Slashdot Mirror

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Although I believe his accusation is still tripe, it's funny that you should mention millions of dollars in donations...

The charts for 2000 and 2002 show AT&T donating a total of $4.1 million to the Republican party.

Obligatory disclaimer: I just grabbed those numbers from Google so don't place all manner of faith in them (though the site claims they came from the Federal Election Commission), they didn't donate nearly so much in the 2004 cycle, and I'm sure they probably donated a similar amount to the Democrats.

Although I believe his accusation is still tripe, it's funny that you should mention millions of dollars in donations...

The charts for 2000 and 2002 show AT&T donating a total of $4.1 million to the Republican party.

Obligatory disclaimer: I just grabbed those numbers from Google so don't place all manner of faith in them (though the site claims they came from the Federal Election Commission), they didn't donate nearly so much in the 2004 cycle, and I'm sure they probably donated a similar amount to the Democrats.

Fritz Hollings is gone. (Has enough entertainment money to retire?? It's telling that the 3rd Google result is opensecrets.org...)

These days it seems that more and more people can't be bother to even contact their representative or mayor to voice an opinion on issues that really matter. (examples in DC include lack of voting representation, gun ban repeal, stadium taxes, bad schools, etc). Instead they rely on a vocal minority who *sometimes* do the talking for them. This is the sort of apathy that leads to the atrophying of our civil liberties. When you can't be bothered to protest the Patriot Act (or even pay attention to it) you are basically giving your right to complain without being hypocritical. In the best scenario somebody fights for you, in the worst somebody will suffer trying to regain those liberties later on.

With corporations spending millions of dollars to trump your opinion, a single vote is a powerful thing. Think of it as your way of spending millions in one afternoon. I hope that everyone who votes tomorrow will become more involved in the political process and write your representative about the issues that may matter to you.

In the US the candidates need to come up with quite a lot of money to have a chance of winning - no money = very low chance of winning.

More often than not the money comes from lobbyists/corporates. So out of a large number of Republicans and Democrats, the corporates can just pick the few Democrats AND Republicans that will do what they want. So it doesn't matter as much to them which side wins - as long as it's their candidate who wins.

It's like a magician giving you a hand of cards to pick from. The cards have already been picked!

Members of Congress

True, but Republicans also like to spend other peoples money. Mostly on "defense", much of it being wasteful or just plain pork*. I respect the Libertarian position, but the Republican position is pretty nasty in my eyes - they are happy to spend our money on killing people and pork projects but refuse to help people in need. That's just amoral in my eyes.
Not that I'm really defending the Democrats per say - when it came down to it, they chose to end social welfare as we know it but didn't cut back their own cronyism.

*references here and here and here and here and here

What does it profit America to gain the whole world, and lose its soul?

I don't think
those are
the type of
profits
they are
worried
about.

So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of Hollywood corporations, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.

Based on the vote totals, he couldn't even get support in a Democratic Congress. This is understandable, when you look at who Hollywood donates much campain money to.

Seems to me to be an open and shut case of both parties being the same, just as the PATRIOT ACT.

Here's the financial implications of the DMCA as far as the candidates are concerned.

Contributions by Industry from TV/Movies/Music:

Republicans: $2,782,125
Democrats: $3,431,236

Here's the financial implications of the DMCA as far as the candidates are concerned.

Contributions by Industry from TV/Movies/Music:

Republicans: $2,782,125
Democrats: $3,431,236

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.
I think you're making a bit of a logical jump here. The whole arguement behind these gun control types is that guns are inherently evil because they cause death. DMCA violations don't. While his record implies that he might be willing to do what you say, it's a bit of a stretch to say that means he will "go full force".

Of coarse you may not be willing to risk it, and I sympathize with that view.

And here's a link for the open secrets page you're talking about - also here's one for Bush.

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.
I think you're making a bit of a logical jump here. The whole arguement behind these gun control types is that guns are inherently evil because they cause death. DMCA violations don't. While his record implies that he might be willing to do what you say, it's a bit of a stretch to say that means he will "go full force".

Of coarse you may not be willing to risk it, and I sympathize with that view.

And here's a link for the open secrets page you're talking about - also here's one for Bush.

Opensecrets information on this group.

It's not like Bush doesn't have plenty like him.

