Slashdot Mirror

Funny you should ask. https://www.followthemoney.org... Is one such site. There are others. Google is your friend here.

This "journal" is a McCune operation; the ultra wealthy widow of a banker that funds all manner of establishment approved non-profits and academics. In addition to being the ultimate paymaster of no end of well connected non-profits they fund lots of (D) campaigns in the North East [1,2].

1. https://www.followthemoney.org...
2. https://www.followthemoney.org...

Enjoy your establishment kool-aid. It's telling you want you want to hear so I'm sure the fact that it's 1% "bankster " funded "research" won't be an issue as it ricochets around the liberal echo chamber.

This "journal" is a McCune operation; the ultra wealthy widow of a banker that funds all manner of establishment approved non-profits and academics. In addition to being the ultimate paymaster of no end of well connected non-profits they fund lots of (D) campaigns in the North East [1,2].

1. https://www.followthemoney.org...
2. https://www.followthemoney.org...

Enjoy your establishment kool-aid. It's telling you want you want to hear so I'm sure the fact that it's 1% "bankster " funded "research" won't be an issue as it ricochets around the liberal echo chamber.

I wonder how much money Linda Rosenthal has taken from the hotel industry? Her donors (well, the legal ones) may be found here http://www.followthemoney.org/... but with some of them it's not clear who they represent.

Hmm... let's check if there are any democrites on the bribe list. It looks like AT&T has only a small bias towards repugnicans.

Unless he changed his approach this election, they don't seem to be funding him directly at least. The last majority of his campaigning money in 2010 came from public funding: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=120091. And so far, it looks like for 2012, it is following the same pattern http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=139815.

Unless he changed his approach this election, they don't seem to be funding him directly at least. The last majority of his campaigning money in 2010 came from public funding: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=120091. And so far, it looks like for 2012, it is following the same pattern http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=139815.

And into greasing the wheels:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=259&y=0 (scroll down to see who they greased.)

...that one of the most reliably-Democratic demographics is teachers?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000064
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml?topl=1&topnum=10000

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
- #1 Contributors to state-level campaigns, political parties, and ballot measure committees in 2007 and 2008
- donated 2:1 to Democrats over Republicans in state races.
- donated 25:1 Dems:Repubs in national races since 1990 (the charted dates, but it's been a mainstay of DNC contributors for much, much longer)

You missed the #1 contributor to all of his campaigns. Rogers Communications, Inc

No, not the Canadian one. In this case, "Rogers Communications, Inc" is Chip Rogers own company: which used to consist of a former radio station and some real estate holdings.

According to his political opponent Thompson (the one who keeps on losing to him), Chip Rogers is not being open about what his company consists of. If anyone has access to Lexis Nexis, may be some of you can find out more.

If you're on the fence on this particular issue, do note that the Senator is also strongly against Net Neutrality.

Note that there are also a number of "Friends for Chip Rogers" groups

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=124878

Haven't paid much attention to him before now, but I'd expect a lot of pro-private health care bills.

Agreed. Companies that don't need political protection to survive, don't need favors from politicians, nor seek value by political manipulation of the marketplace don't need to be Occupied.

I couldn't disagree more. Political manipulation of the marketplace? How about political manipulation to shift the burden of paying taxes onto the individual instead of the corporation? Like lobbying congress to keep tax loopholes in place? And if Google doesn't need to lobby politicians then why give them money?

Now can someone tell me about the Occupy movement's actual goals and desired outcomes? It seems to me that without an end in mind, this movement could be corrupted and taken over by celebs just like the Tea Party.

Well, as I've posted before, I'd imagine economic justice. To specifically address my point above about tax dodging, I feel that our taxpaying dollars present these companies with one of the best and safest environments in the world to run a business. From police forces to firefighters to the highway infrastructure to educating your customers in the public schools. The reason you might think that all those things are going to shit is -- as I see it -- companies reap the benefits from them and then shift revenue through Ireland or The Netherlands to avoid paying for them! There's something specific you can fix. Right now it's you and me picking up the slack in income and sales tax!

Forget political speeches... how about campaign contributions and votes?

Reuven Carlyle and Hans Dunshee received a combined total of $1200 from MS and $900 from the "Washington software alliance". They've received more from broadband interests which might lead counter to wanting to derail a datacenter (although the broadband money is probably focused more on different legislation), and quite a bit more from other sectors.

Reuven Carlyle and Hans Dunshee received a combined total of $1200 from MS and $900 from the "Washington software alliance". They've received more from broadband interests which might lead counter to wanting to derail a datacenter (although the broadband money is probably focused more on different legislation), and quite a bit more from other sectors.

By searching google: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance /candidate.phtml?si=200419&c=410033 Looks like most of his money came from unions.

Someone here commented that money doesn't ALWAYS win elections. That's like saying drunk drivers don't ALWAYS cause car accidents. It's true, but it's also trite and useless. Take the time to check out some actual numbers for state elections, for example Maryland , or Iowa or Florida , which I chose completely at random. Look at wherever you live. The fact is that nearly all elections in America are won by the candidates with the most money backing them.

You will see this pattern repeated over and over in every state if you bother to look. Election results no longer reflect the will of the people. They reflect the effectiveness of the campaign fundraising. The only actual voters in America are the ones who write checks. The election itself is little more than a quaint, old-world ceremony which we indulge in before the best fundraisers give their acceptance speeches.

Every time you have a chance to write in the name of a candidate on a ballot, write the words "No Confidence".

Someone here commented that money doesn't ALWAYS win elections. That's like saying drunk drivers don't ALWAYS cause car accidents. It's true, but it's also trite and useless. Take the time to check out some actual numbers for state elections, for example Maryland , or Iowa or Florida , which I chose completely at random. Look at wherever you live. The fact is that nearly all elections in America are won by the candidates with the most money backing them.

You will see this pattern repeated over and over in every state if you bother to look. Election results no longer reflect the will of the people. They reflect the effectiveness of the campaign fundraising. The only actual voters in America are the ones who write checks. The election itself is little more than a quaint, old-world ceremony which we indulge in before the best fundraisers give their acceptance speeches.

Every time you have a chance to write in the name of a candidate on a ballot, write the words "No Confidence".

Unfortunately, the US government, for whatever reasons, have decided to whore out the rights of its citizens in exchange for increased corporate revenues and, as a result, increased taxes (not to mention all those nice PAC campaign contributions).