Slashdot Mirror

- Trump is worth $3.5 billions; that qualifies as being a rich man.

So he claims. He lies about everything. He lied about getting a phone call from the Boy Scouts, for heaven's sake. He hasn't released any proof of his worth, nor the income tax records that would substantiate his earnings or losses.

- He turned a $14 million loan from his father into that $3.5 billion fortune. You don't achieve that without being smart.

If he had simply invested that $14 million into the S&P 500, he would now be worth more than $13 billion. Instead, he made countless bad deals leading to multiple bankruptcies.

- He decided to become President, bankrolled his own campaign

Now you're going into lunatic territory. He did not bankroll his own campaign. You have drank the Kool-Aid, and I'm very sorry.

Compared to all lobbying. Google, Apple, and Microsoft's 2016 revenue was $390 billion, and they spent $11.34 million on lobbying, or 2.9 cents per every $1000 of their revenue.

The pharmaceutical industry's revenue was about $446 billion, and they spent $246 million on lobbying. Or 56 cents per every $1000 of revenue. 19x more.

The telecom industry's revenue was about $750 billion, and they spent $86 million on lobbying, or 11 cents per every $1000 of revenue. 4x more.

The TV/movie/music industry's revenue is about $600 billion, and they spent $60 million on lobbying, or 10 cents per every $1000 of revenue. 3.4x more.

The Internet/software industry is just realizing that if they don't want the tail wagging the dog (e.g. Hollywood dictating the laws which govern them), they're going to have to spend an equitable amount on lobbying.

Amazon greatly increased its political spending in 2016. Walmart (3x the revenue of Amazon) has been spending big since 2002.

Amazon greatly increased its political spending in 2016. Walmart (3x the revenue of Amazon) has been spending big since 2002.

Funny thing is that out of their top 10 political donations, AT&T donated to 2 political candidates directly. They gave over $300,000 to Hillary and almost $80,000 to Bernie.

After that, it looks like they donated to every campaign in the country.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Name just ONE high tech company that might be affected by this policy that gave more money to the Republicans and/or Trump than to Democrats and/or Obama/Hillary.

I have no idea why you said "high tech". This is about Deere & Co, which gave almost 3x as much to Republicans. So, get real about "honest" if you mean that.

The problem is that these large companies hire expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make the rules. Apple is also guilty of this.

Here's a list of the top lobbying spenders last year. Notice anyone missing?

While Amazon is at the very bottom of the top spenders and Google is in the thick of it with big telecom and pharma, Apple is conspicuously missing. That's been true historically as well, since Apple has NEVER been a big spender when it comes to lobbying. They're routinely outspent by virtually all of their competitors, and while they have significantly increased their spending in recent years (roughly doubled from 2011 to 2016, bringing them to $4.67B last year), they're still nowhere close to their peers. Even Amazon, at the very bottom of the list, is spending nearly 3x what Apple is.

Moreover, Apple is talking about repatriating hundreds of billions of dollars ($200B, if memory serves), with potential taxes in the dozens of billions. If Apple was getting the "8x deduction" that you pulled out of your ass, simple division tells us that they'd need to be spending somewhere between a few hundred million and a few billion on lobbying in order to even make a dent on their taxes, which should put them so far off the top of that list that even the most ardent Apple apologist would be forced to acknowledge their shameless spending. Instead of that, however, they're so far down the list that I can't even find a number for where their spending is ranked. It's not even double-digit millions, let alone billions.

You make this argument because it is Apple, and not a "dirty" oil company

Facts are facts, regardless of the messenger's biases. If the argument is invalid, say why it's invalid. As it is, you've basically said that they are "guilty" of a crime you made up and that they deserve to pay because they can afford lawyers, lobbyists, and better accountants than you can, none of which are actually a crime.

The problem is that these large companies hire expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make the rules. Apple is also guilty of this.

Here's a list of the top lobbying spenders last year. Notice anyone missing?

