Slashdot Mirror

Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch

Open Secrets

Campaign contributions?

open secrets is a good place. There may be others...

A link to the top industries giving him money. He really is an industry whore BTW over 95% of the pac money given to him is from business.

Too bad he is in Utah though. People from Utah would rather stab themselves in the eye with a hot poker then vote for a democrat so he is all set. He might as well have a lifetime appointment.

open secrets is a good place. There may be others...

A link to the top industries giving him money. He really is an industry whore BTW over 95% of the pac money given to him is from business.

Too bad he is in Utah though. People from Utah would rather stab themselves in the eye with a hot poker then vote for a democrat so he is all set. He might as well have a lifetime appointment.

It wont pass either, like most of his garbage, but still scary hes still trying.

What is scary to me is that the money behind these types of bills can afford to have someone re-introduce them over and over, perhaps just changing the wording a little. All it takes is for one of them to slip by unnoticed and get passed. Then we have a law in place and it would be hard to remove it.

For anybody who thinks that it's easy to get a stupid law removed from the books, consider the 1937 law which sets the price of milk based on how far the dairy farm is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. (The further away, the more you get.) The idea was to encourage dairy production outside of WI.

According to USDA statistics, milk production in California is over 63% higher than that in Wisconsin. Despite how obvious it is that this law is bogus, it still wasn't overturned when it was due to expire around 1999. Guess the contributions and PAC money did the trick.

So obviously, if Hatch manages to get one of these rediculous laws passed, we'll probably be stuck with it indefinately.

That is just chicken feed for foolish journists and a bit of bartering. Take a look at where the real money is going.

GW is all about "Big business". This is just a ploy to make it seem like the government is doing something. The DOJ will do squat. MS has already "integrated" IE, and in Longhorn they are "integrating" Media Player. In addition, they are planning some major non-standards compliant additions to IE that will lock you in to Longhorn. As long as MS continues to be the larget software donator of bribes, I don't see much effort from the government to stop them.

You might want to check out some of Kerry's Top Donors.

Also, if you're a fan of the DMCA you'll be pleased to see how high up Time Warner is on the list! But then the kowtowing Democrats do to Hollywood is legendary.

Bush is only slightly better in terms of dollars accepted by Microsoft (at least he's mostly free of media companies). Basically you're going to have to vode Nader - or Perot!

I'm a techie that has done work for Greenpeace, and I don't see what all the bickering is all about. First of all, Greenpeace is not radical at all. They're a non-profit CORPORATION with college-educated non-hippies and a heirchical structure. In fact, many environmental groups look down on them for being too corporate and too mainstream. They have NEVER done tree-spiking, and they only their primary way of acting as a watchdog group is by bringing media attention to issues at large non-violently. They are not anti-capitalism. Do they break the law sometimes? Yes, but so did Rosa Parks (and for trespassing as well). Are they doing a lot to save our last remaining rainforests? Yes. Sometimes it takes policing the waters when others can't. They call people out when THEY are already doing something illegal. No one seems to complain when it's James Bond or Batman, and Greenpeace does so nonviolently. About their boats. First of all, most of them are VERY ecologically sound even though they are huge and fast (energy effcient, careful selection of paints and materials, etc.) but they need the size and speed in order to compete with the ships of illegal loggers, toxic dumpers, whalers, etc. About GM foods. People forget that companies like Monsanto developed products such as the "Terminator seed" which was supposed to be given as food aid, spread throughout poorer countries and wipe out other crops, and then become sterile after one genereration so those countries would become dependent on U.S. aid provided by Monsanto. It is no secret that they are very friendly to this administration. Also, people have gotten sick from eating GM foods that have been spliced with genes from animals they are allergic too. It is also nearly impossible to keep seeds from spreading in the wild (which has happened) and breeding with natural plants in unpredictable ways. The fact of the matter is, we simply rushed this tech out to the market and more research needs to be done and more precautions need to be taken with our food supply. Besides, in this county, Greenpeace are mostly pushing for labeling of GM foods. People forget that organizations like Greenpeace are working hard to maintain a BALANCE because this world is becoming more and more unhealthy and unliveable every day. Oh, so why did this make it into Slashdot? Because watchdog groups need tech to compete, and it would be nice if more people donated their time to help these groups out. Heck, no one complained when Wired magazine made organic foods their cover story.

I'd like to take this opportunity to induce you to share all your movies and music with this software.

Follow this graph and see the campaign contributions increase as S2560 approaches a vote. Shameful.

For all you whining asshole Republicans:

ARLEN SPECTER (R - PA)
Detailed Contributor Breakdown
2000 ELECTION CYCLE

Goodkind, Labaton et al $7,600

Open Secrets

And before you get all smarmy, yes, they gave to Democrats, too. But Alren Specter didn't turn their money down, either.

