Slashdot Mirror

OK, I can play linky-linky too. For example, this one, showing Microsoft's total contributions, by party, since 1990. Things you might find interesting: this year, MS has given $428,545 to the Republicans; and $524,957 to Democrats. Yes, that's right, almost one hundred thousand dollars more to Democrats than to Republicans. In 2000 (when Bush was elected), their donations were fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Prior to 1996, their donations favored Democrats, particularly in 1992, when 77% of donations went to Democrats. Significance? Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and the MS antitrust suits started under his watch. Even in 1996, when Clinton was up for re-election, MS's giving slightly favored the Democrats.

The point? You can't assume that MS's giving was the reason the breakup option was taken off the table. There could be many reasons--given the size of MS's bottom line, and market share, destroying the company could have significant negative consequences on the economy; such a breakup might have been an unattainable goal (legally or practically), so it wasn't worth wasting time on; other options might have been more corrective. The point is, you don't know why that option was removed from consideration, and your presentation of MS's political donation, out of context, is intellectually dishonest. I would suggest that anybody interested in the parent poster's comments follow the link I provided, and also look at the finance histories of all of the candidates for the past few cycles. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; a lot of knowledge will help you make informed decisions.

You mean he is not this guy ? Oh and for those that can't find it on Google? Click here From what I read there was a paperwork issue which caused their CPA license to be suspended and the firm to be placed on 'probation'. Sounds like he is the one twisting and distorting the facts. I was going to make a witty reference to Arthur Andersen but the only decent references to them are at Open Secrets

And how we LOVE lawyers around here:

Trial Lawyers Assoc. of America Donations

Guess my point is, both parties are painfully evil. It's just what level of hell you want to find yourself in...

2004 campaign contributions thus far

Note the important:
Microsoft Corp $160,850

I couldnt find anything regarding Bill Lockye in the few moments i took to search, but Open Secrets is a wonderfull resource when checking out political contributions.
I know, I know... doing homework is HARD, but it really serves the best interest for all of us to check out what our politicians stand for, and more importantly, who pays them to stand for it ;)

And it certainly looks like Congress was bought when it comes to the DMCA. According to opensecrets the top contributors in the entertainment industry spent between 20 and 30 million dollars to ensure passage of the DMCA.

And the politicians in Congress have the audacity to tell us we are breaking the law when they have sold themselves out under nothing short of legalized bribery.

They won't make that mistake again. Here are the top contributors to Bush's 2004 campaign. Microsoft is in the top 20.

Microsft isn't listed as a top contributor to Kerry's campaign, but they are listed as a top contributor to Dean's campaign, so I guess they bet on the wrong horse there.

Yes, Microsoft does contribute to Democrats as well, but they consistently give significantly more money to the Republicans. Here's some data: 2002 Democrats: $800,343 2002 Republicans: $1,890,401 2000 Democrats: $996,792 2000 Republicans: $1,318,384 1998 Democrats: $145,000 1998 Republicans: $629,816 Source

A quick google search for Diebold Bush will return more than 3,200 results.

Among the most noteworthy ones are:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-05-diebo ld-money-to-bush_x.htm.

As such, it's no suprise that Microsoft is one of the top "contributors" to the Bush war machine.

It makes sense then, that Bush's mandate for electronic voting machines (based on Microsoft technology) would follow shortly thereafter.

But I digress, a quick google search will provide much more research data than I could ever provide here.

On the bright side, Sen. Edwards (my candidate of choice) is now openly supported by Howard Dean (which is a very good thing). However, I can't help but think that it's a little too late for integrity and values.

They've been bought and sold out right out from under us. Our responsibility to our democracy is to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in November 2004.

The questions are:
Are we done discussing it?
Are we willing to do something about it?

2000 was cakewalk compared to what's going to happen this year. We've had 4 years to bitch and moan about our rights.

Talk is cheap.

Are you guys ready to defend our rights?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"What's the price of freedom, Mr. Ballmer?"

Apparently you can buy the "freedom to innovate" for $100,000 per year

Clinton / Gore 1996 Contributors by Industry

Lawyers were Clinton's second-largest contributor too!
Guess who was the largest? It was "unknown" - maybe that includes the Mob & Chinese?

