Slashdot Mirror

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

Liberals tend to value the needs of society above those of the individual.

Apparently not when it comes to pushing legislation in exchange for campaign contributions.

It was senior Democrats like Diane Feinstein who helped pass the DMCA. During the period the DMCA was up for debate, the Democtrats actually received more financial contributions from the entertainment industry than the Republicans. Checkout open secrets for details.

I think it mostly comes down to who contributes the gratest amount gets their pet legislation favored more.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ is a great place to find out what organizations and industries are giving the most $$ to each candidate.

There's a lot more content than that there, check it out.

19 Million for Kerry

10 Million for Bush

19 Million for Kerry

10 Million for Bush

I find it interesting that voters with passports support John Kerry over...

I find it interesting that citizens with criminal records support candidates like Kerry. I also find interesting the extent to which Trial Lawyers perfer Kerry over Bush.

I know this seems like a joke, but it is congress that is the joke here. 1998 and 200 were the years of the big H-1b expansions.

We should not expect companies to make political statements - we have politicians for that

Oh, ok, so I guess we should expect companies not to get involved in politics in the west either, right?

To quote Rage Against the Machine, 'wake up.' Companies are heavily involved in politics, because politics is just an expression of the competing needs and aims of the members of society, and the corporation is just a way of aggregting the needs and aims of a small group of those members in an organised and efficient way. Those needs and aims happen to be the desire to make money; this is not an apolitical objective in this context.

Mod parent up.

Here's a link:
Open Secrets - Nader's Personal Finances as of 2000 (pdf file)

I may have been giving the impression that I'm fervent Naderite, as I've been using strong words to say he should have ballot access. But he's no saint. People should be aware of this.

Opensecrets.org

The problem is the facts are the facts. Check out opensecrets.org, put in your Rep's name or any of the backers of the DMCA or INDUCE and look where their money comes from. Until real campaign finance reform is passed, like only voters can contribute (No PACs, unions or churches) I feel the system will never be fixed.

What can I say but "Prove me wrong!" (To quote Seymour Skinner).

Not being able to choose good is a bad thing. However, choosing the lesser evil is still preferable to voting. Choosing a third party candidate who may be a lesser evil will go a lot farther in making sure that there will eventually be good choices, than not voing at all.

When people continually choose between the lesser of two evils, evil is all they will have to choose from. The system prefers people who will give favors in return for campaign financing. One of the INDUCE Act's sponsors is Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont. Take a look at the campaign funding for him and his opponents. Who do you think will win? Then look at who's been funding him. Tell me there's no correlation.

As long as these assholes keep getting elected, this will never stop. That his opponent might be worse than him does not in any way make him more qualified to serve. And choosing the lesser of two evils only perpetuates this cycle.

Not being able to choose good is a bad thing. However, choosing the lesser evil is still preferable to voting. Choosing a third party candidate who may be a lesser evil will go a lot farther in making sure that there will eventually be good choices, than not voing at all.

When people continually choose between the lesser of two evils, evil is all they will have to choose from. The system prefers people who will give favors in return for campaign financing. One of the INDUCE Act's sponsors is Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont. Take a look at the campaign funding for him and his opponents. Who do you think will win? Then look at who's been funding him. Tell me there's no correlation.

As long as these assholes keep getting elected, this will never stop. That his opponent might be worse than him does not in any way make him more qualified to serve. And choosing the lesser of two evils only perpetuates this cycle.

Not being able to choose good is a bad thing. However, choosing the lesser evil is still preferable to voting. Choosing a third party candidate who may be a lesser evil will go a lot farther in making sure that there will eventually be good choices, than not voing at all.

When people continually choose between the lesser of two evils, evil is all they will have to choose from. The system prefers people who will give favors in return for campaign financing. One of the INDUCE Act's sponsors is Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont. Take a look at the campaign funding for him and his opponents. Who do you think will win? Then look at who's been funding him. Tell me there's no correlation.

