Slashdot Mirror

Which party gets the most donations from large contributors?
The following are the top 10 contributors who have given the most to Democrats and Republicans since 1989:

• American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees: $36,759,024, 98% to Democrats
  
• National Assn of Realtors: $27,869,023, 47% to Democrats and 53% to Republicans
  
• Assn of Trial Lawyers of America: $25,453,541, 89% to Democrats
  
• National Education Assn: $25,251,541, 94% to Democrats
  
• Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: $23,804,055, 97% to Democrats
  
• Service Employees International Union: $23,386,475, 96% to Democrats
  
• Laborers Union: $23,123,307, 92% to Democrats
  
• Communications Workers of America: $23,009,674, 99% to Democrats
  
• Teamsters Union: $22,689,508, 93% to Democrats
  
• Carpenters & Joiners Union: $22,654,447, 91% to Democrats
  

If the realtors association wasn't covering its bets by splitting contributions, the list would be solid blue!

But what about individual contributors?
According to statistics from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle. Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers:

• Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats.
  
• The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.
  
• But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans.
  
• Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million.
  
• And when it comes to the millionaires' club -- those kicking in $1 million or more -- the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million.
  

Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts -- $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats -- the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.

[Source: Washington Times, December 18, 2002]

So the next time you hear a liberal say Republicans are the party of billionaires, you'll know what the truth is.

Where did it all go, friend?

A few pages about the people from whom Stevens has been taking bribes.

1 News Corp $47,250
2 Boeing Co $41,900
3 Verizon Communications $36,550
4 Veco Corp $31,750
5 Viacom Inc $23,000
6 AT&T Inc $22,500
7 General Electric $20,000
7 Walt Disney Co $20,000
9 BAE Systems $19,000
10 Northrop Grumman $18,000
11 Cubic Corp $17,250
12 Mantech International $16,500
13 Intergraph Corp $15,600
14 Cassidy & Assoc/Interpublic Group $15,569
15 General Dynamics $15,000
15 Lockheed Martin $15,000
15 Northern Lights PAC $15,000
15 Teamsters Union $15,000
19 Science Applications International Corp $14,500
19 Sprint Nextel $14,500

Has all this corruption and ineptitude in our government caused anybody else to come to the conclusion that gun control is a bad idea?

1. Why does the same American government that sends soldiers to be permanently mutilated in Iraq refuse to allow the full range of stem cell research that could, one day, re-grow the limbs torn apart by pointless, wasteful war? Why should we condemn the mutilated soldiers to a life of crappy prosthetics?

Stem cell treatment would result in a one-off billable event which, while good for the soldier concerned, is not good for anyone else.
By contrast, prosthetics require continual maintenance and parts replacement. It's all very nice that the government supplies these latest and greatest prosthetics to their crippled soldiers, but without a commitment to lifetime support, they'll end up being an economic burden to their owners and an income stream for the manufacturer and maintainer.

2. More fundamentally, why does the American government send soldiers off to sacrifice their lives in Iraq when most Americans, including American politicians, refuse to make any sacrifice for the sake of that war? No one is sacrificing. Only the soldiers are sacrificing -- their lives.

The rest of the US _is_ making sacrifices, but you're defraying most of those sacrifices to the future. Since the war is being paid for by debt, it's more like a mortgage than a purchase agreement. The bright side of all this is that the money being spent is not vanishing. The bulk of that trillion dollars will go to to the contractors pbs opensecrets who are running the war for you.

It's probably best to visualise the Iraq war as a large siphon sucking wealth from you and your children's futures into the vaults of Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton etc. The owners of those companies will then obviously ensure the money is spent wisely and fairly, to the benefit of all.

Mitch Bainwol, RIAA USA, lives close by in Fairfax Station, VA at:
8400 Crosslake Dr, Fairfax Station, VA 22039.
Phone is (703) 690-1678.

Thank him and his wife Susan for their campaign donations to George W Bush. Or ask him about his other $29,800 worth of campaign donations.

