Slashdot Mirror

The MPAA, RIAA, and DMA have bought laws.

Don't you think that they have a right to expect a fair value for the legislators that they buy?

What good is buying a congressperson if you can't get the laws you want written the way you want?

Ever notice with party the MAFIAA goes to in order to purchase their laws?

Look here and here

Mess with big business and you may start seeing campaign financing conveniently disappear.

Not if you're careful to limit how much you mess with them - enough to let them know you're a threat but not enough to make it worthwhile for them to evacuate the country seems to be "optimal":

Microsoft Corp is the world's top computer software company. It is also one of the biggest campaign contributors in Washington--an astounding fact when you consider that Microsoft is a relatively new player on the political scene. Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company's marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country. The move eventually galvanized an entire industry, as computer and Internet companies quickly moved to emulate Microsoft's political savvy.

Okay, you got me. But palestinian protests are also always in English. The last few Iranian "protests" were in English. Same goes for Iraqi and even (partly) Turkish ones.

And unless I'm very, very wrong your remark doesn't fly for all off these.

The subject of this thread is still a lie. There's a grain of truth to the accusation : obviously politicians pay for good press.

To get elected, Obama paid :
$244 million to broadcast media
$133 million to "miscellaneous media"
$26 million to internet media
$20 million to print media
$3 million to media consultants

How much of that went to bloggers. I don't know, but I'm betting at least a million or two.

source

I seem to recall a little of that money going to a blogger in trade for not publishing a video of a certain extremely racist pastor. Seems stupid now, as it turns out no democrats care about "black" people being racist.

You do get what you pay for, and the teacher's union (NEA) are the single largest campaign contributors in the United States. They pay for politicians, and they get them. That is not the sole problem, but its intertwined with the rest of it. Schools have trouble telling good teachers from bad ones, and there aren't enough good ones to go around anyway, so they pay them all the same as if it were unskilled labor, and pay the administrators more in the hopes that overcompensated administrators can manage away incompetence in those actually doing the teaching. These incompetent teachers and overcompensated administrators like the NEA because it is job security. The really good teachers either go along knowing that most schools can't tell they are worth extra, don't care about the money anyway, and don't really have the ability to make a change. They are gifted teachers after all, not gifted politicians. I don't know if there is a way to tell a very good newly graduated teacher from a very poor one in the time allotted for an interview, or if there is any hint on a resume. The ability to terminate the employment of a teacher as soon as they show themselves to be sub par without worrying about lawsuits would be a less efficient, but more feasible solution to mind reading employment candidates. Paying more won't create a greater number of good teachers either, because they are almost never money motivated people. Using poor or untested teachers as little more than TAs and proctors while the better compensated, proven teachers instruct large numbers of students via live or recorded media would provide more students with access to good teachers, and a testing ground for new teachers to earn their credentials in a less pivotal role in the child's life.

They sure do love that, but these things would never get passed unless the individuals that fund politicians' releection campaigns didn't want them.

Do you really think that a regulation that affects a "too big to fail" bank or a corporation like GE will get passed into law unless it gives them a competitive advantage?

The "please don't throw me into the briar patch" routine is strictly for the benefit of the voters.

I find it funny that republicans say they are always "for" the little guy, yet net neutrality is some kind of boogyman amongst them, waiting to come and murder their children.

Having suspicions about the party of Hollywood and its DCMA turning the Internet into a regulatory plaything can't possibly be legitimate. It's just inbred "hypocrisy," or something.

Not wanting your bandwidth bill doubled to fund more redistributionist bullshit for "the poor" isn't a real concern. It's just these "weird" Republicans.

New Internet regulation isn't going to be limited to making life wonderful for Pojut. It's going to come with a lot of baggage. Copyright baggage. Class warfare baggage. Your concern, the thing you think of as Net Neutrality i.e. not allowing content producers and bandwidth providers to collude the Internet into a second incarnation of cable TV, is a vanishingly small part of it.

Franken's mention of this aspect of Internet regulation is a Slashdot headline precisely because of its rarity. That should tell you something. But it won't. You're swimming in the cool-aid.

