....Microsoft spent MONEY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
While it is not illegal, it is the reason for the Turney Act. If it can be shown they were using their money to influence the outcome of the penalty phase of the trial, the judge must consider it before accepting the agreement. In fact, it would be a reason to force the government to go back and renegotiate, or if the judge considered any outcome between the parties tainted, she could enforce her own.
Based on past statements from her, I question if this formality has any influence at all. But, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. It is not a perfect system, but it is a second check of the process.
[IANAL--YMMV]
Accountability (Score:2, Redundant)
You think the US government would decline contributions from any and all companies who have had their questionable business behaviour legally challenged.
Kinda makes sense, no? A lot like convicts being unable to cast a vote.
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, Microsoft had been challenged, but not yet convicted. Ever hear of a little concept known as "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Were this not the case, simply waging unfounded allegations against any person or company could (and likely would) impact that entity strongly for the worse.
Um, no, in the antitrust suit, Microsoft has been found guilty and that ruling has been upheld on appeal already. It is just the forms of remedy, the corporate equivalent of sentencing the convicted criminal, that is of question now.
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Interesting)
I was not suggesting that Microsoft's campaign funding and lobbying to this date has been illegal; in fact, it's quite legal but increasingly repugnant to the citizenry who wants fair elections in the future.
However, if a convict cannot vote, perhaps it is time to say that a convicted monopolist corporation cannot contribute money for some term.
For whatever reason, a corporation is in all senses an individual in our law. The punishments for breaking corporate laws should be such that they restrict the otherwise granted rights. No free speech campaigning, no lobbying, no tax break incentives in new properties, no sealed oem contracts, pick an appropriate level of restrictions for the conviction.
What did Enron's money get them? (Score:2)
Some people would consider giving large amounts of money to people with the potential power to ameliorate your legal troubles bribery -- luckily for Microsoft no-one considers this to be the case here.
A sad statement on the American political system, as far as I'm concerned.
An experiment (Score:2)
*Simply Shocked* (Score:4, Funny)
right
Of course you realise, this is the Microsoft philosophy applied to the legal field. Microsoft has had a history of buying up tecnologies and expertise, many of which have simply disappeared, never to see the light of day again.
It is perhaps the only real innovation that I know of, to take their billions and buy up anything their legal opponents could use to convict them of their crimes.
I am sure other big companies are taking notes. This convicts them even more in my mind.
Like I have said before, every time I turn around there is something else that comes out and dirties their reputation in my eyes. Heck, if PR LapDogs like ZDNet are taking shots at MS, you know rats are starting to leave the ship.
Re:*Simply Shocked* (Score:2)
Legal DoS? (Score:2)
"You have to watch the violence Lisa.. Else you'll never become desensitized to it" -- Bart
Re:Legal DoS? (Score:2)
1. Sign the band to a long term, exclusive contract.
2. Take away all their rights to publish, record, and tour, without the label's explicit approval.
3. Find a new band to screw over.
This is totally common. The industry refers to it as "building a stable of artists".
I'm sure it happens in lots of other places, too.
Legal context (Score:2)
Say I have a legal issue with someone.. I 'retain' the best lawyer in town.. Now, my legal adversary can't use that lawyer because it would be a conflict of interest for the lawyer to take up that commission.. But I'm not actually using the lawyer.. I'm paying a lower fee, to 'retain' him, to have him available if I want..
It's really rather brilliant.
Balls the size of Washington (Score:3)
Now that's ballsy!
Re:Balls the size of Washington (Score:2, Funny)
Wasted money... (Score:3, Insightful)
What a waste of resources.
The United States Government (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem here is the idea of "corporate personhood" which extends all the civil rights meant for people (including buying congressmen, senators, presidents and supreme court justices) to corporations.
individual people, and and not-for-profit groups can not compete with the cash generated by a large corporation.
there is one easy solution to this (unfortunately, it's not easy:).
make all elections 100% publicly funded (I believe that england does this and each candidate can only spend something like 10,000 pounds), ban any political advertizing by any non candidate which mentions, depicts or hints where a particlar candidate or party stands on an issue.