While Amazon is at the very bottom of the top spenders and Google is in the thick of it with big telecom and pharma, Apple is conspicuously missing. That's been true historically as well, since Apple has NEVER been a big spender when it comes to lobbying. They're routinely outspent by virtually all of their competitors, and while they have significantly increased their spending in recent years (roughly doubled from 2011 to 2016, bringing them to $4.67B last year), they're still nowhere close to their peers. Even Amazon, at the very bottom of the list, is spending nearly 3x what Apple is.

Moreover, Apple is talking about repatriating hundreds of billions of dollars ($200B, if memory serves), with potential taxes in the dozens of billions. If Apple was getting the "8x deduction" that you pulled out of your ass, simple division tells us that they'd need to be spending somewhere between a few hundred million and a few billion on lobbying in order to even make a dent on their taxes, which should put them so far off the top of that list that even the most ardent Apple apologist would be forced to acknowledge their shameless spending. Instead of that, however, they're so far down the list that I can't even find a number for where their spending is ranked. It's not even double-digit millions, let alone billions.

You make this argument because it is Apple, and not a "dirty" oil company

Facts are facts, regardless of the messenger's biases. If the argument is invalid, say why it's invalid. As it is, you've basically said that they are "guilty" of a crime you made up and that they deserve to pay because they can afford lawyers, lobbyists, and better accountants than you can, none of which are actually a crime.

Politicians are minimally responsive to the general concerns of the population. Seems counterintuitive. But they're able to do this because of:
1) Gerrymandered districts.
2) Heavy special interest dollars.

I mean, even when times are rough, incumbency rates are very high.

What we also need are term limits. Yes, they have costs and benefits. But they approved term limits for the president, one of 537 federal politicians (100 senators + 435 representatives + president + vice president). The reason was to prevent an imperial presidency. We should implement the same thing for the other 535 federal politicians for the same reason - to prevent an imperial Congress.

I don't see how politicians would ever be persuaded to limit their power however. The 535 limiting the power of the one (president) - certainly. The 535 limiting their own power - I don't see how it could be done voluntarily.

Once you give politicians more power, it is extraordinarily difficult to take it away.

We need politicians that are less development officers (fundraisers) and more focused on policy and governing.

Politicians are minimally responsive to the general concerns of the population. Seems counterintuitive. But they're able to do this because of:
1) Gerrymandered districts.
2) Heavy special interest dollars.

I mean, even when times are rough, incumbency rates are very high.

What we also need are term limits. Yes, they have costs and benefits. But they approved term limits for the president, one of 537 federal politicians (100 senators + 435 representatives + president + vice president). The reason was to prevent an imperial presidency. We should implement the same thing for the other 535 federal politicians for the same reason - to prevent an imperial Congress.

I don't see how politicians would ever be persuaded to limit their power however. The 535 limiting the power of the one (president) - certainly. The 535 limiting their own power - I don't see how it could be done voluntarily.

Once you give politicians more power, it is extraordinarily difficult to take it away.

We need politicians that are less development officers (fundraisers) and more focused on policy and governing.

What is the proper response for citizens to take when the government refuses to obey it's own laws and refuses to stop grossly violating primary civil rights on a massive scale?

Vote for different people in the next election.

A 97% re-election rate in the House and 87% reelection rate in the Senate in 2016 sends a pretty strong message that the people either agree with what the government is doing or they don't care.

Thar ya go, in the future opensecrets.org you can look up anyone

https://www.opensecrets.org/pf...

Whether Google really is violating the law, the prosecution itself is a convenient means of suppressing opposition. Google was "with her" all the way. Could this be a payback from the Trump's Administration?

Or, the other way around, has the previous Administration sat on it because Google was all for the Democratics? Worse, maybe, Google's unprecedented cooperation was due to the subtle blackmail in the first place?

