Slashdot Mirror

While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?

While it doesn't list his personal accounts, here is all of his campaign-related contributions:

Summary
By Industry
By Contributor
By PAC

Not exactly exciting. The interesting part was how little he's received. Who knew you could buy a Congresscritter so cheap? Think I'll morgage my house and buy me one as a pet.

Seriously, who let this bozo onto the SCIENCE committee?

-I.V.

While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?

While it doesn't list his personal accounts, here is all of his campaign-related contributions:

Summary
By Industry
By Contributor
By PAC

Not exactly exciting. The interesting part was how little he's received. Who knew you could buy a Congresscritter so cheap? Think I'll morgage my house and buy me one as a pet.

Seriously, who let this bozo onto the SCIENCE committee?

-I.V.

While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?

While it doesn't list his personal accounts, here is all of his campaign-related contributions:

Summary
By Industry
By Contributor
By PAC

Not exactly exciting. The interesting part was how little he's received. Who knew you could buy a Congresscritter so cheap? Think I'll morgage my house and buy me one as a pet.

Seriously, who let this bozo onto the SCIENCE committee?

-I.V.

While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?

While it doesn't list his personal accounts, here is all of his campaign-related contributions:

Summary
By Industry
By Contributor
By PAC

Not exactly exciting. The interesting part was how little he's received. Who knew you could buy a Congresscritter so cheap? Think I'll morgage my house and buy me one as a pet.

Seriously, who let this bozo onto the SCIENCE committee?

-I.V.

See them here: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00005656&cycle=2004 No surprise, Oil& Gas industry at the top!

1. Oil & Gas $224,398
2. Electric Utilities $221,951

Top contributors

1. Anadarko Petroleum $55,000
2. SBC Communications $20,550
3. Comcast Corp $19,000
4. Dominion Resources $16,000
5. Reliant Energy $15,000
6. Valero Energy $15,000
7. TXU Corp $14,250
8. Lyondell Chemical $13,250
9. Texas Industries $13,000
10. El Paso Corp $11,998

Any questions?

They do.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp ?CID=N00005656&cycle=2004

Of course he's got nothing to hide...

*cough,cough*

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00000019&cycle=2004

Hillary received $1,248,520 from the TV, music, and movie industries.

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

In 2004, 69% of the $32 million in political donations from the TV, music, and movie industries went to Democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00000019&cycle=2004

Hillary received $1,248,520 from the TV, music, and movie industries.

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

In 2004, 69% of the $32 million in political donations from the TV, music, and movie industries went to Democrats.

"he began circulating plans to loosen rules so neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors like America Online,"

Exactly how is this in line with his stated goal of increasing broadband access his top priority?
Wouldn't this increase broadband prices, which in turn would cause FEWER homes to get broadband?

Obviously, he needs practice at spinning so that the publically stated goal and plans to achieve the unstated true goal doesn't make him look like a fool.

Sounding like a fool or making the unstated goal so damned obvious isn't the best way to repay campaign contributors who helped his boss get elected.

Anyone care to show the specifics players by digging up specifics and crafting a link to http://www.opensecrets.org/ ?

Better yet, I'd love to see a website that basically documents publically stated objectives, subsequent actions, and link them to the campaign contributors while refraining from opinions or accusations. The facts alone would make things crystal clear to the general public. Everything published would have to be verifiable of course so that it would stand up to scrutiny.

For example, a neat table showing the following would be particularly useful in countering spin:

Appointed or Elected official
Appointed by (if any)
Primary campaign contributors
Publically stated goals
Actual actions taken
Quantificable impact of actions on campaign contributors
Quantifiable impact of actions on other Americans

With all of the talk about Karl Rove's involvement in the leak of Valerie Plame's job at the CIA and postition as a NCO, why is the real damage caused not being discussed again?

The cover company that Mrs. Plame worked for - Brewser-Jennings & Assoc. - was also identified by this leak. What damage has THAT caused by potentially revealing other secret agents and contacts???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-20 03Oct3?language=printer

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou =0&txtName=wilson%2C+valerie&txtState=DC&txtZip=&t xtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N

Of course it's not that hard to find out where someone is working (in this case, the existence of Brewster-Jennings wasn't a secret, but the fact that it was a CIA front was).

