Slashdot Mirror

According to Transparency International Singapore ranks 7th in the list of the world's least corrupt governments. They use a set of 16 indices and international surveys to determine corruptability.

Number 1 least corrupt is Iceland. Last on the list is Chad. The US is 17th. Interesting thing about the US that bribing the government is not illegal.

I wish them the best of luck but unforntunately the purpose of the patent laws seems to be, not to promote the progress of science but to concentrate wealth. The drug companies, et el, have paid millions of dollars to congress to buy a system that keeps them in power. Sadly Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru don't have the kind of money it takes to control the situation in the long term.

Oops.

Sony contributions come under Soft Money. http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp ?txtName=Sony

2.5 Million isn't enough to get them off the hook though.

Enjoy.

Problem is, your congressman has an email address that ends with @sony.com.


Only in Japan does a congress critter get owned by Sony. Go browse opensecrets.org sometime.
http://www.opensecrets.org/

Enjoy.

So Sony is in real trouble. Watch this turn into a criminal case.

"Why hasn't Sony been raided by the Feds, yet?"

Two words: campaign contributions.

I could almost support this bill if it wan't that the entertainment industry openly bribes the senators who'll vote on this legislation, example, Orin Hatch, entertainment contributions for the 2004 cycle were $180,000+.

If you follow the trail it looks like most of this kind of legislation is bought and paid for by the very people it benefits.

A few? Most of them do that, although their activities are usually marked "special interest", like, say, the Walton's anti-public-school campaigns which are both a "republican" and a "libertarian" cause. Speaking of Waltons, they alone comprise something like 20% of the list of billionaires and you cannot find more fanatical right-wingers then they are.

Back in reality, the Democratic party in the U.S. gets much more of it's contributions from large individual contributions than the Republican party does, both in terms of percentage of contributions and in terms of total contributions.

Yes, specially the likes of Howard Dean, no? Speaking of contributions, where do you pull your numbers out of, your ass as usual? Here is what Washington Post has on this, which mentions a 3:1 ratio of big businesses and their owners (read: billionaires and millionaires) support for Republicans vs Democrats (in 2002). Unless of course you consider organized labour being "a billionaire".

If you'd prefer, we can stop focusing narrowly on 527s which are just one part of the campaign finance and expand the the scope to other fundraising efforts. When you do this, you will see Republicans have a $200 million advantage in hardmoney and the two parties are equal in softmoney.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.asp? cycle=2002

BTW, the problem with 527s is not who rounds out the top 10, but how the money is spent and who is accountable when lies and distortions and broadcast with this money. Sorry to impede on your worldview.

Basically, all of them.

Check out opensecrets

You can find out on opensecrets.org.

$21,250 - Open Secrets

Top 10 donors:
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $36,410,799
National Assn of Realtors $26,837,918
National Education Assn $25,059,748
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $24,967,541
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $23,418,380
Communications Workers of America $23,310,374
Service Employees International Union $23,245,475
Laborers Union $22,772,207
Carpenters & Joiners Union $22,442,447
Teamsters Union $22,293,292

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp

A quick look at his contributors confirms the point.

Actually, my post was more on-topic than yours, I believe.

Depends on the topic. I was talking about effective ways to influence the government to move to our side on this matter. What topic were you on? B-)

I'm fine with other people distilling research to make it easier for a voter to grok. But it's still research, and should be done by any voter.

I think we're mostly in agreement there, coming to the same conclusions on what should be done, if sometimes for different reasons.

I'm claiming that it's the job of the partisans, who are trying to swing the electorate to their side in the battle, to do their best to present their side. So the partisans should be sure they themselves are informed - both to be sure THEY'RE working for the right guys and to make their point more effectively. (That's because truth, in addition to being "nicer", works better than lies - something even an amoral psychopath can understand and use to good purpose). That means my prescription for the partisans is the same as yours, even if derived from a different basis.

Can we agree that it's not the jobs of the partisans of one side to spend their resources making the arguments for their opponents? (If their opponents really have valid points, let them spend their own time and money to make them. If nothing else they'll do a better job of it than somebody who disagrees with their claims.)

We agree that it's the job of the voters to inform themselves.

Uninformed voting favors those with more money and name recognition instead of those who will do a better job or better represent the voter's interest.

We agree there, too.

