Slashdot Mirror

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.

The premise of your argument is wrong: Democrats are in the pockets of big media, because that's where big media contributes. Look at where their political contributions go:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02

According to that, Hollywood contributes to Democrats 69% of the time.

As for the news organizations:

From this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.


So, the agenda that's being pushed through is by Democrats for big media, who contribute to them.

according to this site , Bush and Kerry, collectively, spent ~645M on the election for a total of ~121M votes -- among those 121M, about 28M popular votes were in the 11 closest states

if one assumes that 80% of the spending went to those 28M votes, those votes are worth about 0.8*645/28 = $18 while the other votes are more like: 0.2*645/(121-28) = $1.4

most definitely not an ipod, but at least maybe a free CD

Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.

Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.

Clear out your headgear, this isn't about GWB. For that matter it not really about any particular political party. It's about a corrupt system where rich people are allowed to buy politicians.

Of course the Democrats are going to be in on this one--they are owned by the electronic media, as the Republicans are owned by big oil. So, don't get on ole George; he's just doing what his masters want, just as the Democrats will do what their masters want.

Clear out your headgear, this isn't about GWB. For that matter it not really about any particular political party. It's about a corrupt system where rich people are allowed to buy politicians.

Of course the Democrats are going to be in on this one--they are owned by the electronic media, as the Republicans are owned by big oil. So, don't get on ole George; he's just doing what his masters want, just as the Democrats will do what their masters want.

First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.

Read

Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.

There was no authority. The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004, and, at best, resumed being legal two to three weeks later. (Although there are indications that it lasted a good deal longer than that, too.) But there is a span of time that the program was flatly, indisputably, operated illegal.

This is, of course, assuming that the AG's signature made the problem legal, which it probably didn't, but it at least gave the telecoms some sort of defense. Without it, for that span of time, they are completely and totally fucked in court.

And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.) The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.

And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.

Yeah, I'm lying about that, because that's really hard to check that his 1999-2004 donations had no telecoms at or over $10,000, whereas his 2001-2006 donations had AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn suddenly show up and donate over $12,000 each, a total of $50,000.

Admittedly, I was wrong about the dates. I should have said '$100 from each in 2004'. (Or 2005, I don't know why they don't break each year out.) Looks like the bribery started sooner than I thought.

First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.

Read

Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.

There was no authority. The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004, and, at best, resumed being legal two to three weeks later. (Although there are indications that it lasted a good deal longer than that, too.) But there is a span of time that the program was flatly, indisputably, operated illegal.

This is, of course, assuming that the AG's signature made the problem legal, which it probably didn't, but it at least gave the telecoms some sort of defense. Without it, for that span of time, they are completely and totally fucked in court.

And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.) The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.

And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.

Yeah, I'm lying about that, because that's really hard to check that his 1999-2004 donations had no telecoms at or over $10,000, whereas his 2001-2006 donations had AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn suddenly show up and donate over $12,000 each, a total of $50,000.

Admittedly, I was wrong about the dates. I should have said '$100 from each in 2004'. (Or 2005, I don't know why they don't break each year out.) Looks like the bribery started sooner than I thought.

With regards to true fascism, America will never make it. While our government outsources all kinds of things that really should be under our direct control and not a business contract, we are way too divided ethnically, culturally, and religiously, including the dismissal of religious beliefs, to become true fascists. Now a plutocracy, that is something to which we can descend. Our infotainment channels already preselect a few candidates for us, oddly those with the most money.

For my descision, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008 gives an idea of what interests are backing which candidate. This coupled with the candidates' histories and current statements results in a choice. Big business dollars are certainly flowing to some pockets. Look, the three candidates pushing national health care plans are the three highest recipients of funds from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products". There is plutocracy in action. My question is when did we vote an amendment specifying the right the health care into the Constitution? Either we vote it into the Constitution, or we do not really want it nationally.

The idea is to spread power around, between at least three branches in each state, then amongst all of the states, then amongst the three branches at the federal level. This takes advantaged of the People's diversity to prevent power from be concentrated in a few wealthy hands.

My ideal national government is the one that governs the least, with only truly national decisions made at the national level.