But the CIA would have had more time to make sure its agents and assets were secure if the company hadn't been listed on her election contribution records. You can see them at Open Secrets

I'm not saying that campaign contribution disclosure is a bad thing. It's essential to the media and bloggers investigating governmental corruption.

But this is more pathetic evidence that Karl Rove, and everyone else involved at the White House, just didn't care. They were far more interested in retaliation and their own political gain than in the lives that were endangered, and the millions of dollars that were wasted.

You misunderstand the grandparents argument. It has been shown again and again that there is a very strong correllation between number of votes and campaign budget. Reardless of what a politicians opinions are, a few more dollars buys another vote. Check out Opensecrets or any of the many other sites containing information on budgets, vote counts, etc.

So the argument goes that a politicians actions and opinions are less important than media exposure, and that means you can pay politicians to further your agenda. The problem is not with people not voting, it is with people beeing to stupid to figure out that politicians are lying and no one is trying to tell the real story.

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

I should add that even though 9 of those 10 overall donors support mostly Democratic candidates, that out of the top 68 donors over the same time period, 59% of the money went to Republicans; with Republicans getting 62-65% since 1996. Party break down of the data.

That data you cite regarding political contributions is wildly inaccurate. It is a list of top contributors to specific members of Congress for 2004. Not surprisingly then, is that John Kerry's supporters hold all of those positions. So what you've got is presidential campaign money mixed in with statistics for Congress.

A better index to use would be the top donors since 1989.

The top contributors, which isn't surprising given the number of people they employ, are the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (think of all those police officers and firefighters); the National Association of Realtors (perhaps surprising to be this high on the list), the National Education Association (teachers), and coming in fourth is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Big businesses are absent from this list, which might surprise some people, until they realize that almost every top individual donor sits in a pretty high position in their company.

That data you cite regarding political contributions is wildly inaccurate. It is a list of top contributors to specific members of Congress for 2004. Not surprisingly then, is that John Kerry's supporters hold all of those positions. So what you've got is presidential campaign money mixed in with statistics for Congress.

A better index to use would be the top donors since 1989.

The top contributors, which isn't surprising given the number of people they employ, are the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (think of all those police officers and firefighters); the National Association of Realtors (perhaps surprising to be this high on the list), the National Education Association (teachers), and coming in fourth is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Big businesses are absent from this list, which might surprise some people, until they realize that almost every top individual donor sits in a pretty high position in their company.

This is what I do...EVERY DAY

6:30 AM -- Get up
6:31 AM -- Go to the bathroom
6:32 AM -- Get coffee
6:35 AM -- Open Firefox, go to /. and read that there's a new patent infringment case

Seriously, what's it going to take for this patent situation to be fixed? Or maybe it won't since trial lawyers are the #1 contributors to politicians.

"Short of changes in the law in Congress, we may be limited about what we can do in this area," U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.

Gonzales told the station he can't use the laws now on the books to shut down Yahoo!'s child sex site. But back in 2002, the station broke the story when federal officials shut down a Web site called "Candyman" with those existing laws.

The "Candyman" site was geared only toward trading child sex pictures and stories, just like the Yahoo! rooms.

Call me cynical but I was suprised to find out that Yahoo! had given a mere
$10,000 to the Republican National Committe, and an equal amount to the Democratice National Committe.

Personally, I suspected larger more frequent donations were required to keep the current administration paid off.

Unless, Alberto Gonzales is allowing Kiddie Porn to further his own political agenda. Personally, I hope that the current administration is just cheap. The alternative of the Bush administration not prosecuting kiddie porn because it will make a new bill easier to get passed, ... do I even need to go on?

I was going to reply with references to articles from major publications (like the New York Times) on things like some counties with 50,000 more votes than residents, Pittsburgh receiving voting machines that each had hundreds of votes preloaded, a massive lawsuit in Ohio over the handling of the election, lawsuits in California against Diebold for supplying voting machines with software that was different from the approved version, voting machines that would change votes when you hit the submit button (during public testing immediately before the election), the announcement that the CEO of Diebold made before the election that he was going to ensure Bush won, the fact that the CEOs of Diebold and it's main competitor (the other major supplier of voting machines during the election) are brothers, etc.

But then I realized you are either a troll or have a big "W" sticker on the back of your full-size 7MPG SUV - either way it's a waste of time.

