Slashdot Mirror

This is why monopolies used to be broken up - they could price like this. In addition, in this case, it's a life and death product. "How much is your life worth to you? That's how much it costs." Shkreli was was honest and transparent about the reprehensible actions he was taking. The people you need to worry about are the ones who are smiling and empathizing as they knife you. They don't slip out of character either. And they're still leading the industry.

Additionally, the government prohibited itself from negotiating with drug companies for prices for Medicare Part D. Politicians created the "safe space" that those with suitable mentalities could then operate in (and funnel some of the proceeds back to DC).

If you're so fucking worried about blacks, what are you doing about the epidemic of young black men from single-parent homes killing other blacks? (Well, other then blaming whitey...)

What are you doing? Other than calling for their arrest, taking away the welfare for the children, and replacing the public schools with private religious indoctrination camps!

But actually, the Philadelphia police commissioner, Richard Ross, is black. And yet he was still wrong. It is not city policy to commit racist enforcement of the laws, and should not be in practice. Yet it is.

And if teachers weren't fairly paid there wouldn't be a long list of people applying to work as teachers.

If teachers were fairly paid, there wouldn't be a long list of shortages for teaching positions.

It's a damn shame that by allowing politicians to take money from corporations, the political parties of the United States have subordinated the interests of the public to the corporate oligarchs?

Oh, wait? You didn't know that corporate executive boards OWN both Parties? And that it's best when government is by the corporation, for the corporation?

Fixed that for you.

Meanwhile, teachers in West Virginia went on strike. And Oklahoma. And Kentucky. Where the governor admitted that the teachers were the ones keeping children from being sexually abused and poisoned, but well, they just couldn't be fairly paid for that critical task.

Yay America! Where two black men still can't wait at Starbucks before ordering.

If you're so fucking worried about blacks, what are you doing about the epidemic of young black men from single-parent homes killing other blacks? (Well, other then blaming whitey...)

And if teachers weren't fairly paid there wouldn't be a long list of people applying to work as teachers.

It's a damn shame that by allowing government employees to unionized, the Democratic Party has become the best party union money could buy - to the tune of billions of dollars of donations.

Oh, wait? You didn't know that government employee unions OWN the Democratic Party? And that it's best when government is by the government, for the government?

In this case a US Dem senator who believes in 57 genders?

As a matter of fact, Kraft Heinz Co. spent about a million dollars on lobbyists in 2017.

One of Kraft Heinz Co.'s biggest products is Heinz 57 Sauce.

Coincidence? Needn't I bring up the Alex Jones KC Masterpiece LGBTBBQ Sauce conspiracy theory which may have some merit, actually. (Add your thoughts below.)

...but the NRA has a whole pile of money they spend buying politicians and in fact, if one wavers in their support, all that money suddenly goes to their opponent.

It seems that way, because you're basing that opinion on your pre-existing beliefs and not facts.

Here's a list of the top 50 organizational donors to US political campaigns - guess who didn't make it?

Here's another list of the top 50 organizational donors to all federal contributions, not just campaigns - guess who's still not on the list?

Here's a list of the top 75 corporate sponsors of legislation - again, the NRA is nowhere to be found.

You have a choice here - learn that you were incorrect, accept it, and correct yourself, or double-down on the ignorance. Your call, but I know which decision I'd make.

...but the NRA has a whole pile of money they spend buying politicians and in fact, if one wavers in their support, all that money suddenly goes to their opponent.

It seems that way, because you're basing that opinion on your pre-existing beliefs and not facts.

Here's a list of the top 50 organizational donors to US political campaigns - guess who didn't make it?

Here's another list of the top 50 organizational donors to all federal contributions, not just campaigns - guess who's still not on the list?

Here's a list of the top 75 corporate sponsors of legislation - again, the NRA is nowhere to be found.

You have a choice here - learn that you were incorrect, accept it, and correct yourself, or double-down on the ignorance. Your call, but I know which decision I'd make.