As long as these assholes keep getting elected, this will never stop. That his opponent might be worse than him does not in any way make him more qualified to serve. And choosing the lesser of two evils only perpetuates this cycle.

And while the large corporations that "control" much of the media have been hedging their bets to both parties the last few elections, on an individual level, journalists as a group certainly slant more to the left. Do they try to be objective? I think on the whole they try their best to best. But spend time at a journalism school and tell me there aren't more journalists whose personal opinions are more aligned with the liberals vs. the conservatives.

How about the AP article that ran last week about the crowd in West Allis, WI where "thousands booed and Bush did nothing to stop them," when Bush wished Bill Clinton a speedy recovery from his heart surgery. Only thing is it never happened. And they never actually retracted their story, instead just reissuing two different updated ones. It was a blatant lie--I've heard from people who were actually there.

sorry about the busted link.

http://www.opensecrets.org/

It's past my bedtime.

opensecrets.org has a great amount of information on campaign contributions. Since we're nearing the end of the 2004 Presidential Elections, it's a great time to take a look at the top contributors to Bush and Kerry. (Note, the site doesn't list Bush's acceptange of $75 million in federal funds yet).

opensecrets.org has a great amount of information on campaign contributions. Since we're nearing the end of the 2004 Presidential Elections, it's a great time to take a look at the top contributors to Bush and Kerry. (Note, the site doesn't list Bush's acceptange of $75 million in federal funds yet).

opensecrets.org has a great amount of information on campaign contributions. Since we're nearing the end of the 2004 Presidential Elections, it's a great time to take a look at the top contributors to Bush and Kerry. (Note, the site doesn't list Bush's acceptange of $75 million in federal funds yet).

opensecrets.org has a great amount of information on campaign contributions. Since we're nearing the end of the 2004 Presidential Elections, it's a great time to take a look at the top contributors to Bush and Kerry. (Note, the site doesn't list Bush's acceptange of $75 million in federal funds yet).

I apologize for the lies segment. I'll admit an oversight on my part. I was trolling, and I see that now. To make up for it, I will present what little logic I can form while mildly hung over. (The error is consistent across multiple sites, so it's likely whats-her-face fucked up, not them)

6 Grand is a lot, but not much from a CEO of a company. I give 500 to the GOP every year. I earn less than 40 grand, so 6 grand is not an unreasonable level of a personal contribution from an exec earning 5, 10 times what I make.

Second, check some other sites for campain donations.

Open Secrets.org has a detailed comparison of many actual company donations. It also has stats to show which party many organizations fall partial to. (an ironic sidenote: even though slashdot typically hates the RIAA/MPAA, and the general political preference is democrat, the RIAA/MPAA give more money to dems than republicans. A LOT more)

Almost any company is biased one way or another (wheter or not they actually donate money). So the only logical solution i can see is either open-source the app or have the NSA do it. But we don't all trust the NSA do we?

Given that all this information is publicly available, why is publishing a list of presidential nominating delegates "intimidation"?

And what sort of political party thinks they need to keep these names secret?

They can't give to candidates. That link doesn't show a corporation giving one penny to a candidate.

From the article:

Judge Kollar-Kotelly heard that total donations to political donations from Microsoft and its employees to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle amounted to more than $6.1 million.

And let's try this one.

Since 1992, Microsoft has contributed nearly $693,500 in PAC, soft money, and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties.

This must be why John Kerry has taken the Swift Boat Vets for Truth to court for libel ... NOT ... instead John Kerry is threatening third-party TV Stations & bookstores instead. I guess the real threat to freedom is Kerry not some scarry "Patriot Act" that has harmed zero US Citizens and zero US Permanent Residents that you or anyone else can name

I'm confused about the Kerry in Cambodia thing ... I guess the SwiftVets were telling the turth about Kerry never being in Cambodia @ Christmas ... again you would think Kerry would be taking somebody to court for libel ... am I missing something???