If this were really such a cut & dry partisan issue, why have 70+ democrat members of congress also asked the FCC to drop it's plans to impose net neutrality rules?

It's a partisan issue all right, but not in the sense of the Democratic and Republican Parties. It's a partisan issue in the sense of the Bought-and-Paid-For Party versus the Sensible-Policy Party. Members of both the BAPFP and SPP can be found in both the Democratic and Republican caucuses, although the BAPFP has a clear majority in both houses and parties. You'll notice that members of the SPP aren't generally taken seriously by the establishment media (who are not coincidentally part of the group that is doing the buying).

Going rate for a BAPF congressman seems to be around $10-15,000 in campaign donations:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076

This issue of who AT&T donates to is really really easy to settle. All we need to do is go to research that looks directly at who's giving what to whom, which is thankfully available right here.

As you can see, the general story is:
1. AT&T has given more to Republicans since 1994, but gives huge amounts of cash to candidates of both major parties.
2. AT&T has handed out more cash than any other organization in the country since 1990.

You mean like comcast?

If you look at the "major political campaign donations" lists, I believe telecoms have overwhelmingly given to Democrats as well... as have most tech companies. For AT&T specifically, they favor Republicans by 2% at the moment. It has shifted back and forth.

I didn't even contradict your point and I'm already an asshole eh?

But since you want to go there. I note your numbers show $35 mil from unions. Doesn't sound like much compared to the $3.5 Billion your corporate friends spent. I'm also not sure the GP would consider $35mil of mob money contributions to be particularly relevant in the first place. The unions aka mob is really just an under the table corporation fscking us.

Here are some other interesting things.. from that site.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=B02

407/435 House members were bought by the TV/MUSIC/MOVIE division of the copyright cartel.

86/100 Senators were also bought by the TV/MUSIC/MOVIE portion of the copyright cartel.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=B01++&goButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=8&goButt2=Submit

315/435 House members were bought by the Printing and Publishing division of the copyright cartels.

74/100 Senators

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=C5120&goButt2.x=10&goButt2.y=12&goButt2=Submit

311/435 House Goes to the software division of the copyright cartels

67/100 Senate to the software division.

If you cross index that, I wonder what total portion of congress has sold out.

All in all, it looks like they have sold out pretty cheap too... at least in the reported numbers.

I didn't even contradict your point and I'm already an asshole eh?

But since you want to go there. I note your numbers show $35 mil from unions. Doesn't sound like much compared to the $3.5 Billion your corporate friends spent. I'm also not sure the GP would consider $35mil of mob money contributions to be particularly relevant in the first place. The unions aka mob is really just an under the table corporation fscking us.

Here are some other interesting things.. from that site.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=B02

407/435 House members were bought by the TV/MUSIC/MOVIE division of the copyright cartel.

86/100 Senators were also bought by the TV/MUSIC/MOVIE portion of the copyright cartel.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=B01++&goButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=8&goButt2=Submit

315/435 House members were bought by the Printing and Publishing division of the copyright cartels.

74/100 Senators

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=C5120&goButt2.x=10&goButt2.y=12&goButt2=Submit

311/435 House Goes to the software division of the copyright cartels

67/100 Senate to the software division.

If you cross index that, I wonder what total portion of congress has sold out.

All in all, it looks like they have sold out pretty cheap too... at least in the reported numbers.

I didn't even contradict your point and I'm already an asshole eh?

But since you want to go there. I note your numbers show $35 mil from unions. Doesn't sound like much compared to the $3.5 Billion your corporate friends spent. I'm also not sure the GP would consider $35mil of mob money contributions to be particularly relevant in the first place. The unions aka mob is really just an under the table corporation fscking us.

Here are some other interesting things.. from that site.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=B02

407/435 House members were bought by the TV/MUSIC/MOVIE division of the copyright cartel.

86/100 Senators were also bought by the TV/MUSIC/MOVIE portion of the copyright cartel.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=B01++&goButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=8&goButt2=Submit

315/435 House members were bought by the Printing and Publishing division of the copyright cartels.

74/100 Senators

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=C5120&goButt2.x=10&goButt2.y=12&goButt2=Submit

311/435 House Goes to the software division of the copyright cartels

67/100 Senate to the software division.

