Slashdot Mirror

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H03++&goButt2.x=14&goButt2.y=12&goButt2=Submit

Great, now actually look at HMO/Health Services. It is about a 60/40 ratio Democrat/Republican for 2008 and 2010. That is a significant difference.

BULLSHIT YOUR BULLSHIT

Take a look at the biggest Insurance industry recipients - the majority are DEMOCRATS. Who do you think paid for this bill?

While that is true for 2010, in years prior it was not. In terms of individual numbers, Republicans are far in the lead in terms of overall insurance industry contributions. In other words, your crooks seem to be far more effective than my crooks.

Take a look at the biggest Insurance industry recipients - the majority are DEMOCRATS. Who do you think paid for this bill?

While that is true for 2010, in years prior it was not. In terms of individual numbers, Republicans are far in the lead in terms of overall insurance industry contributions. In other words, your crooks seem to be far more effective than my crooks.

BULLSHIT on your BULLSHIT.

Health Professionals != Health Insurance Companies

The chart you provided is a measure of donations by doctors, nurses, dentists, etc.

It appears opensecrets.org does not break out the health insurance specifically. So even the chart I provided does not provide the exact details but it seems rather obvious that from 1996 to 2006 the insurance companies were dumping 2X the amount of donations on Republican candidates than Democrats. It wasn't quite so bad in 2008. Well, it is more than bad, it is pathetic that the insurance companies are buying our "representatives".

Unfortunately it matters not, as much as people whine and moan this health care bill isn't bad for the insurance companies, in fact they are going to have 30+ million more people paying into their profit scam at their insane premium rates. If you want to know what the rates will be like just test the Massachusetts online insurance exchange for yourself to see what the currently uninsured can look forward to. For my wife and I the cheapest insurance I can purchase is $700 / month and reading the brief details of the policy it is crappy coverage. What a corporate scam.

This is not government take over of our health care, its a continuation of corporate take over of our government in the name of profiteering for a few.

Something else that is funny about this bill, I heard on NPR or the BBC that a provision in the bill to fix the Medicare Part D corporate scam where by the tax payer cannot negotiate drug prices was removed. I think this is the 3rd or 4th time somebody has tried to remove that stupidity from the 2003 Republican Medicare law, to no avail, it remains. So basically the bill still states that in the name of "competition" the price of drugs will be determined by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacies and the insurance companies while the payer, Medicare, will have no say and will simply pay what the corporations demanded.

Who is the moron that put that in the bill? When you buy a new car do you let the manufacturer, dealership and bank tell you how much you will pay for a new car? LOL

Democrat? Republican? All bought and paid for.

The insurance industry has been fighting AGAINST ANY CHANGE by throwing money to every/any one except to the Democrats

BULLSHIT
Are you paid to spread this disinformation or are you just a useful idiot?

Well, of course, they've been throwing money at controlling the bill rather than stopping it.

Actually, your link appears to be for health care providers, not insurance. There is no category for 'health insurance' but insurance shows a massive surge in cotributions to democrats once they seemed to be regaining power.

Lie much?

A quick trip to Opensecrets.org tags you for a liar.

The insurance industry has been fighting AGAINST ANY CHANGE by throwing money to every/any one except to the Democrats

BULLSHIT
Are you paid to spread this disinformation or are you just a useful idiot?

All you have to do is make damn sure that you don't bail out the insurance companies when they go bankrupt.

You're funny. Have you seen how much those companies have contributed in bribes?

It is a desperate grab for tax revenue to shore up a faltering budget.

Real health care reform would either include a single payer system or a rational free-market plan. Nether party is willing to do this, however. I wonder why...

If he forgot to donate to the Obama 2008 campaign, then this dude could be looking at some very serious jail time.

What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.

You mean something like this I presume.
This was actually difficult to find: Woodward & McDowell lobbying firm, AB 32 Implementation Group.
Other maybe interesting links:here, or this slightly more activist website.

The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.

Understatement of the fucking century.

The **AA OWNS the Dems:

See here and here.

There's about a billion rea$on$ why you can't spell DMCA without a big, fat, fucking, bought-and-paid-for D.

The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.

Understatement of the fucking century.

The **AA OWNS the Dems:

See here and here.

There's about a billion rea$on$ why you can't spell DMCA without a big, fat, fucking, bought-and-paid-for D.

You said you read an opinion piece, then proceeded to use that opinion to make a case for a fact. That sometimes works, but opinion!=fact, no matter how you slice it.

Right, that's kind of what I meant. You latched onto the source of the information and labeled it as false merely because it came from that source. All because of a single word. Had I omitted that word your comments would be strange, at best, but it would not have changed the matter (the actual substance) of what I was saying.