Kerry lied to the US Senate ... Kerry lied to the People of Massachussettes ... Kerry lied to the American People and Kerry may have lied to both of his wives & associated children

"The real issue here is the speed and low cost of astroturf attack campaigns via the net,"

There would appear to be several issues per both the original /. article and the Belmont Club blog article ... perhaps the most interesting story is the power of the internet to overcome an entrenched thought police, group think, what have you ... Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet .

Convenient how you have forgotten about MoveOn and their infamous Hitler ad??? link #1 link #2

(GRIN) Please do not forget to throw George Soros' millions to MoveOn & Co. down the memory hole (/GRIN) while you focus only on the two $100K contributions by a Texas building contractor to the SwiftVets, will you rememember to mention the over 30,000 additional contributions of ~$64 (average) to the SwiftVets for a total of $2 million???

The Shockwave Rider by John Brunner had this concept back in ~1975:

"And the tachnical breakthrough odds were also nice and fat. For old time's sake he put another thousand on the introduction of an Earth-Moon gravislide before 2025. That was a perennial dissappointment."

Course in the book there are other areas that are bet on as well, like political areas. You may have heard of the Iowa Electronic Markets with the election so close. It's still gambling anyway you slice it. (Of course campaign contributions still seem to be the place for big payoffs there)

Recorded Music Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2600&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Movie Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2400&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Answer for the lazy: John Kerry (D)

Next, sum up the numbers in the two tables by party and please note it is an order of magnitude difference.

Democrats: $2,975,145
Republicans: $243,400

(Figures quoted are as of the date/time of this posting.)

Recorded Music Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2600&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Movie Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2400&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Answer for the lazy: John Kerry (D)

Next, sum up the numbers in the two tables by party and please note it is an order of magnitude difference.

Democrats: $2,975,145
Republicans: $243,400

(Figures quoted are as of the date/time of this posting.)

Recorded Music Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2600&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Movie Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2400&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Quick answer for the lazy: John Kerry (D)

Next, sum up the numbers in the two tables by party and please note it is an order of magnitude difference.

Democrats: $2,975,145
Republicans: $243,400

(Numbers quoted are as of the date/time of this posting.)

Recorded Music Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2600&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Movie Production:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I nd=C2400&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U

Quick answer for the lazy: John Kerry (D)

Next, sum up the numbers in the two tables by party and please note it is an order of magnitude difference.

Democrats: $2,975,145
Republicans: $243,400

(Numbers quoted are as of the date/time of this posting.)

And of course that is a great reason to throw money at him. Since he's only raised 1/4 Billion dollars so far, he might run out. http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.as p?ID=N00008072

But the Congress the finalized and passed the DMCA was Republican....

DMCA: Sponsored by Republican, Howard Coble, co-sponsored by Republicans Sonny & Mary Bono, Henry Hyde, Bill McCollum, Bill Paxon, Charles (Chip) Pickering; and Democrats Howard Berman, John Conyers, Barney Frank. (7 Republicans and 3 Democrats).

The sponsor, Republican Howard Coble's #1 supporting industry is TV/Movies/Music, having given him large chunks of money over the years leading up to the DMCA.

But thanks for trying to slam Clinton and blame him for things - we all know "It's Clinton's Fault!"

-conservative commentators hate the 9th circuit: agreed, the 9th circuit is easily the most liberal bench in the nation, thus it makes sense that conservatives would hate them.

-they (conservatives) would love to jump on this decision as more proof of how 'out of touch' the 9th circuit is: disagree I've yet to hear a conservative pundit blast the 9th circuit just randomly... the criticism is usually associated with a specific (or collection of) rulings. Thus your leap that conservatives would attack the ruling simply because of its source is a bit of a stretch.

-but somehow they must restrain from criticising the 9th, because "upset their faux populist image to come out so loudly in favor of the corporations that support them": strongly disagree You think that the movie/music/entertainment industry supports the conservatives in this country? try again They (the industry that you claim supports conservatives) give twice as much to the Democrats as to the Republicans. And look at the list of top 20 recipients. 3 Republicans, 17 Dems. If they weren't hedging their bets and giving to both Bush and Kerry, the total dolar figure would be even further skewed toward the Democrats.