Yes, $1,890,401 (Republicans) is the same as $800,343 (Democrats). OpenSecrets data for 2001-2002 gives those numbers.

Admittedly, some of the data is conflicting; see what OpenSecrets says for 2000 vs what commondreams says, and it appears to change over time so it's not that simple ... but I think you get the point.

Yes, $1,890,401 (Republicans) is the same as $800,343 (Democrats). OpenSecrets data for 2001-2002 gives those numbers.

Admittedly, some of the data is conflicting; see what OpenSecrets says for 2000 vs what commondreams says, and it appears to change over time so it's not that simple ... but I think you get the point.

Yes, $1,890,401 (Republicans) is the same as $800,343 (Democrats). OpenSecrets data for 2001-2002 gives those numbers.

Admittedly, some of the data is conflicting; see what OpenSecrets says for 2000 vs what commondreams says, and it appears to change over time so it's not that simple ... but I think you get the point.

What with Wamp being so devout to his beliefs on the issues, and Bill Frist co-sponsoring that new bill to outlaw P2P applications... yessiree! I sure am proud to live here in good-ol' progressive Tennessee!

You are so wrong. Pfizer is using it's "oodles of money" to keep bush, not fix him. So far their record is 65% to republican and 35% to democrat for the 2004 election

"[TechCentral Station] doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street..."

If you've ever listened to any Senate Committee hearings you may have noticed that the ones who get to testify are often the industry execs who made campaign contributions to the very committee members they're testifying before.

Entertainment execs who got to testify at the DMCA hearings after giving $18,000,000 is just one example. Happens all the time.

See whose funding Hatch. Notice how the funding increases to match the bills being considered.

Hate groups banned in Europe move their servers to the states.

I dont know about that (dont visit these sites) but people hosting "copyrighted" (as in "to embarasing to be copied to a critical public") tend to move to europe. Which is proudly hosting excerpts of scientology papers for years now. On a on-topic side note, creating and hosting peer-to-peer applications which have amongst other a populair use involving breaking copyright law has been ruled legal as well. Compare kazaa`s fate with napsters fate.

Now ask them if they want GM foods banned because they might not have the willpower to leave them on the supermarket shelves.

Apparently a label will do for EU consumers. A democraticly elected european pairlement decided so. Ofcourse if "distributing" exspensive patented genetics by means of seeds across the fields of unsuspecting farmers falls under the freedom of speech I really dont know. I guess if you were to ask the right people they will say so. Somehow I am not convinced US elected leaders didn`t listen to their electorat when they decided against regulation.
Given the "(genetic)code is free speech" idea I might even agree. Personaly I think even the labels are stupid.

This is a very very intresting and scary but troll-only discusion, Especially considering the US president doesn`t need congresional permission to invade this country.... not that getting that would be that hard.
I better shut up now...

While it is not at all clear that Kazaa has ever told people to use it's software to steal, it is clear that some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by bribing senators with campaign donations.

Open Secrets

Note that he recieves a generous bonus from "lobbyists" and "TV/Movie/Music".

Another reader pointed out this:

Microsoft Campaign Support

Apparently Microsoft campaign spending is down, and is pretty biased towards the Democrats right now, reversing a previous trend of biasing towards the Republicans.

they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies

That's right.They are in the pocket of Unions and lawyers.
Top contributors
Top contributing Indutries
In general, who is really spending the money
Top tax-exempt soft money contributors

they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies

That's right.They are in the pocket of Unions and lawyers.
Top contributors
Top contributing Indutries
In general, who is really spending the money
Top tax-exempt soft money contributors

they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies

That's right.They are in the pocket of Unions and lawyers.
Top contributors
Top contributing Indutries
In general, who is really spending the money
Top tax-exempt soft money contributors

they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies

That's right.They are in the pocket of Unions and lawyers.
Top contributors
Top contributing Indutries
In general, who is really spending the money
Top tax-exempt soft money contributors

I guess it's good time to keep our eyes on what Microsoft gives to political parties.

Think they'd go so far as to start paying governments to use their software?

Yes

actually, M$ give more money to Dems than Reps:http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib .asp?Ind=C5120

equally interesting to note is that M$ has only recently really gotten involved in the political donation game, and that they are still donating realively small amounts (compare to companies of similar size in other industries), considering just hom much money they have to throw around.

$50,000 doesn't buy you a single full page newspaper add in the major media markets: Advertising>Business>Cause & Appeal/Political.

You need about $800,000 a week to blanket a state like Illinois with TV adds: Media Costs.