Unfortunately the politicians (especially the Bolshevik Republicans) feel differently. Extremely differently. In accord with their bribes, they write the laws to permit the soulless and inhuman corporations to own OUR privacy. Minor and limited exceptions if you can afford enough lawyers.

That ah, should be democrats. They're the big money takers from Google, Facebook, Twitter, various "technology" groups that are pushing that allowance of corporations to own your privacy. Maybe you should spend a bit of time looking at who's donating to who? Spend a few hours reading opensecrets.org for example.

All that sweet, sweet NRA lobby money has nothing to do with it.

Ever notice how nobody actually says how much money the NRA spends on campaigns? That's because, in relative terms, it's almost nothing.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Median payout to individual campaigns? $1,000. Average cost of a congressional campaign? $10,000,000.

Whoo boy, with the NRA funding a whopping 0.1% of your campaign, you had better toe the line!

"a slight liberal lean"... during the 2016 election cycle, their parent company, Time Warner, donated over $500,000 to Hillary (and $37,000 to Bernie, lol). https://www.opensecrets.org/or....

>The REAL issue is that the GOP continues to grant Monopolies to companies like Comcast and continue to support them.

https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=comcast+corporation&cycle=2016&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=

COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $1,205,030.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 09-29-2016 $30,000.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $1,653,495.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $470,451.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $1,303,004.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $484,681.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 07-15-2016 $500,000.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION & NBCUNIVERSAL PAC
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-30-2016 $15,000.00 AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION & NBCUNIVERSAL POLIT
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 06-24-2016 $1,000.00 Zeldin, Lee (R)
COMCAST CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE- FE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 PAC 11-18-2015 $1,000.00 Georgia Federal Elections Cmte (D)

Stupid GOP.

At the time NAFTA was put in place, the Republicans held both houses of congress with a veto-proof supermajority. Strike one!

AC, you whiffed it yourself. NAFTA was passed in November 1993. That was the 103rd Congress, and it was held firmly by the Democrats. In fact, the "GOP revolution" in 1995 was partly because of NAFTA passage. You're flat-out wrong, Bill Clinton had a strong majority of DEMOCRATS controlling the Senate and House, and NAFTA sailed through with their support. I won't even get into your claim about "veto-proof supermajority" which hasn't existed in Congress for decades.

The Democrats deregulated Wall Street? Seriously? Man, you are so full of it that not even the Russians would pay you to post that level of bullshit. Strike two!

Second whiff again, AC! Over 75% of all Democrats in Congress supported the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed Glass-Steagall. It passed with such strong bipartisan support that Bill Clinton had to sign it - it was way beyond veto-proof. So yes, the Democrats were definitely part of the equation! Add in their weakening of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac regulations over the recommendations of President Bush (probably because they overwhelmingly received campaign donations from FM/FM), and continued to increase the debt load of FM/FM right up to the collapse, and they are just as complicit, if not more so, than the GOP.

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

Your link just gives numbers for each congressman individually. You're telling me that you expect me to add all of those up to see which party receives more contributions from ISPs? It's Republicans. Who gives them money is a pretty trivial bit of information compared to what they actually do though - the congressional record is very clear that Republicans heavily favor eliminating net neutrality and Democrats are trying to preserve it.

I would like to know why though, this didn't used to be a partisan issue. The ISPs were losing and so they decided to spin it that way, and someone took the bait. Why did they take the bait? The campaign contributions that I'm seeing here just aren't enough to explain why a politician would adopt such a detrimental position. ... I have some suspicions, but they're not flattering to Americans as a group.

- Paying for political advertisements
- Paying others to troll social media for you

Could you cite the actual statutes, please? The summary I read cites nothing of the kind — the individuals are indicted for fraud and identity theft. These are very real and nasty crimes, whether or not they are related to elections and regardless of whether perpetrators are Americans or foreigners.