Otherwise, nice attempt to slander the views of those you disagree with...

Oh,... and bonus points for this display of maturity:

what with them thar fedruhl judges legislatin from da bench and attackin our Christian heritage and whatnot

-conservative commentators hate the 9th circuit: agreed, the 9th circuit is easily the most liberal bench in the nation, thus it makes sense that conservatives would hate them.

-they (conservatives) would love to jump on this decision as more proof of how 'out of touch' the 9th circuit is: disagree I've yet to hear a conservative pundit blast the 9th circuit just randomly... the criticism is usually associated with a specific (or collection of) rulings. Thus your leap that conservatives would attack the ruling simply because of its source is a bit of a stretch.

-but somehow they must restrain from criticising the 9th, because "upset their faux populist image to come out so loudly in favor of the corporations that support them": strongly disagree You think that the movie/music/entertainment industry supports the conservatives in this country? try again They (the industry that you claim supports conservatives) give twice as much to the Democrats as to the Republicans. And look at the list of top 20 recipients. 3 Republicans, 17 Dems. If they weren't hedging their bets and giving to both Bush and Kerry, the total dolar figure would be even further skewed toward the Democrats.

Otherwise, nice attempt to slander the views of those you disagree with...

Oh,... and bonus points for this display of maturity:

what with them thar fedruhl judges legislatin from da bench and attackin our Christian heritage and whatnot

is that Congress can and probably will enact legislation which invalidates this. Open Secrets has a good listing of campaign contributions - take a look, we're screwed whether it's Democrats or Republicans in office. The entertainment industry expects something in return for their investments, and if history is any indicator, they will get it.

I know. Don't feed the trolls. But... Your Rush Limbaugh promoted research is mistaken.

According to this August 7th article from Bloomberg (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/ar ticle/0,1299,DRMN_4_3094590,00.html) many more billionaires support Bush than do Kerry - 116 to 31. The billionaires for Bush include Bill Gates (who did not give to Kerry), 280 CEOs of Russell 1000 companies (Kerry got money from 52), and most Hollywood studio executives.

Until Enron's collapse, Ken Lay - Enron's CEO - was George W. Bush's top benefactor. As to small donors vs. large see this (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems .asp?filter=A&sortby=2).

Bernie Ebbers Worldcom's disgraced former CEO was a huge Republican fund raiser, and Trent Lott's biggest benefactor.

The Saudi's (including the Bin Laden family) did sweethart deals for George W. Bush, bailing out two of his failed companies, and making him rich while the rest of the shareholders were left holding the bag.

Bush, by far - 57,218 to 26,911, outpaces Kerry in the $2,000+ donors category, and Kerry, again by a large margin - 35% of Kerry's donors compared to 28% of Bush's, outpaces Bush in the $200 or less category.

Please do check the facts yourself, and here's a hint: you won't find them on Rush Limbaugh's web site.

Better systems for single-seat races are Approval or Condorcet (which you can find more about at ElectionMethods.org) and Proportional Representation would be great for Congress (our checks and balances work pretty well, so there's no need to move to a Parliamentary system). Another informative site (albeit somewhat confusing to navigate) is Accurate Democracy.

This is not something either party wants, so it will be a long, uphill battle. But neither party wanted campaign finance reform either, so enough popular support can get anything done (although 527s are bad, they're not as bad as soft money, and indeed, at least they help pull power away from the two big parties).

You're splitting hairs. How the money gets routed is not the point. The fact that it does get routed is. This is not chump change. If you're ever curious as to *where* the money is going, all PACs have to file reports with the FEC. So if you're giving an organization money and don't know who they're giving money to, it's your own damn fault.

I can't disagree. The **AA's are an extreme example, and not likely to be fed money from Joe & Jane Average Citizen, but orgs like the "Policeman's Benevolent Fund", the various labor unions, even Wal-Mart don't necessarily present themselves to contributers as political funding organizations.

