Slashdot Mirror

what Microsoft is gettin for their money

Take a look at Open Secrets and compare what finance/insurance gives to what other sectors give and you'll understand why it's that way.

And they gave not a small amount of money to the Republican party the last two campain cycles.

OpenSecrets.org

The copyright laws in the United States today go substantially beyond the mechanisms first mandated by the constitution--the concept of "limited time" for Copyrights is getting streched. I personally don't think the Founding Fathers really meant for Copyright to be such a big part of people's lives. Had they understood how information technology would evolve, I think they'd have wanted a substantial mechanism for funding freely available educational and cultural material--just as much as they wanted infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Instead, what we have now are major media monopolies that actively work to get greater concessions from government and media companies that are major recipients of corporate welfare.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Campaign Finance Profiles

2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

1994: $ 68,000

Race Profiles

2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

Well, here is one example, Microsoft donated next to nothing politically until the Presidential 2000 elections, I'll give you a cookie if you can figure out who that money went to. Oh, looks like they also dumped large sums into the Republican takeovers of the house and senate in '02. I'll give you another cookie if you can remember what suddenly happend to the anti-trust lawsuit soon after our neo-conservative friends got into office.

Oh, they did donate to Democrats, when it was for people on their own home state turf.

Bush got $71,750 from Microsoft.
Gore got $27,750.

53% went to Republicans in 2000.
60% in '02.

Isn't it a shame how so little money can buy so much influence?

The Republicans are firmly in the pockets of Computer Hardware and Software manufacturers that want to keep the DMCA to prevent competitors from copying products and making compatable ones.

The Democrats are firmly in the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA that want to keep the DMCA to help them keep their strangleholds in thier markets.

Everyone else has an icecube's chance in hell of getting in regardless of who funds their habits.

It is worth mentioning Mr. Kucinich is trying to get the presidential nomination and has very little financial contamination from the formentioned industries. $36,275 from TV, movies, and music industry and $25,590 from the computer industry out of $3,399,709 total.

It disgusts me when I see the unconstitutional subpoena powers that the RIAA already exercises, the restrictions on personal liberties provided by the DMCA, and then I wish that our senators weren't so easily bought or sold by the large corporations. It's becoming (or already is) a government by, for, and of the large corporations.

They don't even pay him that much. He only got $14,500 from the whole entertainment industry. His big contributors are from the insurance industry.

I love the quote about migrant oratory though...

I love the quote about migrant oratory though...

Do a little reading and you will discover that Democrats received MUCH MORE funding from the media than the Republicans took in.

Communications/Electronics:
Top 20 Senators
Rank 6 - Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $404,388

Source

Orrin Hatch's sellout detailed here (FIXED LINK).

I had the link in the original reply (which Republican supporters of Orrin Hatch have modded into oblivion), but forgot to include it in my recap above.

Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.

Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.

Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.

Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.

I am ashamed to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative.

And well you should be. As an American, I am ashamed of virtually everyone congress and the presidency, and a number of Supreme Court justices. It is appalling how deep the rot is ... I do not have any optomism whatsoever that our government will ever recover from its current despicable state without a descent into revolution and chaos, and I do not have much optomism that our society will survive such a descent. In other words, I think it likely that our culture and our political system is about to consume itself and collapse utterly, and I am of two minds as to whether or not that will, ultimately, be a good thing or not.

When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written?

To answer your question, Orrin Hatch whored himself out to the entertainment industry for $150,000 or so. Interestingly enough, he is brazen enough to take $100,000 from the computer industry at the same time (one wonders if that isn't Microsoft priming the pump for TCPA/DRM ... they are the only ones in the industry who would support this atrocity).

Well, according to Open Secrets, Hatch has raised $152,360 for his 2004 campaign from TV/Movies/Music industries. In the 2000 election, he raised $515,207 from the Communications/Electronics sectors.

Viacom and GE have given him over $14,000 each.

I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections. Their number one recipient was some guy from Massachusetts named Kerry, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't tend to agree too often with Bush and his cronies. In fact, every single congressman who is a Democratic presidential candidate is in the top 5--Edward #3, Lieberman (who favors censoring TV and records, that little sellout whore) #5, Gephardt #1, Kucinich #3. Hell even Dean is second only to W in total dollars received--and he's, technically speaking, no more than an unemployed migrant orator, at the moment! :) So blaming this all on republicans is, I'm sorry, bullshit. Oh and by the way, Gore took $250,000 more from the enterainment industry than Bush in 2000.

I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections. Their number one recipient was some guy from Massachusetts named Kerry, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't tend to agree too often with Bush and his cronies. In fact, every single congressman who is a Democratic presidential candidate is in the top 5--Edward #3, Lieberman (who favors censoring TV and records, that little sellout whore) #5, Gephardt #1, Kucinich #3. Hell even Dean is second only to W in total dollars received--and he's, technically speaking, no more than an unemployed migrant orator, at the moment! :) So blaming this all on republicans is, I'm sorry, bullshit. Oh and by the way, Gore took $250,000 more from the enterainment industry than Bush in 2000.