Maybe you want to talk to him about his three kids: Emily Rose, Brent and Garrett. I hear Emily has a very good voice and does well in sports. She is also on the honor roll, but sadly Brent and Garrett aren't.

You might want to tell him to water that lawn and clean his pool.

Cheers!

This "think tank" was founded by Republican Dick Armey in 1987.
As usual, you just need to follow the money in these matters and this is very revealing. The last year that records were kept regarding Dick Armey's contributions you'll see that his top contributor was Allegiance Telecom. Other notables in the "Dick Armey" include National Cable & Telecommunications Assn, Verizon, BellSouth and SBC. It's all here at open secrets.

Politicians remain lapdogs to their masters even after leaving the Hill

Congress: Let me check something.... Yeah, you're paid in full. Come again whenever you'd like!

My explanation:

2004 election donations
2005-2006 donations

I guess AT&T has further payments to make for this year's election, to at least match 2004...

My explanation:

2004 election donations
2005-2006 donations

I guess AT&T has further payments to make for this year's election, to at least match 2004...

Oil prices have risen because the 6 oil companies that control our government have cut down production. No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!

A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today's reformulated gasoline blend needs. Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion. - Public Citizen

If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion. They love reporting this information to their investors. While a barrel of oil costs $20 to make, they turn around and sell it for $70.

It's a myth that Saudis or some organization sets these prices. The prices are set on energy trading markets. Back in 2000, Enron lobbied hard for the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act." Look it up. It deregulated the energy trading exhanges, meaning over half of the trades are unregulated. When the oil companies are the main ones throwing money around on these exchanges, it's easy for them to hike up the price.

As for the Democrats, yes they do receive money. But if you look at the percentage of campaign contributions going to Republicans, Republicans receive 4 times as much money from oil companies than democrats. That means Republicans should be hung 4 times as high for making consumers deal with this BS.

This is a joke. They think it is a way to beat up on a straw man, and look tough. It is also a red herring for the war, which IS SPONSORING MANY CAMPAIGNS.

You should all go join the ACM and support a credible movement for digital freedoms. Also, you [Americans] should all go join a local DFA group so you can pick one of the as**oles closest to you and chip in to get him un-elected. If you sit back and whine, you will force the video game companies to start paying for legislators' political campaigns (to get congress off their backs for starters), and then they will jack up the price of video games to pay for it, and they will ask the congressmen for more draconian DMCA crap so they can squeeze you for those dollars. You are the one, Neo. What are you going to do about it?

1. Register to vote.
2. Get organized.
3. Donate and volunteer.

Instead of directing your anger towards the shadow (the US government), you should direct it towards the substance (the IMF, WTO, et al).

Business interests has played a major role in pretty much every conflict the US has been involved in post-ww2.
It should be painfully obvious that invading Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the population, it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it's all about business.

When the US blackmails other countries and forces various copyright laws upon them it's not the US government itself that's the bad guy, it's merely a proxy for various interest groups, in this case the RIAA.

Political campaign donations alone plays a major role in this, check http://opensecrets.org/ for some statistics of various intrest groups and their donations.

Close enough:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=silverman%2C+scott&txtState=FL&txtZ ip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt200 2=Y&Order=N

The only democrat on there is Bill Nelson. The donations may be attributable to the fact that Nelson is fact that Nelson is Florida's more popular Senator, and far more likely to remain in office than his republican counterpart. In addition, it's been proposed that Katherine Harris run against Nelson, in which case, unless somebody from within the Democratic party beats him out, Nelson's re-election is practically a forgone conclusion.

Yes it does, because almost all politicians currently holding high office are paid operatives of big corporate interests. Ignore this fact at your peril.

Here: Blow your mind.

Maybe it's time to borrow an idea from SpamCop and start something called PorkCop. This would offer monthly rankings of Washington politicians

Here's a start toward PorkCop.