If you cross index that, I wonder what total portion of congress has sold out.

All in all, it looks like they have sold out pretty cheap too... at least in the reported numbers.

That's an interesting site. Is there anyone else isn't buying that bribes have decreased by 2/3rds from 1998?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php

Looks like they are getting better at keeping the numbers off opensecrets.org.

are caused by those transnational corporations bribing our politicians (or to put it politely, "Lobbying").

Unions would never bribe(lobby) our politicions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=P01&cycle=2010
Home Influence & Lobbying PACs Labor
In Influence & Lobbying
Save/Share:
PrintE-mail
PACs
Labor
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
Total Amount: $38,145,981
Total to Democrats: $35,533,039 (93%)
Total to Republicans: $2,577,692 (7%)
Number of PACs making contributions: 76

Hmmmm, lets try:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=Q01&cycle=2010
Home Influence & Lobbying PACs Ideological/Single-Issue
PACs
Ideological/Single-Issue
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates.
Total Amount: $27,593,911
Total to Democrats: $14,981,766 (54%)
Total to Republicans: $12,418,859 (45%)
Number of PACs making contributions: 68

Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice: $318,014 graphgraph 78% to Dems / 22% to Repubs
Abortion Policy/Pro-Life: $71,941 graphgraph 8% to Dems / 85% to Repubs
Democratic/Liberal: $1,299,340 graphgraph 99% to Dems / 1% to Repubs
Environment: $281,552 graphgraph 90% to Dems / 10% to Repubs
Foreign & Defense Policy: $394,227 graphgraph 71% to Dems / 28% to Repubs
Gun Control: $2,750 graphgraph 100% to Dems / 0% to Repubs
Gun Rights: $508,698 graphgraph 29% to Dems / 71% to Repubs
Human Rights: $1,168,960 graphgraph 87% to Dems / 13% to Repubs
Leadership PACs: $19,269,785 graphgraph 51% to Dems / 48% to Repubs
Misc Issues: $865,836 graphgraph 68% to Dems / 31% to Repubs
Pro-Israel: $1,640,898 graphgraph 62% to Dems / 38% to Repubs
Republican/Conservative: $1,475,409 graphgraph 0% to Dems / 97% to Repubs
Women's Issues: $296,501 graphgraph 86% to Dems / 14% to Repubs


I like how you chose to ignore non business lobbying in your statement. Could it be your a hypocrite?
Quit being a typical liberal, state ALL the facts. Not just some of them to make your point.

are caused by those transnational corporations bribing our politicians (or to put it politely, "Lobbying").

Unions would never bribe(lobby) our politicions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=P01&cycle=2010
Home Influence & Lobbying PACs Labor
In Influence & Lobbying
Save/Share:
PrintE-mail
PACs
Labor
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
Total Amount: $38,145,981
Total to Democrats: $35,533,039 (93%)
Total to Republicans: $2,577,692 (7%)
Number of PACs making contributions: 76

Hmmmm, lets try:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=Q01&cycle=2010
Home Influence & Lobbying PACs Ideological/Single-Issue
PACs
Ideological/Single-Issue
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates.
Total Amount: $27,593,911
Total to Democrats: $14,981,766 (54%)
Total to Republicans: $12,418,859 (45%)
Number of PACs making contributions: 68

Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice: $318,014 graphgraph 78% to Dems / 22% to Repubs
Abortion Policy/Pro-Life: $71,941 graphgraph 8% to Dems / 85% to Repubs
Democratic/Liberal: $1,299,340 graphgraph 99% to Dems / 1% to Repubs
Environment: $281,552 graphgraph 90% to Dems / 10% to Repubs
Foreign & Defense Policy: $394,227 graphgraph 71% to Dems / 28% to Repubs
Gun Control: $2,750 graphgraph 100% to Dems / 0% to Repubs
Gun Rights: $508,698 graphgraph 29% to Dems / 71% to Repubs
Human Rights: $1,168,960 graphgraph 87% to Dems / 13% to Repubs
Leadership PACs: $19,269,785 graphgraph 51% to Dems / 48% to Repubs
Misc Issues: $865,836 graphgraph 68% to Dems / 31% to Repubs
Pro-Israel: $1,640,898 graphgraph 62% to Dems / 38% to Repubs
Republican/Conservative: $1,475,409 graphgraph 0% to Dems / 97% to Repubs
Women's Issues: $296,501 graphgraph 86% to Dems / 14% to Repubs