Where we differ: I think that a partisan for one side would be irresponsible if he abandoned support from those who won't check but will vote - especially if his opponent is perfectly willing to accept such votes. I assume that the willfully-ignorant will be a significant voting block. So if the good guys abandon them the bad guys are more likely to win.

I'll post a few sites where you can do some meta-research [...]

Here's another, for campaign contributions. (Sometimes, when it's hard to tell where someone stands, you can figure it out from who is paying his bills. Follow the money.)

= = =

The main point I was trying to make, though: To win this battle we must preach to the UNconverted. Convincing people who are NOT (yet) on our side is what we need to win. Here on Slashdot the people are pretty much all on our side already. Trying to convince them of something they already believe is a waste of time and effort.

Communication only occurs if the behavior of the receiver changes. The only change we need here, and thus the only messages we need to send, is "Go out and convert the onconverted." and "Here's how..."

Politics is a game of sheep, wolves, and shepherds. Huddling in a large group with similar beliefs and behavior while bleating about your discontent is to be a sheep. Preying on such groups to their detriment and your benefit is to be a wolf. Getting the herds to move to better pastures is to be a shepherd.

I want some of us to stop being sheep and become shepherds.

I haven't seen a list of where Steve Jobs is donating his money. Perhaps one of the Apple fanboys (or fangirls) could explain that the goodwill glow from all the iPods is enough.

But lets not sell him short... He did donate $1,000 on 3/25/2004 to Congressman Rahm Emanual campaign. see.

you mean wealthy media owners like Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting? Or Sumner Redstone owner of Viacom?

Regardless, do you reall think the CEO or Owner of these huge corporations is making story decisions in the newsrooms? That would be a lot of micromanagement. Don't turn this into some classwarfare angle of rich vs. poor.

you mean wealthy media owners like Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting? Or Sumner Redstone owner of Viacom?

Regardless, do you reall think the CEO or Owner of these huge corporations is making story decisions in the newsrooms? That would be a lot of micromanagement. Don't turn this into some classwarfare angle of rich vs. poor.

The potential for unlimited donations by paying for candidates' internet advertising opens an enormous loophole for corporations, unions, and the rich to unduly influence the electoral and legislative process. I don't believe that there is much point in trying to regulate it - Just as no code is absolutely secure, no law is absolutely airtight. Companies and CEOs pay their lawyers millions and tens of millions of dollars to find the cracks that allow them to continue funnelling money to Congress. The amount of effort that would be necessary to make the effort to evade the law beyond the return on investment is beyond what we can afford to expend.

If we can't stop it, the next best thing is to make it obvious what's going on. Rather than dicking around trying to regulate campaign financing which really only regulates the average person who can't afford to evade the law, simply require that all candidates for office report who payed them for what and make it available via the internet.

OpenSecrets.org is a good start. But some things need to change. Let's take a look at, oh say, a certain Texas house representative: First, make the 6.6% Undisclosed go away. Then increase the granularity of the information available. Name major business, PAC, and single-issue donors (Say, those whose donations are > N% of the total) so we know specifically who is brib^H^H^H^Hsupporting the good representative. Finally, provide a breakdown of personal donations based on income. Specifically, a pie graph depicting money donated from people with incomes under $50K, from people between 50 and 100K, etc for 100-200K, 200K-1M, 1M-10M, and 10M+ yearly income donors. This information would be provided to OpenSecrets by the candidates themselves, who would in turn have to collect it from donors.

OpenSecrets.org should also be given an amount of money proportional the amount spent by the candidates (say, 5% or 10% thereof) to advertise itself in a nonpartisan way so we can be sure that the information they collect is in fact used.

This way, we'll be able to accurately correlate donations with legislation and know, rather than guess, who is in fact a corporate whore. This will also compel corporate and union donors to keep themselves in check, lest their candidate be branded a sellout to special interests or the rich. Rather than trying to regulate greed, trick it into regulating itself.

The potential for unlimited donations by paying for candidates' internet advertising opens an enormous loophole for corporations, unions, and the rich to unduly influence the electoral and legislative process. I don't believe that there is much point in trying to regulate it - Just as no code is absolutely secure, no law is absolutely airtight. Companies and CEOs pay their lawyers millions and tens of millions of dollars to find the cracks that allow them to continue funnelling money to Congress. The amount of effort that would be necessary to make the effort to evade the law beyond the return on investment is beyond what we can afford to expend.

