Slashdot Mirror

Look who is taking all the money from the entertainment industry:

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/indus.asp?cycle=2008&CmteID=S17&Cmte=SJUD&CongNo=110&Chamber=S (Senate Judicairy Committee, which makes new criminal laws, $2,675,675 from TV/Movies/Music).

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009918&cycle=2008 PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT) (took $250K from entertainment industry, supports Induce Act, Pirate Act)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009869&cycle=2008 Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) (has taken $114K from entertainment, sponsored Induce Act, Pirate Act)

There are even pics of the Congresswhores hobnobbing to celebrate the passage of the DMCA.

BTW, the entertainment industry tends to give more to Democrats, even when the GOP is controlling Congress.

Look who is taking all the money from the entertainment industry:

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/indus.asp?cycle=2008&CmteID=S17&Cmte=SJUD&CongNo=110&Chamber=S (Senate Judicairy Committee, which makes new criminal laws, $2,675,675 from TV/Movies/Music).

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009918&cycle=2008 PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT) (took $250K from entertainment industry, supports Induce Act, Pirate Act)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009869&cycle=2008 Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) (has taken $114K from entertainment, sponsored Induce Act, Pirate Act)

There are even pics of the Congresswhores hobnobbing to celebrate the passage of the DMCA.

BTW, the entertainment industry tends to give more to Democrats, even when the GOP is controlling Congress.

One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money

That is because they are bundling donations. Basically you get a bunch of different people from the same company to all give money to a political candidate, thus evading the $2300 limit on personal donations.

Don't worry, the standard corruption is still there. McCain's top donator in Q3 was blank rome. They're a lobbyist group that represents companies that want to get military or homeland security contracts. Gee, why would the support the uber-pro-war candidate?

The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.

Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily available and seem to be noticeably not dominated by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.

This matches up with Obama's vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency for lobbyists.

Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.

The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.

Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily available and seem to be noticeably not dominated by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.

This matches up with Obama's vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency for lobbyists.

Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.

The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.

Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily available and seem to be noticeably not dominated by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.

This matches up with Obama's vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency for lobbyists.

Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.

... has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money

Looks like people contributed a lot of money. The finances are worth mentioning for all the major Republican candidates. One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money. I was not expecting that.

Romney, Mitt
Q4 raised: $26,928,433
Q4 spent: $33,713,503
Total raised: $88,499,686
Total spent: $86,068,239
Cash: $2,431,447
Debt: $35,350,000

McCain, John
Q4 raised: $9,714,246
Q4 spent: $10,254,446
Total raised: $41,102,178
Total spent: $38,153,750
Cash: $2,948,428
Debt: $4,516,030

Paul, Ron
Q4 raised: $19,873,329
Q4 spent: $17,478,711
Total raised: $28,101,264
Total spent: $20,262,084
Cash: $7,839,421
Debt: $0

Huckabee, Mike
Q4 raised: $6,637,063
Q4 spent: $5,391,918
Total raised: $8,986,532
Total spent: $7,090,087
Cash: $1,896,446
Debt: $97,676

By way of comparison, Giuliani, who recently dropped out of the race...

Total Receipts: $60,929,240
Total Spent: $48,152,428
Cash on Hand: $12,776,812
Debts: $1,166,509

Wow... just wow... That sort of spending puts drunken sailors to shame.

Excellent piece. BTW: Republicans = Democrats = Sold out. And I mean it, here is proof: http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/ - http://opensecrets.org/

I'd suggest american friends to change from a Duocracy system to a real democracy. As much is proven that a duopoly is not effective in favouring the consumer, why whould a duocracy do any better in the political field?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/
http://www.opensecrets.org/

Good places to get started to figure out where everyone stands. Don't forget your congress critters home page, either.

I have a theory on what caused it. The republicans are to elect who get to run as a republican presidential candidate soon. One candidate, Ron Paul, gets mutch of his support from tech people. Many tech people read Slashdot. About the same time as the racist comments started to multiply a campaign to label him racist started. The racist comments often mention this candidate. It could of course be a coincidence, but if not: Slashdot, meet politics. Politics, meet Slashdot!

