Microsoft's Political Lobbying Record

pierreduFwench writes "With the U.S. national elections just around the corner, you may find this interesting: Opensecrets.org, a website focusing on 'Responsive Politics' recently published lobbying and donations info for the 2002 elections (to date). You can see the breakdown of Microsoft's individual dossier here. Also, looking at the 'Top Donations by Industry', you may notice that Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet.'" Very interesting graphs.

corporate power is out of control

[drDugan]

what more evidence do people need?

huge organizations designed to aggregate money with all the rights and abilities as citizens. how can the interests of individuals even come close to being recognized in an arena like that?

they can't.

uh yeah

[cHiphead]

and this is new because... ?

the open secrets site seems to have a subconscious agenda of its own and they need to be careful about spending too much time exposing just one shady ass organization

So where's the report on KPCB?

[spectecjr]

So where's the report on KPCB?

The venture capital firm behind Netscape, Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc etc etc etc...?

Until halfway through the antitrust trial, Microsoft's donations were nearly negligible. Compare and contrast that with the above. Don't forget to include the members of the boards of directors of these companies as individuals, as well as their spouses and immediate family when looking up their donations.

You may be surprised. Microsoft is very new at this game; Silicon Valley has been doing it for YEARS.

Simon

Re:Maria Cantwell

[Anonymous Coward]

While your post is clearly a troll, it makes a good point. When a candidate spends millions that she doesn't have to win an election, she will probably become enslaved by corporate donors.

Where the power lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a sad thing that all the real power in this country lies in the big companies, ie, Microsoft, Tobacco companies, Enron, and so on. They are the ones that decide what passes and what doesn't. That's why us, the average joe, has to put up with stupid laws like the DMCA. This is a sad, but true development.

Microsoft is not the problem

[NotAnotherReboot]

The American Federation of Teachers ($15,512,224
) is throwing in much more than Microsoft is on lobbying efforts ($9,468,287).

And look at how lopsided their contributions are toward democrats. They obviously have special interests- this needs a lot of attention from the media!

"Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet.'"" Microsoft also conspicuously has tens of billions of dollars in cash to sit on. Heaven forbid that they have any interests in politics.

And this is interesting how?

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. They are not abusing power nor infringing on the rights of individual citizens. The graphs show huge amounts of money flowing to both parties. Now I would be more worried if almost all the money went to Republicans (as the trend is slowly turning), but regardless it is within their rights to promote their interests. It is neither immoral nor illegal. If you, specifically, were a major player in an industry and controlled billions of dollars, I would hope that you promoted your own interests. It's capitalism, no more, no less.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[nomadic]

The sad thing is we're not talking huge sums of money here; 9.5 million, spent on multiple candidates? It's because of the small amounts of money that actually get spent that I don't really think there's much quid pro quo involved. The way the lobbyists really get things done is simply through access. They get more access than us, and can argue their case directly to the lawmaker, while we peons have to hope that some of our letters get through their staffs to them, or some non-profit org marshals enough resources to argue their case.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

"The graphs show huge amounts of money flowing to both parties."

Last time I checked, democracts and republicans were the same party. All that says is that they are both corporate whores.

Sadly its a rational move for MS

[Aliks]

A company is bound to invest where it thinks its future revenues will lie.

In this case the future revenues will come from legislation protecting Intellectual Property monopolies. Sad but true. Every million dollars spent protecting interests in DC will return manyfold millions of dollars in terms of higher prices for product.

Maybe there is a ray of hope though. The so-called robber barons of the railroads, steel, shipping and oil back at the end of the 19th Century were eventually reined in. I wonder why they didn't lobby the hell out of government at the time, and if they did, why did they lose the battle against anti-trust legislation?

litigation vs. imagination

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

Hmmm. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be more profitable to create than to litigate? Look at Anti GPL lobbying efforts [slashdot.org] mentioned earlier this week. I mean, you think a better defense for a company would be to just churn out out better products for lower prices. It would certainly have a chilling effect on their competition.