If we can't stop it, the next best thing is to make it obvious what's going on. Rather than dicking around trying to regulate campaign financing which really only regulates the average person who can't afford to evade the law, simply require that all candidates for office report who payed them for what and make it available via the internet.

OpenSecrets.org is a good start. But some things need to change. Let's take a look at, oh say, a certain Texas house representative: First, make the 6.6% Undisclosed go away. Then increase the granularity of the information available. Name major business, PAC, and single-issue donors (Say, those whose donations are > N% of the total) so we know specifically who is brib^H^H^H^Hsupporting the good representative. Finally, provide a breakdown of personal donations based on income. Specifically, a pie graph depicting money donated from people with incomes under $50K, from people between 50 and 100K, etc for 100-200K, 200K-1M, 1M-10M, and 10M+ yearly income donors. This information would be provided to OpenSecrets by the candidates themselves, who would in turn have to collect it from donors.

OpenSecrets.org should also be given an amount of money proportional the amount spent by the candidates (say, 5% or 10% thereof) to advertise itself in a nonpartisan way so we can be sure that the information they collect is in fact used.

This way, we'll be able to accurately correlate donations with legislation and know, rather than guess, who is in fact a corporate whore. This will also compel corporate and union donors to keep themselves in check, lest their candidate be branded a sellout to special interests or the rich. Rather than trying to regulate greed, trick it into regulating itself.

You might be interested to follow the money trail behind there. There are two major money sources behind this legislation (well, probably more, but it takes time to mine OpenSecrets): The national association of broadcasters and the national cable and telecommunications association. Together these groups have given over $300,000 to the people who signed this letter over the past two election cycles. That's an average of more than $15,000 per congressman. It's scary that I can buy a congressman's support on a bill for less than the cost of my Mazda. Of particular note is how representative Upton, the man who the letter was directed to has already received over $35,000 in this and the previous election cycle from these interests.

More analysis and complete listings can be found at this entry in my weblog.

Anyway, so in response, I called my congressman, Mike Doyle (PA-14), and asked to speak to the tech person to understand his position on the broadcast flag. It's important to note that not all legislators who signed the letter support the flag on the same level. I was informed that Doyle supported it to keep copy protected content off the internet, but still wanted to allow time shifting and burning to DVD, copying to PSP etc. Good, but misguided. If your legislator takes this stance, I highly suggest referencing the Darkent Paper from Microsoft Research. Basically, it says that DRM will fail in these endeavors. Also, when you call, try not to sound like a loony. Being able to cite specific examples of how it will hurt you is good (e.g. I travel a lot and this will prevent me from watching shows on my PSP or are you willing to explain to grandma why she can't tape Monday night football to watch it the next morning because she can't stay up past 10pm).

Hey! I have a degree in economics!
Oh. What was the question again??? = )
Well, happy to pointificate!

Hmmm.. Boycot Exxon? OK, well, they would just advertize like BP. Sunflowers, responsibility, alternative energy. Bla bla. People would believe it too. All the while they pump that oil...

Prices of gas are increasing faster than crude because they are different markets. Now there are limited amounts of refineries in the US and few companies can invest that much capital to build one... I understand they take a few years to build and get onstream..

Not that Bush's idea (subsidize the building of oil refineries) is a great one. The oil companies are making big bucks: they should do it right? I heard that one made more profit last quarter than any other company in history. Could have been Exxon, I don't remember.

To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years.. It could have been similar to:

Cheney: Thanks for the donation, boyz. Like the cigars? They're Cuban! Batista! Well, to business then. We agree that you don't make any refineries in the next few years (and collect excess profits), support us in Iraq, and we'll get you those Iraqi drilling contracts, leash the anti-trust hounds. Of course we'll expect future consideration...

Oil barons: No refineries? None of us? We're "Gung Ho" for Oil Contracts! (puff.. puff...) OK, deal.

Well it *could* have been like that! = )

In general, you are better to vote in politicians that support consumers, not oil companies, than attempt to get a boycot organized. Companies (Oil or RIAA members) do not have to adapt to change if they are protected by fiat. And one can buy policy so cheaply these days:

$200M building an oil refinery could get you say a %50 return if you bet correctly on oil prices.
$50,000.00 donation/investment to Cheney's PAC could help get you $8,000,000,000 in return.