Re:The United States Government (Score:2, Interesting)
Behind every rich corporation is a bunch of rich people with a shared income source and each other's cell phone numbers. Making these people do things as coordinated individuals instead of a corporation will change nothing.
make all elections 100% publicly funded (I believe that england does this and each candidate can only spend something like 10,000 pounds), ban any political advertizing by any non candidate which mentions, depicts or hints where a particlar candidate or party stands on an issue.
So, force people to vote by how tall the politician is or how easy to remember his name is? Paid issue advertising is a good thing, it lets people know what a politician's history/position on an issue is, because the conventional media sure isn't any help there...
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:The United States Government, now with XP (Score:2)
And you thought the posters at the post office were just advertisement.
Re:The United States Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoo-hoo! Vindication! Proof! If you read the article, it ends making my point:
"The analysis of donations by political party shows some surprising results. While Microsoft donations favored Republicans (who got 72 percent of the money from 1995 to 1998), its employees were more inclined to support the Democrats. Democratic PACs received $222,100 from the company's employees, compared to the $42,875 for Republican PACs. "
So the CORPORATION of M$ which is actually Gates, gives its money and holds positions counter to the vast majority of its own employees. A corporation cannot have rights, only INDIVIDUALS have rights. This corporation, like virtually all such monsters, does NOT hold legitimate points of view, it only presents the point of view of the CEO/President, or (some) board members while the majority of what makes up the corporation is ignored.
Mantra: Only individuals have rights, not corporations. Corporations are NOT people.
this is very common (Score:2)
Re:this is very common (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that when a politician is elected due to large campaign contributions, he can't help but think that the contributions put him there rather than the votes of the citizens. He is elected, supposedly, to represent the needs of the citizens, but instead he ends up feeling like he is elected to represent the needs of his financiers (even an individual with good moral fiber will have this difficulty).
A politician "should" be concerned first and foremost about how each decision will impact a private citizen. For example, how will DMCA impact the average consumer (loss of their fair use rights), how will extension of copyright laws affect the average individual (they will have access to no new public domain material in their lifetime), etc.
It is getting to the point that the individuals need to hire lobbyists to plead their case with the politicians. Except that the politician was hired in the first place to be our lobbyist.
Campain reform, not Campain finance reform... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider first why candidates need the huge amounts of money to be elected. They in effect need to run two entirely different campains - once for the primary, and once for the election. As a result, the cost more than doubles. Now, the thought is that once they've won the primary, their party will contribute to the main election. This is true but irrelevant to this discussion: the party must raise the money, and thus the need for money still is doubled.
Now, I assert that anytime there is a demand, there will be a supply. Consider the origins of soft money - in the old days you could directly support your candidate with any amount of cash you wished. This was deemed a bad thing and so limits were placed on direct contributions. Bang - you now have created "soft money" that doesn't get covered under the hard money laws. Do you really expect that as long as candidates need money they won't find a way around soft money? And realize this: if you put up a piece on your personal web page about how you feel candidate X is [good|bad], that can be considered a "soft" contribution. Do you really want to give the government that power?
Now, consider the 2000 elections. They were very close - so close that the actual vote difference between the candidates was lost in the noise floor. Was this really because the people were split 50/50 in liking Bush and Gore? Most people who voted for [Bush|Gore] did so because they disliked [Bush|Gore] marginally less than they disliked [Gore|Bush].
I assert that we need to make the following two changes to the system:
1) Allow anybody registered to vote to vote in any primary.
2) Require a binding "none of the above" entry on all elections.
Let's examine the results these two changes would have had on the 2000 US presidential election:
1) By allowing anybody registered to vote in any primary, we would de-emphasize the importance of the primaries and pull the results of the primaries back from the extremes. I doubt that Bush would have won the Republican primary, and I doubt that Gore would have won the Democrat primary. Additionally, candidates such as McCain would have had a much better chance of getting support.
2) By having a binding "none of the above", even if the election had been Bush/Gore, the bulk of people could have voted None Of the Above. Had None Of the Above won, then NOBODY in that election could hold the office, and there would have to be a new election. Ask yourself this: no matter your political affiliation, if you could have had a chance to block both Bush and Gore in favor of a shot at a better candidate, would you?
