Microsoft's Political Lobbying Record 330
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked, democracts and republicans were the same party. All that says is that they are both corporate whores.
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't stay up on current events, eh?
"It's capitalism, no more, no less"
Umm no its not. Get a clue.
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
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:corporate power is out of control (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry knee jerk reaction, politically speaking, you're right, 9.5 is not a lot, but damn, I'd sure love to have that kinda money just to push MY idealogies.
DAMN THAT CAPSLOCK KEY!
No, government power is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a myth that the US government holds back the corporations and forces them to play fair. For at least a hundred years it has done the opposite. The only times it every does anything right is when some wealthy person or group pays it to.
Unfortunately, there is no graceful way to change this situation. Try to change the government and the corporations work against us. Try to change the corporations and the government works against us. It will come to a head this century.
Re:No, government power is out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
-- james
Re:No, government power is out of control (Score:3, Funny)
I'm seriously considering deporting to a safer eu country before 2020 or so.
I'm guessing you whackos hang out at kuro5hin too.
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
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:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Replace a politician, get exactly the same function performed by a different flack. The SYSTEM is malfunctioning (if you contend that government and corporations exist to serve The People, rather than the other way around). The problem must be addressed on a systemic level.
How? Dunno. I'll get back to you.
Re:government power is out of control (Score:2)
By outsepending them (Score:3, Insightful)
If that individual is Jane Fonda by outspending them by a massive amount. To quote Counterpunch.org
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.
Re:By outsepending them (Score:5, Insightful)
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:By outsepending them (Score:3, Funny)
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.
While the Presedent enjoys the power to veto any actions of Congress, he does not set the Federal budget, Congress does. In the final years of Clinton's presidency, when the government came into the black, Republicans controlled a majority in the Legislature. When Congress shifted to a Democratic majority in 2000, and Bush II was (s)elected, the budget slipped back into the red. Whether this was the fault of the Legislature or of the Executive (or of the political climate in the wake of the terrorist attacks) can be debated ad infinitum.
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).
The Clinton administration saw record levels of drug arrests, convictions and imprisonment. More Americans were prosecuted under his (Democratic) watch, than under Reagan and Bush I combined.
Now, I'm well aware that the Republicans are guilty of increasing military spending, which grants enormous windfalls to many aggressive-minded corporations, typically run by conservatives. But the arguments being presented here to dispell a "myth" are simply propogating another. There is a lot more going on in the Federal Government than simply the whims of whoever has the helm of the Executive Branch. Also, the modern left in America is way to the right of center when viewed in a global or historical context.
Simply speaking, if you're truly interested in reducing Federal expenditures, corporate handouts, and intrusive, unecessary policing, voting for Democrats OR Republicans into Federal office is going to get you further from your goals, despite the rhetoric either party uses in it's campaigning.
Re:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
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:corporate power is out of control (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a free clue for you: what "capitalist" society (as you put it) is a multi-national corporation a member of?
I honestly think the founding fathers would roll in their graves if they could hear their decendants
uh yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Is Open Secrets so incomplete then? (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
His lawyer stated it would cost him $40,000 to guarantee him his freedom. Interestingly, one of his "partners" happened to be a judges son, who got off free. Since my uncle didn't have a defense fund, he is now thankfully serving time and is not using his abilities to further stockpile his toxic waste dump (I'm not sure why it takes *boxes* of different cyanide compounds to manufacture E.)
My own experience with lawyers many years ago was getting out of 5 nice speeding tickets in one year. $1055 for combined legal costs to maintain my perfect driving record. I would learn from my misdeads others would spend money to work the legal system for their vices. I feel ashamed for my experience, but I learned this is a true way of life for others.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Like, for a recent instance, that Bush girl who's been snorting coke -- does she get mandatory sentencing? Heck, no!
But if she were an ordinary black kid? Her ass would be grass.
Justice isn't blind, not at all.
OT: Noelle Bush was caught with crack! (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that Ms. Bush has a long history of drug abuse, it's astonishing that the matter wasn't pursued further. Except for her family connections. Further proof that if you're rich or powerful criminal law simply doesn't apply.