Where would you invest? The law requires you to act in the best interest of your share holders, not your country.

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0429/biz/s tories/04biz.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/cheney/ch eney1988.htm

Katrina and Rita wipes out a few refineries and it all goes to hell for the consumer...

Of course nobody will know what the truth is until these folks are long gone.

Cheers,
-b

Microsoft's political contributions, both at corporate and employee levels, are overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. Fortunately nobody has to take an anonymous coward's word for this, let alone a partisan hack who has an agenda in spreading disinformation like the former poster (usually you can tell something is up when the language is overwhelmingly hostile and irrational - these are societies bomb throwers who somehow didn't fit in and "play well with others" in school).

Don't taken anyone's word for it when you can check out first-hand objective data. opensecrets.org is an excellent resource to see where people are putting their money. For Microsoft information and overall Democratic support, see Open Secrets - Microsoft Search.

Incidentally, someone's got to help re-educate the progressivists on the use of "fascist" and help them understand these are their political first-cousins. Don't be ashamed of your ancestors! National socialism was a progressivist, liberal cause as was Italy's fascism, and was understood by most American progressivists in the 1930s to be an acceptable, moderate form of socialism (where some had difficulties with the USSR's more extreme collectivism). Some would argue that it's an effective model, eliminating pressures of middle classes and creating a coalition between industry captains and the labor market with a close partnership with authoritarian government. Many of FDR's initiatives, in fact, paralleled those of the party's fascist cousins and were effective in shortening the duration of the depression.

Fascism was a socialist coalition between the state and major industries, much like the organization of today's Democratic Party and corporate sponsors like the Soros Fund, Global Crossing, Time Warner, etc. See the party's own cousins and their reporting of corporate alliance who frown on the DNC's fascist model and prefer the detachment of corporate sponsorship for true socialism. As usual, Wikipedia is helpful in providing a definition, and also points out the incorrect colloquial usage of the term.

Progressives have a compelling argument in that normal people are incapable of handling their own life, making competent decisions, etc. Look at any inner city neighborhood and you'll find evidence supporting this theory. Some would argue that a certain segment of the less intelligent populace simply needs a government to determine things. I'd support an opt-in model where citizens could elect the progressive fascist model (flat wage regardless of occupation, ability or effort, 60% income tax, government-provided housing, government health care, free abortions on demand, drug plans, cafeterias, schools, retirement, senior care, etc.) or a totally government-free option with zero of the benefits, taxes, restrictions, etc.

This would certainly test the progressivist claim that such a model is sustainable without being completely parasitic to intelligent producers, as this segment would likely opt-out of the fascist model. Still, it'd be refreshing to see progressivists get a chance to discover if their model has any chance at working.

I agree with your sentiment. However, I wasn't talking about the population that works in the TV/Movie/Music industry (if I were, I would have given the link that you did). I was talking about the big media companies themselves. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=C 2400&cycle=2006 That's why I chose the listing that I did. The company PACs are pretty evenly distributed, with an edge to Republican candidates.

As a point of contrast between "the industry" and the industry's corporate overlords consider G.E. (a weapons contractor, among others). Here's the same corporation that is both providing you with corporate-media while at the same time equipping the most advanced fighting force on Earth. We bring good things to life. They have a vested interest in both the copyright cartels and continued military expansion and affect politics accordingly.

I don't really want to get into a debate about G.E. or anything. I'm just saying that there's a difference between the people that work in the industry and voice of that industry in the halls of power (i.e., the corporate PACs and lobbyists). Regular Joes like me aren't writing legislation and getting it sponsored and passed by Congress -- but corporate lobbyists are.

Maybe my distinction wasn't made clear in my previous post. If, so: apologies.

You can look up the rest at the same site.

I did. Overall, Big Media favors Democrats over Republicans by about 2:1.

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

Not that this is a bad thing. After the soft money ban went into effect, most of these donations are from individuals. Individuals should be free to support political candidates as they choose.

The movie and record industry (well their giant corporate overlords, Disney, G.E., News, Sony, Viacom and TimeWarner) are fond funders of the Republican party and their candidates. In a sense you could construe this to mean "Hollywood and records companies are [...] major contributors to the right-wing." Haha you were being sarcastic... but didn't know you were actually basically correct. Maybe it would be more precise if you'd implied "stage-hands, directors, and garage-bands" aren't major contributors to the right-wing. The content-monopoly companies sure as hell are.