List by section: Lawyers/Law Firms $5,948,854

Pull your head out.

Bush is clean too I suppose.

Moron, Democrats are working for everyone, Bush is working for the rich. Unfortunately to get elected you must take money from somewhere. I am not happy with some of the Democratic contributors but it beats the shit out of having the fake southerner in the White House again.

You might find this information about Micro$oft contributions during the 2000 Presidential campaign interesting. From that article (remember, the dates are 1999)...

Among the contributions, Microsoft made $60,000 in soft money donations to the National Republican Congressional Committee on March 23, the same day the company first attempted to settle its antitrust lawsuit with the Justice Department. On May 17, the company reported a $60,000 contribution to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and on July 16, the company gave the Republican National Committee $85,000.

We are talking a total of around $800,000, mostly donated to Republicans, between January & September 1999.

uh, since they figured out which palms to grease

One Microsoft Way. That is the address listed on Microsoft's March 31, 1998, donation of $99,316 in computer software to the Republicans. The contribution vaulted Microsoft into the number one spot among computer company campaign contributors so far in the 1997-98 election cycle. The software giant has given more than $298,000 in PAC, soft money, and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties. (This does not include an April $100,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee reported in Roll Call last month, which should show up in the RNC's next monthly filing.) Microsoft's recent contributions places it ahead of Oracle, which has given nearly $218,000, 97 percent to Democrats. Not only has Microsoft dramatically increased its giving over the last several years -- it ranked only 16th among computer companies for the 1991-92 election cycle -- but it has changed its party leanings. In the 1992 cycle, Microsoft gave Democrats 79 percent of its contributions. This figure has dropped to 33 percent for the 1997-98 election cycle. Microsoft's dominance in political contributions comes as the Justice Department may be poised to file an antitrust lawsuit against the company.

also checkout the Microsoft Playbook

Between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 2000, Microsoft contributed nearly $3.5 million in political contributions to the national parties and to federal candidates. Much of this came during the first 18 months of the 2000 election cycle, when the company contributed $2.3 million.

Amazon.com isn't a good metric to go by for many reasons, mostly because the candidates didn't start excepting contributions at the same time. For a better idea of what's going on contribution wise, you should check here.

Look, who has the clout in congress to get the patent mess cleaned up? Big companies.

The clout in Congress is had by whomever gives the most money. And who is that? Lawyers and law firms.

I really don't know about the merits (or lack thereof) of this particular case, but the sad fact is that without a *major* upheaval in our society, we will continue down this road of greater and greater amounts of our resources going to these types efforts that IMHO are no better than mob extortion schemes.

What it comes down to is people placing their own personal wants (greed) above the good of the community. But what do we expect from a society and a culture that increasingly makes personal fulfillment its god?

2001-2002
The top industries supporting Howard L. Berman are:
1 TV/Movies/Music $222,791
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $117,450


Lamar Smith also gets mondo payola from MPAA/RIAA.

Berman was one of the shills who drafted a nutty bill last session that would have allowed movie and music companies to hack into people's personal computers and networks to erase or destroy "copyrighted" material. Most notably, it indemnifies corporations against personal torts resulting from their error for damages under $250. So even if you've almost finished the greatest novel ever written but failed to find a buyer yet, if they erase it, you get nothing. If they destroy your hard drives but show the replacement value is below $250, you lose. And so on.

There is nothing Berman would not do to keep sucking at the media industry tit. Even to the degree of drafting such nonsensical law that clearly violates the "equal treament" under privilege or immunity of the 14th Amendment by immunizing corporations against felonious activities conducted by them against citizens without considering due process.

THis latest bit of nonsense is just more of the same. Obviously Smith smells some extra cash within reach and is now also busy pandering to the media conglomerates.

2001-2002
The top industries supporting Howard L. Berman are:
1 TV/Movies/Music $222,791
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $117,450


Lamar Smith also gets mondo payola from MPAA/RIAA.