--M
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand what you find wrong with doing what you did. You spent $1055 to save yourself untold thousands of dollars in artificially inflated insurance fees over the next several years after your tickets. Is it then not worthwhile to use the system as it was designed -- you're innocent until proven guilty, and if your lawyer is good enough, they can't prove you guilty. Considering speeding tickets are designed mainly as a source of income for the government, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever fighting those tickets. (many speeding tickets are issued when there's no "unsafe driving" happening other than maybe a bit of excess speed -- why not ticket the people trying to read the morning paper or put on their makeup during their commute?) I pay more than enough in taxes, so why should I also pay for speeding tickets, and the increase in insurance rates (which goes towards buying radar and laser speed detection equipment for law enforcement agencies, to increase the number of speeding tickets issued, to increase the insurance premiums, to buy more equipment, etc)?
People joke about lawyers being scum, and just out to get your money, and just generally being a bad sort of person. However, I for one would not like to live in a world without lawyers. When the government can trump up anything to get you to pay up (oh no! I was going some arbitrary speed higher than some arbitrarily set speed limit, on a road that can handle some speed higher than what I was going, in a car that can handle the same, with no traffic around me at all!), I consider lawyers the last line of defense between me and the money-grubbing politicians.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
He was a chemistry student. Imagine where all that glassware and chemicals came from. Yes, that is correct. His excuses for shoplifting include the casual reply of something like "return an item, forget to tell the clerk, and walk out with merchandise."
We try to help people by sending them through school, setting them up in houses, but some are absolutely determined to do bad things. His last straw was breaking into his neighbor's house to "steal a pen," got beat up by neighbor, and things went downhill from there. The stench of sulphur compounds, mysterious holes dug in his yard, and tanks of freon stored outside in this fine residential neighborhood where kids played yielded phone calls of concern to appropriate agencies. This is why we have a prison system.
An officer once told me "a person can get away with murder in this city." Not if people complain loudly. And this is why we have people writing letters about companies that take advantage of our economy. Laws start with the people.
Surprised? (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft walks and talks like a big tobacco company. All that's missing is Bill Gates in cowboy boots.
It's interesting how the tobacco companies (also huge lobbyists) ancestors owned slaves, whereas Microsoft has enslaved the human race with their craptacular software.
Big difference. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
So where's you're choice now?
Under the table? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Under the table? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't doubt that this kind of still happens to a limited degree, but I think the degree is very limited and has been for quite sometime. It simply isn't worth the risk of getting caught, and members of Congress know how easy it is to get caught accepting a gift like an expensive notebook or a car. I know an editor who persuaded the publishing company he works for to send complimentary copies of a newly published book to every senator. (The subject of the book pertained to legislation pending in Congress.) Almost all the books were returned with gracious letters thanking the editor for his interest, but explaining that the publisher's price for the book exceeded the amount Congresspeople are allowed to accept as gifts. Many expressed support for the position taken by the book's author (which was well-known and obvious from the book's title), some said they were interested in the author's arguments and would purchase a copy (probably a tax write-off anyway!), most had no comments one way or the other.
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate ways for Congresspeople to get perks without accepting under-the-table gifts.
Michael
Maria Cantwell (Score:2, Interesting)
She had to be bailed out after her company and their lousy spyware bloatware crashed and burned, and is now ironically bringing in lots of money from the infamous creators of Windows Media: Microsoft.
More info:
http://www.cantwellscash.com/ [cantwellscash.com]
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin0
Re:Maria Cantwell (Score:2)
Moee info: http://www.cantwellscash.com/ [cantwellscash.com]
That site is funded by the Washington State Republican party. Just a thought, but wouldn't you expect it to be a bit paritsan?
Re:Maria Cantwell (Score:2)
So where's the report on KPCB? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Slashdotted already :=/ (Score:2)
And the winner is... (Score:5, Interesting)
MS clocked in with $9.5M, where AOL spent $12M, and AT&T clocked in with a whopping $17.5M!! Man, I wish they'd lobby me for something...