To get you started:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.asp?strID=C 00197749&Cycle=2004

You can look up the rest at the same site. Basically, all companies give money to support their vest interests. The expression-monopolizers want more copyright extensions, so they'll support anyone that will give it to them. U.S. car companies want the most profitable vehicles, so they'll make sure they support anyone that won't raise milage standards, etc.

So - while "they" don't feel indebted to Hollywood for Legally Blonde, they might feel indebted to them for their favorable contributions. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=C 2400&cycle=2004

The movie and record industry (well their giant corporate overlords, Disney, G.E., News, Sony, Viacom and TimeWarner) are fond funders of the Republican party and their candidates. In a sense you could construe this to mean "Hollywood and records companies are [...] major contributors to the right-wing." Haha you were being sarcastic... but didn't know you were actually basically correct. Maybe it would be more precise if you'd implied "stage-hands, directors, and garage-bands" aren't major contributors to the right-wing. The content-monopoly companies sure as hell are.

To get you started:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.asp?strID=C 00197749&Cycle=2004

You can look up the rest at the same site. Basically, all companies give money to support their vest interests. The expression-monopolizers want more copyright extensions, so they'll support anyone that will give it to them. U.S. car companies want the most profitable vehicles, so they'll make sure they support anyone that won't raise milage standards, etc.

So - while "they" don't feel indebted to Hollywood for Legally Blonde, they might feel indebted to them for their favorable contributions. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=C 2400&cycle=2004

It's nice to see John McCain doing some good for the country -- as one of the few bipartisan senators -- and not actually giving in to corporate interests, despite several computer-related comapanies contributing to his 2004 campagin. It's too bad that there are so many bad nuts that counteract him, especially in this case (e.g. Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act, Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005).

1. A very targetted voting anomaly, sufficient to swing the election.
2. A broad voting-pattern discrepancy between counties that used Diebold machines, and counties that used paper ballots.

1. It would require the participation, flawless execution, and total silence of thousands of people, - officials in every county in which voter fraud was attempted. And not just the ones who pulled off this nationwide fraud, but also those who were "approached" to do so, and refused. Not one of them could make a mistake, get caught, or speak out. Not one.
2. It would require the non-involved local officials be completely unaware of fraud going on under their nose.
3. By the end of the day, the exit polls ended up being very close to the actual election outcome. In addition, most polls prior to the election showed Bush winning by between 1-5 points. A vast voter fraud effort would require we believe the pre-election polls, exit polls and election outcome were all wrong...despite being almost exactly the same.

• Diebold's election-systems division is "run by a registered Democrat"
• Mark Radke--Director of Marketing for Diebold Election Systems--has an exclusively Democratic donation history, having donated close to $10,000 to Democrats since 1995--when he was with Fulbright and Jaworski--including the legal limit of $2000 to John Kerry in the recent campaign. [2000-2004: $4,250] -- [1995-1999: $5,600]

1. A very targetted voting anomaly, sufficient to swing the election.
2. A broad voting-pattern discrepancy between counties that used Diebold machines, and counties that used paper ballots.

1. It would require the participation, flawless execution, and total silence of thousands of people, - officials in every county in which voter fraud was attempted. And not just the ones who pulled off this nationwide fraud, but also those who were "approached" to do so, and refused. Not one of them could make a mistake, get caught, or speak out. Not one.
2. It would require the non-involved local officials be completely unaware of fraud going on under their nose.
3. By the end of the day, the exit polls ended up being very close to the actual election outcome. In addition, most polls prior to the election showed Bush winning by between 1-5 points. A vast voter fraud effort would require we believe the pre-election polls, exit polls and election outcome were all wrong...despite being almost exactly the same.