The work is already done. :) http://opensecrets.org/

But PACS dont generally get involved in presidential races (probably because they fear /. will find out). So lets look at the top ten contributers since 1989 when reporting laws took effect (in order spent):

Muncipal Employees Union 98% democrat
AT&T 56% republican
Nat Assn Realtors 53% republican
Teachers Union 93% democrat
Bar Association 90% democrat
IBEW (union) 98% democrat
Goldman Sachs 62% democrat
Laborers Union 92% democrat
Service Employees union 96% democrat
Carpenters union 90% democrat

So, we have the telco's and realtors with a slight bias towards the right, and we have labor, banks and lawyers solidly behind the dems. Personally Id rather be whored out to realtors and telcos than the theiving unions and lawyers.

I completely agree with your sentiment but without the wholesale slaughter. What you really want is transparency so you can ridicule or sue those in power into compliance with your wishes. Things like pervasive decentralized video recording (as in everyone has a mini-camcorder that they don't even think about woven into their clothes until they - and their camera - witness something like police brutality) with the emphasis on decentralized meaning you don't share your footage unless you want to. Also the World Wide Web is truly one of the most disruptive technologies to emerge in all of history. Use it. Organize around sites like Open Secrets and pursue all the Information you can through Freedom of Information Acts to root out corruption. Expose those who are bought off by special interest groups. Basically, exercise the freedoms you currently enjoy and truly participate in democracy now to prevent those freedoms from becoming a relic of history. And if you are unfairly curtailed then shoot the bastards.

It seems that the facts disprove your theory: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000115 In the past 4 years Microsoft has been giving more to Democrats than Republicans. In fact they gave almost twice as much in 2004 to Democrats as they did to Republicans. In 1992 they gave 4X as much to the Dems. In 1996 they gave 2X as much to the Dems.

Ya jim-bob, thats why we gots us some heavy democrat funding already going on here at MSFT to help with that thar election yer speakin' of:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B12&cycle=2006

We're fixin' to be the top in the industry... Hyuk!

what we really have here is a typical example of Right Wing emotionalism. (The operative emotions being Fear and Hate, which the typical Right-Wing Bush supporter allows to direct his Judgment and Rationality.)

The Typical Right-Wing brain is naturally going to sift out things to get angry about, regardless of how balanced the reporting might be, which in a typical newspaper today, is totally not balanced at all. I see propaganda wherever I look, and think that the so-called "Liberal Media" is an utter and complete sham designed to support the Military Industrial Complex :-/

Oh, as for this:

We do not have a Liberal media.

You're WRONG

government.

All Hollywood has in terms of politicians is whatever $23,177,938 in campaign contributions will buy.

Of course, politicians come amazingly cheap, if former Senator Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings is a slashdotter, perhaps he can tell us how much Hollywood bought him for.

Of course, the $23M was for 2006 alone, in the last Presidential election year, they spent $43M.

The actual ban was a last-minute, backdoor provision, slipped into another bill with no debate and no formal vote.

It was widely expected to fail, but then Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill.

Looking at his lifetime donors, it doesn't appear to have been for a traditional special interest group. Instead, I think it was just a failing congressman, trying to appeal to the fascist evangelicals, who wish to legislate their morality on the rest of us.

Because MBNA gives so much money to other causes that are detrimental to freedom or information.

According to the codified portions of Chabot's donations on OpenSecrets, he actually did not receive much money directly from the TV/Movies/Music industry. According to Chabot's 2006 Industry Breakdown it was his 19th greatest contributor, giving $31,000.

However, a mischievous explanation of his manipulation can be found by looking to his revolving door(*). Chabot's recently departed Counsel, Etheridge Berkley, was named Vice President and Counsel of the NMPA (Nat'l Music Publishers Assoc'n) in March of 2005.

For more, see Berkley's revolving door profile and the NMPA press release of Berkley's appointment[pdf] ("I know that the U.S. music publishing industry will find her to be a terrific champion on their behalf").

(*) - "Revolving Door" in this context refers to those who go back-and-forth between working on K Street (lobbying) and Capital Hill (congressional committees). For more, see Time Magazine's The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close .

According to the codified portions of Chabot's donations on OpenSecrets, he actually did not receive much money directly from the TV/Movies/Music industry. According to Chabot's 2006 Industry Breakdown it was his 19th greatest contributor, giving $31,000.