- Making campaign contributions

Unless the donation is to a "charity", owned and run by a candidate, right?

Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. didn't use money to stop SOPA. They did it by publicizing it with prominent banners and black pages. That publicity and the prospect of being voted out of office is what scared the bejeesus out of the congresscritters trying to push SOPA through. They had to do it that way because they hadn't been doing much lobbying in Washington before then, so the regular political or monetary channels weren't open to them. The only way they could stop SOPA in time was to massively publicize it.

SOPA was the wake-up call for Internet companies that they needed to start playing the political lobbying game. Prior to SOPA (2011), lobbying and campaign contributions by Internet companies was relatively modest. It began to balloon in 2011 - that's when Internet companies learned that if they ignored politics, someone else (Hollywood) would use politics to control them. You can't just ignore politics. You're either the one doing the controlling, or you're the one being controlled. Sad but true.

Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. didn't use money to stop SOPA. They did it by publicizing it with prominent banners and black pages. That publicity and the prospect of being voted out of office is what scared the bejeesus out of the congresscritters trying to push SOPA through. They had to do it that way because they hadn't been doing much lobbying in Washington before then, so the regular political or monetary channels weren't open to them. The only way they could stop SOPA in time was to massively publicize it.

SOPA was the wake-up call for Internet companies that they needed to start playing the political lobbying game. Prior to SOPA (2011), lobbying and campaign contributions by Internet companies was relatively modest. It began to balloon in 2011 - that's when Internet companies learned that if they ignored politics, someone else (Hollywood) would use politics to control them. You can't just ignore politics. You're either the one doing the controlling, or you're the one being controlled. Sad but true.

Didn't Microsoft get bent over for this once or twice?

MIcrosoft forgot to pay their dues to the politicians. As soon as they started contributing to national campaign budgets, their anti-trust lawsuit conveniently went away. Amazon pays, and so does Google.

Didn't Microsoft get bent over for this once or twice?

MIcrosoft forgot to pay their dues to the politicians. As soon as they started contributing to national campaign budgets, their anti-trust lawsuit conveniently went away. Amazon pays, and so does Google.

Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.

Funny that only one party seems to be trying to kill NN. And healthcare. And a host of other issues that affect people's lives in dramatic ways. But they're both the same, surely.

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. ...
The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news).

So, telecom donates to both parties. The GOP does what telecom wants, the Democrats oppose it. That seems to prove that the GOP is in their pocket, while the Democrats aren't - at least insofar as Net Neutrality goes, and that is the topic at hand.

Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.

Funny that only one party seems to be trying to kill NN. And healthcare. And a host of other issues that affect people's lives in dramatic ways. But they're both the same, surely.

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. ...
The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news).

So, telecom donates to both parties. The GOP does what telecom wants, the Democrats oppose it. That seems to prove that the GOP is in their pocket, while the Democrats aren't - at least insofar as Net Neutrality goes, and that is the topic at hand.

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. That's even more incredible when you consider that the party in power usually gets more lobbying contributions. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and the Democrats are still receiving more lobbying money from the communications industry. (You can drill down to the cable or telecom subsets if you want. The general trend is still the same - Democrats receive more lobbying dollars from these industries. Telephone utilities are one of the few subsets whose lobbying contributions consistently favor Republicans.)

The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news). The same thing happened with science funding during Bush 2's term. The media so badly misportrayed his science policies (excessively focusing on killing the Superconducting Super Collider and his ban on fetal stem cell research) that most of the public still think his administration was anti-science. Ask yourself - based on what you heard on the news, do you think Bush was pro- or anti-science funding? In fact his administration enacted the biggest increase in Federal science R&D funding since Bush 1 and the 1960s space race.

You can even see when this started to happen. Up until 2000, contributions by the print, publishing, and newspaper industries only slightly favored Democrats. But from 2000 onwards, it's skewed to wildly favor Democrats, by about a 5:1 margin today. Around 2000, the media stopped trying to remain unbiased, and skewed unabashedly towards the left. (My guess would be the appearance of Fox News favoring the Right meant the rest of the media felt they no longer had to try to restrain their bias favoring the Left.)