Your further rebuttal illustrates this quite well.

You have, however, inspired me to find another source for something that I did rather assume was true. Here you go:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/11/lobbyists-terminating-their-fe.html

WASHINGTON — Lobbyists this year began terminating their formal registrations with the federal government at significantly higher levels than usual, a joint study by OMB Watch and the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

So now it is a fact, and the substance of what I said remains unblemished by my admission of the first location that presented the idea to my eyes.

Better?

How do you expect people to move beyond race issues if they bring them up in an argumentative way?

My wife asks this same kind of question. I suppose it is in my nature to make myself and others uncomfortable about something that's bothering me. I'm not the sort that can let it lie unspoken, and feel that large doses of sunlight are a good thing.

In this case I guess I just want to be wrong, and welcome an argument to that end. I don't want to believe that Obama is getting a different set of criteria due to his 'historic status', if you will. I'd like to think I'm just being to critical of the guy, and my own point of view is clouding my perceptions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000026667&nid=3868

Intuit Inc

Rank: 598th
2008 total combined contributions: $818,259
2008 federal-level contributions: $394,475
2008 state-level contributions: $423,784

That's a pretty good return on the dollar.

And God only knows what the libtard mods were smoking when you were modded "informative". Talk about shoving your head so far up your ass you can see your tonsils from the backside...

Take a look at the 98% Dem skew in 2002 for TV production:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2300

Your snark may get you mod points, but you're still a tool. Although I suppose you might be termed "useful". And with snark like that, if you have good teleprompter skills you might even win a Nobel Prize for the time BEFORE you get to be President.

98% of all 2002 political donations from the TV production industry went to Democrats. Hell, that'd be a good Dem vote total in some inner-city Philadelphia precinct that had 100% turnout. Why that preposterous skew? Do you really think people throwing that much money around don't expect to get something in return?

Looks like they bought both parties, but the republicans sold out for less.

Nice try. Did you even convince yourself?

If it weren't for commercial TV and radio STATIONS (which gave a LOT at about 50/50), the skew would be about 90% Dem:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2400

That money is buying things. There's a reason why you can't spell DMCA without that big fat fucking D.

Take a look at which political party the MAFIAA has bought.

Then maybe the real issue is people using the school system to indoctrinate people. It's no secret that educators across America push liberal ideals. Just take a look at the list of Obama's top donors, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638. It should be stopped all around.

Judging from the comments it seems like this may be a bogus claim of copyright infringement.

That said, if MS *were* infringing, this wouldn't be insignificant. MS is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of those trade groups that encourages disgruntled employees to turn in their former employers for violations, provides controversial statistics/misinformation about the frequency and effects of piracy, lobbies congress to increase penalties and strengthen laws against copyright violators, and goes after small and medium-sized businesses for violations large or small, whether or not they're "making bloatloads" off the software.

One of the things about trade organizations like the BSA, MPAA, RIAA, etc. is they can act as a PR cover for companies who want to use bullying tactics but don't want their actions directly associated with the member companies names. The BSA has certainly been accused of such bullying and as being a "front" for Microsoft in particular, so if they were pirating code themselves, it would be significant.

They do experience piracy. Typically from nations where intellectual property rights are not well respected.

I'd say in the example of drug companies that's simply the cost of doing business. No amount of propaganda or lobbying for copyright legislation (domestic or foreign) is going to give one control over behavior of inDUHviduals in another country. (That's not the way successful legislation works...it is the way fascism works, but that's a different story.)

(BTW, who is Billy Tauzin???? Funny (as in "funny smelling", not as in "funny, ha ha") that he was on the radar of both industries we're talking about here.)

Look at it from another point of view: If what you're doing is "so revolutionary" then how is someone in Brazil knocking off your product in short order? Perhaps it wasn't so revolutinary after all? "Revolutionary"....perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means? (revolutionary != we spent a ton of money on it)

I think time to be realistic for drug and music companies: No matter how much you spend/waste on the drugs/artists you're developing, they won't necessarily be profitable or even worth it. Ditto for all the money you spend/waste promoting those drugs/artists.

U.S drug companies and commercial radio are both currently a laughing stock.

I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps the drug companies should focus more on cures and less on treatments than they do today?

To me, they're ultimately hung up on Gilette's business model. Buy the razor (aka pester your doctor for the perscription) and they sell you new blades for life (aka you get some relief from your symptom, but e.g. your eyes will bleed the whole time). Likewise, music companies perhaps should focus less on what they think we should like/listen to (Clear Channel is an abomination in the truest sense of the word, and only the tip of the industry's iceberg) and more on what we actually like and listen to?