However, a mischievous explanation of his manipulation can be found by looking to his revolving door(*). Chabot's recently departed Counsel, Etheridge Berkley, was named Vice President and Counsel of the NMPA (Nat'l Music Publishers Assoc'n) in March of 2005.

For more, see Berkley's revolving door profile and the NMPA press release of Berkley's appointment[pdf] ("I know that the U.S. music publishing industry will find her to be a terrific champion on their behalf").

(*) - "Revolving Door" in this context refers to those who go back-and-forth between working on K Street (lobbying) and Capital Hill (congressional committees). For more, see Time Magazine's The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close .

Time Warner - $3,780,000
CBS Corp - $5,440,000
News Corp - $3,420,000
Recording Industry Assn of America - $1,501,400
Motion Picture Assn of America - $1,800,000
Broadcast Music Inc - $1,360,000
Viacom Inc - $1,475,000
Sony BMG Music Entertainment - $720,000
Sony Corp of America -$320,000
Sony Electronics - $445,000
Sony Pictures Entertainment - $400,000
etc.etc.
Total For TV/Movies/Music: $72,433,974

And that's just lobbyists in 2006. I'd stick to writing letters and getting ignored rather than forking out cash and getting ignored.

Heres the open secrets link to his finances:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.as p?CID=N00003689&Cycle=2002

It depends on what your definition of "is" is ;) You listed the DNC -- opensecrets also aggregates all-time donor profiles here: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A #1 on that list is the union representing government employees...

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that those numbers are from the 2006 election cycle; I wanted to look at the donations from the most recent completed cycle, and the 2008 campaigns are still in the midst of raising money (there will be a lot more from now until November of next year). The WSJ article covers the Presidential campaigns for 2008, and we just can't know yet which industries will make the largest contributions by the time it's over.

And incidentally, they're not "my" numbers, they are from Open Secrets, as indicated by about five links in my previous post, so if I haven't got that across to you yet, here's another one.

Here's the thing: "Hollywood is [the Democrats'] biggest cash machine [and hence controls them]" is just like "Liberals control the media" and "There's no global warming" and "There are WMDs in Iraq" and "God said Shazam! and then Adam and Eve were standing there" are all assertions that conservatives assert to one another feverishly nodding their heads, based exclusively on the evidence of It Feels Good To Believe It. And yet, just a cursory look into publicly available evidence will typically show that these things are not true. Nevertheless, these legends permeate the mainstream media and our public debate, in this case the front page of Slashdot. For the sake of a sane future for our democracy, this has got to stop.

For the sake of getting this thread back on topic: despite what I'm saying, there's plenty to criticize what Harry Reid is doing about file sharing, but it doesn't help to base that criticism on assertions that are plainly false. That's precisely my point. For the pushback to be effective, we must cease and desist from mustering arguments that are this easily exposed as nonsense.

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that those numbers are from the 2006 election cycle; I wanted to look at the donations from the most recent completed cycle, and the 2008 campaigns are still in the midst of raising money (there will be a lot more from now until November of next year). The WSJ article covers the Presidential campaigns for 2008, and we just can't know yet which industries will make the largest contributions by the time it's over.

And incidentally, they're not "my" numbers, they are from Open Secrets, as indicated by about five links in my previous post, so if I haven't got that across to you yet, here's another one.

Here's the thing: "Hollywood is [the Democrats'] biggest cash machine [and hence controls them]" is just like "Liberals control the media" and "There's no global warming" and "There are WMDs in Iraq" and "God said Shazam! and then Adam and Eve were standing there" are all assertions that conservatives assert to one another feverishly nodding their heads, based exclusively on the evidence of It Feels Good To Believe It. And yet, just a cursory look into publicly available evidence will typically show that these things are not true. Nevertheless, these legends permeate the mainstream media and our public debate, in this case the front page of Slashdot. For the sake of a sane future for our democracy, this has got to stop.

For the sake of getting this thread back on topic: despite what I'm saying, there's plenty to criticize what Harry Reid is doing about file sharing, but it doesn't help to base that criticism on assertions that are plainly false. That's precisely my point. For the pushback to be effective, we must cease and desist from mustering arguments that are this easily exposed as nonsense.

