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,
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...
All industries do this (Score:1, Interesting)
Soft-money, political and legal maneuvering is old news to other businesses.
Its all part of our incestuous increasingly corrupt political system.
Re:Why isn't this mentioned on The Today Show? (Score:2, Interesting)
MS-NBC [msnbc.com]
-rp
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??
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?
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.
$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.
Get your facts straight (Score:1, Interesting)
How do you think IBM, SUN, Oracle, AOL, etc. got the attention of lawmakers in the first place - by LOBBYING and through political contributions. Don't point the finger at Microsoft and call it 'buying the government' - it's a well-established practise that was going on LONG before Microsoft, was directly responsible for the lawsuits Microsoft is now facing and will be around long after those lawsuits have been settled.
It's all very well to love your little toy OS and even to dislike Microsoft if the case may be, but don't try to call this 'Microsoft corruption'.
Big business has ALWAYS used lobbying and political contributions to get what they want. Do you expect Microsoft to just sit back and let their opponents do this? That's called STUPIDITY - and it's only within the last few years that Microsoft has realised that this is the way their competitors choose to get ahead in the market... not by creating better products but by buying politicians and lobbying to try and prevent Microsoft from competing.
Do you HONESTLY believe that the government runs the country? Are you TRULY that naive???? Please tell me you've got a better picture of the world than that!
If it wasn't for the fact that this site has such great news I'd have to seriously question my sanity for choosing to come back here and listen to such a bunch of whining, evangelical, biased morons who are so into their little love-fest with the toy-OS that they will slant everything to make themselves look like the victim. GROW UP!
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: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: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: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.
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
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]
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: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.
Comment 3 million! (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Finally... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Gee, Microsoft has lots of money, what do you suppose would happen if they became politicized?"
Did the folks at Sun or AOL consider that MSFT might decide to try and get government help before making their complaints?
In short, the way Bill G and Micosoft sees it, they were just minding their own business and figuring the government would pretty much leave them alone. Now that Uncle Guido has delivered the wake up call, they are paying their protection money (lobbyists, campaign contributions)like everyone else who has come to the attention of the US political machine.
The only problem is that Sun (for example) doesn't have the cash reserves to compete on an equal footing in this arena. They should have thought of that before they escalated by bringing a knife to a fistfight.
(These thoughts are not mine, I borrowed 'em from Jerry Pournelle's website, filed off the serial numbers, and put my own spin on them - He did bring up the "politicization of Bill Gates" some time ago.)