The lesson I've learned in the past 7 years is this: when you start to hear trial balloons floated about an issue of authoritarian enforcement, whether it's surveillance, police powers, rights of the accused, it's almost always about corporate profits rather than the "security" of the citizens of America or anywhere else.

At this point, I'm prepared to take my chances with the terrorists,

but I want to be protected from those in power.

I like my odds vs. the terrorists.

But the people who are currently in power have both motive and opportunity.

This is actually true. Dr. Paul's stance on this is that he doesn't care who sends him money. He isn't going to change his viewpoint to theirs.

To go even further, he says that it works out for the better since now the money will be used to promote Dr. Paul's message of peace and freedom instead of Don Black's message of hate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

donation record on Open Secrets

I agree - there are far too many socialist groups influencing congress.

Funniest thing I've read all day. Try again you putz.

As Long as americans are still voting for people involved with MAAFIA I'd say you've got no hope.

Information is priceless: http://opensecrets.org/ - http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do

http://www.opensecrets.org/

I believe it's only for the US; sorry for not reading further into parent posters to see if they were from other nations.

Friends in government? Nah . . . .

Are we still talking about AT&T, or did the conversation move on to the Dubya administration?

They're closely related. In fairness, though, AT&T is much more competent than the Bush administration itself, otherwise we might not have much to fear. "We know where the infringing packets are. They're on the internets and north, south, east, and west somewhat."

Congratulations, you are a master of the non sequiter. The price of corn is not a good measurement of the power of the agribusiness lobby -- what you want to measure is how much influence they have over legislators. It's difficult to measure influence directly, of course, but what can be objectively measured is how much money agribusiness donates to politicians. And there we find that in the last 20 years or so, agribusiness has donated a total of 415 million dollars. To put that in perspective, that is over three times the amount donated by defense lobbyists in the same time period, and I don't think anyone would scoff at the influence of defense lobbyists on our government. So yes, I'd say the agribusiness sector (note I deliberately don't say "farmers" because what we are talking about here are massive farming corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, not mom and pop and their 40 acres) has plenty of influence in Washington. Which is of course why so many government handouts are going to corn-based ethanol, even though corn is clearly one of the least efficient sources for that product.

Congratulations, you are a master of the non sequiter. The price of corn is not a good measurement of the power of the agribusiness lobby -- what you want to measure is how much influence they have over legislators. It's difficult to measure influence directly, of course, but what can be objectively measured is how much money agribusiness donates to politicians. And there we find that in the last 20 years or so, agribusiness has donated a total of 415 million dollars. To put that in perspective, that is over three times the amount donated by defense lobbyists in the same time period, and I don't think anyone would scoff at the influence of defense lobbyists on our government. So yes, I'd say the agribusiness sector (note I deliberately don't say "farmers" because what we are talking about here are massive farming corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, not mom and pop and their 40 acres) has plenty of influence in Washington. Which is of course why so many government handouts are going to corn-based ethanol, even though corn is clearly one of the least efficient sources for that product.

here

The average since 1990 is that less than one third of their bribes go to Republicans.

That's not to say other industries don't donate to Republicans more in about the same ratio.

just thought I'd attack the first cynical apologist for no good reason other than I don't like people like you.

Well that's fucking lame. And I don't think that apologist means what you think it does.

Want to print the names of those you accuse of corruption?
Want to cite some examples of their criminal behaviour?

And where is Neil to find criminality? Buying people in the federal government is legal.

The gist of your message seems to be that cynicism can be destructive in that it may dissuade people from taking positive action. I agree with that, but you sure have an asshat way of expressing your sentiment.

Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter has raised a million bucks too, and you've probably never heard of him from the mainstream news...

Don't think so?

Look here. And here.

You can bet all those millions from the MAFIAA to the DEMOCRATS is buying something.

Don't think so?

Look here. And here.