The Bush campaign committees raised $193 million for the 2000 campaign: 2000 Presidential Race: Total Raised and Spent.

By your estimates, Microsoft's contribution would be 1/4 of 1% of the total.

So let's get real. shall we?

Now I don't know where the San Francisco Chronicle gets their data, but opensecrets.org (the defacto source for Slashbots) paints a very different picture of contributions... They still gave more to Republicans, but not significantly more... Heck, excluding the whole anti-trust thing, tax cuts are business friendly. That's enough to earn Bush support, really.

Besides, the person who really lost the antitrust case was Judge Jackson. If he hadn't gone on about Microsoft being a bunch of evil bullies his breakup order would've stood. However, when an appeals court sees a lower Judge out spouting off belligerence in public interviews while a case HE is working on is winding through the legal system, they tend to act in favor of the person being punished.

But Ashcroft pretty much rolled over as soon as he was AG. He settled and tried to get everyone else to settle as well. Why is a different debate, but he certainly had enough evidence to win in a new trial.

Here's a link for you. When the (then) richest man in the world donates to your boss's campaign, I think you're going to pay him back in some manner or another.

A quick note, though...There are as many Democrats as Republicans on that list of donation recipients. Bill Gates donates to those with power...not necessarily to those of any particular party.

In the town were I grew up local man took advantage of one of my best freind's sister. He also got several of her freinds. He served only 3 years in prison. Equating that kind of horror to recording a movie illegally is insulting to her, the family, and everyone harmed in a similar crime. Clearly, the Senate is being presured into passing brutal laws which seek to scare the public into obedience. Know of any good web based movments against ill concieved laws? I've just started looking and could use the help.

One that I like for watching money trails is here

Orwell got the year wrong...

Now maybe a private company can develop it for 2% of the cost and we'll have cheap, environmentally benign power.

Or, now maybe we can continue to be dependent on (mostly foreign) oil, established oil companies with little incentive to develop newer and ultimately cheaper energy sources, and politicians who make sure NASA doesn't undermine those vested interests.

"NASA officials cited a policy shift toward the International Space Station and the space shuttle program."

Now, I know the Shuttle has been so tremendously successful, and the International Space Station isn't just the leftovers of the lasts gasps of the old Soviet Manned Space Flight Program, both have been so well funded since the "policy shift" three years ago in 2001 -- so, if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to ask yourself, "what occasioned this policy shift?"

I'm not just trying to be annoyingly partisan here; I'm trying to make the point that even when it comes to science, politics takes over, and when politics takes over, you have to follow the money.

Now maybe a private company can develop it for 2% of the cost and we'll have cheap, environmentally benign power.

Or, now maybe we can continue to be dependent on (mostly foreign) oil, established oil companies with little incentive to develop newer and ultimately cheaper energy sources, and politicians who make sure NASA doesn't undermine those vested interests.

"NASA officials cited a policy shift toward the International Space Station and the space shuttle program."

Now, I know the Shuttle has been so tremendously successful, and the International Space Station isn't just the leftovers of the lasts gasps of the old Soviet Manned Space Flight Program, both have been so well funded since the "policy shift" three years ago in 2001 -- so, if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to ask yourself, "what occasioned this policy shift?"

I'm not just trying to be annoyingly partisan here; I'm trying to make the point that even when it comes to science, politics takes over, and when politics takes over, you have to follow the money.

The least you could do is back up your accusation with some proof."

I presume you've heard of the honorable Orrin Hatch, senator from Utah? Are you unaware of his efforts to destroy people's computers? Do you know how much money he receives from the media industry? He is using his influence to take away your rights.

I like our government and I'm actually pretty conservative, but there is no doubt that there is a war going on to take away consumers' rights.

No, I never said that at all, and to imply that I did is pure speculation on your part. I'm well aware of the entertainment industry's liberal bias but also aware that Sen. Hatch does provide a podium for groups like the RIAA to to get their views heard in Congress.

Like you say, special interest groups frequently grease the palms of politicians on both sides of the floor, and Hatch represents an easy way for groups to get their viewpoints heard by Congress.

In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

On the other hand, if we look at the raw numbers we see that the NBC affiliates gave a whopping $39k to democrats and $18k to republicans, while ABC's affiliates gave about $8k and $250. To give a bit of scale here, Univision affiliates gave more to republican candidates than these two together gave to both democrats and republicans combined. These are very small amounts of money for either of these organizations. If there is a bias here, the way affiliates spend trivial-to-them amounts of money is a poor way to diagnose it.

Yes, I do support the troops.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS MEANS NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY WITHOUT A DAMN GOOD REASON.

Reasons?