"Hollywood is the main source of cash for Democrats" is just another legend in the rich and bizarre mythology of conservatism, and as such it is typically puerile and easily refuted.

Opensecrets reports that the top industries donating to the DNC, based on contributions from PACs, Levin money donors, and individuals who self-identify their employer, are:

1. Retired ($7,389,597)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($3,250,708)

3. Securities & Investment ($2,301,530)

4. Real Estate ($1,570,877)

5. Education ($1,429,546)

6. Misc Finance ($1,176,402)

7. Business Services ($1,108,889)

8. Health Professionals ($1,044,045)

9. TV/Movies/Music ($1,042,810)

Thus the "industry" making the largest contributions to the DNC are retired individuals, contributing over $7 million to a total of about $37 million. The entertainment industry, which is presumably what the myth-entranced poster meant by "Hollywood", comes in 9th place with just about one measly million.

For the DCCC, which is responsible for elections in the House, it breaks down like this:

1. Candidate Committees ($28,987,184)

2. Retired ($6,473,164)

3. Securities & Investment ($5,237,572)

4. Lawyers/Law Firms ($4,730,490)

5. Real Estate ($2,846,870)

6. TV/Movies/Music ($2,299,387)

So the top contributors to the general DCCC funds are, by far, the individual campaign committees (who of course must get their own contributors). "Hollywood" comes in sixth place with about $2 million out of a total of over $80 million.

For the DSCC, responsible for Senate campaigns, the picture is about exactly the same as for the DCCC:

1. Candidate Committees ($10,312,550)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($9,989,631)

3. Securities & Investment ($7,938,319)

4. Retired ($6,967,505)

5. Real Estate ($4,864,610)

6. Misc Finance ($2,585,026)

7. TV/Movies/Music ($2,286,687)

This time, "Hollywood" comes in 7th place, again with about $2 million out of over $80 million.

However we much we may dislike what Harry Reid is doing, the claim about "Hollywood" and the Democrats is load of peanut butter. We need to get these reality-challenged conservative canards out of our public discussion; they certainly have no business of the front page of Slashdot.

"Hollywood is the main source of cash for Democrats" is just another legend in the rich and bizarre mythology of conservatism, and as such it is typically puerile and easily refuted.

Opensecrets reports that the top industries donating to the DNC, based on contributions from PACs, Levin money donors, and individuals who self-identify their employer, are:

1. Retired ($7,389,597)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($3,250,708)

3. Securities & Investment ($2,301,530)

4. Real Estate ($1,570,877)

5. Education ($1,429,546)

6. Misc Finance ($1,176,402)

7. Business Services ($1,108,889)

8. Health Professionals ($1,044,045)

9. TV/Movies/Music ($1,042,810)

Thus the "industry" making the largest contributions to the DNC are retired individuals, contributing over $7 million to a total of about $37 million. The entertainment industry, which is presumably what the myth-entranced poster meant by "Hollywood", comes in 9th place with just about one measly million.

For the DCCC, which is responsible for elections in the House, it breaks down like this:

1. Candidate Committees ($28,987,184)

2. Retired ($6,473,164)

3. Securities & Investment ($5,237,572)

4. Lawyers/Law Firms ($4,730,490)

5. Real Estate ($2,846,870)

6. TV/Movies/Music ($2,299,387)

So the top contributors to the general DCCC funds are, by far, the individual campaign committees (who of course must get their own contributors). "Hollywood" comes in sixth place with about $2 million out of a total of over $80 million.

For the DSCC, responsible for Senate campaigns, the picture is about exactly the same as for the DCCC:

1. Candidate Committees ($10,312,550)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($9,989,631)

3. Securities & Investment ($7,938,319)

4. Retired ($6,967,505)

5. Real Estate ($4,864,610)

6. Misc Finance ($2,585,026)

7. TV/Movies/Music ($2,286,687)

This time, "Hollywood" comes in 7th place, again with about $2 million out of over $80 million.

However we much we may dislike what Harry Reid is doing, the claim about "Hollywood" and the Democrats is load of peanut butter. We need to get these reality-challenged conservative canards out of our public discussion; they certainly have no business of the front page of Slashdot.

"Hollywood is the main source of cash for Democrats" is just another legend in the rich and bizarre mythology of conservatism, and as such it is typically puerile and easily refuted.

