Slashdot Mirror

Just a small wrinkle in your theory:

I am quite familar with opensecrets.org, and the data there does not support your assertions.

In fact, MS, when you include their subsidiaries and affilated organizations, outspent them.In 2004, for example, MS outspent Oracle by more than 10 to 1.

In 1998, for example, MS was again the Number one contribuitor, MS spent over one and a quarter million dollars that year. Netscape only spent 189K.

In 2000:
MS: 4.5MILLION
NS: 226THOUSAND

in 1996:
MS: 246K
NS: 52K

1994:
MS: 104K
NS: Less than 5K (they don't show up on the list)

1992:
MS: 56K
NS: See above

What about Sun? They don't show up in the list, so they are apparently not donating directly, or through affiliates and held companies, etc. according to opensecrets.org.

Oracle's totals for 96 and 98 are a little over 300K, barely more than MS's 96 total, and much less than MS' 96-98 totals.

Starting in the 1998 cylce, MS has been the number on contributor in terms of Internet/Software every cycle listed at opensecrets.org. In 1996 they were number two, by less than a thousand bucks. And ususally they spend more than the next 3-4 runners up combined.

In 1993 Sun donated 15K to the Repubs, covering the 1994 and 1996 cycles.

Here
is the link to Microsoft's donations for the same two cycles. Note that in 1995 alone MS totalled 30K. For those two cycles, MS donations topped 87K to Sun's 15K and Netscpaes ZERO.

For 92/94:
Oracle: 15K
MS: 10K

Pretty close, but Oracle pulls ahead for the one time they do so.

Of course, those are "hard money" donations.

Add in the soft money and lookout!!

Sun's total from 98-2002 is ~42.5K. Oracle's is 15K.
In 98 alone MS accounted for over 750K in soft money.

From 2000 to 2004, Sun's Soft money comes to 26K. In that same time frame, MS accounted for nearly 5 MILLION in soft money.

So, we see that according to the source YOU referenced, MS was quite active dating back to the early nineties, and was more active from the start than Sun or Netscape (when going by dollar amounts).

Prior to 1998, MS had given over 400K, More than 2X the amount Netscape has total.

This link is from 1998 and talks about MS's history until then. It even points out how what changed in 98 that they switched "allegiances" from the Democrats to the Repubs. Nowadays, they are fairly even between them.

Neither Sun, Oracle, nor Netscape qualify for the top 100 all time donors; only MS does.

So the "shakedown" argument bears no weight according to your own sources.

They didn't give any money to political interests up until the trial.

You referenced source shows this to be a falsehood.

Another fatal flaw in your assertion is that you assume donating money was soley about a future antitrust trial, and not the more likely attempts to curry favor for government contracts and other preferential treatment.

Like the OP said, study your history. All of it. To which I'll add: check your facts when telling the rest of us to go check them. You look silly or decetiful when you make claims your source refutes.

Just a small wrinkle in your theory:

I am quite familar with opensecrets.org, and the data there does not support your assertions.

In fact, MS, when you include their subsidiaries and affilated organizations, outspent them.In 2004, for example, MS outspent Oracle by more than 10 to 1.

In 1998, for example, MS was again the Number one contribuitor, MS spent over one and a quarter million dollars that year. Netscape only spent 189K.

In 2000:
MS: 4.5MILLION
NS: 226THOUSAND

in 1996:
MS: 246K
NS: 52K

1994:
MS: 104K
NS: Less than 5K (they don't show up on the list)

1992:
MS: 56K
NS: See above

What about Sun? They don't show up in the list, so they are apparently not donating directly, or through affiliates and held companies, etc. according to opensecrets.org.

Oracle's totals for 96 and 98 are a little over 300K, barely more than MS's 96 total, and much less than MS' 96-98 totals.

Starting in the 1998 cylce, MS has been the number on contributor in terms of Internet/Software every cycle listed at opensecrets.org. In 1996 they were number two, by less than a thousand bucks. And ususally they spend more than the next 3-4 runners up combined.

In 1993 Sun donated 15K to the Repubs, covering the 1994 and 1996 cycles.