Whatever the answers to these questions, I'd rather they not be asked at all — there should be no thoughtcrimes for the government to prosecute. At all.

Discrimination may be stupid and unethical, but it should not be illegal.

Lobbying amounts are in the millions (for example, $14M for Comcast). Revenues are in the billions ($80B for Comcast's 2016 yearly revenue), margin of 40%. So they are spending fractions of their revenue to drive legislation that they can in turn use to drive more profits.

Profits aren't inherently bad (I work for a private company, after all) but combining granted monopoly power with buying legislation to increase profits is just obscene.

Sources:
Lobbying spend by Comcast: https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
Comcast earnings and margin: http://www.cmcsa.com/earningde...

Specifics matter. Two different bills from two different people to do ostensibly the same thing can have two very different impacts.

Lamar Smith is the guy who introduced SOPA, which is supposed to protect copyright holders, and allegedly written by a movie industry lobbyist. He is "publicly skeptical of global warming", and look at how much money he got from oil and gas companies. If he's targeting the EPA in the name of science, and leaving out everyone and everything else, I'm suspicious about the intention and the details.

But sir, they are not charged with FRAUD. It's 14 counts of recording people without telling them and 1 count of conspiracy to record people without telling them...

First of all, I'm a ma'am, thank you. I said they committed fraud, and gave you the 5 point legal test. I didn't assert that fraud was in the indictment. If you think they didn't commit fraud, simply point out which point of the 5 point test fails. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just because the indictment doesn't include a fraud charge doesn't mean they didn't commit fraud. Indictments often do not contain all of the crimes committed, but the charges the AG thinks he can win. Al Capone didn't go to jail for murder -- even though he committed many of them. He went to jail for tax evasion.

You *do* know that the DA that charged them took campaign money from Planed Parenthood right?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the enormity of the bias you feel that would drive you to make such an irrelevant and incorrect statement. Let's break it down, to whit:

• 1. - Our Attorney General was *appointed* to fill a seat vacated by the recent elections. Thus, there WAS no campaign to which PP might have contributed.
  1. - Xavier Beccera's campaign contributions for his most recent Congressional Campaign are a matter of public record. Planned Parenthood does not appear anywhere in the list of 550 donors.
  1. - Let's say for the sake of humoring an obviously partisan person that Planned Parenthood DID contribute? So what? How is that relevant to this discussion? You are implying that he is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Don't imply. Assert -- if you have the evidence. Otherwise, why make such a statement?

So here is what I *do* know: you pulled an irrelevant assertion out of your ass without verifying it. Why would you do this without basic fact checking unless you're biased to see the AG as a big bad boogeyman persecuting poor, poor political operatives for the anti-abortion movement because he's in the pocket of Godless Abortionists?

It's common for one who has not thought through all sides of a debate but holds a specific view based on their emotional perspective to attack the person rather than the issue being debated. Since the last presidential election we've seen this in riots and violence from the radical left in unprecedented amounts. You seem to be engaged in a personal attack, at least in part even though you don't know me from Adam...

You seem to be confused about the difference between noting bias and a "personal attack". Noting that you are displaying a level of bias so high that it not only causes you to make irrational arguments, but it causes you to lie to advance your position is not a "personal attack". It's an evaluation based on observation -- and so I *do* know you from Adam. I have observed your behavior across several posts. Now, to be charitable, it's possible that perhaps you simply read somewhere that PP donated to our AG, so in that case it isn't a lie, since you didn't knowingly tell a falsehood. In that case, it's your bias causing you to fail to check basic facts before you put your name behind them. In that case, you're merely a tool.

I haven't called you a poopyhead or a moron. If you feel "attacked" by a basic review of facts, that's your conscience bothering you.

https://www.opensecrets.org/in... (Hint for liberals - look for the "blue").

>There's no public details of what, exactly, ZTE did to get the blacklisting lifted, but I'm willing to bet quite a lot of money was involved

Actually, there are details that could be sussed out if someone were willing to put in the effort. And yes, there was quite a bit of money involved. Start here https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000065213&year=2016 and begin connecting the dots.