Before we all get too upset, remember that this is not law yet, and probably never will be. Most bills die in committee and are introduced as a bone to throw to your favorite lobbyists. Diane Feinstein is from California and the Entertainment industry is one of her top contributors. If you don't like this law, write to your Senator and encourage him/her to vote against this law. Also, you should probably vote him/her out for good measure, because incumbancy is pretty much the single largest foe of Democracy in America. So while you're at it, push for mandatory term limits by Constitutional amendment if necessary (one term would be good--that way, the special interests can spend all they want electing candidates they think will be beneficial, but have basically no power over them after the election). That would put an end to a lot of this pandering.

and you'll see that Feinstein's sixth biggest contributor was the TV/Movies/Music industry and Graham is also sucking on the entertainment tit where he received over $100,000

The United States: Best Government Money Can Buy (tm)

and you'll see that Feinstein's sixth biggest contributor was the TV/Movies/Music industry and Graham is also sucking on the entertainment tit where he received over $100,000

The United States: Best Government Money Can Buy (tm)

Not "probably", "definately": http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp ?CID=N00001811&cycle=2004

Lamar Smith, Christian Scientist, hater of immigrants & proud possessor of one of the stupidest middle names eve (Seeligson).

Reading Open Secret's page about him, you see the usual line up of Legal firms, Content & Tech companies. Just the people who stand to benefit from this legislation the most.

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Hey politicians, could you at least try to be a little less obviously for sale?

Slashdot needs an auto-opensecrets-linker that automatically detects the politician's name, links to their opensecrets page and pulls in the contribution from the discussed industry out of the appropriate industry from the top industries list...

Want to know how grossly they screwed up? Here's the original from google's cache:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:KlRc795K2QYJ:w ww.capitaleye.org/inside.asp%3FID%3D210+&hl=en&gl= us&ct=clnk&cd=1

It states:

"According to Senate records analyzed using CRP's new Lobbying Database, Abramoff represented at least 41 clients from 1998 through 2004. The largest, by far, was Microsoft, which employed the firm of Preston, Gates & Ellis as a lobbyist--a law firm where Microsoft chairman Bill Gates' father is a principal. During the time that Abramoff worked for Preston, Gates as a Microsoft lobbyist, political contributions associated with the software giant totaled more than $13.3 million, accounting for 60% of contributions from all of Abramoff's clients."

$13.3 Million and 60% of Abramoff's total contributions. Here's the "corrected" version:

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=210

"According to Senate records analyzed using CRP's new Lobbying Database, Abramoff represented at least 41 clients from 1998 through 2004. The largest, by far, was Microsoft, which employed the firm of Preston, Gates & Ellis as a lobbyist--a law firm where Microsoft chairman Bill Gates' father is a principal. During the time that Abramoff worked for Preston, Gates as a Microsoft lobbyist, political contributions associated with the software giant totaled nearly $400,000, accounting for 8% of contributions from all of Abramoff's clients."

From $13.3 Million to "nearly" $400,000. That's a big jump. And 8% rather than 60%.

They even admit, in their correction, that figuring all this out is difficulty and tricky, which would imply that even these numbers are probably suspect.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2006/Abra moffRevision.4.7.asp

" "This was a complicated project from the start," said Sheila Krumholz, the Center's research director and acting executive director. "In designing our methodology we tried to account for all the complexities as well as shortcomings of the disclosure system. We didn't uniformly apply our conservative methodology throughout the research, and we should have. That resulted in overstatement, something we always try to avoid and regret in this instance. After being alerted to a single error, we looked more closely and realized we had to correct the data as quickly as possible." "

It's interesting that you put so much faith in a group that can't seem to get their act together.

We're talking about money spent via abramoff here. Not how much Microsoft spends on lobbying in general. They spend a ton of lobbying in general, and that's a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I AM talking about the proxies. Or proxy in this case. There is nothing listed in the lobbying database for the BSA in regards to abramoff. As far as I know, the only link between between Microsoft and Abramoff is via Preston Gates & Ellis.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor_full.asp

As you can see, Microsoft spent only $360,000 lobbying via Abramoff over 6 years, and only contributed about $400,000 to funds via abramoff.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp ?year=2004&txtname=Microsoft+Corp

As you can see, in 2004, Microsoft spent almost $10,000,000 in lobbying, of which $0 went to Preston Gates.