Please explain why my tax dollars fund public schools when I don't have any kids. There are things the government does that don't directly benefit you. Deal with it.

I feel your pain ;), BUT funding education can at least be argued to be for the betterment of society as a whole and no one can legally be excluded from the public school system for any reason, least of all for holding dissenting opinions. Political primaries do exclude people who (at least have the honesty to) say they disagree. They should not be funded by anyone's tax dollars.

Hard work is more than just "voting your conscience". It's recruiting and fielding candidates at the local level. It's about building a bench of legitimate candidates rather than unqualified nutcases looking for attention. It's building party infrastructure from the ground up that'll last for years instead of from the top down with a celebrity candidate that'll be gone after November.

I agree in principle, but there's an underlying assumption behind your argument that you don't seem to grasp: What if I don't want another political party? What if I want to support candidates based on their individual merits? Of course, your point about getting out and working to support those candidates still applies, but it's no longer about "building party infrastructure from the ground up that'll last for years", because I see that as "building another source of power that will eventually become corrupt."

I appreciate your points, but they get lost in your railing against the specific personalities that have managed to get enough media attention to become widely visible. I believe the strangle-hold the 2 party monopoly has on the media and the American consciousness is what makes it impractical for a normal, rational, independent-thinking individual to be considered a "viable" candidate for any office beyond the municipal or county levels. Being "eccentric" is about the only way a candidate will get national press.

Certainly, the work for citizen independence has to start at the local levels, but that opens up another cans of worms: the non-existence of any independent local news organizations.

You're splitting hairs. How the money gets routed is not the point. The fact that it does get routed is. This is not chump change. If you're ever curious as to *where* the money is going, all PACs have to file reports with the FEC. So if you're giving an organization money and don't know who they're giving money to, it's your own damn fault.

I can't disagree. The **AA's are an extreme example, and not likely to be fed money from Joe & Jane Average Citizen, but orgs like the "Policeman's Benevolent Fund", the various labor unions, even Wal-Mart don't necessarily present themselves to contributers as political funding organizations.

Please explain why my tax dollars fund public schools when I don't have any kids. There are things the government does that don't directly benefit you. Deal with it.

I feel your pain ;), BUT funding education can at least be argued to be for the betterment of society as a whole and no one can legally be excluded from the public school system for any reason, least of all for holding dissenting opinions. Political primaries do exclude people who (at least have the honesty to) say they disagree. They should not be funded by anyone's tax dollars.

Hard work is more than just "voting your conscience". It's recruiting and fielding candidates at the local level. It's about building a bench of legitimate candidates rather than unqualified nutcases looking for attention. It's building party infrastructure from the ground up that'll last for years instead of from the top down with a celebrity candidate that'll be gone after November.

I agree in principle, but there's an underlying assumption behind your argument that you don't seem to grasp: What if I don't want another political party? What if I want to support candidates based on their individual merits? Of course, your point about getting out and working to support those candidates still applies, but it's no longer about "building party infrastructure from the ground up that'll last for years", because I see that as "building another source of power that will eventually become corrupt."

I appreciate your points, but they get lost in your railing against the specific personalities that have managed to get enough media attention to become widely visible. I believe the strangle-hold the 2 party monopoly has on the media and the American consciousness is what makes it impractical for a normal, rational, independent-thinking individual to be considered a "viable" candidate for any office beyond the municipal or county levels. Being "eccentric" is about the only way a candidate will get national press.

Certainly, the work for citizen independence has to start at the local levels, but that opens up another cans of worms: the non-existence of any independent local news organizations.

Call, write or fax your representative and let them know how you feel about the issues. You may be surprised at the result.

To me the only way to fix the USA is to bring down the government and rebuild on the original constitution, or may birbes (campagin contributions) illegal from corporations and limited to the election year and limited to maybe $25,000 or so. Right now, our "representitives" are getting hundreds of millions a year in bribes

In this day in age the US is still very much not an apathetic player in the game.