I also wonder how many tax breaks are afforded these corporations at the customer's expense - and how it might be better for the economy if we had more cash on hand to buy more of their products - versus more cash for them to lobby.

I guess it's easier to litigate than to create.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

"They are not abusing power nor infringing on the rights of individual citizens"

Don't stay up on current events, eh?

"It's capitalism, no more, no less"

Umm no its not. Get a clue.

big companies run US government

[Anonymous Coward]

let's examine the current situation:

The Case for Invading North Korea:

Member of the "axis of evil." Check.
Ruled by a ruthless dictator. Check.
Has a rogue nuclear weapons program. Check.
History of aggression against its own people.Check.
History of aggression against neighboring countries. Check.
Threatens American allies with weapons of mass destruction. Check.
Could supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction to use against the U.S. Check.
Sits atop the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Nope.
Oops... ...Never mind. Please return to the previously scheduled war with Iraq.

Re:Microsoft is not the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to see why educators would support those who support (or at least don't openly attack) them.

It's not individual educators. It's a union. Teachers do tend to be Democratic, but not by such a lopsided ratio.

Not that there's anything wrong with collective support, but if it is allowed for unions, surely it should be allowed for corporations as well. Just as unions represent their members, corporations stand for their stockholders.

The Open Source community needs a PAC

[AELinuxGuy]

Perhaps we already have one (correct me if you know), but it seems that a lot of important tech issues are being decided in Washington by the highest bidder. Two things get action in the U.S. political system...money and votes. They pay attention to groups of people - like the steel workers of america - because they vote uniformly in mass and all contribute financially to their PAC. There are way more of us (the open source community) than many of these unions...we just need organization. I'd be more than willing to give the amount I owe in taxes each year to the Free Software Foundation to balance off as a tax credit if they acted as a PAC for our cause.

Interesting chart

[Anonymous Coward]

It completely reaffirms why I can't stand the Republican party.

Look at the charts that are overwhelmingly Republican. Tobacco, Oil, Big Business.

Now look at the charts that are overwhelmingly Democrat. Individual Rights, Workforce Rights.

Realistically both parties completely suck, but I still don't know how anyone with any common sense or sense of social Justice can be a Republican.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[drDugan]

I agree it is within their (a company) rights to promote their interests. The point is that a huge group of people, organized to aggregate cash -- in a world where money = = interests -- these groups can push their interests so much more effectively than any individuals, even well organized individuals. I am not saying it is immoral or illegal. (put another way... a bit of cash for each sale of windows goes toward greasing wheels in politics to, say... keep the monopoly together.) It's just that the interests of individuals and the interests of corporations are typically not aligned completely. the current system puts these different interests in direct competition, and because of the disparity in dollars, the corporate interests almost always win out. the vague notion that our elected officials are in place to make life better for the people is the only reason corporate interests don't win out entirely.

Contributions should be illegal

[dh003i]

Both soft-money and hard-money contributions to either political party should be flat-out illegal.

With this kind of money flying around, there's no way in hell that the Senate and Congress will represent the people, and be for and held accountable to the people. They're for the corporations and accountable to them, as well as other money-laden organizations.

Money being given to politicians for political objectives is disturbing, no matter who does it. Its obviously disturbing when its MS and the Tobacco companies giving money to politicians, especially when the government's supposed to be trialing MS for being an illegal monopoly.

Its also disturbing when teachers unions donate 15M dollars. Sure, some of that goes to make sure that the teaching of evolution isn't outlawed in schools. But most of it goes towards protecting bad teachers who should be fired. Thanks to fanatical tenure terms enforced by teachers unions, teachers who should be fired aren't. Point in case, Rita Wilson. That child-molesting bitch sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and violated the privacy of at least twenty teenaged girls entering a school dance. Another great one is the case around Brandy Blackbeard, where some retarded teacher accused her of "casting a hex on him" and she was suspended.