I like how you chose to ignore non business lobbying in your statement. Could it be your a hypocrite?
Quit being a typical liberal, state ALL the facts. Not just some of them to make your point.

and there are basically no oil-fueled electrical power plants out there.

Potential government is often heavily (esp. Bush dynasty) connected with oil; the fossil fuel electricity generation companies have the same "anti-environmentalist" stances as these people; the campaign donations support these people. For example, AEP's CEO donated about $100k to Gingrich's 2009 oil drilling promotional and Southern gave $250k to Bush's last campaign. The AEP amount may seem small, but opensecrets asserts total $9 million p.a. lobbying in 2008-2009. The oil lobby often is the government, and the fossil fuel lobby acts in symbiosis.

Your car won't run off uranium,

But it will run off a battery charged by a uranium power plant.

People get scared because all the cheap junk they buy says "Made in China" and don't notice the heavy equipment, jumbo jets, commercial trucks, et al,

It's the decline that's scary, not the overall output. And making a killing on heavy items does not give you the same stability as a giant consumer manufacturing base.

(Aside: "et al" is for people.)

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, ATK, and the United Space Alliance on track once again to spend over $50 million for lobbying efforts in 2010, including educational activities like treating Congressmen to luxury box Springsteen tickets.

It wasn't court system incompetence that caused Microsoft to get away with its antitrust practices. Far from it - they had gotten to the point of starting to decide sanctions.

The thing was, shortly after the 2000 election cycle, the Justice Department decided to stop pursuing the court case, for some reason, and settled for a slap on the wrist.

Obama topped Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP for the 2008 Election cycle. Even though he swore he would would not take money from oil lobbyists.

Obama topped Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP for the 2008 Election cycle. Even though he swore he would would not take money from oil lobbyists.

Obama topped Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP for the 2008 Election cycle. Even though he swore he would would not take money from oil lobbyists.

According to Open Secrets Reid was the #1 campaign funds recipient from alternative energy. At $52,730 he garnered over 4 times as much as the second place recipient, Barbara Boxer.

Perhaps that has something to do with Mr. Reid's sudden interest in geothermal energy.

According to Open Secrets Reid was the #1 campaign funds recipient from alternative energy. At $52,730 he garnered over 4 times as much as the second place recipient, Barbara Boxer.

Perhaps that has something to do with Mr. Reid's sudden interest in geothermal energy.

Only costing you around $759M to run your campaign, $10M seems a much better deal.

obama's chief of staff was involved in a tax dodge when he was in congress. he was getting an apartment rent free from a guy who is a high-level media consultant for BP. Obama was also the top recipient of BP bash during the election:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html

and his energy secretary, the guy working with BP to "plug the damn hole" previous ran a $500,000,000 project funded by, you guessed it, BP.

don't kid yourself, both parties have significant ties to the oil industry.

Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

You mean like these economic arguments? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.

Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

You mean like these economic arguments? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.

Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

You mean like these economic arguments? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.

Unfortunately they're still not doing enough to go after the mega-corporations and their thousands of tax loopholes.

The people who are given the millions and billions of dollars by those same corporations and groups are the same people who write the tax laws to create those tax loopholes. It's called payback - you put your money down, you get your loophole.

This looks to me like just another case of politicians trying to protect their big contributors. Consider:

The legislation's sponsors are from Texas (Cornyn) and New York (Schumer).

AT&T is based in Texas. AT&T has given more political contributions than any other company. Its current COO, and its former CEO, both donated to Cornyn.

Verizon is based in New York. Verizon is also on OpenSecret's heavy hitters list at the above link. Verizon's CEO unsurprisingly donated to Schumer.

Boost (Sprint) is based in Kansas.