I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections. Their number one recipient was some guy from Massachusetts named Kerry, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't tend to agree too often with Bush and his cronies. In fact, every single congressman who is a Democratic presidential candidate is in the top 5--Edward #3, Lieberman (who favors censoring TV and records, that little sellout whore) #5, Gephardt #1, Kucinich #3. Hell even Dean is second only to W in total dollars received--and he's, technically speaking, no more than an unemployed migrant orator, at the moment! :) So blaming this all on republicans is, I'm sorry, bullshit. Oh and by the way, Gore took $250,000 more from the enterainment industry than Bush in 2000.

I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections. Their number one recipient was some guy from Massachusetts named Kerry, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't tend to agree too often with Bush and his cronies. In fact, every single congressman who is a Democratic presidential candidate is in the top 5--Edward #3, Lieberman (who favors censoring TV and records, that little sellout whore) #5, Gephardt #1, Kucinich #3. Hell even Dean is second only to W in total dollars received--and he's, technically speaking, no more than an unemployed migrant orator, at the moment! :) So blaming this all on republicans is, I'm sorry, bullshit. Oh and by the way, Gore took $250,000 more from the enterainment industry than Bush in 2000.

According to Open Secrets, a lot.

1997-1998 PAC Contributions
1999-2000 PAC Contributions
2003-2004 PAC Contributions

Important to note:
1. there's no data available for 2001-2002 Cycle
2. The 2003-2004 is a running total

According to Open Secrets, a lot.

1997-1998 PAC Contributions
1999-2000 PAC Contributions
2003-2004 PAC Contributions

Important to note:
1. there's no data available for 2001-2002 Cycle
2. The 2003-2004 is a running total

According to Open Secrets, a lot.

1997-1998 PAC Contributions
1999-2000 PAC Contributions
2003-2004 PAC Contributions

Important to note:
1. there's no data available for 2001-2002 Cycle
2. The 2003-2004 is a running total

According to Open Secrets, a lot.

1997-1998 PAC Contributions
1999-2000 PAC Contributions
2003-2004 PAC Contributions

Important to note:
1. there's no data available for 2001-2002 Cycle
2. The 2003-2004 is a running total

Sun Tzu:

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

Never ascribe to evil that which can just as easily be mere incompetence. (or something similar).

I think both parties are stupid. True evil actually requires a degree of intelligence, which I certainly haven't seen from either party.

I think you should spend a lot more time at OpenSecrets.org and note the expert proficency when it comes to handling the legislative detail of thier contributors.

Yeah, well I don't know where you got your statistics buddy, but in Boone County we had an 850% turnout in the last election. That's right, everyone came out and voted 7 or 8 times a piece! So don't go telling us about consent!

All sarcasm aside, I really fail to see the point of voting. We have plenty of empirical evidence that the American political system is an absolute failure. Sending the guy in charge $1000 or more is much more likely to get results, no?

The claim that people that are rich get rich by doing remarkable things is bogus--some do, far more simply lie, cheat and steal effectively. Money is a poor measure of someone's contribution. Look at Kary Mullis-he built and entire industry and got $20K for a patent sold for over $100 Million(he got the Nobel Prize and Japan Medal-but that was inspite of Cetus management, not because of it).

What happens when the well runs dry because they were using more than they needed? Or, what happens when competing technologies (wireless maybe?) never come about it the next 50 years because the government artificially priced the market and competitors are forced to take a much greater loss than they could afford?

Just what I want, a government monopoly on the internet. Forget that before I had an option between two broadband isps, both with weakpoints, and a cheaper dial-up. Now I'm on the government's terms of service without zero options.

Don't be misled and believe that the government just builds stuff for free either. The resources are now being misdirected from something consumers didn't demand (voters demanded it, but they themselves didn't have enough money to foot the bill.)

Last I checked no one was dieing because of lack of an ultra-fast internet connection. Educational value? Sure, but the people who are going to get the most out of it are going to go the extra length to get connected. If your really poor, dial-up is more than enough. I lived on dial-up for a decade and I suspect broadband would just have meant I spent more time playing games rather than reading things such as slashdot.

But who decided that? The businesses. Who speaks up for the consumer of water? The government, which they own.

Last I checked, it was businesses and special interest groups that owned the government.

I must be blind as well as dumb, because I don't see anything in the thread which explains what's wrong with vote selling.

I'm sure this is a master trolling, and I don't know why I'm playing. You couldn't find this just above your complaint?

Still don't see anything about vote buying/selling.