All the examples you've given show the US, as a single entity, being active. However, that was not the point. It's the apathy/activity of the people that decide the fate of democracy (and what the parent was referring to).

Democracy is based on the rulers being accountable to the ones being ruled. This accountability can only happen if the subjects are active - passive subjects let their government stay in power even after it screws up, basically allowing it unlimited power. Because of this, the ones in power want their subjects to remain passive. TV is a tool for this passification. That was the argument.

Conspiracy theories of corporate overlords and Saudi families aside

"Conspiracy" refers to some kind of secret plot, but the contributions from corporations to US politicians are public knowledge, available from, for example Opensecrets.org, so unless you think that the donating corporations are stupid enough to continuously spend money for no gain (which they propably aren't - they wouldn't have gotten big if they were), I'd say those theories are statements of facts.

You actually might have a good point when you say "Yikes, talk about picking on the wrong group."

Multiple reasons, too. Some really funny, others pretty serious. First one, on a light note, you don't go within earshot of your dentist and say something like "I'm going to start charging my dentist for the time I'm spent waiting in the waiting room." Particularly if you have an upcoming appointment. And the dentist has a good memory. "Oh, did I say two root canals? I meant FIVE! Muahahahaha!" I'm sure they all have dentists. And god help them when they find out.

On the serious side, though, if I recall from my government classes, the AMA (American Medical Association) is one of the largest interest groups, and of course the ADA (Amer. Dental Assc) is pretty closely tied. Just a quick look on Opensecrets.org shows the ADA contributing $400k compared to the ~$800k of the RIAA. Of course the AMA has contributed over $20 MILLION as an all time high. (Open Secrets)

Something tells me that would be a BAD group for the RIAA to piss off.

Man, I keep picturing a high level recording industry exec in the dentist's office. I keep imagining him sitting there in the chair bragging about trying to make them pay for the music they have playing, then all of the sudden its a scene from "The Dentist." ( B horror film that was actually really freaking scary...)

Blake

Thanks for the reply, Morgaine. Thanks for the cite. And no need to apologize. I just wanted to know "sponsor" how. If I were a moderator, I'd say, "+1, please," to your reply.

If it means donate, IBM doesn't even have a PAC. It doesn't want one. It goes back to the 70s when the entire IBM board came pretty close to being indicted for illegal campaign contributions to CREEP. Somehow, they got off. But entire boards like for RJ Reynolds went to jail for doing pretty much the same thing IBM's board did.

About trusting opensecrets.org, though...

Actually, you have to be very careful with opensecrets.org. It is very misleading to the casual user. They only take public information from the FEC, process it by their own methodology, and then present it through their own special lens:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/methodology .asp?CID=N00009869&Cycle=2002

If opensecrets.org were to say IBM were a top contributor to Hatch, it would only mean individual IBM employees were contributing. That could mean some sort of illegal corporate pressure on employees to donate. Or it could mean a number of individial employeers were moved by personal conviction to contribute. Opensecrets.org can only suggest a pattern, not confirm. If all those contributors were secretaries making $17,000 per year while contributing $2000 to a candidate, a good journalist might have reason to start calling up those secretaries to ask questions to see who injudiciously replies with the right kind of too much information.

That's the kind of information opensecrets.org is good for: suggesting patterns which must be confirmed. And it's amazing how many $2000 dollar contributing secretaries, when called up by a journalist, will say, "Oh, of course I can't afford it; but my boss said he'd pay me back," (illegal money laundering).

In fact, the only candidate where IBM, through its employees, comes out on top as a contributor, is to Howard Dean:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contriball .asp

Opensecrets.org has been used very badly by the press. You might read something to the effect that a certain candidate is beholding to the "education lobby" when what that means is opensecrets.org globbed every teacher and librarian who gave money to a candidate into the "education industry" category which opensecrets.org compiles.