Opensecrets reports that the top industries donating to the DNC, based on contributions from PACs, Levin money donors, and individuals who self-identify their employer, are:

1. Retired ($7,389,597)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($3,250,708)

3. Securities & Investment ($2,301,530)

4. Real Estate ($1,570,877)

5. Education ($1,429,546)

6. Misc Finance ($1,176,402)

7. Business Services ($1,108,889)

8. Health Professionals ($1,044,045)

9. TV/Movies/Music ($1,042,810)

Thus the "industry" making the largest contributions to the DNC are retired individuals, contributing over $7 million to a total of about $37 million. The entertainment industry, which is presumably what the myth-entranced poster meant by "Hollywood", comes in 9th place with just about one measly million.

For the DCCC, which is responsible for elections in the House, it breaks down like this:

1. Candidate Committees ($28,987,184)

2. Retired ($6,473,164)

3. Securities & Investment ($5,237,572)

4. Lawyers/Law Firms ($4,730,490)

5. Real Estate ($2,846,870)

6. TV/Movies/Music ($2,299,387)

So the top contributors to the general DCCC funds are, by far, the individual campaign committees (who of course must get their own contributors). "Hollywood" comes in sixth place with about $2 million out of a total of over $80 million.

For the DSCC, responsible for Senate campaigns, the picture is about exactly the same as for the DCCC:

1. Candidate Committees ($10,312,550)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($9,989,631)

3. Securities & Investment ($7,938,319)

4. Retired ($6,967,505)

5. Real Estate ($4,864,610)

6. Misc Finance ($2,585,026)

7. TV/Movies/Music ($2,286,687)

This time, "Hollywood" comes in 7th place, again with about $2 million out of over $80 million.

However we much we may dislike what Harry Reid is doing, the claim about "Hollywood" and the Democrats is load of peanut butter. We need to get these reality-challenged conservative canards out of our public discussion; they certainly have no business of the front page of Slashdot.

"Hollywood is the main source of cash for Democrats" is just another legend in the rich and bizarre mythology of conservatism, and as such it is typically puerile and easily refuted.

Opensecrets reports that the top industries donating to the DNC, based on contributions from PACs, Levin money donors, and individuals who self-identify their employer, are:

1. Retired ($7,389,597)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($3,250,708)

3. Securities & Investment ($2,301,530)

4. Real Estate ($1,570,877)

5. Education ($1,429,546)

6. Misc Finance ($1,176,402)

7. Business Services ($1,108,889)

8. Health Professionals ($1,044,045)

9. TV/Movies/Music ($1,042,810)

Thus the "industry" making the largest contributions to the DNC are retired individuals, contributing over $7 million to a total of about $37 million. The entertainment industry, which is presumably what the myth-entranced poster meant by "Hollywood", comes in 9th place with just about one measly million.

For the DCCC, which is responsible for elections in the House, it breaks down like this:

1. Candidate Committees ($28,987,184)

2. Retired ($6,473,164)

3. Securities & Investment ($5,237,572)

4. Lawyers/Law Firms ($4,730,490)

5. Real Estate ($2,846,870)

6. TV/Movies/Music ($2,299,387)

So the top contributors to the general DCCC funds are, by far, the individual campaign committees (who of course must get their own contributors). "Hollywood" comes in sixth place with about $2 million out of a total of over $80 million.

For the DSCC, responsible for Senate campaigns, the picture is about exactly the same as for the DCCC:

1. Candidate Committees ($10,312,550)

2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($9,989,631)

3. Securities & Investment ($7,938,319)

4. Retired ($6,967,505)

5. Real Estate ($4,864,610)

6. Misc Finance ($2,585,026)

7. TV/Movies/Music ($2,286,687)

This time, "Hollywood" comes in 7th place, again with about $2 million out of over $80 million.

However we much we may dislike what Harry Reid is doing, the claim about "Hollywood" and the Democrats is load of peanut butter. We need to get these reality-challenged conservative canards out of our public discussion; they certainly have no business of the front page of Slashdot.

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softtop.asp?t xtCycle=2002&txtSort=amnt

The last time I checked, Microsoft has more of a liberal / left-wing / Democrat bent than a conservative / right-wing / Republican leaning direction.