I'd also argue that drug companies make way too much money (yes, it's possible). If that weren't true, they wouldn't have as many problems selling their drugs. (Let's all recall our supply and demand graphs from econ 101....lower prices = more people can afford your product = higher demand) They -- like the music industry -- create their own problems, then do their best to blame others for the results (i.e. lobby the government for special treatment).

On another front....

Print publishing is a more interesting example to me. If they stay with print media (books, paper) they don't have the piracy issue (not really) but as the world moves more and more to digital and print publishing tries to follow, they suffer more and more of the related problems....such as piracy. Thoughts? Personally I still like to pick up a book when I want to read -- it's a very, very good medium -- but I'm going to be called old-fashioned for that before too much longer.

-Matt

They do experience piracy. Typically from nations where intellectual property rights are not well respected.

I'd say in the example of drug companies that's simply the cost of doing business. No amount of propaganda or lobbying for copyright legislation (domestic or foreign) is going to give one control over behavior of inDUHviduals in another country. (That's not the way successful legislation works...it is the way fascism works, but that's a different story.)

(BTW, who is Billy Tauzin???? Funny (as in "funny smelling", not as in "funny, ha ha") that he was on the radar of both industries we're talking about here.)

Look at it from another point of view: If what you're doing is "so revolutionary" then how is someone in Brazil knocking off your product in short order? Perhaps it wasn't so revolutinary after all? "Revolutionary"....perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means? (revolutionary != we spent a ton of money on it)

I think time to be realistic for drug and music companies: No matter how much you spend/waste on the drugs/artists you're developing, they won't necessarily be profitable or even worth it. Ditto for all the money you spend/waste promoting those drugs/artists.

U.S drug companies and commercial radio are both currently a laughing stock.

I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps the drug companies should focus more on cures and less on treatments than they do today?

To me, they're ultimately hung up on Gilette's business model. Buy the razor (aka pester your doctor for the perscription) and they sell you new blades for life (aka you get some relief from your symptom, but e.g. your eyes will bleed the whole time). Likewise, music companies perhaps should focus less on what they think we should like/listen to (Clear Channel is an abomination in the truest sense of the word, and only the tip of the industry's iceberg) and more on what we actually like and listen to?

I'd also argue that drug companies make way too much money (yes, it's possible). If that weren't true, they wouldn't have as many problems selling their drugs. (Let's all recall our supply and demand graphs from econ 101....lower prices = more people can afford your product = higher demand) They -- like the music industry -- create their own problems, then do their best to blame others for the results (i.e. lobby the government for special treatment).

On another front....

Print publishing is a more interesting example to me. If they stay with print media (books, paper) they don't have the piracy issue (not really) but as the world moves more and more to digital and print publishing tries to follow, they suffer more and more of the related problems....such as piracy. Thoughts? Personally I still like to pick up a book when I want to read -- it's a very, very good medium -- but I'm going to be called old-fashioned for that before too much longer.

-Matt

yes, that's the same reason MS has never had anti-trust brought against them~

Idiot.

Actually, there's a lot of merit to that statement. After all, MS didn't start pouring sacks of money into both parties until after they got sued, and neither did the tech industry as a whole. Compare the numbers before 1998 to after. They learned their lesson well, and now the IT sector is a huge contributor to BOTH parties, unlike the fools in the oil, tobacco, and housing industries which used to be far more partisan and who got nailed when their parties weren't in power.

Though they've been pretty even-handed across parties, they've certainly had clear favorites in races. Look at how much they gave Bush v. Gore in 2000. They also hired Ralph Reed to lobby Bush during the 2000 election, and Bush was a strong opponent of breaking up the company. And it paid off well.

(I only remember this so well because Bush's position on the MS antitrust case was what fired up my interest in politics for the first time during the 2000 race. I might not be a Democrat today if it wasn't for that public stance angering me so much. I was pretty conservative on social issues, though I probably would've ended up here anyway over science policy and the environment.)

yes, that's the same reason MS has never had anti-trust brought against them~

Idiot.

Actually, there's a lot of merit to that statement. After all, MS didn't start pouring sacks of money into both parties until after they got sued, and neither did the tech industry as a whole. Compare the numbers before 1998 to after. They learned their lesson well, and now the IT sector is a huge contributor to BOTH parties, unlike the fools in the oil, tobacco, and housing industries which used to be far more partisan and who got nailed when their parties weren't in power.

Though they've been pretty even-handed across parties, they've certainly had clear favorites in races. Look at how much they gave Bush v. Gore in 2000. They also hired Ralph Reed to lobby Bush during the 2000 election, and Bush was a strong opponent of breaking up the company. And it paid off well.

(I only remember this so well because Bush's position on the MS antitrust case was what fired up my interest in politics for the first time during the 2000 race. I might not be a Democrat today if it wasn't for that public stance angering me so much. I was pretty conservative on social issues, though I probably would've ended up here anyway over science policy and the environment.)