There was even a paperback book published last year with some brisk sales for a couple of months, which purported to be a citizen's guide to candidates' finances, following the money. It was nothing more than a bunch of misfires from relying on opensecrets.org to summarize contributions. Some candidates and parties actually had big contributions from certain industry sectors and individual corporations. Other candidates were only reported to have; but the truth was again, employees giving at their own discretion.

The result was your couldn't tell the good guys from the bad guys. But if you took the book at its word and went around citing it as an authority, you might look like you knew what you were talking about to the uninformed. The suitably uninformed would then come away thinking all the candidates are on the take instead of just some, and thinking it's our political system that's failing rather than our "free" (i.e., freely owned by corporate interests) press that's failing us.

What's needed is something like opensecrets.org where we can separate the good guys from the bad guys. The public really needs that kind of summary more than it needs these pretty misleading methods. There are candidates running this year who have never in their lives taken a corporate contribution, and yet have still managed to break fundraising records. And they've done this while other candidates have also m

Thanks for the reply, Morgaine. Thanks for the cite. And no need to apologize. I just wanted to know "sponsor" how. If I were a moderator, I'd say, "+1, please," to your reply.

If it means donate, IBM doesn't even have a PAC. It doesn't want one. It goes back to the 70s when the entire IBM board came pretty close to being indicted for illegal campaign contributions to CREEP. Somehow, they got off. But entire boards like for RJ Reynolds went to jail for doing pretty much the same thing IBM's board did.

About trusting opensecrets.org, though...

Actually, you have to be very careful with opensecrets.org. It is very misleading to the casual user. They only take public information from the FEC, process it by their own methodology, and then present it through their own special lens:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/methodology .asp?CID=N00009869&Cycle=2002

If opensecrets.org were to say IBM were a top contributor to Hatch, it would only mean individual IBM employees were contributing. That could mean some sort of illegal corporate pressure on employees to donate. Or it could mean a number of individial employeers were moved by personal conviction to contribute. Opensecrets.org can only suggest a pattern, not confirm. If all those contributors were secretaries making $17,000 per year while contributing $2000 to a candidate, a good journalist might have reason to start calling up those secretaries to ask questions to see who injudiciously replies with the right kind of too much information.

That's the kind of information opensecrets.org is good for: suggesting patterns which must be confirmed. And it's amazing how many $2000 dollar contributing secretaries, when called up by a journalist, will say, "Oh, of course I can't afford it; but my boss said he'd pay me back," (illegal money laundering).

In fact, the only candidate where IBM, through its employees, comes out on top as a contributor, is to Howard Dean:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contriball .asp

Opensecrets.org has been used very badly by the press. You might read something to the effect that a certain candidate is beholding to the "education lobby" when what that means is opensecrets.org globbed every teacher and librarian who gave money to a candidate into the "education industry" category which opensecrets.org compiles.

There was even a paperback book published last year with some brisk sales for a couple of months, which purported to be a citizen's guide to candidates' finances, following the money. It was nothing more than a bunch of misfires from relying on opensecrets.org to summarize contributions. Some candidates and parties actually had big contributions from certain industry sectors and individual corporations. Other candidates were only reported to have; but the truth was again, employees giving at their own discretion.

The result was your couldn't tell the good guys from the bad guys. But if you took the book at its word and went around citing it as an authority, you might look like you knew what you were talking about to the uninformed. The suitably uninformed would then come away thinking all the candidates are on the take instead of just some, and thinking it's our political system that's failing rather than our "free" (i.e., freely owned by corporate interests) press that's failing us.

What's needed is something like opensecrets.org where we can separate the good guys from the bad guys. The public really needs that kind of summary more than it needs these pretty misleading methods. There are candidates running this year who have never in their lives taken a corporate contribution, and yet have still managed to break fundraising records. And they've done this while other candidates have also m

Cite please. "Sponsor" how?