In 2003 they spent almost $9 million, and again, $0 to Preston Gates.

You have to go back to 2002 to see that they spent $160,000 on Preston Gates, but it doesn't say who that money went to. Since Preston Gates spent $100,000 on the BSA that year, it seems unlikely that much, if any went to abramoff.

So, it seems that the majority of that money was spent years ago, and Microsoft was the 13th lowest paying customer out of 40.

Further, we don't know what Abramoff was employed to do. No wrongdoing has been suggested. This seems to be mere guilt by association.

A tiny percentage of Microsoft's overall lobbying budget was spent on Abramoff , less than 1% over 6 years, of which no wrongdoing is suggested at all. There is no evidence to suggest that what Microsoft employed Abramoff to do was illegal, and you can't just assume it was without being a kook.

You seem to be blowing this out of proportion, and jumping to a great number of conclusions based on limited evidence.

Do you have anything to suggest that Microsoft did anything illegal in regard to campaign financing or lobbying? Other than an indirect fuzzy association with Abramoff?

Since they started dumping money into political campaigns and hired their own lobbying group about ten years ago Microsoft has become one of the most generous contributors to politicians in the country:


LXer: How Microsoft wastes its money on anything but software
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/55497/index.h tml


Election 2004: How to Excel in DC
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0438/040922_news _microsoft.php


A Bug in Windows GOP (Seattle Weekly)
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0522/050601_news _microsoft.php


Microsoft And The G.O.P.: Antitrust Insurance?
http://www.time.com/time/reports/gatesbook/lobbyin g.html


Microsoft's lobbying efforts eclipse Enron
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-835267.html


Redmond | Feature Article: Following Microsoft's Money
http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?Editori alsID=440


News Alert 9/6/01: Microsoft
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_26.as p


Commentary: It's Back to Charm School for Microsoft
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_45/b3654183.ht m


"The Think Tank As Flack" by David Callahan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/991 1.callahan.think.html

True it was non partisan. But mostly democrats by a small margin IIRC. Though it was really bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

And this man is guiltly of malfeasance. Between 1997 and 1998 he accepted over $50,000 from the entertainment industry in exchange for indroducing the DMCA to Congress. It's what Ralf Nader calls legalized bribery. You give us money, we'll support your bill. Oh the madness of it!

"Last time I checked, when a business's sales are dwindling, its time to try something new, or perhaps even innovate."

Dot Com.

"However, their brand of innovation, i.e. suing everyone, seems to be a bit counter-productive."

Have they sued you? Then I guess they're not suing everyone then.

"Of course, it doesn't help when they have the government in their pocket either."

Guess all those special interests must have the government in their pockets then.*

*Note well that the list isn't confined to corporations (the current "/." devil)

Yeah, he even raised a fuss as it turns out. Good for him. Let's see if the party lets him run for president. As these people go, he seems pretty clean.

First, So what? They donate to a lot of people apparently. And his point wasnt that they donate to republicans, that was merely information he was using to suggest that the media is conservatively biased, which is a silly notion I think. If you want to talk about journalists being incompetent and lazy, hey I'll be right there with you, but saying that some huge corporation donated to republicans (while conviently leaving out the fact that they donate to democrats too) is pointless.

Secondly, and what is evidence of the military censoring liberal sites and not conservative ones? Some anonymous guy writing into Wonkette? You'll excuse me that I dont start comparing the US to a religious monarchy based on one anonymous report on the internet like the submitter did.

It's not perfect, but check out http://opensecrets.org/ they have a good breakdown of what a candidate recieved, how well disclosed it was, and where it came from when the source was disclosed.

Holy crap, are you keeping track of everything I say? That was an entirely different thread! OK, yes I did. I am sorry. Didn't realize that was you and forgot I said it. The point of that post was to show the hypocrisy, not to correct spelling. Regardless, I did do it.