Re:And the winner is... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm surprized that anyone is the focus of this story. This is NO story. MS,and the other companies are executing their rights within the law to give money to political candidates. They are obviously reporting the results too, otherwise we wouldn't know the amounts. Get over it people, or do something about the preceived problem (like vote for decent candidates and monitor their activities and report to others what the senators/representatives/presidents are doing). Saying MS can't donate money is like those people that say Christians can't hold public office. Them's the rules folks. Live with them or change the constitution. Better yet, don't let your money get into Bill's hands and he won't have that amount to donate away!
Re:And the winner is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And the winner is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Where the power lies. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where the power lies. (Score:3, Interesting)
- The tobacco companies got hit with a
- Ken Lay should probably not be planning any trips out of the country soon, because the heat isn't off. Neither, for that matter, should Bernie Ebbers, who has gotten to see executive after executive cooperate with authorities to save their own skins.
When was the last time a government department went bankrupt and had to fold due to chronic inefficiency? When was the last time a high-ranking civil servant was sacked due to incompetence or malfeasance -- keeping in mind that both Reagan and Clinton served a full eight years despite their questionable records? How many companies could basically ignore the need to have a budget, or survive that long with bozos who care more about popularity than efficacy?
Re:Where the power lies. (Score:2)
Re:Where the power lies. (Score:2, Informative)
The real problem is, people vote the way TV commercials tell them to. That's why the person who spends the most usually wins. Which makes money important.
The reason we have stupid legislation is us: Pogo's Law at work again.
Microsoft is not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
) 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:Microsoft is not the problem (Score:2)
Not every slashdot reader is an American. So, as a courtesy, how about explaining this pledge, and this controversial addition?
I have been wondering what I should ask of my Member of Parliament, when I write to him about Microsoft.
Re:Microsoft is not the problem (Score:2)
The italicized portion was added in the... 1950's, if memory serves, with the definite intent of meaning the Judeo-Christian deity. The question is whether or not this pledge violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, which among other things prohibits state establishment of religion.
Schools (K-6 at least, don't know about higher) often start with the pledge. However, because of the 1st, schools are not allowed to require such speech; a student must be permitted to maintain silence, IIRC.
Support for this post-50's version of the pledge, unlike what the parent poster stated, is not limited to conservatives. It is, in fact, extremely broad-based -- polls after a certain court ruling suggested that a very, very large majority thought that the words "under God" should stay in, with some making the most transparently ludicrous statements to justify this (e.g. some claimed that people could interpret "God" to mean whatever they chose, which utterly ignores the fact that "God", when capitalized as such, is always interpreted as that particularly deity versus, say, Quetzalcoatl or Loki.)
Re:Microsoft is not the problem (Score:2)
Re:It's the Democrats, stupid -- Vouchers -- Blech (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Microsoft is everywhere ! (Score:2, Interesting)
The real problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
...is politics in general. As many people,so tritely, observe... people who want power are usually very self-centered and have no concern for the betterment of their fellow man. This is, sadly, completely out of alignment with what politics were originally intended to be. Let's take a look at the official definition of politics and break it down:
The science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.
Let's also consider that politics is considered a science, where "science" is taken to mean:
Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study.
By this definition, a politician should have a great body of knowledge regarding ethics, citizens and their rights and proper morals. If you apply that branch of logic to the politicians of the last few decades, we find that there is something that has slowly gone seriously wrong. Our politicians tend to be anything but knowledgable, ethical, moral or have any concern for citizen's rights!
We will start with our current administration. The polls say that G.W. Bush has had anywhere from a 49% approval rating [go.com] at lowest and as high as his post Sept. 11th rating of 93%. While this speaks well of him, it completely obscures many well known facts regarding his knowledge (quite lacking), ethics, morality and feelings on citizen's rights. If we delve deeper, we find that he, in fact, has very little knowledge about the system. Further evidenced by the fact that he is a poor speaker and his father's former cabinet appears to be running the entire show. He is just a mouthpiece.