Health care is more of a mixed bag.

Don't believe everything the media spoon-feeds you just because it confirms your pre-existing biases. Do your own research to see where the money is flowing (to and from). The Open Secrets website is a great tool that's organized to be very easy to use.

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. That's even more incredible when you consider that the party in power usually gets more lobbying contributions. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and the Democrats are still receiving more lobbying money from the communications industry. (You can drill down to the cable or telecom subsets if you want. The general trend is still the same - Democrats receive more lobbying dollars from these industries. Telephone utilities are one of the few subsets whose lobbying contributions consistently favor Republicans.)

The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news). The same thing happened with science funding during Bush 2's term. The media so badly misportrayed his science policies (excessively focusing on killing the Superconducting Super Collider and his ban on fetal stem cell research) that most of the public still think his administration was anti-science. Ask yourself - based on what you heard on the news, do you think Bush was pro- or anti-science funding? In fact his administration enacted the biggest increase in Federal science R&D funding since Bush 1 and the 1960s space race.

You can even see when this started to happen. Up until 2000, contributions by the print, publishing, and newspaper industries only slightly favored Democrats. But from 2000 onwards, it's skewed to wildly favor Democrats, by about a 5:1 margin today. Around 2000, the media stopped trying to remain unbiased, and skewed unabashedly towards the left. (My guess would be the appearance of Fox News favoring the Right meant the rest of the media felt they no longer had to try to restrain their bias favoring the Left.)

Health care is more of a mixed bag.

Don't believe everything the media spoon-feeds you just because it confirms your pre-existing biases. Do your own research to see where the money is flowing (to and from). The Open Secrets website is a great tool that's organized to be very easy to use.

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. That's even more incredible when you consider that the party in power usually gets more lobbying contributions. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and the Democrats are still receiving more lobbying money from the communications industry. (You can drill down to the cable or telecom subsets if you want. The general trend is still the same - Democrats receive more lobbying dollars from these industries. Telephone utilities are one of the few subsets whose lobbying contributions consistently favor Republicans.)

The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news). The same thing happened with science funding during Bush 2's term. The media so badly misportrayed his science policies (excessively focusing on killing the Superconducting Super Collider and his ban on fetal stem cell research) that most of the public still think his administration was anti-science. Ask yourself - based on what you heard on the news, do you think Bush was pro- or anti-science funding? In fact his administration enacted the biggest increase in Federal science R&D funding since Bush 1 and the 1960s space race.

You can even see when this started to happen. Up until 2000, contributions by the print, publishing, and newspaper industries only slightly favored Democrats. But from 2000 onwards, it's skewed to wildly favor Democrats, by about a 5:1 margin today. Around 2000, the media stopped trying to remain unbiased, and skewed unabashedly towards the left. (My guess would be the appearance of Fox News favoring the Right meant the rest of the media felt they no longer had to try to restrain their bias favoring the Left.)

Health care is more of a mixed bag.

Don't believe everything the media spoon-feeds you just because it confirms your pre-existing biases. Do your own research to see where the money is flowing (to and from). The Open Secrets website is a great tool that's organized to be very easy to use.

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. That's even more incredible when you consider that the party in power usually gets more lobbying contributions. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and the Democrats are still receiving more lobbying money from the communications industry. (You can drill down to the cable or telecom subsets if you want. The general trend is still the same - Democrats receive more lobbying dollars from these industries. Telephone utilities are one of the few subsets whose lobbying contributions consistently favor Republicans.)

The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news). The same thing happened with science funding during Bush 2's term. The media so badly misportrayed his science policies (excessively focusing on killing the Superconducting Super Collider and his ban on fetal stem cell research) that most of the public still think his administration was anti-science. Ask yourself - based on what you heard on the news, do you think Bush was pro- or anti-science funding? In fact his administration enacted the biggest increase in Federal science R&D funding since Bush 1 and the 1960s space race.