Yes, it IS like Bush doesn't have plenty like him. Despite the conventional wisdom the BIG donors are historically Democratic. Look back through past election cycle donor demographics at opensecrets.org The bigger the contribution the more likely it is to go to democrats. Though these tables don't have it (it's elsewhere on the site) contributions under $200 tilt heavily to Republicans, contributors of over $10,000 tilt heavily to Democrats and contributors of over $1 million (a very small club) go OVERWHELMINGLY to democrats (by over 90% the past two cylces).

This cycle looks to break some of that trend. The super-rich are still coming out for the Dems (through the 527's) but the Dems are doing much better with small donors than they usually do and are almost running neck and necks... There is still a slightly more reliance on small donors on Bush's part than Kerry (32% of his money coming from this source compared to Kerry's 30% while Bush gets 36% of his support from donors that gave over $2000 as opposed to Kerry's 46%)

It's not like Bush doesn't have plenty like him.

Yes, it IS like Bush doesn't have plenty like him. Despite the conventional wisdom the BIG donors are historically Democratic. Look back through past election cycle donor demographics at opensecrets.org The bigger the contribution the more likely it is to go to democrats. Though these tables don't have it (it's elsewhere on the site) contributions under $200 tilt heavily to Republicans, contributors of over $10,000 tilt heavily to Democrats and contributors of over $1 million (a very small club) go OVERWHELMINGLY to democrats (by over 90% the past two cylces).

This cycle looks to break some of that trend. The super-rich are still coming out for the Dems (through the 527's) but the Dems are doing much better with small donors than they usually do and are almost running neck and necks... There is still a slightly more reliance on small donors on Bush's part than Kerry (32% of his money coming from this source compared to Kerry's 30% while Bush gets 36% of his support from donors that gave over $2000 as opposed to Kerry's 46%)

BOTH parties you say? Nonsense. Show me anything even close to what the Republicans are currently doing.

The facts are (just a brief snippet really)

SPROUL & ASSOCIATES is directly financed by the RNC. Nathan Sproul is reported as the director of the Arizona Christian Coalitition.

The Charlston Gazette reported on 8/20 Sproul & Associates in West Virginia started a voter registration campaign where ONLY republicans were registered -- not Democrats -- apparently in violation of the West Virginia law. (The article is reported here).

There have been reports posted on the internet from Pennsylvania (on September 17) and Maryland (on September 16) of the the same organization -- Sproul & Associates -- pretending to be workers from the non-partisan America Votes, and registering ONLY Republicans. To obtain locations to set up shop, Sproul and Associates apparently lied to puiblic librarians about being non-partisan. (The internet postings, that took place on a librarian network, are reported here.

On September 22, Sproul and Associates did the same thing in Oregon. This is a plain violation of Oregon law, according to Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury in an interview with Northwest Cable News. See here. It also appears that another Republican group engaged in "bait and switch registration", at least according to the Daily Vanguard.

A few days ago, CBS reported that an organization in Nevada called Voters Outreach America was THROWING OUT registration forms filled out by people trying to register to vote as Democrats. The American Prospect has reported that Voters Outreach America is under contract with Sproul & Associates.

And then, of course, there is the widely-reported story from South Dakota, where the nephew of Thune, the Republican challenger to Tom Daschle, has been caught fraudulently obtaining absentee ballots for Republicans. A criminal investigation is pending. Top Republicans have been forced to resign.

What it appears here is that there are reliable reports of GOP operatives in at least SIX states engaging in sytematic and repeated attempts at voter fraud. From only registering republicans, to falsifying absentee ballot requests, to destroying democratic voter applications, this appears to be a coordinated effort at all levels to swing the election illegally to the Republicans. In fact, things are so bad that former SD goveror Janklow has issued a public statement saying that the national GOP is encouraging voter fraud.

So, sorry, it's not both parties. It's the Republicans. Show me anything comparable done by Democrats, and I'll eat my own shit and vote shit, err... Bush.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Bush supporter, infact, in my past posts and journal, I even stated that I may end up voing for Kerry as lesser of two evils (Nader is too extreme for me).

However, I do not believe that Kerry is a solution to all our problems as many of the slashdotters believe and below are my reasons.

Patent reform: While I can't picture Bush doing anything about it, I highly doubt that Kerry will either as both Kerry and Edwards are lawyers, not to mention that lawyers are their biggest contributors. They don't have any incentives for patent reform as far as I can see, not to mention that non of the candidates mentioned about it during the debates.