Regarding ethics, I would question any politician's ethics who would have other men in thir cabinet involved in scandal [time.com]. Especially in a position so close to the power seat as vice-president Cheney. Mr. Cheney's desire to conceal the connections between Enron and the current administration are very disheartening. Even the staunchest conservative must admit that this was not one of the finer moments in conservative history. (The liberal-controlled media argument doesn't wash here either as the news sources that reported negatively on this story tend to be just as far right as you can get.)
While Mr. Bush professes to being a good christian. He hasn't always been that way. His morals [realchange.org] are not exactly what one would call "good". It's very well known the George W. Bush, was quite the party down, rich kid. As he grew away from his "youthful errors", he became quite the shady businessman. I would have to say that his morals are questionable at best.
Citizen's rights and the current administration are at odds with each other. This has been an ever increasing problem since Sept. 11th. As most Americans blindly wave their flags, their ability to do much of anything else to affect their own well being is being erroded by things like "The Patriot Act" [thebyteshow.com]. In the name of security, the man in the white house and his staff are trying to convince us that it's good to lose your freedoms sometimes. This is quite damning evidence that he does not understand or care about the citizen's of this country's rights.
Seeing that all of this is true, it appears that George W. Bush fails to live up to the definition of what a politician should be, as do many of his cabinet.
The last administration has it's blemishes on many counts as well. Analyzing Mr. Clinton in the same way, we find that his knowledge of the governmental system was stronger than Mr. Bush's. (If anyone can provide links that prove otherwise please do so, I couldn't find any.)
Where ethics are concerned, Bill Clinton had his share of gaffes [mit.edu]. Not to mention the more serious allegations [robinsweb.com] regarding his time as Governor of Arkansas. No... Sadly, we can't say that Mr. Clinton has shiny repution either.
Everyone knows about his moral problems [realchange.org] since they've been beaten to death. Like him or not, Bill Clinton was not a man of morals by strict definition.
As geeks, we all know that it was his administration that passed the DMCA which has potential to seriously impinge on citizen's rights. Not just your ability to "swap songs", but you ability to write code freely!
So, by the same analysis, Bill Clinton fails the test of what a good politician is. As do most other politicians. Why is this? Because we are humans. We have imperfections that prevent us from being able to truly hold to the ideals of what how politics should work. Some do better than others, but in general the lot of them are corrupt.
Most politicians are only interested in politics due to their hunger for power. Just that alone is damning as it points to a deep seated greed and selfishness that is almost required to be a politician. So how is it that our system even works? In reality, it doesn't.
Most of what the operations of the government and the way they affect us are almost 100% happily incidental. Ocassionally one person somewhere deep in the system does one thing right. Another one somewhere else in the system does something else right. And so on... There are the few people here or there who intentionally or unintentionally (They're human, remember?) do something wrong. But the aggregate result is something that more or les resembles a system that works. This illusion trickles upward toward the leaders (Senators, congressmen, governors, and ultimately the president) and makes them look good. (It works this way in any large organization) So... for now we are stuck with a system that appears to work, but is solely based on chance. Or looking at it another way, real politics (as opposed to the ideal defined above) is just another form of gambling.
In closing, I'll offer you this joke about politics:
Son: Dad, I have a special report for school. Can I ask you a question?
Dad: Sure son, what's the question?
Son: What is politics?
Dad: Well son, let's take our home for example. I am the wage earner, so let's call me the management. Your mother is the administrator of the money, so let's call her the government. We take care of you and your needs, so let's call you the people. We'll call the maid the working class and your baby brother the future. Understand?
Son: I'm not really sure dad, I'll have to think about it.
That night, the boy is awakened by his baby brother's crying, so he went to see what was wrong. Discovering that the baby had a heavily soiled nappy, the boy went to his parent's room and found his mother fast asleep. He than went to the maid's room, where, peeking through the keyhole, he saw his father in bed with the maid. The boy's knocking went totally unheard. The boy went back to his room and went to sleep.