You can even see when this started to happen. Up until 2000, contributions by the print, publishing, and newspaper industries only slightly favored Democrats. But from 2000 onwards, it's skewed to wildly favor Democrats, by about a 5:1 margin today. Around 2000, the media stopped trying to remain unbiased, and skewed unabashedly towards the left. (My guess would be the appearance of Fox News favoring the Right meant the rest of the media felt they no longer had to try to restrain their bias favoring the Left.)

Health care is more of a mixed bag.

Don't believe everything the media spoon-feeds you just because it confirms your pre-existing biases. Do your own research to see where the money is flowing (to and from). The Open Secrets website is a great tool that's organized to be very easy to use.

Democrats REALLY want the Federal Government to gain control of the Internet.

Net Neutrality is a backdoor to let their SJW insanity control the Internet.

I am not, nor have I ever been a Democrat. You need to stop spreading the word of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, because that's where the money against net neutrality is coming from. Don't believe it, then believe the links below. This is all about lobbying money into the Republican party, much like the Democrats are beholden to trial lawyers and Hollywood.

https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...
https://www.politico.com/story...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

I'm curious. When was being a lobbyist treated as treason (a crime defined in the Constitution)?

Quite the contrary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is just one of the things that Madison, and the court, have gotten wrong. The forces do not, in fact, tend to balance out in time because Madison had no concept of the degree of accumulation of wealth that would occur over the next two centuries and how much this would lead to a small oligarchy controlling immense resources and correspondingly acting as a superselector for the actual private citizen's choices. Shockingly, the courts have even recognized corporations themselves as having many of the rights of private citizens, in particular the "right" to petition the government via lobbying. In this way, the entire concept of democracy (republican or not) is subverted, as in the actual constitution corporations are NOT recognized as political entities -- all political power ultimately devolves to we, the people, the citizen. A corporation is not a citizen, nor is it a democracy.

Sadly, the only way we can get out of this at this point is EITHER having a congress that passes laws that muzzle lobbying -- personally I'd prohibit ALL lobbying, as the baby drowned long ago and all that is left is the sewer sludge swamp water of extremists on all sides, fueled by the oligarchs who maintain power as long as they keep wethepeople too distracted to care and too stupid to want to. Then we'd have to have a court that would actually consider the point that corporations are NOT citizens and do NOT have a right to "freedom of speech" -- only individual persons (owners or employees alike!) do, and only to the extent that they are willing to expend their own personal resources on it. OR we'd have to pass an amendment to the constitution specifically limiting the power of corporate entities to participate in or influence government decision making. Frankly I'd prefer the latter, but it will probably require the second American revolution to bring it about.

In the meantime, much as I appreciate the sentiment that corporate lobbying SHOULD be, well, not "treason" but a pretty serious crime, the lobbying part per se is the tip of the iceberg. I could even live with it as long as the real problem is repaired.

That is the simple fact illustrated here: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...
and here: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...

Scroll down to the graphic detailing PAC contributions. To put that graphic in perspective, one has to look at the numbers:
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
and
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

Opensecrets (among other places) follows this all the way down to the following brutal fact. It costs an average of around 11 million dollars to run for the Senate. It costs almost 2 million dollars to run for the House. It costs well over 100 million dollars to run for President. Actual donations from private citizens making less than $200,000/year constitute about 6 or 7 PERCENT of this. Well over 90% of the cost of running for office comes not from We, The People, but from corporations, filtered through PACs and the parties themselves, and those corporations are controlled by a tiny handful of the world's wealthiest people.

Nothing illustrates the corruption more clearly than the fact that many -- arguably most -- of the PACs contribute roughly equal amounts to Republicans AND Democrats running against each other. They don't care who wins, regardless of their stated position on whatever "issue" the PAC is supposed to give a shit about.