Here
is the link to Microsoft's donations for the same two cycles. Note that in 1995 alone MS totalled 30K. For those two cycles, MS donations topped 87K to Sun's 15K and Netscpaes ZERO.

For 92/94:
Oracle: 15K
MS: 10K

Pretty close, but Oracle pulls ahead for the one time they do so.

Of course, those are "hard money" donations.

Add in the soft money and lookout!!

Sun's total from 98-2002 is ~42.5K. Oracle's is 15K.
In 98 alone MS accounted for over 750K in soft money.

From 2000 to 2004, Sun's Soft money comes to 26K. In that same time frame, MS accounted for nearly 5 MILLION in soft money.

So, we see that according to the source YOU referenced, MS was quite active dating back to the early nineties, and was more active from the start than Sun or Netscape (when going by dollar amounts).

Prior to 1998, MS had given over 400K, More than 2X the amount Netscape has total.

This link is from 1998 and talks about MS's history until then. It even points out how what changed in 98 that they switched "allegiances" from the Democrats to the Repubs. Nowadays, they are fairly even between them.

Neither Sun, Oracle, nor Netscape qualify for the top 100 all time donors; only MS does.

So the "shakedown" argument bears no weight according to your own sources.

They didn't give any money to political interests up until the trial.

You referenced source shows this to be a falsehood.

Another fatal flaw in your assertion is that you assume donating money was soley about a future antitrust trial, and not the more likely attempts to curry favor for government contracts and other preferential treatment.

Like the OP said, study your history. All of it. To which I'll add: check your facts when telling the rest of us to go check them. You look silly or decetiful when you make claims your source refutes.

"Big surprise - Microsoft contributed heavily to his campaign."

Top Contributors

Microsoft Corp
Dems: 47%
Repubs: 53%

Yep, looks like they really have the repubs in their pockets.

H1-b/L1 legislation basically allows major corporations to use a chance at a green card as a corporate perk(i.e. it is a corporate subsidy program according to the Nobel Prize Winner and Reagan Economics advisor Milton Friedman). The only presidential candidate that opposed H-1b expansion in 1998 was Dennis Kucinich.

There are some real systemic problems in the US(i.e. the tax structure more or less assures a substantial trade deficit, governmental budget deficit and export of capital). The current immigration/temporary worker visa policy is making this worse-basically assuring that those US citizens generating foreign exchange will face governmental subsidies to lower their wages--while US citizens in "protected" and "licensed" professions(i.e. lawyers, actuaries, accountants) have fewer such problems).

In the context of a political system that is for sale, reviving of an industry may not make much difference to the average tech worker.

Am I totally off base being suspecious of this?

Diebold gives $200,965 to the Republicans...

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

Personally I think this should automatically disqualify them for making any sort of voting systems, but I guess I don't really understand the system that well.

I hope you don't suffer from the same dilusion the parent poster does about the president controlling everything.

Here ya go:
Top Industries

From that, you'll see that both Lawyers give 3 times more to Democrats than Republicans, and the Entertainment industry gives almost 4 times more to Democrats.

More important than that, you should really get to know who the House and Senate committee leaders are, and check out who's giving them money.

It's interesting to how each respective party campaigns under vague, divisive, and meaningless issues like Abortion, Gays and Lesbians, Taxes, and Social Security to win votes, and people eat it up!

I especially love the notion of "liberal" and "conservative" as if each party is trying to save you from the other's excessive spending (R: Military, Homeland Security) or the other's special favors to big business (D: DMCA, Legal Industry, Securities + Investing).

Next time you cast your vote, I suggest you look at each canidate and figure out who's giving them money, and then ask yourself:

Do I want to prop up the Securities and Investment industry or the Insurance Industry this year?

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

Please provide a specific link to opensecrets.org that doesn't contradict your main claim.

Except for Labor, every economic sector spoke with its money saying Bush would serve its interests better. They were proved right when the anti-trust case against Microsoft fell apart. They were proved right when the EPA got eviscerated and polluters got free rein. They were proved right when Cheney visited the CIA to say "you aren't looking hard enough" to agents who couldn't find the evidence to support the case for a war for the energy industry's benefit in Iraq.