The next morning...
Son: Dad, I think I understand politics.
Dad: That's great son, explain it to me in your own words.
Son: While the management is screwing the working class, the government is fast asleep, the people are being completely ignored and the future is full of shit.
---Whew! All that work just to post this---
-I am a Windows user
-I am also a f4g0rt
-All Windows users are f4g0rtz
-Bill Gates loves men
-Linux is the sux0rz
-BSD is dying
-Stephen King loved goatse.cx before he died
-75% of people in the US make up 3/4 of the US population
-Adolph Hitroll is my bitch
-RecipeTroll loves the cock too
-Natalie Portman is naked and petrified
-I poured hot gritz down my pants and all I got was this lousy T-shirt
-R.M.S. is a commie
-Linus Torvalds is keeping his brotha down. Free him!
-Looser = Loser and vice-versa. Stop complaining and learn New English
-Imagine a Beowulf cluster of trolls
-The CowboyNeal jokes are old
-X is unstable, let's get rid of it
-KDE is the sux0rz, GNOME rules
-Real men use TWM
-vi is better then emacs (no it's not, emacs is better than vi)=Tastes great/Less Filling
-Ford sucks
-Chevy sucks
-Capitalism is dying
-Linux on the desktop is dead
-IE won the browser war, give it up Mozilla. (No. The war's not over yet M$)
-MySQL is robust and scalable
-PostgreSQL is better than MySQL. Nyah!
-So you like your pages W I D E N E D?
-I 4m 1337. giv3 m3 w4r3z d00dz.
-w00t!
-In other news...
-1. Steal concept from open sores 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!
-RMS is a dirty hippie
-Moderation sucks
-UNIX will never be as secure as VMS
-GayPee is not a hacker, he's a dork
-General strike!! Now!!!!!!
-ESR is a homo
-Grok THIS you GIMP!
-Corporations are evil
-Corporations are good
-Quake is the sux0rz, give me Unreal Tourney! (You Canadian f4g0rt, UT sucks, Quake 0wnz j00)
-Canadians are gay
-Americans are stupid
-Brits are assholes
-For hot gulrz see: http://www.bakla.net
-~the fux0rz has spoken~-
Other interesting things on opensecrets.org (Score:2, Offtopic)
Anyone shocked by the fact that Philip Morris, a tobacco company, is in the top 5 all time donors [opensecrets.org]?
Wow, and they still pale in comparison.... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ [opensecrets.org]
Blue Chip Investors
Top Donor Dossiers
Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in American politics since 1989--information that exists nowhere else. Read the full report. Read about our methodology.
* View top organizational givers by rank
* View top organizational givers by alphabetical order
* View top individual contributors from these organizations
Search for an organization by name:
Top 10 donors:
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $30,671,426
National Education Assn $21,116,383
National Assn of Realtors $20,414,385
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $19,931,717
Philip Morris $18,951,671
Teamsters Union $18,858,733
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $18,394,547
American Medical Assn $18,377,814
Service Employees International Union $17,647,346
Communications Workers of America $17,597,372
Look again... (Score:2)
For example, AFCME has
1.3 million members, and contributed $30,671,426 between 1990 - 2002 [opensecrets.org]. That's a whole stinking $5 per year per member. Mostly to Democrats. Big wow.
The oil industry, on the otherhand, gave $147,101,710 between 1990 - 2002 [opensecrets.org], $108,198,576 of which went to Republicans.
Re:Other interesting things on opensecrets.org (Score:2, Informative)
No.
Philip Morris is far from "a tobacco company". Tobacco is just part of what they do. They have hundreds of food brands, in fact, a large majority of the "name brand" stuff in the grocery is Philip Morris. Check their site sometime, I'd bet your refrigerator is full of their products.
But that's not the point of my reply. The point is, the overt contributions of Philip Morris are nothing. You also have to look at the billions and billions of tobacco tax money that the tobacco industry generates for the government(s). The settlement with the states was also a big source of free money for governments to spend on whatever they wanted.