Contributions to politicians from organizations are just thinly veiled bribes. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to be equal, but such contributions make that impossible. Ideas and laws are propogated not based upon how many voting citizens like them or how good they are, but on who has the most money to give to politicians. Point of case, the DMCA, and the 1998 Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act.

Re:And the winner is...

[drDugan]

I stridently disagree. Just because we don't have a law expressly that forbids action X -- that does not make X ok, moral, or helpful.

The assumption that laws are the only way to get people to act decently is the reason we have such a bloated, ineffective legal system.

You are also under-informed to suggest changing the constitution. The assumption that corporations have rights as people, and that money = speech, are nowhere there, but rather in many, much more recent rulings.

opensecrets information not complete

[stefanlasiewski]

Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet

Hold on to those conclusions cowboy, just because they are the only entry does NOT mean that they are the only technology contributor.

Opensecrets is a GREAT site, and I really appreciate their efforts[1], but their database is far from complete. I've been browsing the site over the last few days, and I notice that Opensecrets has information for many of the Democratic congressional candidates, but not for many Republican candidates.

Check out the race in my District [opensecrets.org]. We have information for Barbara Lee, for the other two candidates, it says "No reports on record for this candidate. ". Not a good measure, yet.

Does this mean that Democrat$ receive more money then Republican$? NO!

It simply means that, for whatever reason, Opensecrets has the data for the Democrats, but has less information for the Republicans.

[1]: So valuable that I donated money to them, even through I just got laid off. YOU SHOULD DONATE TOO [opensecrets.org]).

anthropomorphic powers

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are neither human beings nor are they citizens. The notion that they are entitled to donate money to a politician is ridicules. If corporations are allowed to donate money to politicians or political parties (which they are) then so should other none citizens and inanimate objects like, rocks, dirt, houses, house pets, books, computers, etc. Corporations are inanimate objects that have been granted (unfairly) anthropomorphic powers because they are the possessions of the 'super rich'. As long as this situation is allowed to endure the US should not be considered a democracy.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[ratamacue]

Keep in mind, the root of the problem is still government. Microsoft (or any private corporation) are not the ones who determine which laws pass and which ones do not. They cannot force a politician to pass any law; they can only attempt to bribe the politician with money. Whether or not the politician accepts the bribe is a decision made by the politician, not Microsoft. Government holds the ultimate power, and therefore the root of the problem lies in government. If we really want to address this practice, the only way to do it is to address the policies of government.

With that said, the only sure-fire way to reduce the practice of private corporations bribing politicians is to limit the powers of government. The smaller the government, the less incentive private corporations have to try to take advantage of it.

Re:Further proof

[jamie]

"Sweden middle class has a lower standard of living than the lowest earning group in US - Blacks."

Conservatives keep claiming this. It's been debunked before. Here's the best example, from p. 5 of Paul Krugman's excellent piece "For Richer":

Let me use the example of Sweden, that great conservative bete noire.

A few months ago the conservative cyberpundit Glenn Reynolds made a splash when he pointed out that Sweden's G.D.P. per capita is roughly comparable with that of Mississippi -- see, those foolish believers in the welfare state have impoverished themselves! Presumably he assumed that this means that the typical Swede is as poor as the typical resident of Mississippi, and therefore much worse off than the typical American.

But life expectancy in Sweden is about three years higher than that of the U.S. Infant mortality is half the U.S. level, and less than a third the rate in Mississippi. Functional illiteracy is much less common than in the U.S.

How is this possible? One answer is that G.D.P. per capita is in some ways a misleading measure. Swedes take longer vacations than Americans, so they work fewer hours per year. That's a choice, not a failure of economic performance. Real G.D.P. per hour worked is 16 percent lower than in the United States, which makes Swedish productivity about the same as Canada's.

But the main point is that though Sweden may have lower average income than the United States, that's mainly because our rich are so much richer. The median Swedish family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are if anything higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. And as you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are way ahead of those in the U.S. Swedish families with children that are at the 10th percentile -- poorer than 90 percent of the population -- have incomes 60 percent higher than their U.S. counterparts. And very few people in Sweden experience the deep poverty that is all too common in the United States. One measure: in 1994 only 6 percent of Swedes lived on less than $11 per day, compared with 14 percent in the U.S.

