Slashdot Mirror

Maybe,
On the other hand, someone donated $28.5 million to put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and keep Garland off, among other things. Nobody knows who, but buying a justice could be a really good investment.

https://maplight.org/story/tax...

3 ISPs Have Spent $572 Million to Kill Net Neutrality Since 2008

Well shit, that sounds scary. But "net neutrality" as we know it know wasn't around til 2013. How could they have been spending money lobbying to kill net neutrality since 2008?

Three of the largest internet service providers and the cable television industry’s primary trade association have spent more than a half-billion dollars lobbying the federal government during the past decade on issues that include net neutrality, according to a MapLight analysis. (emphasis is mine)

Ah. There it is. Had to go to the tertiary source to find it. This includes the lobbying money spent on everything that the cable companies want to bend a congress-critter's ear about, not just net neutrality. Nice work on bending MapLight's reasonably less click-bait-y headline.

If your interested, my google-fu on net neutrality history came up with this article from c-net: https://www.cnet.com/news/net-...

This is the guy according to the vote log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
I'm emailing him now.

Here's videos of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/result...

Have fun commenting.

His political contributers:
http://maplight.org/california...

we have public broadcasting networks in both radio and TV

Which very few people watch. To get the message out is needs to be where and when people are watching and listening and that means network prime time.

The Court citing "free speech" as if it always triumphs every other consideration ignores the fact that our society and our courts often limit the free speech of individuals when not doing so would cause harm to other individuals or to society as a whole

Libel, slander, hate speech, incitement to violence, etc are a far cry from expressing one's opinion on a political issue. Political speech is a very protected thing in the US.

Aside from that, I do not agree that campaign spending equals free speech.

Here is a problem with limited spending. Say later in a campaign a rival splurges and exposes some event in your past that is spun all out of recognition. You have spent almost all your limit and now can't respond effectively. Do you not spend as much earlier just in case? Wouldn't that limit your speech?

Many of the representatives who signed Letter 2 that was referenced in the Ars Technica article represent areas where Internet access is very limited. They are betting that since so many of their constitutents don't have home Internet access, most of them won't even notice their actions on net neutrality or even know what it is.

It is interesting that you have such a strong psychic link that you know what "[t]hey are betting". Your statement is merely your spin on their actions and has no basis in proof.

They got contributions and signed the letter they were asked to sign because that's how the campaign funding business works.

According to this of the 44 representatives who receive $30K or more in contributions only eleven signed a letter. Twenty five percent is not a very good success rate.

Take a look at this chart. There are 12 house members who received campaign contribution at or above the level of John Barrow. A total of $880K were given to these campaigns. If that $800K, $391K was given to the five campaigns that signed the letters and $489K was given to campaigns that did not sign the letters. Giving campaign contributions does not guarantee public support.

Also take a look at this report. Out of the 51 bill the group had a position on the House voted their way four times. That is an 8% success rate. It does not look like the contributions are making a difference.

So... donating to the campaigns of congressmen that'll vote for things you want is now bribery?

Look at their own god damned quoted data: http://maplight.org/us-congres...
They donated to 397 members of the house out of 435 members which is 91%

Letter 1 was signed by 4
Letter 2 was signed by 20
Letter 3 was signed by 4
So we have a total of 28 signers.
So just random statistical chance would mean 91% * 28 = 26 of them would have received contributions.
27 received contributions, so the total is only off by 1 member or 3%.
Give me a break. Arstechnica is worse than FoxNews. Why does anyone even read that garbage?

I despise ALL politicians, and I fully support net neutrality, but this "story" is a joke.

That said, I'm just going to note here that the bill to strip the NSA of these powers was supported by more democrats that republicans -- but the split was by no means a party-line vote.

The split can be attributed to a major disparity in campaign contributions between the sides, with the "no" votes receiving 122% more than the "yes" votes.

You can thank SCOTUS for enshrining corruption as "free speech."

You blame the voters, but the information presented to them is pure deception. I don't give a fuck if they were a school teacher or volunteered for 37 years scraping tarter off retarded children's teeth. I only care if they are a member of PNAC, AIPAC, CFR, the UN (subs - UNEP/IPCC/Agenda 21), ICG. I only care if they are doing revolving doors with monsanto, HFCS, banking, etc. I only care if they won't break their sworn oaths. The ballot doesn't tell you they've broken the logan act, or been convicted of felonies, the ballot won't tell you if their ID is real. Neither will the corporate owned media. In essence you don't know shit about who your voting for, you can't validate an electronic vote, and you can't do JACK SHIT about the two party electoral college system. Go read land destroyer, who connects these dots: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html
Go read about the disaster that is the "electoral college" GO look at the ron paul people that got fucked.