The government is addicted to tobacco in a big way. Even if PM gave zero in direct donations to candidates, indirectly, they still give billions in tax revenue each year. The government likes it this way. They can act all big and bad an anti-tobacco, when in reality, they love the tobacco industry, and can't live without it.
The democrats might whine for tobacco tax increases "for the children", when in reality they are just propping up the covert system of graft, that somehow slips past the public eye unnoticed.
Re:Other interesting things on opensecrets.org (Score:2)
Get your facts straight...Halliburton is not a "huge oil company." It is a supplier of equipment and services to Big Oil, but it is not itself Big Oil. Two seconds' worth of googling would've led you to this [halliburton.com].
Sadly its a rational move for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Sadly its a rational move for MS (Score:4, Interesting)
They did lobby and won most battles, just not all.. The side effect was for our economy to gear up for a very deep cleansing cycle. We call it the great depression.
Capitalism in a democracy (or republic) can operate with only so much overhead (corruption) and then it cleanses itself. This happens every sixty years or so. The greater the corruption, the deeper the recession/depression. Every single MSFT or AOL or PMs lobbying successes equals a larger failure country wide. Eventually (any remotely) economic law will be total spegetti code and we will need an FDR to fix it.
Lets hope the voting public realises this before they vote/relect any candidate without strict views on campain finance. Soft money may be gone after this election, but the election process is far from fair.
Note the change in party loyalty (Score:5, Interesting)
As his power base has grown, and as he has become more entrenched and established, he has increasingly favored the Republicans. Of course, the decision of the Clinton white house to trustbust him can't have helped.
litigation vs. imagination (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This came up during HDTV standards debates (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason for this was that the broadcasters and the TV manufacturers and pretty much everyone else remotely interested in HDTV standards had tons of lobbyists working full time to push their interests, except for companies in the computer industry. A couple computer companies had a couple of part-time lobbyists working on this, or something pathetic like that.
Microsoft is not doing something bad here. The ones doing something bad are all the other companies that should be on that list but aren't.
Top recipient: Jay Inslee (Score:5, Interesting)
The Open Source community needs a PAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Open Source community needs a PAC (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The Open Source community needs a PAC (Score:4, Informative)
Wait a second, isn't the EFF supposed to do this already? I guess the EFF spreads their efforts out a bit, and perhaps fails to focus strongly enough on the legislative branch, and lobbying Congress to pass bills more friendly to the technology community. The EFF seems to get stuck in the judicial process, relying on the admittedly somewhat more rights-friendly judiciary to save our asses. Frankly, I don't think the Free Software Foundation, which you mention, is the kind of organization I would want representing my point of view in the political arena, though I think they have done a lot of great work to promote Free Software. I think we could accomplish a lot with an organization that existed to promote legislation friendly to the cause of freedom online, that had a pro-Free Software stance without being radically dogmatic.
In the meantime, why not donate to EFF [eff.org]?
No, they're not, because they are a nonprofit (Score:2)
The EFF can educate legislators and encourage people to write to them, and I believe the EFF already does this. But the EFF probably isn't allowed to do too much more with the legislative branch- certainly they can't hand money to them.
Re:The Open Source community needs a PAC (Score:2, Informative)
No, the open-source community needs a party (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the Green Party is the only one that thinks corporate power is a problem. And we are the only party whose values line up with the open-source commuity. See for yourself at http://www.greenpartyus.org/
Re:No, the open-source community needs a party (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Interesting chart (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
read between the lines... (Score:2, Interesting)
prior to the swinging of the executive pendulum towards the republicans, more of their money went to democrats. but ( and it would be interesting to see what they gave in 97 and 99 ) when things took a turn for the worse publicly ( interns, cigars, cum-stained clothing ), more money goes to the republicans. i'd like to see what they did in 99, when everyone sort of just said fuck it, so what if he banged an intern? look at hillary... and got over it.
looking at the numbers, i'd say they were hedging their bets in 98-00, and then went w/ the winner when dubya got in. judging from the results of the case, i'd say it paid off.