Berman was one of the shills who drafted a nutty bill last session that would have allowed movie and music companies to hack into people's personal computers and networks to erase or destroy "copyrighted" material. Most notably, it indemnifies corporations against personal torts resulting from their error for damages under $250. So even if you've almost finished the greatest novel ever written but failed to find a buyer yet, if they erase it, you get nothing. If they destroy your hard drives but show the replacement value is below $250, you lose. And so on.

There is nothing Berman would not do to keep sucking at the media industry tit. Even to the degree of drafting such nonsensical law that clearly violates the "equal treament" under privilege or immunity of the 14th Amendment by immunizing corporations against felonious activities conducted by them against citizens without considering due process.

THis latest bit of nonsense is just more of the same. Obviously Smith smells some extra cash within reach and is now also busy pandering to the media conglomerates.

Springer may be a dem but that was the late 70's.
In the last election, according to opensecrets.org, George Bush received $832,056 in funds compared to $109,100 for Al Gore.
Bush won in Cincinnati by 23 percentage points, the largest victory by Bush in any midwestern city. This is especially telling since Bush actually lost the midwest overall.

Here's a good way to test if Amazon.com gave your info to the FEC. Go to OpenSecrets.org. There's a search box to the left. Type in your last name. Depending on how often their database is updated, you should see your name and your donation.

What isnt surprising is that an obviously left-leaning poster wouldn't educate itself to know that W is not currently accepting donations via this site.

Now, if your "Surprise, Surprise" was intended as a knock on the quality or popularity of the candidate based on funds raised (which it clearly was),this website seems to indicate W pretty much owns their peepees. Is that what you intended?

Here you go.

Just so folks know: Microsoft donated to Republicans and Democrats pretty close to equally. You can check precise numbers at Open Secrets.

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp ?txtName=Microsoft

Microsoft gives more "soft money" to politicians (both dems and gops) than the next five largest contributers combined. In addition to that, Microsoft spends more money than Enron ever did lobbying Washington. It is no co-incidence that this all started at exactly the same time that the Clinton administration initiated the antitrust lawsuit against them. It is also no co-incidence that the lawsuit was killed shortly after the Bush administration took office.

Money talks.

AOL-TimeWarner is the parent company of CNN. They are a mega-media company. They are controlled by millionaires. They want agressive expansion and the ability to buy up more media outlets.

So yes, they are part of the right-wing media because they kiss Bush's ass. How could a "left-wing" company spend so much time wailing on Clinton???

AOL-TimeWarner is the parent company of CNN. They are a mega-media company. They are controlled by millionaires. They want agressive expansion and the ability to buy up more media outlets.

So yes, they are part of the right-wing media because they kiss Bush's ass. How could a "left-wing" company spend so much time wailing on Clinton???

> American CEOs, with the willing complacence of their
> bought-and-paid for politicians, are giving them the
> jobs.

Exactly. Fiorina, for example is a Bush supporter, having given thousands of dollars to his campaign according to opensecrets.org. Then she's rewarded by the Bush Administration by raising H-1B caps and reducing restrictions of corporations to move more work offshore. So it doesn't surprise anyone when she flippantly suggests that Americans lose jobs to cheaper workers overseas.

Eventually, middle class jobs will be sent to countries like India, leaving America as the land of the millionaire heir (thanks to the Bush administration for getting rid of the estate tax), the millionaire CEOs, and millions of minimum-wage Walmart greeters.

Well, that's not fair; we'll also have illegal immigrants who get a 3-year work visas but are denied U.S. citizenship.

Personally, I look at censorship advocates the same way I look at spammers. Joe Lieberman is no more fit to be President than Alan Ralsky is.

Of course, if Lieberman doesn't get the Democratic nomination, you may feel free to write in Alan Ralsky's name.

The difference between Joe Lieberman and Hilary Clinton politically is that Hilary is easier on the eyes. BOTH are associated with the "centrist" (read corporatist) Democratic Leadership Council... which Bill Clinto n helped found. The word "Bush-lite" is an adequate description.

Go to opensecrets and check his political contributors for yourself. If you support Bush's political program, vote for him, don't bother with Lieberman.