Boost/Sprint has been the most aggressive in moving into prepaid phones, which often have lower costs than contract services. This threatens the incumbents: AT&T and Verizon each have about double Sprint's subscriber base, and thus have the most to lose from a shift towards prepaid.

Increased surveillance rules remove prepaid's privacy benefits. And they impose record-keeping costs on prepaid services like Boost, making them less competitive with AT&T and Verizon's lucrative contract businesses.

Nobody. It's before the existence of Steamboat Willie, and all the retroactive copyright extensions start right about there for some reason.

the moment they put up an international donation page, they would get flooded with money. remember obama's campaign and how he floated on $5 donations as opposed to clinton and won.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Yeah... That is a lot of 5$ donations on that list.

Where's that sarcasm detector?

But it is unusual that he appears on the top of the list of recipients of BP as well as #2 of the Exxon list, when both companies favour Republicans. But then, even combined they wouldn't be among Obama's Top Contributors

I disagree, the large companies tend to back whomever is favored to win when they don't have a "preferred" (someone they have a relationship with) candidate. That should tell you something about the similarities of the politics between both major parties, as perceived by companies who can/do spend tens of millions analyzing politicians.

He also was the prime recipient of millions of dollars from BP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html The pattern is more than a bit disturbing.

By millions you mean $71,051. Frankly, the 3.5 million dollars over 20 years BP has spend is peanuts, and only make it to 106 on the Heavy Hitters List. But it is unusual that he appears on the top of the list of recipients of BP as well as #2 of the Exxon list, when both companies favour Republicans. But then, even combined they wouldn't be among Obama's Top Contributors

He also was the prime recipient of millions of dollars from BP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html The pattern is more than a bit disturbing.

By millions you mean $71,051. Frankly, the 3.5 million dollars over 20 years BP has spend is peanuts, and only make it to 106 on the Heavy Hitters List. But it is unusual that he appears on the top of the list of recipients of BP as well as #2 of the Exxon list, when both companies favour Republicans. But then, even combined they wouldn't be among Obama's Top Contributors

You actually hit that right on the head, funny or not.
What counts is raising money to stay in power,
and both parties are dirty to the tops of their eyeballs
Democratic Party: Top Industries
Republican Party: Top Industries

You actually hit that right on the head, funny or not.
What counts is raising money to stay in power,
and both parties are dirty to the tops of their eyeballs
Democratic Party: Top Industries
Republican Party: Top Industries

"However, bonus schemes in many cases are inherently flawed and encourage people to cut corners or do their job in a known inefficient way in order to maximize the bonus."

One way around that would be to hold the bonuses in escrow for two years, to be release only on the condition that the company performs at least satisfactorily during that time. The money could be invested in two twelve-month certificates or funds and repossessed at the end of either one.

What to do with the repossessed bonuses is another question because if done wrong it provides further incentive to sabotage or under perform. Tricks like donating the bonus to charity won't work because they would only end up at a charity presided over by the loser or a family member or, worse, end up channeled into a PAC like the Gates' Foundation.

Part of this conversation has to be this. An interesting question is whether casinos are for this due to the potential new market, or against this due to the potential new competitors.

The most likely reason for Republicans to be against this is that most religious denominations are against gambling in any form, and born-again Christians are no exception to that rule. Since that's a large portion of the Republican party base, this is one of those cases where the Republicans are actually doing what their constituents want them to do.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638

Most (88%) of Obama's campaign money came from individuals. Mostly in the form of small donations. So I'm not sure which corporate juggernaut you are speaking of.

The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay enough, the people who are paying more will get what they want.

Fixed that for you. What you're essentially saying is that the solution to corporate interests influencing government is to out-bribe them. That the people need to pay the government to represent them, where that should be the government's whole purpose.

And while it wouldn't be too hard for a small-ish gathering of workers to raise $17,000, raising the half a million that SAIC donated in total to all the candidates it was bribing in 2010 would require $50,000 each - more than their total annual income, I'd guess.

It wouldn't make a difference. If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place. There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government. As far as direct donations go, the campaign donations from individual companies are not that huge. If a thousand or so blue collar workers got together to form an organization, they could easily out-donate the biggest donor to Mr Issa, which this year was $17,000. That would only be $17 each, very doable.