Let's try one with a white background for more contrast. Now go to your browser's search dialog, type in "buying votes", and click the button. There is text above and below concerning the topic.

I'm talking about allowing people to trade their vote for money or some other consideration.

Exactly. And it is not just money that has been used to buy votes. It was a problem (generally before the Civil War) that eventually led to voting reforms. Consider if a couple of thugs invite you to the polling place and tell you that if you vote for their guy, you get to keep all your fingers and they won't rape your wife. That's "other consideration".

It's of utmost importance that we give everyone the *opportunity* to vote. But that doesn't mean we can't allow consenting adults to trade that opportunity for something they consider more valuable.

I completely agree with the first sentence and completely disagree with the rest. If people don't wish to vote, fine. They are probably not informed about the election anyway and should not vote. First, one should not be allowed to *buy* an elected position or a referendum vote. Second the potential abuses of vote buying/selling/trading have already been proven.

Okay, tough guy.

Do you have any clue what real money is? Hollywood actors and directors make chump change next to the billionaires who run our media industries.

They give huge bucks and they lend their celebrity to the causes, which is something that business leaders mostly can't do.

Some business leaders do give a lot of money to celebrities and their cause. I am sure you'd be surprised at their curious lack of restraint in this area.

Finally, before you talk shit to me for not RTFA that you pulled out of your ass, please consider reading the fucking article that started this thread. It is about an interview with Gore Vidal and his thoughts on electronic voting.

P.S. You'll note that I only linked to "conservative" mouthpieces like Salon, Opensecrets.org, and CNN, but you have to remember that I'm just a sheep who follows the orders of a drug-addled Rush Limbaugh. Sorry I can't meet your high standards.

I am still not getting your special kind of sarcasm. To me, you just sound like an asshole.

Plus, this guy was mentioning hollywood people who actually obtained office as repbulicans. As opposed to your weak observation of some folks who simply vote democrat. So, his example has teeth, yours has, well, nothing.

I suggest that you fuck yourself.

Most links are to info on the y2k election, but I don't think that much has changed since then. If you RTFA, you will note far, far more names that the eight I thought of off the top of my head earlier today. And no, they don't "just vote". They give huge bucks and they lend their celebrity to the causes, which is something that business leaders mostly can't do. Hollywood is money *and* celebrity, and the latter is essentially a circumvention of campaign laws, as it is a significant "in-kind" contribution. Like it or not, people (sadly) care what Oprah thinks. Or Fat Rosie.

GF.

P.S. You'll note that I only linked to "conservative" mouthpieces like Salon, Opensecrets.org, and CNN, but you have to remember that I'm just a sheep who follows the orders of a drug-addled Rush Limbaugh. Sorry I can't meet your high standards.

Plus, this guy was mentioning hollywood people who actually obtained office as repbulicans. As opposed to your weak observation of some folks who simply vote democrat. So, his example has teeth, yours has, well, nothing.

I suggest that you fuck yourself.

Most links are to info on the y2k election, but I don't think that much has changed since then. If you RTFA, you will note far, far more names that the eight I thought of off the top of my head earlier today. And no, they don't "just vote". They give huge bucks and they lend their celebrity to the causes, which is something that business leaders mostly can't do. Hollywood is money *and* celebrity, and the latter is essentially a circumvention of campaign laws, as it is a significant "in-kind" contribution. Like it or not, people (sadly) care what Oprah thinks. Or Fat Rosie.

GF.

P.S. You'll note that I only linked to "conservative" mouthpieces like Salon, Opensecrets.org, and CNN, but you have to remember that I'm just a sheep who follows the orders of a drug-addled Rush Limbaugh. Sorry I can't meet your high standards.

And how many stories have you heard about this in the mainstream press? I've seen several in Newsweek recently, actually. My local news in Phoenix also ran a few stories recently. That's exactly my point, though. There actually were stories, though far too few for the magnitude of the problem, reported on this recently in the mainstream press.

By my count, CNN has run one story on it, and the New York Times has run another single story on it. The AP also ran a story, which was picked up by some outlets.

Yep. There were others, mostly local. I believe Fox also ran one, but I'm not entirely sure.

But doing a search of news.google.com does not turn up all that much, certainly not as much as you'd think this would warrant.

At this point it's largely (and badly) treated as a "techie" issue.

Look at this. Summarized here for your pleasure: Total donations, 1990-2004 for Enron: 29% to Democrats, 71% to Republicans. Enron heavily favored Republicans in their political contributions, both on the state and national level. Enron obviously favored the Republican party.

I don't know anything about opensecrets.org , but it's yet another source I wasn't familiar with; thanks for another site to look at. And that, I believe, illustrates my frustration a little better. Looking back on the mainstream stories I've read about how Enron was totally a "Republican" company, there was never a mention of any donations to the Democrats; even a statement of "largely donates to the Republicans" would have been nice.