While Ron Paul is my favorite candidate... that isn't correct as far as I know:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

And, on the topic on hand, a Democratic government is *significantly* more likely to break up MS than a Republican government. The notion that this isn't so is extraordinarily absurd.

I'm not sure what you mean by "significantly," given that I think the odds of either party doing it are so vanishingly close to zero that it's hardly worth pretending that it's on the table.

You couldn't disassemble Microsoft, in the current climate (monoculture and dependence), without risking a huge upset in the tech sector. If Redmond catches a cold, the entire economy would feel it. And "it's the economy, stupid." Being 'pro-consumer' doesn't count for much if you're perceived to be bringing on the next dot-bomb.

If anything, Democrats depend far more on the high-tech sector of the economy than Republicans do for support, particularly corporate support. In recent years, Microsoft (and its employees) has been a major Democratic donor (#30 overall -- even bigger than the NRA and just beneath the AFL-CIO); in both '04 and '06 they gave the majority of their donations to Democrats.* Their employees are overwhelmingly Democratic donors and voters as well. Not to mention, Microsoft is also deeply in bed with the entertainment industry, another Democratic stalwart.

The political philosophy of either of the major parties is basically irrelevant; their actions are virtually always predictable by looking solely at their sources of funding and votes. Democrats are funded by the high tech industry, and many of their core constituencies are people who work in the tech industry, or are from areas (major urban centers) that depend on high-tech industries. They're not going to wreck that gravy train.

* Source is here although I'm not sure the deeplink will work. You can just search Opensecrets for Microsoft Corp.

Resent it all you want. Hard numbers of democrats vs republicans are hard to come by, but we can use campaign contributions (which at least are recorded) according to open secrets.org.

http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B

Electronics/Computer Industry 2006 55% Dem .......44% Rep
2004 59% Dem .......40% Rep
2002 60% Dem .......40% Rep
2000 54% Dem .......45% Rep
In my personal experience its even more slanted to the dems. We just don't give as much as republicans do to campaigns.

I'm absolutely sure there are Republican IT workers, just like I'm sure there are Black republicans, they just aren't the majority. This is the crux of the parent post that you take offense to.

This is where I would normally insert a joke about How the competence of republican IT workers is equal to the competence of Republican Administrations, but that would just be cruel and possibly redundant.

You mean like the interests of these ?

• Moral majority
• AIPAC
• NRA
• Philip Morris ($2,387,480)
• Microsoft ($1,942,751)

You mean like the interests of these ?

• Moral majority
• AIPAC
• NRA
• Philip Morris ($2,387,480)
• Microsoft ($1,942,751)

And further, the disparity would have been even wider without Mitt's many smaller donations from Utah.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/geog.asp?id=N000 00286&cycle=2008

Dude, (or dudette), read this and weep:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cy cle=2008

For the under $200 donations, here's the breakdown:
Dems: 34,705
Reps: 27,710

From the graphs it looks like some other candidates get a larger portion of http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/geog.asp?id=N000 00286&cycle=2008

So please, don't trot out the usual suspects (Hollywood and George Soros) before doing some research.

Here's 50 "donations" to start with:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topindivs.asp?ID=D 000000128&ContribID=U0000000007&Display=ID

More:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp ?txtName=Walt+Disney+Co&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2005& txtSort=name

http://www.opensecrets.org/ is full of such records of "donations" made on behalf of Disney.
And that's just one website.

Now ask for something hard to find.
;)

Here's 50 "donations" to start with:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topindivs.asp?ID=D 000000128&ContribID=U0000000007&Display=ID

More:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp ?txtName=Walt+Disney+Co&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2005& txtSort=name

http://www.opensecrets.org/ is full of such records of "donations" made on behalf of Disney.
And that's just one website.

Now ask for something hard to find.
;)

Here's 50 "donations" to start with:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topindivs.asp?ID=D 000000128&ContribID=U0000000007&Display=ID

More:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp ?txtName=Walt+Disney+Co&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2005& txtSort=name

http://www.opensecrets.org/ is full of such records of "donations" made on behalf of Disney.
And that's just one website.

Now ask for something hard to find.
;)

Here is an interesting link to back up this claim (for the US at least)

http://opensecrets.org/bigpicture/millionaires.asp ?cycle=2004