The moral of this comparison is that even if you think that America's high levels of inequality are the price of our high level of national income, it's not at all clear that this price is worth paying. The reason conservatives engage in bouts of Sweden-bashing is that they want to convince us that there is no tradeoff between economic efficiency and equity -- that if you try to take from the rich and give to the poor, you actually make everyone worse off. But the comparison between the U.S. and other advanced countries doesn't support this conclusion at all. Yes, we are the richest major nation. But because so much of our national income is concentrated in relatively few hands, large numbers of Americans are worse off economically than their counterparts in other advanced countries.

You can (and should) go read the whole thing right now: For Richer [nytimes.com]

Re:It's the Democrats, stupid -- Vouchers -- Blech

[Proudrooster]

You don't know jack about inner-city schools. The problem isn't vouchers, the problems are

1. No one wants to teach there.
2. No one wants to go to school there.
3. No one wants to live there.

In Detroit, substitute teachers get FULL health coverage (and of course Kevlar vests). The current daily substitute count is about 2,000.

As for vouchers, schools of choice, charter schools. How does this help the inner-city? Are parents going to drive their kids to the good schools in the subburbs every morning? Maybe you'd be kind enough to start a bus service.

What about reinventing education with charter schools? Charter schools have proven to be a total failure and that fact is proven out with test scores?

What about "schools of choice"? This is a fancy way of saying, we want to take our tax dollars and fund exclusive private schools that our kids go to. Also, the exclusive private schools don't have to take problem kids or handicapped kids and reserve the right to boot anyone they want back to public schools. So we get the money and the best kids, and you can turn your public school into a home for all the people we reject. Nice!

If you have an answer I'd like to hear it. The only solutions I can see are:

1. We need a lot more giving caring teacher in the innercity.
2. The innercity needs to stop having more children than they can properly parent.
3. The republicans need to stop trying to rape all the money out of public education so they can go fund "star wars" or "bombing Iraq".

Lastly, packing in bodies has nothing to do with Federal FUNDS. The reason bodies are packed in is because THERE AREN'T ENOUGH TEACHERS IN THE INNER-CITY, so class sizes grow HUGE! I am sure Deroit would love to have 15 kids per class in the lower elementary, but guess what.. there aren't enough teachers! Additionally, the Feds and State are going to pay out no matter where that kid ends up.

My apologies to the NON-Americans out there, but this offtopic post was neccessary.

Re:anthropomorphic powers

[AvitarX]

Does it really make a difference if they can donate or not?

I mean if Bill Gates got a 2 million dollor bonous (or not, he has plenty o dough) and then donated 2 million dollors to campaign x, does anybody doubt where it came from?

I don't think you can prevent this from happening without capping spending to a certain amount, and you can't do that without taking away free speech. It's a bitch, but that is all there is too it.

They're playing by the rules.

[TheSHAD0W]

Microsoft, like many other industries, is under attack by government. Microsoft, like many other industries, is trying to buy off the US government by lobbying Congress. It's a slimy, immoral thing to do, and I'd expect just that of Microsoft. But it's not illegal.

Ya know, everyone thinks corporations have too much power over the government. Thing is, everyone blames the corporations. Me, I blame the GOVERNMENT. What, they make bribery legal, and you blame people and organizations for taking advantage of the fact?

Everyone pisses and moans about the US being ravaged by capitalism and the free market. But the United States doesn't run under a capitalist system. It runs under a MERCANTILIST system, which is a very different animal. A truly free market can't exist when the government meddles with it, with taxes and tax credits, and regulations and licenses... A large corporation is very happy to have regulations placed on it; those rules may decrease its profits a little, but a smaller business will wither and die under that chilly wind. Do you wonder why small companies are disappearing?