If you really believe that the useless "news" sources that you mentioned would publicize something like this instead of Janet's breast or her brother's perversion, you really need to read http://opensecrets.org/ for a while and learn where the money comes from, and where it goes.

I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh?
That's why they have to armor their vehicles with scrap metal they scavenge and steal, and their family members have to buy army/navy surplus flac-jackets for 'em, and why their pay AND their family's benefits got cut so horribly, etc.
Where's the news publication of that?

Where's the news publication of Bush giving a $90 Billion tax break to the super-rich?
Oh, sorry... this time around it's another $109 Billion (that's a "B", not an "M").

The media you mentioned is beyond useless for anything of this sort... especially Space.com - WTF?

Keep your head in the sand... it'll never effect YOU... really.

If you look at the industries you see that the topmost contributor (to both) is the nebulous "Lawyer/Law firms". The question is who are tehse people representing? I would submit that in California these groups would be far more intersted in enterainment industry issues than in Utah, and so again the balance falls rather heavily toward the entertainment industry supporting Barbra.

But really we should stop looking at individuals, and look at party aggrigates - At the Democrat and Republican industry sectors.

Here TV/Movies/Music is double for the Democrats. But wait, check out 2002 - there the Democrats got a staggering 32 MILLION dollars while the Republicans had only 5 million. WHat you see in the 2004 figures is a reluctant realization that the republicans really are in power and therefore they cannot just ignore them altogether. But even so they just don't have the kind of historical influence the entertainment industry has on Democrats - especially the ones who were gathering some of that money back in 2002.

If you look at the industries you see that the topmost contributor (to both) is the nebulous "Lawyer/Law firms". The question is who are tehse people representing? I would submit that in California these groups would be far more intersted in enterainment industry issues than in Utah, and so again the balance falls rather heavily toward the entertainment industry supporting Barbra.

But really we should stop looking at individuals, and look at party aggrigates - At the Democrat and Republican industry sectors.

Here TV/Movies/Music is double for the Democrats. But wait, check out 2002 - there the Democrats got a staggering 32 MILLION dollars while the Republicans had only 5 million. WHat you see in the 2004 figures is a reluctant realization that the republicans really are in power and therefore they cannot just ignore them altogether. But even so they just don't have the kind of historical influence the entertainment industry has on Democrats - especially the ones who were gathering some of that money back in 2002.

I know it's bad form to reply to my own post and all, but just in case anybody really doubts that the media cartel have the Democrats in their pockets, I took a look over at Open Secrets and lo and behold: More than 70 % of their very substantial contributions usually go to Democrats.

I know it's bad form to reply to my own post and all, but just in case anybody really doubts that the media cartel have the Democrats in their pockets, I took a look over at Open Secrets and lo and behold: More than 70 % of their very substantial contributions usually go to Democrats.

It looks like a lot - but it's a drop in the bucket compared to someone like Barbra Boxer At well over 700k!

I neevr said he got no money at all. But even in the link you gave you can see that amount is small cmpared to other sectors, again hardly a "flood" of money.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009869&cycle=2004 Shows the "TV/Movies/Music" industry as being Hatch's 6th largest "industry" supporter for 2004 at $183,428. That sure looks like a lot to me...

The RIAA/MPAA are HUGE contributors to Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Really? Then where are they on the contributors list.

When the total combined contributions from media companies is a figure *I* could give if I scraped together some money from the sale of a house, I have a tough time calling it "huge".
Compare and contrast with someone like Barbra Boxer. Time Warner is number two with Viacom close behind. If she were calling the shots do you REALLY think the broadcast flag would be "of no interest"?

Yes the entertainment industry does throw some money to the Republicans. But by and large they throw the bulk of thesupport to the Democrats, who in turn do them favors.

The RIAA/MPAA are HUGE contributors to Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Really? Then where are they on the contributors list.

When the total combined contributions from media companies is a figure *I* could give if I scraped together some money from the sale of a house, I have a tough time calling it "huge".
Compare and contrast with someone like Barbra Boxer. Time Warner is number two with Viacom close behind. If she were calling the shots do you REALLY think the broadcast flag would be "of no interest"?

Yes the entertainment industry does throw some money to the Republicans. But by and large they throw the bulk of thesupport to the Democrats, who in turn do them favors.