I'm curious. When was being a lobbyist treated as treason (a crime defined in the Constitution)?

Quite the contrary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is just one of the things that Madison, and the court, have gotten wrong. The forces do not, in fact, tend to balance out in time because Madison had no concept of the degree of accumulation of wealth that would occur over the next two centuries and how much this would lead to a small oligarchy controlling immense resources and correspondingly acting as a superselector for the actual private citizen's choices. Shockingly, the courts have even recognized corporations themselves as having many of the rights of private citizens, in particular the "right" to petition the government via lobbying. In this way, the entire concept of democracy (republican or not) is subverted, as in the actual constitution corporations are NOT recognized as political entities -- all political power ultimately devolves to we, the people, the citizen. A corporation is not a citizen, nor is it a democracy.

Sadly, the only way we can get out of this at this point is EITHER having a congress that passes laws that muzzle lobbying -- personally I'd prohibit ALL lobbying, as the baby drowned long ago and all that is left is the sewer sludge swamp water of extremists on all sides, fueled by the oligarchs who maintain power as long as they keep wethepeople too distracted to care and too stupid to want to. Then we'd have to have a court that would actually consider the point that corporations are NOT citizens and do NOT have a right to "freedom of speech" -- only individual persons (owners or employees alike!) do, and only to the extent that they are willing to expend their own personal resources on it. OR we'd have to pass an amendment to the constitution specifically limiting the power of corporate entities to participate in or influence government decision making. Frankly I'd prefer the latter, but it will probably require the second American revolution to bring it about.

In the meantime, much as I appreciate the sentiment that corporate lobbying SHOULD be, well, not "treason" but a pretty serious crime, the lobbying part per se is the tip of the iceberg. I could even live with it as long as the real problem is repaired.

That is the simple fact illustrated here: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...
and here: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...

Scroll down to the graphic detailing PAC contributions. To put that graphic in perspective, one has to look at the numbers:
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
and
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

Opensecrets (among other places) follows this all the way down to the following brutal fact. It costs an average of around 11 million dollars to run for the Senate. It costs almost 2 million dollars to run for the House. It costs well over 100 million dollars to run for President. Actual donations from private citizens making less than $200,000/year constitute about 6 or 7 PERCENT of this. Well over 90% of the cost of running for office comes not from We, The People, but from corporations, filtered through PACs and the parties themselves, and those corporations are controlled by a tiny handful of the world's wealthiest people.

Nothing illustrates the corruption more clearly than the fact that many -- arguably most -- of the PACs contribute roughly equal amounts to Republicans AND Democrats running against each other. They don't care who wins, regardless of their stated position on whatever "issue" the PAC is supposed to give a shit about.

I'm curious. When was being a lobbyist treated as treason (a crime defined in the Constitution)?

Quite the contrary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is just one of the things that Madison, and the court, have gotten wrong. The forces do not, in fact, tend to balance out in time because Madison had no concept of the degree of accumulation of wealth that would occur over the next two centuries and how much this would lead to a small oligarchy controlling immense resources and correspondingly acting as a superselector for the actual private citizen's choices. Shockingly, the courts have even recognized corporations themselves as having many of the rights of private citizens, in particular the "right" to petition the government via lobbying. In this way, the entire concept of democracy (republican or not) is subverted, as in the actual constitution corporations are NOT recognized as political entities -- all political power ultimately devolves to we, the people, the citizen. A corporation is not a citizen, nor is it a democracy.

Sadly, the only way we can get out of this at this point is EITHER having a congress that passes laws that muzzle lobbying -- personally I'd prohibit ALL lobbying, as the baby drowned long ago and all that is left is the sewer sludge swamp water of extremists on all sides, fueled by the oligarchs who maintain power as long as they keep wethepeople too distracted to care and too stupid to want to. Then we'd have to have a court that would actually consider the point that corporations are NOT citizens and do NOT have a right to "freedom of speech" -- only individual persons (owners or employees alike!) do, and only to the extent that they are willing to expend their own personal resources on it. OR we'd have to pass an amendment to the constitution specifically limiting the power of corporate entities to participate in or influence government decision making. Frankly I'd prefer the latter, but it will probably require the second American revolution to bring it about.