The problem is these officials have broken their OATHS, and I believe this is because they aren't natural citizens anymore, which explains why they don't give a shit about the Constitution they have European ideals, not American, Constitutional ideals.

There's ISRAEL (land of the ritual to un-bind all your sworn oath, no wonder they don't obey pesky GOY oaths, nice word huh? Goy?)
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

They have completely infiltrated DHS, NSA, CIA, Senate, House--everything. There's a difference between being Jewish, and being a zionist psychopath, so don't lob shells at me sayin I am anti-semetic, and for the record my fucking grandmother is Jewish! My point here is that people refuse to even address this issue because of the fucking mind games.

Technically you don't need to vote, the electoral college does it FOR you. Don't like it? FIX it.

You know I thought ol Debra Bowen (D, CA secretary of state) was going to rid those electronic boxen. Nope. And even recently found a lawsuit vs Debra Bowen about motherfucking Barack's Birth Certificate ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT.

How the fuck is it we are all to get national ID's and be spied and monitored by NSA and databases and all this fucking SHIT and the mother fucking president can't prove he's a fucking natural born citizen.

This shit is just too un-real, the turning is coming soon. That's why they want your guns, that's why their fucking judges don't prosecute the Jon Corzine's. Just wait until the banksters fuck it up again, it will be Jubilee time this time

You mean THIS Tim Bishop?

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Lawyers/Law Firms $174,015
Transportation Unions $164,750
Education $140,600
Securities & Investment $132,800
Public Sector Unions $115,000
Health Professionals $102,825
Building Trade Unions $75,250
Real Estate $67,450
Industrial Unions $59,050
Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice $52,900

Also from the same site, he took $18,000 from New York Life and $16,450 from Estee Lauder Companies. So, yeah, he does take corporate money.

But as for the unions, that's over half a million dollars from unions alone. Unions are his biggest contributor by far. Surely, a man as pure as Bishop couldn't be affected by money. He's not corrupt enough to be bribed by these people right?

How does Tim Bishop feel about Card-Check? Does he feel that unions leaders should know how you vote for things like, "should we have a union"? Is he the least bit concerned that someone might drop by the kid's schools to try to persuade the parents to vote for a union? Does he not see the value of the secret ballot, the bedrock of any democracy? He would protect a workers' right to become unionized right? He would also have to protect with the same vigor the right to NOT become unionized, otherwise it's not really a choice. A man this pure would have to support the worker over the unions and allow them to accept or reject a union without the possibility of "persuasion" from union members, wouldn't he?

How does Tim Bishop feel about non union members being forced to pay union dues if they have a job? Should workers be forced to pay union dues, which will go to support political candidates that the workers may not agree with? Does Tim feel that it's OK to take forced contributions from workers who don't support him, but must contribute to his campaign in order to have a job? Isn't forcing workers to join a union the exact same thing as forbidding a union? They both remove the choice, right?

I don't know if you realize this, but a Democrat taking union money is the same thing as a Republican taking corporate money. You say Republicans are bought and paid for by corporations. I say that Democrats are bought and paid for by unions. It's the same thing.

I'm sure Mr Bishop does some good things from time to time, like what TFA is talking about, but don't play like he's squeaky clean. Given that unions make up the bulk of his political contributions and the two issues above, which he sides with unions on both of them, I believe corruption is proven. This guy is bought and paid for by unions.

we now know now much it costs to buy a congressman: $5,500.

Replace "Democrat" with "Republican" in that URL and you'll see that Issa cost less than Maloney.

The Dem was the recipient of the kick back lefty.

(What's a "kick back lefty"?)

The Republican who introduced the bill was also one of the recipients of contributions from Elsevier. Much less money ($2K to Issa, $11K to Maloney), but still money. There are other Democrats and other Republicans on the list as well. Dunno whether Issa's just a cheaper date or what.

we now know now much it costs to buy a congressman: $5,500.

And I posted the wrong link, it's really maplight.org

Hint: this type of data mining is already happening.

This explains his Senate vote on the FISA amendment but I don't have docs for the campaign that followed that. Anyone?

House democrats who changed their vote received pac contributions from telcos verizon at&t and sprint.

Ok, let's have a look at something interesting.

Take a look at the same web site that purports to show the deep influence of money on politicians. It turns out, that despite giving money to politicians, despite all of their public support for various laws, the vast majority of bills they support do not actually become law.

Have a look at teacher's unions. Classic special interest group and typically a democratic bastion...

http://www.maplight.org/map/us/interest/L1300

Out of all the bills they supported, only ONE became law.

According to a couple sources, that's exactly what's happening. See http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

Follow the money.

Video tour: http://maplight.org/video/2/FedTourMay1662007.html

Follow the money.

Video tour: http://maplight.org/video/2/FedTourMay1662007.html