Medical Cost: While Kerry's wish to make medical care affordable to every one's commendable, I have the following issues with him. When Bush confronted Kerry about malpractice suit issues during the debate, Kerry just replied "That is someone we need to take a look at". And just like the patent reform issue above, it may be hard for him to come up with the malpractice suit reform due to his interests. As for the lowering drug costs by allowing imports from Canada, do you honest believe that Canada will let Americans buy up all its supplies and leave their own citizens high and dry?

Not to mention that 2/3 of American adults are overweight and obesity causes host of other problems, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol level, and sleep apnea, which further drives up the medical costs.

Government deficit: I do believe that Bush's tax plan will increase the government deficit unless there's enough growth to cover it. But Kerry's plan will also increase the government deficit unless there's enough growth to cover it as well. Kerry's camp stated that rolling back the tax cut for the rich will increase the tax revenue by 800 billion dollars over 10 years. Bush stated during the debate that Kerry's plan will cost 2.2 trillion dollars, which Kerry did not dispute (please let me know if you have unbiased figure of Kerry's plan cost). That does not seem to be a balanced budget to me.

RIAA/MPAA issues: TV/Movies/Music industry historically donated more to the Democrats than the Republicans, so I don't see a reason why Kerry will deal with them differently than Bush did.

Opensecrets kept crashing when I tried to lookup Fox, but it seems to be working now:

FOX: 81% DEM, 19% REP

Where the heck did they get their numbers from?

This one is way off. According to Opensecrets, Fox employees gave

$62,540 to Bush, and
$87,875 to Kerry.

Opensecrets kept crashing when I tried to lookup Fox, but it seems to be working now:

FOX: 81% DEM, 19% REP

Where the heck did they get their numbers from?

This one is way off. According to Opensecrets, Fox employees gave

$62,540 to Bush, and
$87,875 to Kerry.

Please-- Worldnetdaily doesn't even try to be objective. It's a totally biased site.

Just look at some of those ads "The Freefall of the American University: How US Colleges corrupt your kids minds and morals". "Reagans war in war and Deed".

In the article, they use the term "left-wing", but oddly don't refer to any donors as "right-wing".

Also, one big reason why CBS and NBC have donated more money to Kerry is that they have donated more money to both Candidates. NBC and CBS are much bigger then

Also, I challenge some of the facts:

1. NBC and CBS produce many shows, not just news programs. "Fox News Channel" shows just news. So he's comparing Apples to a fruit orchard.

2. "NBC's contributions totaled $146,585, none of which went to Bush."

Not true, some money did go to Bush.

3. The WorldNetDaily article is about "2004 election cycle donations from employees of CBS"

However, this is different then what parent poster said: "I did some research on the owners and newscasters on CNN , ABC and NBC and found that they all gave large sums to the Democratic party and candidates"

so I did some research on the owners and newscasters on CNN , ABC and NBC and found that they all gave large sums to the Democratic party and candidates.

Can you please provide a link to back this up?

I doubt that ABC and NBC would give money individually of their parent companies (Disney and GE? respectively).

I see Viacom gave $167446 to Kerry, and Time Warner (parent of CNN) gave $288,299.

Here is some information about donations to Bush, which includes similar contributions from big companies.

so I did some research on the owners and newscasters on CNN , ABC and NBC and found that they all gave large sums to the Democratic party and candidates.

Can you please provide a link to back this up?

I doubt that ABC and NBC would give money individually of their parent companies (Disney and GE? respectively).

I see Viacom gave $167446 to Kerry, and Time Warner (parent of CNN) gave $288,299.

Here is some information about donations to Bush, which includes similar contributions from big companies.

And by the way, I think Bush would side with the RIAA

I'm not a Bush fan, but the TV/Movies/Music Industry seems to have higher rate of donations to Democrats than Republicans, so I don't thin that it will get any better under Kerry.

The BBC article has one small omission. Martin Frost's old district is #24, and is mapped accurately in the article. However, Frost is not running in #24 -- he's running in District 32. He's chosen to change districts and run against Pete Sessions, an incumbent Republican. The race is nasty, and I'd personally have a hard time voting for either corporate mouthpiece.

The Democratic candidate for Texas House District #24 is a friend of mine, Gary Page. He ran on the Green ticket in 2002, and his performance in four-way debates (D/R/Grn/Lib) led the Democrats to recruit him for this year's run. I'm hoping that disgust with the Republican gerrymander will help overcome the 100:1 money gap between Page and his corporate opponent.