In the meantime, much as I appreciate the sentiment that corporate lobbying SHOULD be, well, not "treason" but a pretty serious crime, the lobbying part per se is the tip of the iceberg. I could even live with it as long as the real problem is repaired.

That is the simple fact illustrated here: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...
and here: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...

Scroll down to the graphic detailing PAC contributions. To put that graphic in perspective, one has to look at the numbers:
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
and
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

Opensecrets (among other places) follows this all the way down to the following brutal fact. It costs an average of around 11 million dollars to run for the Senate. It costs almost 2 million dollars to run for the House. It costs well over 100 million dollars to run for President. Actual donations from private citizens making less than $200,000/year constitute about 6 or 7 PERCENT of this. Well over 90% of the cost of running for office comes not from We, The People, but from corporations, filtered through PACs and the parties themselves, and those corporations are controlled by a tiny handful of the world's wealthiest people.

Nothing illustrates the corruption more clearly than the fact that many -- arguably most -- of the PACs contribute roughly equal amounts to Republicans AND Democrats running against each other. They don't care who wins, regardless of their stated position on whatever "issue" the PAC is supposed to give a shit about.

Yup.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000067336&cycle=2016

Instead of social media overtly controlling content, Pai would prefer the ISPs covertly do it.

Here's an interesting list of who contributes money to whom. AT&T is predominantly Republican while Comcast is predominantly Democrat.

-1 This just proves that USA have got major issues at the political level and with his judicial system:

- the separation of powers is not effective ;
- USA is corrupted by design: state sanctioned buying of politician.

The executive powers is there to provide the necessary support for the application the laws and the legislative powers is there to pass laws. None of those two should be able to influence (corrupt) the judicial powers.

Which are the right wingers on this list? https://www.opensecrets.org/se...

as if their opinions are somehow more valid, important, or enlightened than the rest of us.

"The rest of us" being the minority of the population who votes right wing? Look at the right wing right now. Yes, they are more enlightened than you are.

So, basically, reducing regulations only matter when it affects large Republican donors?

Yes. More generally, one's legislative agenda serves only those who have contributed to one's election and future re-elections.

This also works in the reverse order, those who do not donate receive lots of regulatory attention. Remember pre-1996 Microsoft saying they didn't see a need to lobby? Well, after Janet Reno finished with them, they do not do that anymore.

The Russians spent $100,000 on Facebook ads, some of which were 'politically divisive' according to the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Google has uncovered less than $100,000 in ad spending potentially linked to Russian actors, the source said.

Twitter and Facebook recently detected and disclosed that suspected Russian operatives, working for a content farm known as the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg, Russia, used their platforms to purchase ads and post content that was politically divisive in an effort to influence Americans before and after the November 2016 presidential election.

The Internet Research Agency employ hundreds of so-called "trolls" who post pro-Kremlin content, much of it fake or discredited, under the guise of phony social media accounts that pose as American or European, according to lawmakers and researchers.

Compare that to spending by US entities

https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...

Amount raised by candidates: $1.5 billion
Amount raised by super PACs supporting them: $618 million

So there was over $2 billion spent if you add up candidate and super PAC money.

And consider that 300 million odd Americans were also posting 'politically divisive' things to FB. Which dutifully censors all the ones that are anti Democrat and promotes all the ones that are anti Republican

Not to mention the Guardian is hardly innocent of posting 'politically divisive' things about US politics itself.

If the Russians could swing a US election with a five hundred thousand dollars, maybe the Democrats and the Republicans should just hire them next time. It'd save them a lot of money.