It comes down to this for me: I'm having a hard time finding any news sources that don't present a glaringly biased point of view for either conservative or liberal views. CNN is extremely liberal, Fox is extremely conservative. Even my local news stations are leaning towards the conservative side, as I live in a largely conservative state. Finding out the truth is becoming more and more confusing as more and more sources dilute actual news with political leanings towards one side or the other. I'm watching CNN and Fox together to try find out what the real truth is, but I suspect that a lot is left out on both sides. I want facts, not political interpretations of some of the facts that support a position.

Nobody would bat an eye if the donors were any other party. I'm actually kind of glad that this electronic voting crap happened on a conservative rather than liberal watch. If this had happened, say, with Clinton in office or after the next Democrat President, we'd never hear about the problems inherent in the system in the mainstream press.

And how many stories have you heard about this in the mainstream press? By my count, CNN has run one story on it, and the New York Times has run another single story on it. The AP also ran a story, which was picked up by some outlets. But doing a search of news.google.com does not turn up all that much, certainly not as much as you'd think this would warrant.

Thank you! Did anybody ever see a report on exactly who Enron donated to? The Rebpulican connection was heavily touted as "proof" that Bush was in bed with Enron, but the truth of the matter was that Enron donated heavily to both of the big political parties. Yes, they did give a bit more to the Republicans, but the disproportions can be traced to state and local political parties. Enron was in Texas, a heavily conservative state.

Look at this. Summarized here for your pleasure: Total donations, 1990-2004 for Enron: 29% to Democrats, 71% to Republicans. Enron heavily favored Republicans in their political contributions, both on the state and national level. Enron obviously favored the Republican party.

Diebold 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles:

HINT: One won't feel like an ass getting money from Diebold.

I posted this as a reply to another comment here, but I saw other comments which claim that Diebold probably gives to Democrats equally, depending on who is in power. This is simply not true.

Diebold employees give exclusively to Republican candidates and organizations. During the 1996 and 1998 election cycles (when, I probably don't need to remind you, Clinton was president) Diebold gave over $36,000 to Republicans, and $0.00 to Democrats. Source. Further, for the 2000 and 2002 cycles, they gave $31,000 to Republican causes, and zero dollars to Democratic ones. Source.

As ridiculous and conspiratorial as it sounds, there is some evidence that the Republican party, or at the least some of those who have associations with it, is engaging in a conscious effort to undermine the democracy. Add to this the fact that all opposition to paper trails is coming from the Republican leadership and things begin to smell just a tad.

I posted this as a reply to another comment here, but I saw other comments which claim that Diebold probably gives to Democrats equally, depending on who is in power. This is simply not true.

Diebold employees give exclusively to Republican candidates and organizations. During the 1996 and 1998 election cycles (when, I probably don't need to remind you, Clinton was president) Diebold gave over $36,000 to Republicans, and $0.00 to Democrats. Source. Further, for the 2000 and 2002 cycles, they gave $31,000 to Republican causes, and zero dollars to Democratic ones. Source.

As ridiculous and conspiratorial as it sounds, there is some evidence that the Republican party, or at the least some of those who have associations with it, is engaging in a conscious effort to undermine the democracy. Add to this the fact that all opposition to paper trails is coming from the Republican leadership and things begin to smell just a tad.

If Al Gore were president, then they would be Gore (Al, not VIDal) donors. They just want to make money through policy, it doesn't matter the administration. Vidal needs to stop making it a party or conservative vs. liberal issue.

Not true. Ex: The president and CEO of Diebold, Walden O'Dell, is a long time Republican contributor, as well as organizer for Republican fund-raising events. Look at this for example. All contributions from Diebold employees for the 1996 and 1998 election cycles went to Republican candidates or Republican organizations.

As ridiculous and conspiratorial as it sounds, there is some evidence that the Republican party, or at the least some of those who have associations with it, is engaging in a conscious effort to undermine the democracy. Add to this the fact that all opposition to paper trails is coming from the Republican leadership and things begin to smell just a tad.

Isn't this already illegal based on intellectual property or copyright laws (or something else? Why does this industry deserve special attention from the government?? (in an ideal world that is... a previous post showed the real reason.)

I agree that this practice should be illegal and punishable. However, it seems as though it already is (but IANAL, of course). This CERTAINLY does not warrant a criminal offense punishable by 3 years in prison, IMHO.

What happens if you release a scanned or text copy of a not-yet-released book? Will this be treated the same? If not, why? Because a movie makes more money (maybe... don't know the facts on this)? What about other some-joe-releases-a-net-yet-released-product situations?

Anytime you see legislation like this. Feinstein has taken payoffs to the tune of $264,566 from the Tv/Movies/Music lobby. No one should be suprised by her involvement.