I'm glad you asked that, 3.2.3, as you made me go back and check my sources. IBM ***does not*** appear in the Hatch contributor's list at http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp ?CID=N00009869&cycle=2002 and I would tend to believe the info on that page, so I think that I made a mistake in repeating hearsay about IBM without checking. Maybe one of those companies has IBM connections and that's what people were pointing to, but I want facts not speculation. Darn.

I apologize and withdraw my point entirely.

Novell and Oracle are promonent software companies in the list who should know better, but not IBM.

Thanks for the heads'up.

Abolish one single presidency and instate a council of several leaders. We could call it a 'cabinet'. Give each of the cabinet members a say over one particular part of policy, say one for the economy, one for foreign relations, one for internal politics, one for offense and one for defense, just as some examples. End the use of political parties by moving from a running for election which is very costly ($186 million so far and counting) compared to standing for election, the system I believe is used is a lot of parlimenatry governments.

In standing for election, the campaigning time is reduced from the US time of four years for the president, six for a senator, and two for a representative (for those outside the US, that's their entire term) to only one or two months before the election. Instead of 'running' for election, going from place to place, the candiates 'stand' by publishing their position papers in newspapers. There is a rebuttal published from other parties. The candidate then responds to the rebuttals. No more fearmongering, years of campaigning, and vauge promises. Everything that the candidate stands for is in black and white. Everything that all candidates say is picked apart by the others. Those who don't care to read about what's going on in their government or the positions of various candidates don't have the chance to be persuaded by flashy PR campaigns and probably just don't vote. Overnight, you eliminate the uninformed voter. Suddenly small candidates can run without hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. Ultimately, although not immediately, parties can become unnecessary. Money looses it's importance in politics. The system works because it utilizes, instead of ignores, people's appetite for power. If they want to remain in power, they have only one duty to do faithfully (serve only the people for only the one task that they have been elected to do), instead of many different roles, as the presiednt does now, compounded by many different influences.

It has some obvious gaps, such as figuring out how to narrow down the number of candidates for each particular cabinet post without relying on parties, although a gradual phase out over time might be able to accomplish that, if there was a strict, unalterable timeline.

Maybe I should write a pamphlet or something?

Abolish one single presidency and instate a council of several leaders. We could call it a 'cabinet'. Give each of the cabinet members a say over one particular part of policy, say one for the economy, one for foreign relations, one for internal politics, one for offense and one for defense, just as some examples. End the use of political parties by moving from a running for election which is very costly ($186 million so far and counting) compared to standing for election, the system I believe is used is a lot of parlimenatry governments.

In standing for election, the campaigning time is reduced from the US time of four years for the president, six for a senator, and two for a representative (for those outside the US, that's their entire term) to only one or two months before the election. Instead of 'running' for election, going from place to place, the candiates 'stand' by publishing their position papers in newspapers. There is a rebuttal published from other parties. The candidate then responds to the rebuttals. No more fearmongering, years of campaigning, and vauge promises. Everything that the candidate stands for is in black and white. Everything that all candidates say is picked apart by the others. Those who don't care to read about what's going on in their government or the positions of various candidates don't have the chance to be persuaded by flashy PR campaigns and probably just don't vote. Overnight, you eliminate the uninformed voter. Suddenly small candidates can run without hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. Ultimately, although not immediately, parties can become unnecessary. Money looses it's importance in politics. The system works because it utilizes, instead of ignores, people's appetite for power. If they want to remain in power, they have only one duty to do faithfully (serve only the people for only the one task that they have been elected to do), instead of many different roles, as the presiednt does now, compounded by many different influences.

It has some obvious gaps, such as figuring out how to narrow down the number of candidates for each particular cabinet post without relying on parties, although a gradual phase out over time might be able to accomplish that, if there was a strict, unalterable timeline.

Maybe I should write a pamphlet or something?

Maybe you should check again. Microsoft did indeed make a campaign donation to Kerry

Yeah, a 50 pound mackrel that happens to be frozen solid

Here is a list of his major contributors in his 2000 campaign.

even Microsoft donated to Bush, but not Kerry...