I assert that with these two changes, the following things would happen:
1) The third party candidates wouldn't run in the first race. Instead, they would encourage the voters to vote NOTA in the first race and knock the big boys out.
2) The big parties would no longer be able to take this "This is our guy, take it or leave it" attitude. Thus, they would tend to field more moderate candidates.
3) Because of 1 and 2, more people would feel their vote mattered, and we would get more turnout.
4) Because the primaries could no longer be used to limit our choices, they would become unimportant and would fad away. Remember - the primaries are entirely outside the election process as described in the Constitution.
Now, I don't assert that these changes would prevent lobbying by corporations. However, if a party knew that they could no longer annoint a golden child in the primaries and force them down our throats, they might be more aware of how the PEOPLE feel about an issue, rather than MONEY.
Discussion?
Re:Campain reform, not Campain finance reform... (Score:2)
Re:Campain reform, not Campain finance reform... (Score:2)
Microsoft... a big disappointment (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of creating quality software that people would use because it is the most secure, efficient and capable software... they choose to write utter crap... and they hire marketers to tell us it's gold... hire political lobbiests to force policies and judicial decisions in their favor.
When I started out in computing 26 years ago I never conceived that we would be as backwards as we are today. I never dreamed we would require a 1 gigahertz machine to run a windowing system poorly.... I never thought that instead of booting faster... that machines would boot slower and slower.
Extremely disappointing that a marketing/political interest group has been allowed to pretty much destroy the computer industry.
I guess we can hope and pray that MicroSoft goes the way of Enron... that it's dirty dealings are opened up to the world and that the world responds by simply refusing to have anything to do with the MicroSluts.
Re:Microsoft... a big disappointment (Score:3, Interesting)
26 years in computing, you must be pretty old yet you don't seem to know that every big company gives huge contributions in order to avoid lawsuits.
How did MS destroy the computer industry? They created it.
Re:Microsoft... a big disappointment (Score:2)
This is a common myth. MS has contributed almost nothing to the computing industry, certainly much less that the damage it has done by stiffling innovation and creativity by giving jobs to literally tens of thousands of shit programmers who would be unemployable in an industry where quality control existed. Flood the market with garbage and you end up with a garbage market.
I don't know of a single thing MS has produced that didn't either suck (Windows, Outlook etc) or come from another company that they bought and released before making later versions suck (Flight Sim, Word etc.).
I've been programming for 26 years and MS has done nothing except make life harder for people who want to produce quaility, working software that does its job by showing that such an attitude is unimportant in the face of marketing blitzes for crap products that don't work.
The computing industry of 25 years ago was doing just fine without MS. Sure, IBM had a big grip on the business end of things but that was comming to an end as people like Lotus started up. IBM and Apple then helped MS by various insane business decisions and the rest is history.
TWW
Re:Microsoft... a big disappointment (Score:2)
Stealing ideas? Are you still at school? every company does that, from television shows to cars.
Besides, I thought that the GPL philosophy was all about not reinventing the wheel, using other peoples ideas and improving upon them. Look at Mandrake, they took a good Linux distribution and made it even better.
Re:Microsoft... a big disappointment (Score:2)
"Sure computers did exist, but Bill Gates brought them to the people."
Really ? You think nobody would be using computers if Microsoft hadn't existed ? How do you figure that one out ?
"Stealing ideas? Are you still at school? every company does that, from television shows to cars."
Some companies *gasp* actually *invent new things*. Yes I know the concept is strange, but believe me, it does happen occasionally...
"Besides, I thought that the GPL philosophy was all about not reinventing the wheel, using other peoples ideas and improving upon them. Look at Mandrake, they took a good Linux distribution and made it even better."
Very true; however there is a difference between stealing something and using something which is given freely.
If you don't believe me, just ask a judge.
$6M vs $38,000M (Score:4, Interesting)
Ralph Nader says this cash pile is distortion of capitalism. Traditionally companies pay out dividends once they have grown into profitibility. The stockholders are being screwed.