No, Gore wouldn't have been perfect. But in this election, as in the last, I'll be voting for any breathing organism that has a chance of beating Bush. You "all politicians are alike" people have the freedom to continue in blissful ignorance if you must, but please understand that some people feel obligated to pay attention to the facts of what's going on, and that's what makes it an emotional issue for us.

but, it might have turned out differently, if lets say Gore was elected over Bush. Cliton/Gore Administration, were pushing for a break-up which should have happened, it did to Standard Oil, it should have happend to Microsoft. Ofcourse we got George Bush. A rich Repubican who would hate to loose the hefty amound of money that his party gets. Sure the Democrats may not be much better, but that mentality that voting for Green is a vote wasted has got to stop.

What good really has come out of Microsoft in lets say the past 5 - 10 years. Absolutly nothing. Not one good thing worth noteing exsists. I can't think of a single thing that Micrsoft has done that has benifited consumers. Now they need to protect their monopoly with DRM. I think we should rent billboard and put on them what Microsoft is doing, it's the only way people will find out before it's too late.

I think you can drop the One Company and IBM lawyers part.. it doesn't really matter who's behind the effort, these interests are, unfortunately, shared far and wide.

But yes.. there will be new law passed.. I expect not so subtlety. After all, who's paying the politicians? Free software geeks or corporations? (hint: not geeks)

The Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill: Untangling the Confusion

If you're not familiar with Tauzin, just check out his top contributors. Which industry gave more to his 2000 campaign than any other? "TV/Movies/Music." Your hopes are dashed, I'm afraid.

BTW, is it just me or does every story submitted by "The Importance of" wind up on the front page :)

If you're not familiar with Tauzin, just check out his top contributors. Which industry gave more to his 2000 campaign than any other? "TV/Movies/Music." Your hopes are dashed, I'm afraid.

BTW, is it just me or does every story submitted by "The Importance of" wind up on the front page :)

from the Entertainment industry.
In 2004, (so far) 10,400 dollars.

In 2002 He took just over 99,000 dollars

Looks to me like he's working for them already...or more accurately has been bought.

from the Entertainment industry.
In 2004, (so far) 10,400 dollars.

In 2002 He took just over 99,000 dollars

Looks to me like he's working for them already...or more accurately has been bought.

Maybe redundant, but some may find this background interesting.

From the page:
" ....Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company's marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country."

During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.

Maybe redundant, but some may find this background interesting.

From the page:
" ....Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company's marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country."

During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.

Ah, it is supported after all. The correct link has been included for your amusement. It will be interesting to see if IT keeps up the donation schedule, or if they fall back, letting movies/music/tv pull ahead in 2004.

Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $25,000

Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000!

John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $50,000!

The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $25,000

Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000!

John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $50,000!

The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $25,000

Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000!

John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $50,000!

The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $25,000

Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000!

John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $50,000!

The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $25,000

Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000!

John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $50,000!

The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $25,000

Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000!

John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004
In 2002 he received almost $50,000!

The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

OpenSecrets

what happened to breaking them upo ? that idea got shelved pretty quick, maybe this evidence might help peoples conclusions

Which is why I look up donors before I vote for anyone. Experience tells me that the actual performance of a polititian is much more closely in line with that than thier official stance.

It helps.

1. Audit by security researchers reveal serious vulnerabilities
2. Diebold downloaded ongoing ballots (a federal crime) during California's last election (not the recall)
3. The whole "Rob-Georgia" fiasco that Wired is writing about
4. Diebold's executives are uniformly partisan political donors
5. Diebold's CEO is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year".

Welp, my letter to Hillary Clinton has already been fired off.

Unless you enclosed a check for more than $966,810, I don't think you're going to capture Ms. Clinton's attention.

I wonder how big VeriSign contributes to Republican politicians?

Verisign gave $83,000 to republicans and $40,000 to democrats in the last election

Details Here

It'll explain, for instance, how Fritz Hollings got drafted into helping a Hollywood cartel over 3000 miles against the interests of the people who elected him.

Quick check:


SBC, Verizon, IDT, BellSouth, Qwest, no RIAA members.