That would be true if the RIAA and MPAA stayed away from the political game. Unfortunately this isn't the case.

I think the MPAA would beg to differ. Congress is well paid to do exactly that -- to the tune of one hundred and seventy five million dollars since 1990 with over half of that being paid out in the last 5 years. They don't pay that money out of the goodness of their hearts any more than my employer does. Congress is bought and paid for. The only trick is balancing current public opinion against blatantly acting in the greedy self interest of their real employers.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

The numbers are closer than you'd think, and in the senate, the Dems rule. By your logic, senate democrates are therefore more dishonest than senate republicans, but this is made up for by the dishonesty of house republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp?cycle =2004&type=R

That's all well and good, in North Carolina. But, how is it going to play as a precedent in other courts? Particularly of interest is the federal level. I haven't kept up on the various decisions lately, but I believe other court rulings have supported the MPAA/RIAA.

I sincerely doubt that a judge in California will see things the same way. Of course, I've been wrong before.

Additionally, what's the motivation for organizations (schools or ISPs) to fight for privacy versus just rolling over? I don't hear much of an outcry from the public over this bullshit, so it's not like they're really trying to protect their images. And, we all know that corporations don't go to much effort just on priciple (schools are a bit better in this regard).

In terms of "selling piracy", the MPAA/RIAA have won. The public really buys into the idea of it being stealing (as opposed to copyright infringment), and doesn't seem to get too pissed off over the draconian punishments that have been handed down. Even people who are fairly technically literate, or well versed in law, often don't see the distinction between theft and infringement. It's pretty sad. Who else is up for forming a non-profit, whose mission is to educate the public on intellectual property issues? Lastly, if the public doesn't understand the issue all that well, can we really expect much better of the judiciary? In an ideal world, the judiciary represents the populace (of course, I'd hope them to be much smarter than the average asshole on the street though).

try OpenSecrets.

Enron were all predominantly Democrat friends

Uh, no.
Never, in fact.

Global Crossing and Worldcom tilted marginally Republican, but close enough to call it even.

insist on calling these people "clueless". This guy is a six time congressman. He seems fairly popular. Tell me again. Who are the clueless ones? Apart from this, he may be doing some good for the people that elected him. And besides, how many of you "clueful" people have $1,360,093 usd in your pocket? Hmmm? The guy is a real corporate shill, but that doesn't seem to matter to the people responsible for putting him into office.

After reading some of the info, I did find a need to write my congressman to pass a new law that would require all web sites to label all links that open a pdf file to label them as such. Damn, I hate that!

How do you think outsourcing got presidential support? (link from last year)

That being said, I don't think this is draconian since if you stole the amount of money you could potentially cost a business by doing this, you'd go to jail for much longer. I would agree if you said our Senate has bigger fish to be frying atm...

With $ like this running our Whitehouse, Senate, etc. no one should be suprised. This is purchased legislation much like what is done in some third world countries. Freedom isn't free - it requires a large donation.

Congressman Lamar Smith is the chairman of the committee that is looking into legislating DRM uniformity. It is interesting to note that among the top twenty PACs that contributed to Congressman Smith's 2002 campaign, for which the info is readily available, are Dell (#10), Microsoft and Wallmart (tied at #11) and the National Assn of Broadcasters (#20). This info is from opensecrets.org

Dell, Microsoft, Sony, and Time Warner are among his top 20 contributors who would have a direct stake in the outcome of any government intervention. If you check his PAC contributions, you'll find he also accepted $3000 from the RIAA.

Rick Berman, Dem, CA, is one of the guys behind this. Follow the money. He was the guy behind the proposed legislation to allow hacking people's computers if they were suspected of P2P file sharing. John Paczkowski of Good Morning Silicon Valley referred to him as a "Congressman and Hollywood sock puppet". Is this the guy you want deciding how you will get your music?

Your average blogger doesn't spend $10, let alone $1,000, and most political blogs are not for one specific SF candidate.

See the problem with Hollywood is that you can make a list of the Republican actors, and count them on your fingers...

Actually the party of old money comment was made about a survey of congress that had the Democrats with an average of 1.7 times the total wealth of the Republicans and with something around 80% of it coming from inheritance as opposed to the Republicans who made it through investing.

I wish I could find the chart now.
This is part of the raw data.