Re:read between the lines... (Score:3, Interesting)
Gates absolutely hated Clinton. A good friend of ours (went to the dark side for many $$'s at M$) was at a party at Gates house where Gates went on an absolute tirade against Clinton almost to the point of breaking down in tears before leaving the room. Our friend tells us it was really spooky and kinda sad, but it was most certain where Bill Gates political bent was focused. Shortly after hearing about this, I was watching CSPAN where dubya was coming out against the M$ anti-trust trial. And we all know the history since...Dubya gets in courtesy of the supreme court, appoints Ashcroft and gets rid of the entire Microsoft anti-trust legal team.
Wow - check out labor! (Score:2)
Labor lobbying is 94% slanted towards Democrats!
I'm surprised only because I always thought it was just a stereotype. Good article. Thanks for sharing
Re:Wow - check out labor! (Score:2)
Some of the unions were probably a bit pissed off at Clinton and the Democrats over NAFTA, but they're still more likely to get favors from the Democrats.
Contributions should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Contributions should be illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a Spanish teacher in High School who didn't teach jack. He would spend most of the class period asking the students "trivia" questions for extra points. Maybe once or twice a week we would crack open the Spanish book and attempt to learn something. There were hardly any homework assignments or tests at all in the class.
Yet, very few students complained because he gave almost everyone in the class a free grade of "A." The only students who complained were the one or two people who actually wanted to learn something.
When I privately asked an administrator if they knew what was happening in the class, they said they did. When I asked why they didn't fire the bum for not teaching what he was being paid to teach (or at least get on his case), they replied they couldn't because of some nonsense with the teacher's union and "tenure."
Seriously, it seems like something really warped is going on in schools, and I wouldn't put it past all the teacher's union "contributions" that are often made against the will of many teachers themselves to state and federal legislatures.
Re:Contributions should be illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
(Put your name in a blank... and a strip of duct tape over your mouth. Bye bye, 1st Amendment.)
Re:Contributions should be illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Contributions should be illegal (Score:2)
The contributions bit is already skewed in the individuals' favor. Ten individuals are allowed to contribute more money ($1000 each, $10,000 total) than a single organization representing ten people ($5000 total).
The problem isn't the contributions, the problems are:
- Nobody knows about them
- Nobody cares enough to look into them
Politicians would be a lot less likely to accept contributions if they were heavily criticized for it.So how much 'R&D' money went into... (Score:2)
The FEC Database has errors: Quality of Disclosure (Score:3, Informative)
Quality of Disclosure:
Quality of disclosure data has been removed from the site because of errors in the Federal Election Commission's database. The FEC has informed us that it will not supply updated disclosure data until mid-October. We will post new figures on disclosure quality as soon as possible.
Convenient timing, eh? Elections are November 5th, and the FEC won't supply the updated information until "mid-October". That's probably not enough time for opensecrets to input the data before the elctions.
If the FEC supplied that information on a timely basis, I might be able to make a more educated decision on November 5th.
Suspicious timing, if you ask me.
opensecrets information not complete (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on to those conclusions cowboy, just because they are the only entry does NOT mean that they are the only technology contributor.
Opensecrets is a GREAT site, and I really appreciate their efforts[1], but their database is far from complete. I've been browsing the site over the last few days, and I notice that Opensecrets has information for many of the Democratic congressional candidates, but not for many Republican candidates.
Check out the race in my District [opensecrets.org]. We have information for Barbara Lee, for the other two candidates, it says "No reports on record for this candidate. ". Not a good measure, yet.
Does this mean that Democrat$ 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]).
Re:opensecrets information not complete (Score:2)
And in response... (Score:5, Interesting)
One way to respond to this is with Volunteer time:.
If you presume that volunteer time is worth $10/Hr, and a (reasonably high) 32 hours/ person (4 hours/week over 8 weeks). that means that it would take about 10,000 people volunteering on these terms to outbid Microsoft's 'donations'.