Podesta Group - $530,000

Oh hey, looky there.

He's also appointed former top level Goldman Sachs employees.

The difference is that some of Trump's people USED to be paid by Goldman Sachs.

Hillary (and Obama) were ACTIVLEY BEING PAID by Goldman Sachs.

Just do a quick search at how much GS has contributed to Hillary (~$1 million) vs. Trump ($0).

"private companies like VW, Wells Fargo, Enron, Merck, they have all done harm in ways that aren't covered by the Iron Law, but far exceed it"

First, how do you compare? It's essentially impossible, because those things are not alike.

That said, most of the companies you mention were able to cause harm due to two factors: corporate cronyism, and too big to fail.

The one where that doesn't quite apply may be Volkswagen. But even there: it is becoming apparent that *all* auto manufacturers cheated on their emissions tests, because the government standards are completely at odds with what consumers actually want.to buy. So again, government regulatory involvement has helped screw things up. Simple theory: follow the money. Who is now richer due to the long-term cheating? I'm not an expert in this industry, but it's a given that there's a nice revolving door between the auto industry and the regulatory bodies.

The trick is it isn't corruption. The US has completely legalized what many other countries would call corruption. Companies can just throw money at US politicians or their campaigns in various ways and it's all legal.

You do realize the largest source of political money in the US is union-based, right?

Six of the top-ten individual political money givers in the US are unions.

Comcast poured more money into the Hillary campaign in 2016 than into any other candidate. in the 2012 cycle, their top recipient of political cash was Barack Obama

Keep believeing all the tripe you have been spoon-fed by unionized school teachers (crucial component of the Democrat coalition), college professors (also key Democrat donors) and other people who are most-definitely NOT unbiased in the propaganda they shovel. In the REAL WORLD, no politician of ANY party (and particularly NOT the ones on the left who are for massive government with corporate "partnerships" i.e. ACTUAL fascism) can be trusted to be looking out for you and your privacy and freedom. So-called "net neutrality" as pushed-for by big-government sorts, rather than as you dreamed of it, was only a way to fool you into supporting the injection of federal regulations and regulators into the previously-free and unregulated internet. Your privacy and freedom are contrary to the interests of governments and the bigger those governments get the more of a threat your freedoms become. Barack Obama and Hillary clinton and Bernie Sanders were no more interested in your freedoms than big-government Republican Jeb Bush was.

Comcast poured more money into the Hillary campaign in 2016 than into any other candidate. in the 2012 cycle, their top recipient of political cash was Barack Obama

Keep believeing all the tripe you have been spoon-fed by unionized school teachers (crucial component of the Democrat coalition), college professors (also key Democrat donors) and other people who are most-definitely NOT unbiased in the propaganda they shovel. In the REAL WORLD, no politician of ANY party (and particularly NOT the ones on the left who are for massive government with corporate "partnerships" i.e. ACTUAL fascism) can be trusted to be looking out for you and your privacy and freedom. So-called "net neutrality" as pushed-for by big-government sorts, rather than as you dreamed of it, was only a way to fool you into supporting the injection of federal regulations and regulators into the previously-free and unregulated internet. Your privacy and freedom are contrary to the interests of governments and the bigger those governments get the more of a threat your freedoms become. Barack Obama and Hillary clinton and Bernie Sanders were no more interested in your freedoms than big-government Republican Jeb Bush was.

It depends if George Soros funds the protests or not.