Re:corporate power is out of control

[drDugan]

Personal attacks aside, I would agree that it _is_ the responsibility of every citizen to VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS . The problem is that it doesn't work very well, and not just because each individual only contributes a small part. The drives and pressures in society that get people to buy things are independent of the uses to which corporations apply their profits.

I would also agree that money does not grow on trees, however the only corporation that 'makes' money (in the US) is the Federal Reserve Bank. All the other corporations take money in exchange for goods and services. It is a subtle point, but one people should keep in mind. The money supply is a zero-sum game. I think that the assessment of 'useful' that you make is of limited scope and context. Do humans really need faster palm pilots? Is it enough to conclude that just because a company can get money for something, then it is an appropriate use of human time and effort?

I think not.

Re:Contributions should be illegal

[superyooser]

It's obviously disturbing when it's _______ and ________ giving money to politicians.

(Put your name in a blank... and a strip of duct tape over your mouth. Bye bye, 1st Amendment.)

Re:Contributions should be illegal

[Nathanbp]

If contributions are illegal, who do you think is going to end up in office? Only people that are already rich enough to pay for commericials, ads, etc. Do you really want the rich to control the country even more when you'll never even hear about anyone running who isn't rich?

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

One coward quoting another (emphasis mine):

...but regardless it is within their rights to promote their interests. It is neither immoral nor illegal. If you, specifically, were a major player in an industry and controlled billions of dollars, I would hope that you promoted your own interests.

It's capitalism, no more, no less.

It's certainly not democracy, that's for damn sure! It's supposed to be 1 person = 1 vote not $1 = 1 vote. The argument that corporations collectively represent the interests of a larger group is true in theory but false in practice. When was the last time you felt the company you work for is actively promoting your self-interest, or that of your community? The only interest a corporation has is the accumulation of money (which is a far cry from creating wealth); this effectively benefits the majority shareholders at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Capitalism is a pretty good economic system, --it's a terrible social/political system.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Have you ever owned your own business?

Dealing with employees who accept bribes is very
easy. You replace them! You don't just close the shop to solve
to solve this type of problem.

Same thing for crooked politians. Replace them. Closing
down the government, or yielding power to big
business, are proposals advanced by big business
so that they sieze powers currently owned by the citizens.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be kidding. You must not have read to the bottom of the list. Unions put 400 MILLION dollars into democratic candidates. Thats WAY more than the big bad corporations and even worse because most states MAKE union members pay dues whether or not they want to join. I'd be more worried about this complete lack of financial liberties and this money going straight to the same politicians who made that law(forced union membership).

Its mob style extortion and people should pay more attention to it.

By outsepending them

[overunderunderdone]

How can the interests of individuals even come close to being recognized in an arena like that?

If that individual is Jane Fonda by outspending them by a massive amount. To quote Counterpunch.org

Jane Fonda continued to be the largest soft money donor in federal politics. During the first quarter of 2002, Fonda gave $400,000 to Pro-Choice Vote, bringing her total donations to the abortion rights group to $12.7 million since July 1, 2000

Anyways a couple of points: First off much of what OpenSecrets.org is tracking here IS contributions by individuals. The methodology of OpenSecrets.org is somewhat flawed, or at least debatable. They are not just taking the contributions of Corporate PACs but also take the contributions of individuals and count them as the contributions of their employers. SO Peter Amstein giving 100% of his money to Democrats and George Spix giving all of his money to Republicans is assumed not to be because they are committed (and wealthy) partisans but because Microsoft Corp is directing their giving for the corporations purposes. This probably has *some* merit when you are talking about the very top tier of management giving hundred of thousands. But Open Secrets also includes every $200 or more contribution by every cubicle dweller at Microsoft. If you gave $200 to a candidate because you agreed with their position on Abortion, Open Secrets doesn 't see it as a healthy participation in democracy but as a nefarious plot by Micro$oft to influence Washington. Even for the big donors I think at least *some* of that money is probably donated not by corporate dictates for corporate purposes but because the individual is a partisan for one or the other party or for some cause. Jane Fonda's $12 million dollar expenditure probably has more to do with her stance on abortion than with trying to get special breaks for Universal Studios. She probably even giving money to candidates that support abortion at the *expense* of her personal financial interests - The Pro-choice Democrats she supports are likely to raise her taxes quite a bit more than the pro-life Republicans she is seeking to defeat.