If you want to make the biggest impact with this, you may be best to gather together a couple dozen (or even a couple hundred) of your best friends and go in force to your local candidate's office. Tell them how many people you have at your service, and tell them that you'd like to know where the candidate would stand on issues important to you and that you're giving your time to the candidat who best supports your interests.
This is non trivial: 10 people, 30 hours each, $10+/hour is the equivilalent of a $3000 donation. More if you're doing more than grunt work (e.g. doing computer support). The real truth of the matter is that good volunteers can be worth their money in gold.
Part of the value of going in as a group is that you can probably volunteer together. It can be a great social activity. Be aware, however, that part of the value of volunteer time is that it is a wonderful way to meet other people. I've made some great friends and gotten some interesting contacts by doing political work.
anthropomorphic powers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:anthropomorphic powers (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Other major corporate donors (Score:5, Interesting)
5 Philip Morris $18,951,671
12 AT&T $17,464,374
18 Citigroup Inc $14,762,646
19 United Parcel Service $14,621,284
21 Goldman Sachs $13,665,527
26 AOL Time Warner $12,195,822
28 FedEx Corp $11,555,286
29 BellSouth Corp $10,838,209
30 SBC Communications $10,695,349
31 Verizon Communications $10,255,052
33 RJR Nabisco/RJ Reynolds Tobacco $10,079,162
34 Ernst & Young $9,967,638
35 Lockheed Martin $9,862,899
36 JP Morgan Chase & Co $9,861,326
40 Microsoft Corp $9,468,287
Mingling with Uncle Sam (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Further proof (Score:3, Insightful)
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":
You can (and should) go read the whole thing right now: For Richer [nytimes.com]
Re:Further proof (Score:3, Funny)
Here's interesting food for thought: Swedes who have immigrated to the US also don't experience deep poverty.
It's only a few deadbeats that give America a bad name.
Re:Gun-/Human rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look around you. Are they identical to each other in capabilities, when it comes to handling themselves with regards to violence? Probably not -- both physically (some people are larger, faster, stronger than others) and mentally (ability to take in a tactical situation, ruthlessness to follow through if need be). Even if you assume a "fair" situation, the playing field of crime is biased towards an attacker...
An attacker can bring partners and choose his victims, within reason -- there's not much point in trying to carjack pedestrians, for instance, so if he really wants a car, that slightly limits things. But say that a man wants sex, and is a sufficient asshole that he'd rather take it than earn it or pay for it. In that case, he can pick where he operates (e.g. areas with cover where he can hide), when (probably when there are minimal witnesses), and on whom (pref. a woman alone, one smaller and likely much weaker physically). Would you say it's a coin-toss, or would you say that the attacker has an edge? I'd say the latter -- while he may not be bright enough to avoid leaving evidence, that's of little consolation to the victim.
Even for a mugging, weapons aren't needed -- say, three-on-one. Two approach from behind, the third punches in the kidneys or chops at the back of the neck, follow up with groin kneestrike from the front. Even if the victim fights back -- without a weapon, as you would seem to prefer -- the attackers might expect at most a bruise or two, given the ratio, plus the victim's money and other valuables. A lethal firearm equalizes things a bit given that many thugs won't be amenable to taking a bullet (instead of a punch that can be recovered from MUCH more readily) just so his partners can split $40.
Incidentally, in Pittsburgh a serial sex offender was recently caught -- after eight or so victims. He wasn't caught by police footwork -- he was only stopped after he attacked the wrong civillian, twice in one day (the first time, she got away... and went home and retrieved her pistol). Tell the final "victim" that she shouldn't have had a gun.
Re:Gun-/Human rights (Score:2)
"Personal safety is certainly a 'rights' issue -- you have no rights if you're trivially open to violation."
Re:american democracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:american democracy? (Score:2)
Re:american democracy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Each candidate is alloted equal amount of time on the television and they use it to promote their cause. Similar things with other media etc.
The basic idea is, the government ensures that all candidates are given equal exposure.
In USA, if someone's program appeals to more people but the candidate doesn't have enough money to tell everyone about it, then the jerk with a big purse wins because people will think there is no alternative.