There was no hypocrisy there, I'm not the one running for president, making dumb ass remarks in the public sphere. John Kerry is. He's a loud mouth bafoon. Anybody care to argue that? Hah!

I don't believe that was "their big argument," and I think it's B.S. anyway. There are better arguments than that kind of scaremongering. But because some people who fall under a certain label believe something, it does not automatically follow that everyone with that label believes it. It could be said that they are scared of people willing to do that kind of thing, and not the business itself (I don't believe it, but it could be said).

I don't follow the RIAA, I don't think it's a big deal and doesn't really apply, more of a judicial matter if you ask me. I'm talking about how republicans get more funding from big business, and democrats get more funding from labor unions. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle =2004

Here's a quote from the DNC chairman at the time, Terry McAuliffe:

The President wants to turn Social Security into Social Insecurity, by pursuing a privatization plan that would cut benefits and expose our retirement savings to the whims of a volatile stock market. Anyone who thinks private retirement accounts are a good idea should talk to Enron employees.

Here's another little interesting tidbit I found on the net, the source is judicial watch:

So why has the Democratic Party's most spotlight hungry mouthpiece faded from view? Two words. Global Crossing.

While the SEC and FBI begin to probe the questionable accounting practices of telecommunications giant Global Crossing, Ltd., which went belly up on January 28, Judicial Watch has launched a full investigation into Terry McAuliffe's ties to the company.

In what is an unprecedented case of political profiteering, McAuliffe turned a $100,000 initial investment in the company into $18 million in less than a year and a half--a nifty 18,000% profit. According to the New York Times, McAuliffe made millions more trading the stock and options after the company went public in 1998.

I've got my retirement account invested in 100% stocks and I'm doing pretty well. Of course, you're supposed to go into lower risk investments the closer you get to retirement. The presidents plan wouldn't allow any high risk investments, only broad indexed funds (so that no one company got a huge piece of the pie). I think it's pretty sad the anti-capitalists in this country have such a say in things, people would be much better off if they managed their own money instead of the government doing it for them.

Melvin Sembler, youth cult leader, appointed to Amabassador to Italy.

WTF?!? I completely missed this one when it came out!

Thankfully, it looks like Sembler's been replaced by someone with deeper pockets. Probably a good thing, too. Sounds like Mr. Sembler's "organization" was a little on the sick side.

Haven't you seen people do something like the following:

Give you a bunch of cards saying "pick a card any card, but just one...".

It doesn't matter which card you pick, your choice already has been predetermined.

This is especially true in the US, since the top US politicians need lot of money to get anywhere in politics (unlike in some other countries where this is regulated, and so it is a bit harder).

The various companies (or rich) will sponsor (pick) the politicians from _any_ of the parties, who they think have a chance AND will support their goals. Politicians who don't support their goals don't get money.

Of course there are still differences between the parties, but over time, the companies will tend to get what they want - those who support them rise to the top, and those who don't stay stuck at the bottom.

According to opensecrets.org,for the 2004 election, Bush received and spent USD300+ million, and so did Kerry.

The other four presidential candidates in the running (excludes those who dropped out) received and spent less than USD 8 million.

The really rich usually aren't that stupid, they know a bit about "investing".

Of course I could be wrong, and the past US governments have not consistently favoured the rich and powerful...

Even if it hasn't yet, given the design/architecture of the US election process and system, I think you'd eventually get a plutocracy.

Comparing the two makes no sense, as they are not mutually exclusive. Electricity, for example, is both a common convenience and a public utility.

What is especially interesting is that the U.S. government recognizes telephone service as a utility., but does not govern the telcos the way it does electricity, water and natural gas.

Why do you think that is?

The jump from telephone service to internet access should be obvious.

-Tommy

The trial lawyer industry continues to thrive on the culture of victimization.

P.S.: Guess which political party trial laywers support?