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=b02

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=city&city=West+Hollywood

I'm quite sure the $609,334 from Time Warner for his 2008 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on this issue.

I'm quite sure the $1,069,595 from Goldman Sachs, the $761,939 from JP Morgan, the $742,375 from Citigroup, or the $540,881 from Morgan Stanley for his 2008 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on the issue of bank bailouts.

Are you sure you want to play this game?

source

So? You need to drill down and see who AT&T donated money, too.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076

You'll be surprised.

Yup, I'm quite sure the $216,938 from AT&T for his 2010 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on this issue.
source

Guess who is the number one political gift donor in America is.

And look at where the to individual contributors are from.

Guess who is the number one political gift donor in America is.

And look at where the to individual contributors are from.

Guess who is the number one political gift donor in America is.

When the previous Net Neutrality story appeared I was amused to read many comments along the lines; "if the Republicans are against it, it must be good," in reference to the 18 Republican senators cited in the story. There are many forces involved in monetizing the Internet. Among the wealthiest and best connected are the content producers, a.k.a Hollywood. With whom does Hollywood invest most of it's campaign contributions? Let us look and see if we can't discover what has motivated so many Democrats to 'question' the FCC.

Those of you that have allowed yourselves to be trained by your schools and your celebrities to suffer involuntary knee spasms on contact with all things Republican have been blinded to the larger picture.

Anyone got an RSS feed for bribes accepted per politician?

I don't know of one, but I can see an Atom feed of headlines from a site that also has lists of the top contributors to reelection campaigns of representatives like Rep. Boner.

Anyone got an RSS feed for bribes accepted per politician?

I don't know of one, but I can see an Atom feed of headlines from a site that also has lists of the top contributors to reelection campaigns of representatives like Rep. Boner.

More like how important it is to AT&T not to have network neutrality codified into regulation. This move is only to mollify the FCC and get them off their backs so they can still double-dip by charging companies running popular sites for "preferential" (read non-degraded) access to AT&T subscribers.

I'd expect nothing less from the number one political gift donor in America.

Because AT&T wouldn't be trying to confuse the issue, would they?

Here's a little head's up. Six Republican Senators (at least) are co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the FCC from implementing it's newly announced Net Neutrality policy. One of those Senators is Jim DeMint, out of South Carolina.

How much has AT&T put into DeMint's 2010 re-election campaign so far? Why... over $63,000 (in individual donations and PAC contributions). AT&T is, in fact, the second-highest donater of funds to DeMint's 2010 election campaign, according to this lovely summary at Open Secrets. Comcast is also in the top 20.

The other sponsors of the bill, Kailey Bay Hutchison (R-TX), Sam Brownback (R-KS), John Ensign (R-NV), John Thune (R-SD), and David Vitter (R-LA) have also received nice stacks of cash for their 2010 campaigns from AT&T, and no doubt other telcos.

I e-mailed DeMint about a week ago, as I am ostensibly one of his constituents, asking him why he was opposed to Net Neutrality. I did not receive an answer, not even a canned response from his staff. What a shock.

No they aren't. They're owned by slightly different sets of campaign contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=D&cycle=2010
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=R&cycle=2010

No they aren't. They're owned by slightly different sets of campaign contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=D&cycle=2010
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=R&cycle=2010

Actually, the real lists can be viewed here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

And here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

Actually, the real lists can be viewed here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

And here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

I'll see your letter of the law, and raise you a reality

To be complete, he needs to take a look at the Democrats too. Senator Conrad of North Dakota is as bought and paid for by the health industry as anyone Olbermann called out in that video.

Seems self evident to me.

Business != Conservative

Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep

If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):

• Motion Picture production & distribution: 90 - 9
• Recorded Music & Music production: 82 - 18
• TV production & distribution: 87 - 13

The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.

So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.

Business != Conservative

Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep

If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):

• Motion Picture production & distribution: 90 - 9
• Recorded Music & Music production: 82 - 18
• TV production & distribution: 87 - 13

The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.

So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.

Business != Conservative

Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep

If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):

• Motion Picture production & distribution: 90 - 9
• Recorded Music & Music production: 82 - 18
• TV production & distribution: 87 - 13

The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.

So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.

Business != Conservative

Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep

If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):

• Motion Picture production & distribution: 90 - 9
• Recorded Music & Music production: 82 - 18
• TV production & distribution: 87 - 13

The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.

So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.

Business != Conservative

Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep

If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):

• Motion Picture production & distribution: 90 - 9
• Recorded Music & Music production: 82 - 18
• TV production & distribution: 87 - 13

The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.

So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.