George Soros (Hillarys primary financer) instructing Hillary on what policies to carry out as Secretary of State:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

https://i.sli.mg/64gA6D.png

Top contributors for Hillary Clinton page:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

Soros admits creating the European migrant crisis:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/02/soros-admits-involvement-in-migrant-crisis-national-borders-are-the-obstacle/

Soros tells Europe to take in at least a MILLION refugees every year:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/616541/European-Union-Migrants-Refugees-George-Soros-Hungary-Viktor-Orban-Europe

Soros finances Handbooks to spur EU-bound immigration:

http://news.sky.com/story/1551853/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants

Soros urges giving Ukraine $50 billion of aid to foil Russia:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-soros-idUSKBN0KH0NQ20150108

Hacked emails expose George Soros as Ukraine puppet-master:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/hacked-emails-expose-george-soros-ukraine-puppet-master

George Soros funds Ferguson Black Lives Matter protests:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

Soros funds paid "protestors" to spur civil unrest:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ferguson-Missouri-paid-protesters/2015/05/25/id/646587/

Soros funds MoveOn and Media Matters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Funding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org#Financial_contributors

Soros funds Black Lives Matter:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/11/13/anti-american-left-funds-blacklivesmatter-now/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/

Globalists Unite: Hillary Clinton Running Mate Tim Kaine Dines with George Soros Son as Donald Trumps Rise Terrifies World Elite:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/globalists-unite-hillary-clinton-running-mate-tim-k

Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?

Seriously, you think, Comcast, which spends millions of dollars lobbying various governments, could possibly have been unaware of developments at FCC? Or, more generally, that Comcast, whose CEO played golf with the President, is not benefiting from the barriers to entry imposed by the regulations?

The much more likely explanation is that Comcast, facing competition from the likes of Verizon, is trying to do, what the customers want. And they'll only have to do more of that, if FCC makes it easier for more competition to appear.

Heck, if you want to speculate about a communication-provider making a mistake due to a political miscalculation, take a closer look at Alphabet (Google) freezing its own broadband effort. Google executives were Hillary Clinton to win Presidency (and were actively helping her) and thus had no reasons to expect an improvement of business-climate. Had they known, Ajit Pai will soon become head of FCC, maybe, Google Fiber would've kept expanding...

This is what happens when the POTUS didn't take a single fucking dime from a single PAC or Corporation.

Lolwut? He took tons of money from them.
In fact, one of his PACs was trying to get $2 million from China.

Now, the reason they spend all that money was to prevent competition so that they can continue providing a terrible service for a lot of money.

AT&T have been the victims of antitrust action before and they've learned their lesson. They are never going to let that happen again, and you are going to fund it for them.

You might not like it, but it's how your country works.

Now they can settle for being private citizens like the rest of us.

Not a chance. Google spends plenty greasing congressional palms. That's what really matters; that is how corporations make their will into reality.

The current Ford CEO is nothing like Henry Ford and looks forward to trying to further his interests without union labor.

I'm not sure I follow you. Henry Ford fought unionization to the bitter end. Ford didn't sign a UAW contract until 1941, just a few years before he died. They were the last of the big three to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Take a look at who the UAW supported in this election (and the past ones as well). Considering that Michigan went Trump, they may want to reconsider who they support versus who their members have in mind if they wish to stay relevant.
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

The only lobbying sectors that donate more to political causes than the energy industry are finance, health and communications. This is what's called a "source" for my information. If you want to keep prattling on, please backup your assertions with some information.

So we needed a Republican Congress and a lame-duck Democrat President?

Trump didn't even make the list.

http://www.opensecrets.org/org...

Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $316,977
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $218,975
Bush, Jeb (R) Pres $203,550
Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $87,600
Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH) Senate $74,400
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $72,800
Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $64,400
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $58,240

He may be appointing them, but there's nothing showing he's beholden to them. Certainly not anymore than Sec. Clinton might have been.

Well, he needs to recoup some of the wasted money spent on Hillary's campain.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

It could be that way first because most polls projected H would win. You want to influence the likely winner.

Fair enough, but the list doesn't look that much different for the 2012 and 2008 election cycles. The Unions have traditionally been heavily Blue since Reagan's first term.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

User e432776 below posted that blue collar workers "have been leaving unions for decade". (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). There are plenty of reasons for this, but part of it could be that the Union leaders aren't getting the message that their members disagree with who they keep trying to influence.