• Bush said "WMD". Nobody found any. How long have US troops been in Iraq? When did they stop bothering to look for WMD?
• Bush told us that Saddam was behind 9/11. Practically all the hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA. Where is al-Queda funded? Very largely, out of Saudi Arabia.

So what's left? Getting rid of an evil man? America supports lots of evil men in power all over the world, sometimes for good reasons. So why aren't we invading them instead of supporting them?

Why did we invade Iraq instead of the nation that indirectly employs Bush's father via the Carlyle Group? Ask the President. (note: Salon - ad viewing or subscription required)

Bush has cut various kind of pay and military allowances to our troops. You don't care, do you?

You're probably too young to remember the old joke about "Wouldn't it be great if our schools got funded and they had to hold bake sales to build an aircraft carrier?"

The joke isn't funny anymore. A middle school held a bake sale to help pay for BULLETPROOF VESTS FOR AMERICAN TROOPS Where's all that money we're spending on the military going? Ask Bush, or maybe Cheney's buddies over at Halliburton might have something to say about this.

I'm sure you aren't surprised by the fact that Halliburton served rotting meats and vegetables to our troops in Iraq. Of course, you really don't care, do you?

A reasonable person would think that a person who supported our troops would NOT want to see them put into unnecessary danger, would be equipped adequately, and would want to see them get decent food to eat.

YOU ARE NOT THAT PERSON.

You can support our troops or You can support Bush.

You can NOT do both at the same time.

You've picked a side, and we KNOW who's side you're on. Why don't you go play with your buddies at a well known Bush campaign contributor, Microsoft instead of spreading your tired old propaganda bullshit here?

That's what Ralph Nader suggested. I don't know if he was the first.

It would be ammusing but until then we have opensecrets.org.
They document stuff like this. If everyone researched the canidates before voting we might have a lot less scumbags in office. The main problem is that usually both the Democrat and the Republican are scumbags and everyone is too afraid to vote third party.

So, that's how much it costs to buy a U.S. Senator. I hadn't really set my heart on it as I've heard about the sanitation issues. However, while currently beyond my means, I'm rather surprised how little it takes.

If I'd known, I could've saved earlier, as I did for my home, and bought myself a U.S. Senator. Wow, the idea just seems so surreal. But, again, the sanitation issues...

= 9J =

Yeah, definitely. Although usually people who think they have this sort of image problem don't take such donations because they tend to become PR nightmares.

Also, notice Boucher's contributions. Not a media company in the lot. Whether this is cause-and-effect is undeniable, but which came first? I'd like to think Boucher thought for himself, then all the media companies left him.

the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).

Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be used to kill as well as heal. But since the rest of his top contributors are pharma co's he isn't likely to raise that as an issue is he?

It wasn't Gray Davis, Cynthia McKinney was brought down by blogger Scott Koenig. A little research goes a long way for any reporter willing to put in the 15 minutes. If you read the later posts, he shows(not tells) how the major media still got the facts wrong.

wrecked its economy by going too far with some socialistic ideals!?!?!?

The California *I* live in was wrecked due to horrifically ill-advised energy deregulation.

Damn those "socialists" and their free market!

A quick search on OpenSecrets.org shows that

Lautenberg - recieved no money from the music/movie industries

and

Corzine hasn't either

Probably because no music or movie companies(eg Sony or BMG or Universal, you know the major players, not just plain old recording studio), exist there or to the extent to warrent funding these men. I'd expect more along the lines of drug makers to contribute since NJ has a lot of pharmaceutical companies.

A quick search on OpenSecrets.org shows that

Lautenberg - recieved no money from the music/movie industries

and

Corzine hasn't either

Probably because no music or movie companies(eg Sony or BMG or Universal, you know the major players, not just plain old recording studio), exist there or to the extent to warrent funding these men. I'd expect more along the lines of drug makers to contribute since NJ has a lot of pharmaceutical companies.

The repair will require a lot more than a democrat in office, too.

Look at the top 100 "donators" for the period 1998-2004. Just the top 100 have bribed our politicians with $1,156,273,938! You can see why in our "represented" democracy, the average American is not represented. With billions USD going around in bribes, it is hard for even legit politicans to do thier jobs.

The repair will require a lot more than a democrat in office, too.

Look at the top 100 "donators" for the period 1998-2004. Just the top 100 have bribed our politicians with $1,156,273,938! You can see why in our "represented" democracy, the average American is not represented. With billions USD going around in bribes, it is hard for even legit politicans to do thier jobs.

The repair will require a lot more than a democrat in office, too.

Look at the top 100 "donators" for the period 1998-2004. Just the top 100 have bribed our politicians with $1,156,273,938! You can see why in our "represented" democracy, the average American is not represented. With billions USD going around in bribes, it is hard for even legit politicans to do thier jobs.