How about Congress stop putting in price supports for sugar? This is one of the most blatently corrupt practices in politics today.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/cashingin_sugar/su gar00.html
http://www.greenscissors.org/agriculture/sugar.htm

The legal system is primarily designed to make money for the legal profession. Once litigation is concluded, the lawyers stop receiving money. Read Bleak House by Charles Dickens and realise that, while certain details have changed, the general situation remains the same.<br><br>
Unfortunately, I am serious. Many members of Congress are lawyers and they ensure laws are framed to maximise the profession's profits. Logical reforms never see the light of day.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp

Seriously, I know that it's probably *always* been this way, but government and everything else is just so corrupt...sigh. Why do we ever think that we could begin to fix this mess? And please, Rush Limbaugh or Air America sycophants, don't tell me that it's primarily the Republicans or primarily the Democrats because they're apparently all on the take. Whether it's just straight $ or merely as voting for a lousy bill solely because it benefits them or increases their political capital, most of them are crooked and self-serving. The fact is that the political (read money-driven) system makes it so that only the corrupt can be elected.

Sorry, probably a down day on my part.

The legal system is primarily designed to make money for the legal profession. Once litigation is concluded, the lawyers stop receiving money. Read Bleak House by Charles Dickens and realise that, while certain details have changed, the general situation remains the same.<br><br>
Unfortunately, I am serious. Many members of Congress are lawyers and they ensure laws are framed to maximise the profession's profits. Logical reforms never see the light of day.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp

Seriously, I know that it's probably *always* been this way, but government and everything else is just so corrupt...sigh. Why do we ever think that we could begin to fix this mess? And please, Rush Limbaugh or Air America sycophants, don't tell me that it's primarily the Republicans or primarily the Democrats because they're apparently all on the take. Whether it's just straight $ or merely as voting for a lousy bill solely because it benefits them or increases their political capital, most of them are crooked and self-serving. The fact is that the political (read money-driven) system makes it so that only the corrupt can be elected.

Sorry, probably a down day on my part.

Don't forget how much they donated and to whom, which is a nationwide database.

What is that, like 100000 per cent?

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp ?txtName=unisys

It depends on the politician.

Bush charges a few oilfields and 100,000+ lives.

Orin Hatch is $183,428 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009869&cycle=2004

Shocking that anyone would think congressman Conyers would be predisposed towards the entertainment industry....

Molly Ivans seems to think democracy died in Texas, in 2002. There are signs it died ealier.

And I suppose that 10 grand capaign donation from the music industry is a complete coincidence?

If you look at James Sensenbrenner Jr.'s campagian finances, you'll get a really good idea of why in something like this could be introduced.

The DTCSA bought and paid for by the MPAA

Error: NullCandidateException

This guy's had a couple thousand thrown his way by some companies that might be wanting this bill

check it out for yourself
Campagain Money

The price of a Congressman really isn't all that much. A mere 35 grand can buy you a a republican and democrats will whore themselves out to you for substantially less. I suppose if you looked at most lawmakers with that site, the TV/Movie/Music industry would be in the top 10 contributors list for most of them...

The price of a Congressman really isn't all that much. A mere 35 grand can buy you a a republican and democrats will whore themselves out to you for substantially less. I suppose if you looked at most lawmakers with that site, the TV/Movie/Music industry would be in the top 10 contributors list for most of them...

While it might look like this is a feint to extract more contributions in the cable vs. DSL battle, I suspect that cable providers wouldn't mind using this legislation to degrade competing VoIP services either...

Thanks for the link. I concede bribe is perhaps too strong a word.

But there does seem to be a correlation between money contributed to politicains and laws that those politicians vote for that specifically benefit the contributors.

For example, between 1997 and 1998 Howard Coble accepted over $50,000 from the entertainment industry. He also introduced the DMCA to Congress. Conicidence?

If you follow the money you'll find similar patterns. I understand the free speech issues regarding restrictions on campaign financing. But one has to ask: Why are corpoarations giving money if not with the expectation that the politicians they contribute to will pass laws in their favor?