Re:$6M vs $38,000M (Score:2)
Re:$6M vs $38,000M (Score:2)
Re:$6M vs $38,000M (Score:2)
Despite the fact that Ralph Nader is a git, he has a point here. Unfortunately, companies now manage to stock value, rather than dividend payout. As a result, companies make decisions that can result in them losing money, but still returning value to their investors (by increasing stock price) until the bottom falls out, and the stock drops precipitously. Of course, they only do this because it's what the investors want. Investors want their stock to increase in value, so they can make money selling it, rather than for the stocks to return a cash dividend to them. Part of the reason is taxation laws which tax dividends more heavily than capital gains, and part of the reason is sheer shortsightedness on the part of the investors.
Re:$6M vs $38,000M (Score:3, Informative)
The reason that MS doesn't pay dividends is because Bill Gates is a major shareholder.
If they payed dividends, then Bill will have to pay a HUGE tax bill.
The real shocker.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they afraid or just not that observant? This is definatly newsworthy.
The ability to companies to donate money to politicians but shield which politician it is going to to is what is so evil about soft money. At least in the 20s the press could drag a politician through the mud based on his own specific donations. But what would the headline be now? at worst..."Republican party takes donations from Microsoft."
Campain money IS NOT SPEECH. It's just the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Jaded...nothing new really (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Canadian, reading the reactions of various slashdotters, I find it very interesting.
We as a tech community are so ready to shout that Microsoft is evil. You guys are forgetting that this is the American way (which applies to us up too...). Remember those Railroad Tycoons, the Oil Tycoons? The Rockafellers of the world are still around. Why do you think Texas has so many industries that could have been put elsewhere? (Count how many military bases that there are in Texas?)Prominent Texans ensured that Texas was given the goods, and in our present system of government they did not only what they could, but what was expected and did what benefited Texans and especially those prominant citizens. (Sorry Texans, but its the only example I know of as an ignorant canuck ;)
Using money to influence government policy is how government has functioned for a long time. Remember in Ancient Rome, being in position of political power made you rich as businesses petitioned for your support. This is not going to change anytime soon unless we as a society decide that is unacceptable.
America is the land of the free. Its the land of who has got more $$$. The more dough you have, the more freedom you have to do as you wish for good or ill.
Don't piss on M$ because they are doing what is in their best interests and that they have the freedom to do so. Its disgusting that they did do it, but I am much more revolted that the so called democracy of the world is nothing more than auction and that THIS seems news to people . We have to as a society against this truly undemocratic behaviour.
Hopefully this will serve as a case in point for seriously look at our Politicians and their Political Parties and how they govern us.
Though I suppose it could be worse... at least we pretend to have democracy.
Don't mind me though I am just a jaded youth....
If this is true, I'm worried. (Score:2)
Campaign Finance Bill Vote Today Call these reps (Score:2)
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: ACTION ALERT!!!
A bandaged Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., takes part in a Washington news conference to discuss campaign finance reform, Monday, Feb. 11, 2002. Last week, McCain had a cancerous lesion removed from the left side of his nose which was diagnosed as the earliest form of melanoma and was removed. (AP
Photo/Stephen J. Boitano)
One Last Push: Call Now!
Thank you to all those who phoned and faxed Members of Congress over the past week and urged them to support the Shays-Meehan bill. We've heard many reports of offices flooded with calls on the issue, but the fight is not over.
Recently, the republican party and its leadership stepped up the effort to fight meaningful reform. If you are a Republican, please make sure and mention that fact when you call or fax the following list of Members. Let them know that this issue is important to you and that the passage of Shays-Meehen is necessary in order to restore integrity to America.
Speaker Hastert has declared the campaign finance reform fight "Armageddon" -- and true reform won't come easy. The vote is Wednesday--and we need to keep the pressure on. Below, we have included a list of Members of Congress that we are asking you to call or fax. Please let these members of Congress know that they must vote for Shays-Meehan. In addition, let them know to vote against the poison pill amendments and the sham Ney Bill.