Or maybe the Democrats should stop whining - they had more money, the support of most of the tech companies and media and still lost even though the Republicans selected someone who was widely seen as a joke candidate.

Hilary went into that election with a double digit lead and ended up neck and neck, despite all the money and support from the media and tech companies.

Corruption aside, spending more on lobbying seems to be an indication of the maturation of a business in the US. If you look at top spenders, the ones mentioned in the article are the youngest of the bunch.

At some point in its life, a company recognizes that it can get better returns from lobbying than it can from any other investment.

You're mistaken as to why they are being demonized. Since the Citizens United case it was decided that money is free speech. That means that companies like Equifax has significantly more influence than probably 100,000 of my peers. That is just one entity. Given how much money they are spending though I would say that are only a small problem.

I really wish we could get good campaign finance reform, to me, it is the single most important issue as it is probably the single most significant source of bad legislation. If we fixed the system so politicians weren't being bribed all the time then we could probably then fix a whole slew of other problems regardless of where you are with your politician ideology.

Would your "campaign finance reform" also reign in the biggest spenders of political cash?

Public employee unions spent over $1 billion in "buying votes" - and that's corrosive because it's buying government for the government by the government - AKA the Democratic Party.

Fully 21 of the top 30 political donors give all their money to Democrats

You sure you want to "take big money out of politics"? You'd cripple the Democrats.

Opensecrets.org Equifax page

The problem with demonizing Equifax for lobbying the government is hypocritical if you want the government to "solve problems".

Equifax has every bit the same Constitutional right to "petition the government for grievances" as you do.

The free market prioritizes both the buyer and seller pretty well in general. The problem here is that the 143 million people affected by this aren't really Equifax's customers. Their customers are the lenders, credit card agencies, landlords et cetera. The average person like you and me aren't really even part of the transaction and that's why the Free Market doesn't give us any recourse on it's own. We can't take our business elsewhere, because we didn't want to be in Equifax's database in the first place. Unfortunately, Equifax donated generously to both parties in 2016, especially to the eventual winning color, so they'll probably come out of this with a wrist slap.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...

Protip: One counterexample does not negate decades of history.

Entertainment lobbying has been solidly blue for decades, and the energy lobby is even more extremely biased in the other direction. The DMCA specifically had broad bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously. The entertainment industry tends to have broader representation of LGBTQ persons, and is also heavily unionized, and the Republican party opposes both of these things. The 2016 election shows the same bias in funding, with HRC getting the vast majority of entertainment industry funding and also being the only 'D' on this list. This is not exactly new or controversial.

Protip: One counterexample does not negate decades of history.

Entertainment lobbying has been solidly blue for decades, and the energy lobby is even more extremely biased in the other direction. The DMCA specifically had broad bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously. The entertainment industry tends to have broader representation of LGBTQ persons, and is also heavily unionized, and the Republican party opposes both of these things. The 2016 election shows the same bias in funding, with HRC getting the vast majority of entertainment industry funding and also being the only 'D' on this list. This is not exactly new or controversial.

Protip: One counterexample does not negate decades of history.

Entertainment lobbying has been solidly blue for decades, and the energy lobby is even more extremely biased in the other direction. The DMCA specifically had broad bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously. The entertainment industry tends to have broader representation of LGBTQ persons, and is also heavily unionized, and the Republican party opposes both of these things. The 2016 election shows the same bias in funding, with HRC getting the vast majority of entertainment industry funding and also being the only 'D' on this list. This is not exactly new or controversial.

Electronic payment systems would go a long way to solving that problem.

Problem? This isn't a bug, it's a feature. Look: it channels vast amounts of tax dollars into the pockets of US corporations, while also propping up the government of Afghanistan so as to channel even more tax dollars into the US military-industrial complex.

Related:

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Looks like your typical DC "company" - donate to Democrats and get lucrative government contracts in return.

You be the judge...

https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...

Those political donations from BWX really paid off!

At first, I kinda thought you were trolling, but then there's this:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...