Actually, this would be a better link;
Recording Industry

Same difference.

Yet another case of our Republican administration yanking the leash back to reward their favorite corporate donors.

Ummm...the music industry gives primarily to Democrats. Check it out.

This is obviously part of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil republican administration!!! Bush is of the devil. He is not really the president the republicans stole that election. He starts illegal wars.As you can see the RIAA loves the right. oh wait they loves the Dems.
Oh well.

Mod me down I am a troll

Yep

and throw your support behind the democratic nom...

Would this be the same Democratic Party that is the recipient of more donations from Hollywood than the Republican party? Methinks things could get worse if you were to get your way...

• 2000 - $147,360
• 1998 - $25,550
  

• 2000 - $147,360
• 1998 - $25,550
  

Only 32 companies or organisations have donated more in the US. Nice.

In the IT industry, Microsoft was by far the largest corporate donor to political campaigns during the 2002 election cycle, and so far it looks like that trend will continue for the 2004 elections. You can get a breakdown of their various contributions on the same site, but the long and short of it is that they gave a bit more to Republicans than Democrats during the last election cycle, and are so far pretty much even this cycle.

Claiming that corporate involvement in Iraq is going to lead to the destabilization of the country is probably a lot of hand-wringing. However, that doesn't mean it's not worthy of scrutiny.

(Incidentally: if any of you still wonder why Microsoft always seemed to get away with it every time they get slapped with an anti-trust suit, the above links should prove instructive.)

In the IT industry, Microsoft was by far the largest corporate donor to political campaigns during the 2002 election cycle, and so far it looks like that trend will continue for the 2004 elections. You can get a breakdown of their various contributions on the same site, but the long and short of it is that they gave a bit more to Republicans than Democrats during the last election cycle, and are so far pretty much even this cycle.

Claiming that corporate involvement in Iraq is going to lead to the destabilization of the country is probably a lot of hand-wringing. However, that doesn't mean it's not worthy of scrutiny.

(Incidentally: if any of you still wonder why Microsoft always seemed to get away with it every time they get slapped with an anti-trust suit, the above links should prove instructive.)

In the IT industry, Microsoft was by far the largest corporate donor to political campaigns during the 2002 election cycle, and so far it looks like that trend will continue for the 2004 elections. You can get a breakdown of their various contributions on the same site, but the long and short of it is that they gave a bit more to Republicans than Democrats during the last election cycle, and are so far pretty much even this cycle.

Claiming that corporate involvement in Iraq is going to lead to the destabilization of the country is probably a lot of hand-wringing. However, that doesn't mean it's not worthy of scrutiny.

(Incidentally: if any of you still wonder why Microsoft always seemed to get away with it every time they get slapped with an anti-trust suit, the above links should prove instructive.)

...and Republicans...

Over here we note that for the "Industry" category TV/Movies/Music, campaign donations to Dems vs Repubs in 2002 break out as 78%/22%.

Keep believing those Dems. They tell you what to believe and you soak it right up. You'll have an DRM protected remote to control your DRM protected player to drive your DRM protected speakers while all your activity is recorded via a DRM monitor protocol and you'll still be blaming Republicans.

Enjoy.

Let's go look at the Presidential race, since that's the issue of discussion here, not party contributions...

Gore

$32 million came from big donors... 24.3% of his total.

Bush

$81 million came from big donors... 42.1% of his total.

That's a pretty major difference, and tracks along with the fundraising percentages we are seeing with the 2004 Presidential race.

You've entered the No-Spin Zone.

Let's go look at the Presidential race, since that's the issue of discussion here, not party contributions...

Gore

$32 million came from big donors... 24.3% of his total.

Bush

$81 million came from big donors... 42.1% of his total.

That's a pretty major difference, and tracks along with the fundraising percentages we are seeing with the 2004 Presidential race.

You've entered the No-Spin Zone.

So you won't present any more red herrings, I offer just this:

Democrats receive more "big money" than Republicans

It is from the same site you used. Now let's hear your spin.