Please call or fax the following list of Representatives:
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL-6) (202) 225-4921 - (202) 225-2082 fax
Rep. Elton Gallegy (R-CA-23) (202) 225-5811 - (202) 225-1100 fax
Rep. Doug Ose (R- CA-3) (202) 225-5716 - (202) 226-1298 fax
Rep. Michael Collins (R -GA-3) (202) 225-5901 - (202) 225-2515 fax
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA-9) (202) 225-5211 - (202) 225-8272 fax
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-20) (202) 225-5271 - (202) 225-5880 fax
Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R -MO-9) (202) 225-2956 - (202) 226-0326 fax
Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI-7) (202) 225-6276 - (202) 225-6281 fax
Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN-2) (202) 225-2331 - (202) 225-6475 fax
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ-2) 202) 225-6572 - (202)225-3318 fax
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11) (202) 225-5034 - (202) 225-3186 fax
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ-3) (202) 225-4765 - (202) 225-0778 fax
Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ-7) (202) 225-5361 - (202) 225-9460 fax
Rep. John McHugh (R-NY-24) (202)225-4611 - (202)226-0621 fax
Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY-19) (202) 225-5441 - (202) 225-3289 fax
Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH-5) (202) 225-6405 - (202)225-1985 fax
Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH-16) (202) 225-3876 - (202)225-3059 fax
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH-19) (202) 225-5731 - (202) 225-3307 fax
Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA-4) (202) 225-2565 - (202) 226-2274 fax
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA-7) (202) 225-2011 - (202) 225-8137 fax
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN-2) (202) 225-5435 - (202)225-6440 fax
Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV-2) (202) 225-2711 - (202) 225-7856 fax
Please also call your Representative at 1-800-660-8244, even if you did so last week. Urge them to support Shays-Meehan and oppose the sham Ney bill and poison pill amendments.
The House of Representatives uses an e-mail system called "Write Your Rep". You can send e-mails only to your Representative by entering your zip code into the e-mail form - http://www.house.gov/writerep
Will you also send this alert to a friend - or two or five - and ask them to do the same? Let's win true reform THIS WEEK.
Thank you for your continued support.
1st amendment considerations (Score:2)
Here's the deal. If I pay for an advert in support of electing Jimmy Schlessenbaum, that money is counted as a soft money donation to Mr Schlessenbaum. If I give him the money for the ad, and his campaign pays for it, that's a hard contribution and it gets handled under the existing rules and limitations.
This is the problem. I have a right to express my opinion of who to vote for. If we start saying that there are limits on soft money contributions, then we're volunteering for legalized limits of individuals to express their opinions.
For a better description of this, see This article [prospect.org].
I don't like the fact that corporations can buy elections. But I'd rather have an undamaged 1st amendment, than limits on soft contributions.
new monopoly (Score:2)
Re:fp (Score:4, Insightful)
Parties should be limited as to how much they can spend during a campaign (as they are in Europe) and should maybe even be paid for through taxation- it would cost less thant 1% of the military budget and is a far bettter way of safeguarding democracy.
Re:fp (Score:2)
Cooperating politicians in a democracy win over the voters every time. And they've realized that.
Re:fp (Score:2)
We can complain all we want about bought politicians, but we cant change those rules, and the existing power structures appear unlikely to want to change it...
And, of course, I do feel that they 'represent' me. I'm included in the demographically researched groups they target for advertising. Well, except, of course, the targetted advertising isnt exactly true, it's just what they say to get elected, so again they arent representing the voters.
That, of course, means there isnt any real point to standing under the current system. You'll have to research the demographics yourself, and end up saying almost exactly the same things to get elected, after which you might as well just take cash, since you wont believe in the things you had to say to get elected anyway.
Re:fp (Score:2)
The MPAA/RIAA and the tobbaco industry has done this for years. They just fly in judges in first class jets to Hollywood with 5 star dinning experiences every night all in the name of educating the judge. The judge in Newy Ork who ruled agaisn't Jon Johnson did this. This kid went to prison, all paid for in the name of education via $$$. ITs sick but pefectly legal and impossible to make it illegal.