Individuals are paying for Bush's re-election campaign. Just like they did in 2000. opensecrets.org gives the full amounts that each candidate got and who they got it from. Bush raised more money from Gore, and Bush also didn't rely on matching funds from the federal government during the primaries(Gore did use matching funds). The VAST majority of Bush's money came from individual donors...with a LOAD of it being donations under 200 bucks. When you look at the "business" that donated, it was mostly real estate, investors and law firms...not oil companies or car companies or media moguls.

While Bush does seem to represent big business more than Gore would (after all, bush *is* republican), that seems to have little to do with how his campaign was funded. Opensecrets.org has TONS of info on this sort of thing (meticulously detailed...in a geeky fashion). Here's a short background on his fundraising from the same page.

I'm not saying that Bush is a saint, or that he doesn't represent big business...but at least condemn him legitimately.

Individuals are paying for Bush's re-election campaign. Just like they did in 2000. opensecrets.org gives the full amounts that each candidate got and who they got it from. Bush raised more money from Gore, and Bush also didn't rely on matching funds from the federal government during the primaries(Gore did use matching funds). The VAST majority of Bush's money came from individual donors...with a LOAD of it being donations under 200 bucks. When you look at the "business" that donated, it was mostly real estate, investors and law firms...not oil companies or car companies or media moguls.

While Bush does seem to represent big business more than Gore would (after all, bush *is* republican), that seems to have little to do with how his campaign was funded. Opensecrets.org has TONS of info on this sort of thing (meticulously detailed...in a geeky fashion). Here's a short background on his fundraising from the same page.

I'm not saying that Bush is a saint, or that he doesn't represent big business...but at least condemn him legitimately.

What they didnt really point out is the fact that Microsoft is the top soft money contributor for their sector. Plus countless more to state government campaigns.

Microsoft will advance these views next week in Rome, where it is hosting the latest in a series of conferences for government leaders.

Wait you mean that microsoft is comping politicians to a free vacation in Rome.

In this election cycle, Top recipients include Kerry, Bush, Dean, Gephardt, Boxer, Edwards, Lieberman, McCain. If you are a constituent, let these public servants you don't like the company they keep.

I've read that on the average a company gets a 300 fold return on investment for political contributions. The abuse of justice we've just seen didn't occur under the older rules-basically the major media companies have bought major changes in copyright law.

Personally, I think we need a major revamping of copyright laws and reconsideration of how we provide incentives for science and the arts(i.e. lots of federal funds are basically wasted in this area and wiser direction of funds could create a bank of popular material people might actually listen to that could be availble for free download--as well as stuff as free curriculum materials for education. This is just basic infrastructure for an information age.

However, these kind of issues aren't going to get on the table in a society with the best government money can buy.

In this election cycle, Top recipients include Kerry, Bush, Dean, Gephardt, Boxer, Edwards, Lieberman, McCain. If you are a constituent, let these public servants you don't like the company they keep.

I've read that on the average a company gets a 300 fold return on investment for political contributions. The abuse of justice we've just seen didn't occur under the older rules-basically the major media companies have bought major changes in copyright law.

Personally, I think we need a major revamping of copyright laws and reconsideration of how we provide incentives for science and the arts(i.e. lots of federal funds are basically wasted in this area and wiser direction of funds could create a bank of popular material people might actually listen to that could be availble for free download--as well as stuff as free curriculum materials for education. This is just basic infrastructure for an information age.

However, these kind of issues aren't going to get on the table in a society with the best government money can buy.

How is that any different then the monopoly MS has been allowed to have in the world and backed by corrupted politicians? MS dumps millions into the pockets of politicians every year. In 2002, MS gave more then $4,213,198! MS pulls the strings of the US government all time to ensure their monopoly. Now there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel. Who cares if it is tax payer money? I don't. MS has taken tons of our taxpayers money here in the USA. MS gets these contracts by bribing the desicion makers. MS got 100 million from US taxpayer for the Homeland Security Contract and 471 million from the US Army

...who the winners are in many cases. I'm not trying to be some kind of loony conspiracy theorist here, but the fact of the matter is that the free market sometimes plays less of a role than personal interests do in government purchasing. Unfair? I think so, but it's nothing new. At least with the cases described here, it seems like it's being done with the country's best interests in mind, not with the intent of generating business for a "friend." (Okay, I'm done ranting now).