It could be that way first because most polls projected H would win. You want to influence the likely winner.

Fair enough, but the list doesn't look that much different for the 2012 and 2008 election cycles. The Unions have traditionally been heavily Blue since Reagan's first term.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

User e432776 below posted that blue collar workers "have been leaving unions for decade". (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). There are plenty of reasons for this, but part of it could be that the Union leaders aren't getting the message that their members disagree with who they keep trying to influence.

Blue-collar workers don't have the equivalent counter-bribing force.

They most certainly do, but it looks like they didn't choose the winners in the election this year:

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
Carpenters & Joiners Union : Democrats = $23,278,997, Republicans = $436,816
Laborers Union: Democrats = $21,409,886, Republicans = $459,250
Service Employees International Union*: Democrats = $12,645,476, Republicans= $1,600
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Democrats = $10,507,556, Republicans = $159,818
AFL-CIO: Democrats = $10,634,478, Republicans= $187,200
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union: Democrats = $8,666,315, Republicans = $306,700
Operating Engineers Union: Democrats = $6,605,597, Republicans = $773,250
Communication Workers of America: Democrats = $6,413,565, Republicans = $29,000

That's just the ones that I saw in the top 50 organizations.

*Some of these folks may be classified as Pink-Collar.

$120 million from unions in 2016 alone, and virtually all of that went to Democrat candidates. Yes, unions are a MAJOR source of financing for the Democrats.

Funny because this shows otherwise.

Guess which party the "content providers" pushing for DRM have bought?

Yeah, it starts with a D.

Whoa, whoa, there, turbo ...

Just like 90% of silicon valley, TimeWarner gave $812,406 to Hillary, so they are exempt.

https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

You wouldn't want to interfere with the pro-government, anti-company party would you ?

Not a total load of bullshit. I never said they didn't contribute to Rs, but the CEO is democrat, the organization is generally "progressive" and they have liberal leanings.
The Koch brothers also donated heavily to democrats, yet they are firmly labeled here as conservatives.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
http://usuncut.com/politics/de...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/...

If you don't want to give away your e-mail use an anonymous one. Plenty out there.

Yes these are general books about programming but it's still good value. Some publishers like Elsevier take and take and take from the community without giving anything back EXCEPT POLITICAL DONATIONS TO CONGRESSMEN TO KEEP THEIR CARTEL. O'Reilly's done very well out of the programming community but he does give back. Good for him.

I said nothing because that was the first post I ever made in this thread.

That said, you're a fucking idiot if you don't think Apple is in on it.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

I suppose now you're going to pout and claim that there's no specific specific evidence that Apple specifically lobbied for specific tax rules specific to their business, or some weasel-worded shit like that... but all that will mean is you just want to stick your head in the sand.
=Smidge=

The AAPS is the group that sued to invalidate Obamacare.

That doesn't make them wrong, but I'd like to see more on their methodology; how many of the physicians didn't respond to the poll? How did they select respondents? Was it random, or was it based on membership in their organization?

Incidentally, Open Secrets shows that AAPS only donates to Republicans (unless they have some kind of sub-lobbying group or something).

There a very good reason for that:have a look at this link

So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?

If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.

In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?

If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.

Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.

If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.

If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.

Yeah, because AT&T hasn't given the Dems any money. Right?

It's partisan fucktards like you who are fucking this country.

AT&T alone is in the 4-15M range per year: https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Telecom has a big lobby.

So, remind me again what political party controls San Francisco from top to bottom?

Oh, and here's a data point: Gurbaksh Chahal gave his political donations exclusively to Democrats.

If a foreign country is trying to affect our elections, that's something worth considering.

You're right, it is.

At least we have Citizens United though.

And at least the US doesn't try to affect politics in other countries.