Complaining about corporate donations is really just a complaint about lack of citizen participation. The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay attention, the people who are paying attention will get what they want. This is what's happened in America.

Come on man, that guy driving the Toyota was as likely as not lying about it. In any case Toyota doesn't seem to be a significant donor. Neither is Google, which may be part of the problem. Microsoft, on the other hand, is, along with Raytheon.

That depends, is this the same Obama administration that just gifted some several billion taxpayer dollars to the telcos?
The same Obama administration who received $25 million (not counting money under "lobbyists") from telcos for his election?

I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

I can't help but think you are incredibly naive. Have you been paying attention to how Microsoft is suing third party controller makers? Or how they are subverting their own standards? Or if you are in Europe, how they are heavily lobbying your representatives to hurt open standards? If you live in the US, don't worry, they are working to influence your representatives too. Not to mention they stand firmly committed to helping out a truly evil empire (yeah, saying 'evil' is a bit much but a government that censors political speech and has secret trials for people they don't like isn't exactly nice).

I mean, this is just in 2010. You shouldn't have particular love for any company, but claiming that Microsoft has changed can only be done by ignoring the facts and reality. Don't do that.

some students will be forced to attend those schools caught in that downward spiral

It's not like these schools are so great, some of them in the inner city have pretty much hit the bottom of the downward spiral, they really can't get much worse. The kids are already forced into those kinds of schools, with the system as it is now they have no real option to go somewhere else. At least with vouchers they will have the choice to attend a different school if they want to. Besides, if a school is really that bad, it should be shut down, and something else put in its place.

I'll tell you the real reason Democrats are against vouchers, and to find out, you have to follow the money. Teachers unions are big donors to democrats, and teachers unions are opposed to voucher systems. The problem with teachers unions is that they are mostly interested in making life as good as possible for the teachers (as a union should), but they shouldn't be driving policy because school policy should be driven by what is best for the students.

It's you. They've always been desperate for control. It was the thing that motivated them to build IE, they didn't want to let someone else control the internet. .Net was initially motivated by the same thing: it was going to be a kind of cloud computing thing, where all applications in the world ran on Microsoft's cloud. Which is why it was called .net in the first place, and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code, even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system (yeah, Mono, but that wasn't in Microsoft's plans).

On the other hand, Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics, and that may be what you are observing. They've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case. I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government, it helps to 'donate'. They are very equal opportunity givers, giving both to Republican and Democrat, depending on who they think is more likely to win.

Lobbyists aren't handling billions of bucks wanting representatives to shut down 'hacker havens'.

Close. From 2006 to 2010, Kirsten Gillibrand received $424,434 in campaign donations from individuals at "Boies, Schiller & Flexner". This is a law firm that specializes in Intellectual Property and International Arbitration among other things. From 2009 to 2010, Hatch received $25,050 from HP's PAC and individuals in campaign donations.

I have my opinion as to the bills true authors. Conduct your own research though. Form your own opinion.

References: Open secrets dot org. (www.opensecrets.org). Always entertaining to look up a representatives name to see who the donors are.

• Hatchhttp://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009869&type=I
• Gillibrandhttp://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00027658&type=I

Boies, Schiller & Flexnerhttp://www.bsfllp.com/practices/100

Lobbyists aren't handling billions of bucks wanting representatives to shut down 'hacker havens'.

Close. From 2006 to 2010, Kirsten Gillibrand received $424,434 in campaign donations from individuals at "Boies, Schiller & Flexner". This is a law firm that specializes in Intellectual Property and International Arbitration among other things. From 2009 to 2010, Hatch received $25,050 from HP's PAC and individuals in campaign donations.

I have my opinion as to the bills true authors. Conduct your own research though. Form your own opinion.

References: Open secrets dot org. (www.opensecrets.org). Always entertaining to look up a representatives name to see who the donors are.

• Hatchhttp://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009869&type=I
• Gillibrandhttp://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00027658&type=I

Boies, Schiller & Flexnerhttp://www.bsfllp.com/practices/100