Also the huge organizations designed to aggregate money (corporations) don't hold a candle next to the huge organizations whose purpose is to aggregate political power - out of the top ten groups donating money to politics only one is a corporations (Phillip Morris) three are proffessional Associations (Realtors, Trial Lawyers & Doctors) the rest are unions.

Mingling with Uncle Sam

[Tin Britches]

I find it noteworthy that Microsoft stayed in large part out of the political contributions arena until the government started threatening to force Microsoft to change what so far remains a lucrative business model. The fact that more cash went to the Republicans is due to a Democratic controlled Department of Justice turning up the heat. The favoring of Republicans was simply trying to test things to see if the conservatives would treat them any differently. The Democrats got some favorable financial treatment because some of them didn't like what the administration was doing any more than some Republicans.

It would have been better if the government had stayed out of the fight because:

(1) Microsoft would have stayed out of the political financing racket.

(2) Alternatives products are quietly preparing to kick Microsoft's ass in certain marketing
venues.

Point 1 backfired because it helped the Republicans which are already seen as the enemy of fair competition and the small guy. Oops. You'd think the anti-Microsoft croud would have known better than to go to the government for help because politicos only do things that increase each one's clout. Look at the DMCA as an example. Hollywood will contribute the bejesus out of politicians that go along with them.

As a conservative I look at certain things that have come from Open Source with glee. For instance I firmly believe that current Linux marketing provides an arena where distributors have to compete not on the control of a base platform, but exclusively on the value THEY ADD
to the base. The market will choose the best Value. Simple competition.

And before I forget, quite a few respondents to the original post have based their remarks on the idea that we live in a democracy. It needs to be said once again that we live in a "Representational Republic", not a democracy. We don't vote on everything. We elect officials that (hopefully) represent us when they do the voting.

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Sarcasmooo!]

But representatives only take time to meet with lobbyists when they know that lobbyist represents and organization that is funding their campaign, and keeping them in power. They don't have to meet with every lobbyist. So you can hire a lobbyist, or we can all geek ourselves together and hire a lobbying firm, and the reps are still going to choose to spend there available time in other ways, rather than listen to a pitch from someone who can't afford to payroll their re-election.

Re:By outsepending them

[SideshowBob]

The Pro-choice Democrats she supports are likely to raise her taxes quite a bit more than the pro-life Republicans she is seeking to defeat.

I have to call bullsh*t on this particular myth. In the 22 years since Reagan was elected in 1980 the only time the budget was balanced was when a Dem was president.

The Republicans, despite vociferous claims to the contrary, are much more for big, intrusive, authoritarian government.

I think we can all agree that Republicans are morre likely to spend money on defense. Well, the military represents over 40% of the federal budget alone! (source: FCNL [fcnl.org])

The Republicans have had things far too easy for far too long on the tax-n-spend issue. This is the party of corporate welfare, bloated military spending, and intrusive, unnecessary policing of its own citizens (e.g. the 'war' on drugs, which has inflated the prison populations to unprecedented levels in the industrialized world - yes, prisons do cost money).

Re:corporate power is out of control

[Mac Degger]

I cannot agree with you for one simple reason. Corporations get the same rights as individual persons, but they lack one very important, if not crucial aspect of being a person: morals.

Sure, corporations have acharter, but that states nothing more than it's one purpose: make money for the shareholder. And that does not a code of ethics make. I would argue that if you lack any form of morals or ethics, you cannot and should not be treated as a human being. Therefore giving corporations 'human rights' is rediculous.

Re:Big difference.