You can bet all those millions from the MAFIAA to the DEMOCRATS is buying something.

Oh and while I'm at it... The US Army, US Navy and US Airforce are some of the largest contributors to Ron Paul's campaign...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

Interesting point of view on the policy towards Iraq.

My God! He's in Sierra Nevada's pocket too! This explains the hop shortage. (Warehouse fires in Oregon, hailstorms in Slovenia -- they're all just cover stories!) I keep trying to buy cascade hops, and every time I find a supplier, the government MitMs my order, tells me "sold out," and sends the hop availability intell to Sierra Nevada. Dejected by my inability to get ingredients for a pale ale, I drown my sorrows in a few pints of SNPA. It all makes perfect sense, now.

;-)

Glenn Greenwald had a good report on this today; incredibly, only 10 senators voted against this bill. Reid allowed the bill to proceed despite Dodd's hold (the only one Reid has disallowed). You'd think Reid was bought and paid for by AT&T or something.

It's not complete, but if you look at this link here you can see he's in the top two of getting contributions from music/movie industries. This really shouldn't be too much of a surprise as we do live in a country where your money buys your influence.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

Well let us play Follow the Money shall we

Remember to call your congress goon and make a lot of noise about this. Time to SlashDot their phone lines.

But it does make sanse that we spend four years worrying about who is elected President (albiet because the system we have is flawed). Once someone is elected, they can do almost anything they want and the voters won't have a choice. The only reason most politicians have for listening to the public is to appease them for future re-election. Notice how George Bush was more popular during his first term, but now that he can't run again his approval ratings are lower. Since no one can do anything about our current President and current policy, people spend all of their time hoping that the next President is better.

Another note, candidates don't need corporation-sized funding to get by. Ron Paul has raised over $8 million from private individuals.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?cycle=2008&id=N00005906

Hillary Clinton is about as far from a socialist as possible. I have no idea why people trumpet this baseless notion. She is part of the capitalist status-quo, just as the rest of the "popular" candidates are. Her proposed "health care" plan, which is the only part of her platform that I imagine one could even attempt to call "socialistic" (though all of the main candidates have or will have something similar), would do absolutely nothing to combat the broken private system. True socialist change would involve placing the health insurance and pharmaceutical giants under public ownership, where they would be conducted as a public trust under democratic control of the workers. That is socialism. Creating a "safety net" or a "welfare state" is not socialism. Those are simply policies meant to keep the populace complacent, nothing more.

Also, I believe that if she were truly socialist, she would receive much less than she does in "campaign contributions" (read: legalized bribes) from corporations. Anecdotally, regarding her "health care" plan, if it would really make any profound difference in the current system, then why is she currently the number one recipient of contributions from both the HMO Industry and the Health Professionals Industry for the 2007-2008 election cycle?

Hillary Clinton is about as far from a socialist as possible. I have no idea why people trumpet this baseless notion. She is part of the capitalist status-quo, just as the rest of the "popular" candidates are. Her proposed "health care" plan, which is the only part of her platform that I imagine one could even attempt to call "socialistic" (though all of the main candidates have or will have something similar), would do absolutely nothing to combat the broken private system. True socialist change would involve placing the health insurance and pharmaceutical giants under public ownership, where they would be conducted as a public trust under democratic control of the workers. That is socialism. Creating a "safety net" or a "welfare state" is not socialism. Those are simply policies meant to keep the populace complacent, nothing more.

Also, I believe that if she were truly socialist, she would receive much less than she does in "campaign contributions" (read: legalized bribes) from corporations. Anecdotally, regarding her "health care" plan, if it would really make any profound difference in the current system, then why is she currently the number one recipient of contributions from both the HMO Industry and the Health Professionals Industry for the 2007-2008 election cycle?

Barack Obama is the cleanest candidate running, even cleaner than Ron Paul (who is, admittedly, very very clean) when it comes to taking money from PACs and special interests. Observe:

Obama:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00009638&Cycle=2008

Paul:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00005906&Cycle=2008

I don't think you need to worry about the *AA.