Isn't this just like ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... charges that Microsoft buys (bought?) shelf space in stores to prevent competing products from even being visible?
So, in other words, this is really nothing new. This is Microsoft being Microsoft; now, does anyone seriously doubt that this is an organization bent on doing whatever it takes, including things that are not just immoral, or violate common sense, but possibly things that are criminal, in order to ... what, make money?
Has American society fallen so far into the pit of jade and cynicism that we shrug off the Enrons and Microsofts of the world as merely maladjusted money-seeking sycophants, instead of being so violently outraged that we take every chance to make them wish they'd never even started a business? What the hell are we doing?
Every person who reads about Microsoft's behavior should be so sickened that they vomit. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not "business as usual" in the United States. Just because it seems to happen a lot does not make it something we should tolerate, not even for a millisecond, and not for any reason.
Re:Finally... (Score:3)
It's not that few other companies can, it is that few other companies need to. How about somebody looks at what the tobacco industry spends on lobbying efforts? How about the RIAA and MPAA?
Microsoft is NOT doing anything illegal when it spends money on political contributions. It is the politicians that are doing something illegal if they let that money sway their votes.
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
Illegal like what? The contributions and lobbying, while of dubious morality, are still legal.
Any numbers available for Sun's lobbying and contributions?
Re:Finally... (Score:2, Insightful)
Was Sun contributing money while they were involved in legal action regarding their business practices?
The Microsoft situation is less a matter of corporate political contributions than it is a matter of historic antitrust precedent. That M$'s behavior was not technically illegal brings to mind the Nuremburg legal defense that a war of genocidal agression was not illegal.
Indeed, at the moment, it is not illegal to employ monopolistic activities on a scale without comparison in human history to turn the entire information industry into an oligarchy. As for myself, I find very little comfort in witholding my outrage based on this technicality.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a publicly traded company, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
If they spend money away like this and don't expect a return, they are not living up to that responsibility.
On the other hand, if they're spending the money and they DO expect something back, then these are bribes.
Either way, I don't see how a publicly held corporation can spend any of its money on political activities.
Re:Why isn't this mentioned on The Today Show? (Score:2, Interesting)
MS-NBC [msnbc.com]
-rp
Re:Ban contributions? (Score:2)
Uhhm, and how is it different from the current situations? Oh yeah, I get it! They are not technicaly bribes: they are called "contributions".
Re:Could this be real? (Score:2)
Absolutely not (Score:2)
Microsoft has not debt to speak of and $38 billion in cash.
You'd make a terrible investor or stock broker if you cant tell the difference.
Re:SlashDot Users Paid By Microsoft? (Score:2)
Oh wait.... we can tell just by counting the pro-microsoft comments in this thread!!
Not necessarily!
If I were a paid Microsoft Troll, why would I blindly spout pro-Microsoft rhetoric when I could be much more effective by quietly offering little tidbits of wisdom that cast doubt among the /. horde?.. This wisdom could be offered in the form of pro-BSD comments (MS likes BSD) or even as psuedo-reverse psychology type comments (i.e. "MS sucks, because they have huge security holes in tehir code like *this*".. Which prompts half a dozen folks to either mention that Linux has the same hole, or that MS fixed that problem 6 months ago)..
The point is that if MS were hiring individuals to sway the /. crowd, you can bet your arse that they wouldn't be hiring script kiddies!
Re:Malformed figures (Score:2)
"...total donations to political donations from Microsoft and its employees to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle amounted to more than $6.1 million. During this period, Microsoft and its executives accounted for $2.3 million in soft money contributions..."
I'll agree that they don't fully explain how they arrive at the 6 million figure. None of the numbers provided add up, as the article lacks a thorough breakdown. Articles like this infuriate me because you never get the real story. Even after 300 words, all you have is an inflammatory headline (regardless of which "side" you're on), a bunch of numbers associated with a hot topic like money and politics, and not much else.
As for the actual concept of buying political favours; I think we're all adult enough to realize this is nothing new. All this does is confirm to us that MS does it too, just as we suspected.
and the Mass Misinformation Machine rolls on...