[Mac Degger]

I dare you to start working in a big corporation which uses Windows and ask for a Linux machine.

So where's you're choice now?

Re:No, the open-source community needs a party

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Of those four, I disagree (to some degree or another) with all four, or at least with the specifics of the pillars.

"Grassroots Democracy." As spelled out by the manifesto on the Green Party website [greenpartyus.org] (yes, I actually read it, in its entirety), the Party wants to make everything a direct democracy. I am wholly opposed to the idea; the Founding Fathers were careful to avoid it because direct democracy is functionally equivalent to mob rule. Consider this: the abolition of slavery, and, later, the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, was highly unpopular; it was pushed through, despite heavy opposition, because the elected leadership was able to do its job, instead of having the people directly vote on the bills. Indeed, if everything is a direct democracy (an absurd idea, given the volume of legislation considered each year), what would even be the point of having representation? All we'd need is ballot counters.

"Social Justice." Generally an emotionally-loaded term for Communism (that's with a big 'C,' the way Marx described it, not like the Soviets implemented it), the Greens' definition of "social justice" lives up to the reputation. Here's my definition of social justice: unequal rewards for unequal efforts; that's derived from the basic concept of justice, letting the consequences (positive or negative) of an action be proportional to the action itself.

"Non-violence." Again, loaded words--who in his right mind is in favor of violence? And again, the devil is in the details. I am opposed to wanton use of the military, but I do recognize the need for one, and I think that if we're going to have one, it needs to be the most capable, most effective, most overwhelming force possible. Indeed, such a force would have a deterrent effect; "the best defense is a strong offense." I also believe that we owe it to the persons who make up that force to make them as powerful as possible: the greater their effectiveness, the less the risk to which they are exposed when called upon to do their duties. Additionally (this seems like a logical place to put it), I don't agree with their position on gun control. The Brady Law was a terrible idea which has been wholly ineffective in preventing crime (details available upon request, but would be offtopic here), has led to major violations of civil rights (i.e. the gov't illegally maintaining records of background checks, creating a de facto database of gun owners), and, while not explicitly defined, the "reasonable gun control" they propose would probably be distasteful, particularly in light of their stance on the Brady Law.

"Ecological Wisdom." Wisdom is good, right? Nobody wants to be a fool. Well, yet again, the name of the pillar is good, but the stones comprising the pillar need examination. First of all, I am all in favor of preserving the environment; I'm a backpacker, hunter, fisherman, sailor, camper, and probably spend more time outside than 95% of the Slashdot population. Nonetheless, I disagree with some of the Greens' proposals for maintaining the environment. For example, I disagree with their position on nuclear power (they're wholeheartedly against it, and call for the complete shutdown of all plants in five years, if possible); I feel that, while renewable sources are the best long-term option, they're not ready yet, and, until they are, nuclear power is one of the best interim options available. Yes, I know of the hazards, and of the accidents; I also know the why and how on many of the accidents, and recognize that most of them were results of nuclear power being pushed ahead before its time; now, with a more relaxed political climate (no more Cold War), and another thirty to forty years' experience, I think we're in a better position to handle nuclear power.

So, there's the short version: I disagree with all four, to some degree or another. Documentation is happily provided on the Greens' own web site; if you really need me to, I'll be happy to reply with chapter and section, but please don't ask unless you really can't find it. And, just for the record, I didn't make any accusations about what their positions are, I just said I didn't agree with them. If you're going to put words in my mouth and accuse me of making accusations, well, documentation would be nice.

Re:No, government power is out of control

[hype7]

next time you hear the words "campaign reform" or "finance reform" in the mouth of a political representative, don't just pass it off as a unimportant/fringe issue. It matters, nowhere more so than in the United States. I don't live over there, but I sure as hell would have loved to have seen John McCain get up and put his campaign finance reform measures through. It would have cleaned up the politics of your country, and done so much good for the entire world - because decisions made in the US (often very much influenced by lobbyists) reverberate around the rest of the globe.

-- james