• Diebold's election-systems division is "run by a registered Democrat"
• Mark Radke--Director of Marketing for Diebold Election Systems--has an exclusively Democratic donation history, having donated close to $10,000 to Democrats since 1995--when he was with Fulbright and Jaworski--including the legal limit of $2000 to John Kerry in the recent campaign. [2000-2004: $4,250] -- [1995-1999: $5,600]

Like a proper little Darwin

Like a proper little Darwin

I basically agree with your thoughts. However to me it's also a question of freedom of expression. Also, incumbents always want it to be harder to give money--incumbents have a huge out of the gate advantage, and less money makes it harder for new comers to take out incumbents. This can be good or bad, depending on your party, and the decade ;)

Incidentally, this site is always very interesting to me: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp. A lot of things I wouldn't necessarily expect...

cheers

Microsoft discovers political contributions in 1998

'...to make the system work more efficiently and be less prone to litigation, on behalf of our benefactors and major contributors to our campaign coffers.

indeed

other countries will be pointing out the failure of USA in history books for centuries, "see children, when they introduced money as a political tool in USA it all started to collapse from within"

still it will keep history teachers (in other countries) busy if nothing else

--AS

Breaking 20 year old contracts binding you not to get involved in music won't be good for the bottom line either

but hey lawsuits is what America likes doing !, the legal industry is the biggest cash contributers in the world to American politics so nothing is going to change until everyone is either dead or in court

see you in court or hell !

What does not make short-term economic sense may make long term economic sense. For example from this article

The cost of wind-generated electricity at prime wind sites has fallen dramatically in the United States over the last 15 years--from 35 per kilowatt-hour in the mid-1980s to 4 per kilowatt-hour in 2001.

The reasons for the dramatic drop in costs is advances in technology and economies of mass production. In other words these production sources need to be bootstrapped.

However, the traditional energy producers are well embedded in the political process and receive favorable tax breaks, incentives and lax regulation. These benefits result in a situation where the full costs (acid rain, air pollution, global warming, not to mention skewed and demented foreign policy in order to secure foreign sources) of these sources are not directly borne by the consumers.

That answer your question?

That answer your question?

Ok, I see your point.

However, do you think that this specific request from Joe Barton is valid, with the criteria you gave about detecting bias, for a study on global warming.

Personally, I think that Joe Barton's bias towards screwing over his constitutents in favor of his contributers is enough to make his criticism of a study published in Nature worthless. I think that if the study was funded by *any* group that thinks that maybe it's not such a good idea to not take into account the true costs of pollution, he'll use that to try to discredit the results.

Which is why I still think that the funding should be kept secret. While it may make it harder to detect bias on the part of the researchers, it's value in keeping politicians from playing politics with science is immeasurable. In politics, the source of funding is a valid variable to determine if a politicians actions are why he says they are. In science however, it's much (in a certain sense) simpler - you look at the data, results, and see if it's a reasonable conculsion to draw.

You can find that out right here.

A site that dispenses such information, and that I believe to be an accurate source of information (though you should do your own research and come to your on conclusions about their accuracy) is http://www.opensecrets.org/. It has am amazing amount of information on donations to politicains, of what kind, disclosure, etc, etc. It's all compiled form public information, so nothing you couldn't find out yourself if you are willing to take the time.

It's actually amazing how much information is available on our government, however you do have to do some research, you can't just expect it to be given to you by magic.

umm...he is a rep from TEXAS. The oil, gas, energy industry are the major industries in the state. I would be surprised if he got money from say car manufacturers or cotton farmers. But energy is THE market in Texas. If I picked someone from NY I would expect banking and such right? http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00001093&cycle=2006 Or Nevada...surely not casino's...well yeah, casinos http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009922&cycle=2006 My point is, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about these things.

umm...he is a rep from TEXAS. The oil, gas, energy industry are the major industries in the state. I would be surprised if he got money from say car manufacturers or cotton farmers. But energy is THE market in Texas. If I picked someone from NY I would expect banking and such right? http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00001093&cycle=2006 Or Nevada...surely not casino's...well yeah, casinos http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009922&cycle=2006 My point is, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about these things.

Top Industries
2004 RACE: TEXAS DISTRICT 6
Joe Barton (R)*
Oil & Gas $224,398
Electric Utilities $221,951
Health Professionals $205,650
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $151,276
TV/Movies/Music $93,500

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00005656&cycle=2006
this might help

From another post,

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00005656&cycle=2004

Oil&Gas as expected.

Linky.

Take a deeper and longer look at number 1 & 2.

Easy enough to find out about the congressman's interest

Joe Bartons 2006 campaign funding.

Scientists funding history is detailed in thier individual responses to Barton. (not to mention 'Nature' requires this info before publication).