Looking at the current election at the moment is Apples and Oranges. Dean & the other Dems are in the middle of a primary campaign (which hasn't been won yet) while Bush and the Republicans are gearing up for the general election and haven't really begun to campaign yet. Also the lopsided giving between the parties of big vs. little donors doesn't show up in individual campaigns which can only accept donations of under $2,000. It shows up in (formerly unlimited) party donations and will now move to unaffiliated (and untracked) advocacy groups.

It would be more fair to look at the historical numbers. Here are the facts (also from opensecrets.org) when comparing Apples to Apples. Donor demographics in percentages and by absolute numbers. Past years display the same trend (just use the pull-down to select the election cycle).

Of course that big money will still want to have an effect on the campaign. Soros's contributions alone will be statistically significant percentage of Democratic money - but now that the parties can't accept that money directly it will go to unnafiliated (yet partisan) advocacy groups and be much harder to track. Ironically the law may very well lead to LESS transparency. Those groups may be barred from political broadcast or print advertising (so much for the 1st amendment) but that much money will find it's way into the campaign (direct mail, phone, paying for "volunteers", get-out-the-vote drives etc.).

Looking at the current election at the moment is Apples and Oranges. Dean & the other Dems are in the middle of a primary campaign (which hasn't been won yet) while Bush and the Republicans are gearing up for the general election and haven't really begun to campaign yet. Also the lopsided giving between the parties of big vs. little donors doesn't show up in individual campaigns which can only accept donations of under $2,000. It shows up in (formerly unlimited) party donations and will now move to unaffiliated (and untracked) advocacy groups.

It would be more fair to look at the historical numbers. Here are the facts (also from opensecrets.org) when comparing Apples to Apples. Donor demographics in percentages and by absolute numbers. Past years display the same trend (just use the pull-down to select the election cycle).

Of course that big money will still want to have an effect on the campaign. Soros's contributions alone will be statistically significant percentage of Democratic money - but now that the parties can't accept that money directly it will go to unnafiliated (yet partisan) advocacy groups and be much harder to track. Ironically the law may very well lead to LESS transparency. Those groups may be barred from political broadcast or print advertising (so much for the 1st amendment) but that much money will find it's way into the campaign (direct mail, phone, paying for "volunteers", get-out-the-vote drives etc.).

Looking at the current election at the moment is Apples and Oranges. Dean & the other Dems are in the middle of a primary campaign (which hasn't been won yet) while Bush and the Republicans are gearing up for the general election and haven't really begun to campaign yet. Also the lopsided giving between the parties of big vs. little donors doesn't show up in individual campaigns which can only accept donations of under $2,000. It shows up in (formerly unlimited) party donations and will now move to unaffiliated (and untracked) advocacy groups.

It would be more fair to look at the historical numbers. Here are the facts (also from opensecrets.org) when comparing Apples to Apples. Donor demographics in percentages and by absolute numbers. Past years display the same trend (just use the pull-down to select the election cycle).

Of course that big money will still want to have an effect on the campaign. Soros's contributions alone will be statistically significant percentage of Democratic money - but now that the parties can't accept that money directly it will go to unnafiliated (yet partisan) advocacy groups and be much harder to track. Ironically the law may very well lead to LESS transparency. Those groups may be barred from political broadcast or print advertising (so much for the 1st amendment) but that much money will find it's way into the campaign (direct mail, phone, paying for "volunteers", get-out-the-vote drives etc.).

You do realize that the conclusion you've drawn from your above link is a bit disingenuous, don't you? You've got 1 Republican candidate versus 10 Democratic candidates in that graph. The parent poster was correct, the Democrats do indeed have more money from large organizations, such as unions and PACs than any other party. For example, consider this link from the very same site:

Large contributors: Dem vs. Rep

One of the biggest embarassments to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party. In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle (2000) was about $50. The Democrats claim that the mean size of contributions is unimportant and will not publish it for that reason and because it somehow would invade the privacy of their contributing base in aggregate.

And if you think that McCain-Feingold has "negated" the impact of unions and PACs, you are very mistaken.

Take a look here to see where the big money is coming from....and more importantly where it's going.