In most states (Ohio included) you can find a Comprehensive list of almost every person running for office (with the exception of municipal elections).

From there, I've found pretty good success finding their websites and other information using Google.com.

Perhaps one of the best resources you can use in determining who to vote for is Opensecrets.org.

This guy must be in a poor district, the incumbent has raised three times more than him, but that still only comes to $126,000. The difference in funds in the Ohio senate race is just disgusting. Although, I haven't seen a single Voinovich ad on TV; so what is he spending that 8 mill on?

there are no Bush supporters - only people who hate Kerry are voting for Bush

You, sir, are a troll. You moderaters are whacked.

A whole lot of people have given a whole lot of money to support Bush. $260M in individual contributions by last count. Add this story today. I'm no great Bush supporter, but it is impossible to deny that are out there.

$174,928 out of $5,245,557, or 3.3%...nothing to sneeze at, but I'd hardly call it "suckle at the teat of". I don't particularly like Hatch's politics either, but he's historically been one of the few congresscritters who does what he believes. If you've got evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. The numbers above come from http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009869&cycle=2004

Maybe I was looking at the wrong section before. This one (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp? CID=N00009869&cycle=2004 shows the industry as ranking 7th in his list of contributers with $174,928 out of a total $5,245,557, which works out to 3.3%

Interesting, according to http://www.opensecrets.org/, Hatch collected a whopping $34068 from the TV/Movie/Music industry, which works out to 9.3% of the total PAC contributions to him in '04. Maybe there's a connection, but that level of funding would likely only get you a lunch with most congresscritters.

the Clinton administration approved stem cell research in August of 2000. If Bush had done nothing, the research would have continued without restriction. Bush, however, prohibited federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001, and many scientists say the earlier lines are not useful for developing therapies to address diseases such as Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and possibly Alzheimer's.

Fritz Hollings

Cheny is getting his ass kicked. Mr. non-bid contract Haliburton boy is going down in FLAMES!!!! Mr. let's go get'em because the Prez is from Texas. Mr. let's blow cash and run up the debt.

While I can't picture Bush doing anything about the patent problems if he gets elected, I don't think that Kerry will deal with it if he gets elected either since he'll have to take care of Iraq, universal health care, social security, etc... Not to mention that the lawyers are his biggest supporters are lawyers that benifit from the lawsuits.

Here is a cool little search that let's you find who in your area (or wherever you want to search) donated how much to whom.

If I were to disrupt the random network, I would watch the 1st responders and know what the effect was.

This is all about the Bush admin. using terrorism as their excuse for all policy. Can't say it's because Bush got $4.7 million from the Communic/Electronics industries. In the last month I've seen that we can't import drugs from Canada because they might be spiked by terrorists. Bush is promising to privatize Social Security again, he couldn't get it done 1st term because he was too busy fighting terrorists. All policy is now terrorist related.

If money can't buy votes, then surely you aren't against the campaign finance law, since it will obviously will make it easier to spend less money and still win. That's good for everyone, right?

You are the first person I've heard of that has believed the Swift Boat Vets. Where are you getting your facts? Faux News?
Republicans are spending more!

And as we all know, the reporters are the ones who have the most influences over what goes into the final finished product that you see on the screen.

The roll of all those production managers, producers, directors, and lets not forget overwhelmingly rich and powerful media moguls is to sit around and whittle their dicks.

You can't seriously think that just because the majority of journalists are liberals that the media has a liberal bias. That's like saying that because the majority of workers in the automotive industry are democrats that the industry as a whole supports the democrats. The evidence would be against you in that one.

You can't tell me that with ultra conservative individuals like Rupert Murdoch behind the scenes issuing direct memoranda to the lowest levels of his media empire directing stations on what to run and not to run that conservatives are powerless and unrepresented in the media.

He who has the money makes the rules. The having of money is one of the strongest predictors of political affiliation and the people at the top have a lot of money.

Bad URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp

It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.

My jaw is simply dragging on the floor. Check your facts, the pro-Democrat 527s have spent about 10 times what the pro-Republican 527s have. MoveOn alone has sponsored not only television ads and protests but a friggin movie this year.

--trb

Democratic/Liberal $126,849,747 $120,331,891
Repub/Conservative $17,381,731 $18,948,145