Diebold's SEC filings show their Chairman / President / CEO to be Mr. Walden W. O'Dell, who has donated $2000 this summer to Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican from Ohio (Diebold's home state). Diebold Inc.'s soft money donations also go to Republicans.

This does not demonstrate to me much evidence that Diebold is "after something other than money", it looks like routine political activity to me. But, while my quick research has neither managed to refute nor confirm your conspiracy theory, I'll pass it along anyway for whoever might be curious.

Diebold's SEC filings show their Chairman / President / CEO to be Mr. Walden W. O'Dell, who has donated $2000 this summer to Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican from Ohio (Diebold's home state). Diebold Inc.'s soft money donations also go to Republicans.

This does not demonstrate to me much evidence that Diebold is "after something other than money", it looks like routine political activity to me. But, while my quick research has neither managed to refute nor confirm your conspiracy theory, I'll pass it along anyway for whoever might be curious.

SCO's business appears to be simply based on litigation and stock manipulation...

We are here because Intellectual Property has become a legal plaything, occasionally yielding enormous profits through litigation. This is so on purpose. Who's purpose?

Look here.

Note to whom the contributions tend to go. How does this square with your notions?

"It simply surrenders to the wishes of the incumbent telephone monopolies and grants far-reaching and premature deregulation," Quinn said. "Consumers will pay for this lack of FCC resolve in the form of higher rates, less choice and lower quality service."

With the love of business and business' large contributions to the republican party, why, exactly is this a shock? All this proves is that republicans are more honest then democrats. Republicans stay bought.

"It simply surrenders to the wishes of the incumbent telephone monopolies and grants far-reaching and premature deregulation," Quinn said. "Consumers will pay for this lack of FCC resolve in the form of higher rates, less choice and lower quality service."

With the love of business and business' large contributions to the republican party, why, exactly is this a shock? All this proves is that republicans are more honest then democrats. Republicans stay bought.

Apparently stealing copyright is more important than stealing lives in this country.

Well, examine the costs:

Social Security Death benefits (cost of a life): $255

Political donations from the movie industry in 2002 (cost of copyrights): $10,498,466

I think it's pretty obvious which one is more valuable in America.

<paranoid rant>

You see, GE could give a shit about wind power. All you have to do is follow the money. First of all check out the Energy Policy Act of 2003, as Senator Domenici (NM) promises it will fix a whole laundry list of problems with our energy supply (real and percieved). Do` we really need a new Under Secretary position for energy and science as well as two new Assistant Secretary positions: one for science and one for nuclear energy, I digress.

Anways Being from New Mexico, the home of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories Don't be so shocked when Domenici's bill is pro nuclear.

Well, John Rice President and CEO GE Power Systems, recently (May 8) sez he's cautiously optimistic that there will be a new nuclear facility in the United States and has spoken with half-dozen major nuclear utilities about building a new reactor .

And I suppose since GE is a member of United States Energy Association and gave about $9 Million in campaign contributions (since 1990), It probably has some say into Domenici's Energy Bill which provisions for up to 8-10 new 1100MW nuclear reactors that The taxpayers (read you and I) would pay, through loans, 50% of the costs to build these. And according to the Congressional Budget Office the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high - well above 50 percent(p.11). The CBO also figures that each of these will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3Billion.

< /paranoid rant >

So why the hell would GE develop it's patents on Wind Turbines when the Good Ol US of A is gonna spend $52.6Billion over the next 10 years (p.1) on the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

Just follow the money....

Hmm, who gave Democrats money? Let's try Municipal Workers, Service Employees, Carpenters and Joiners, Communications Workers and Teachers. What, haven't you heard of Union donations?

Yes the republicans spent more, but they had more canidates in races, like senate seats, 33 (or 34) seats come up every two years but there were 34 republicans and 30 democrats running in this senate cycle, so the republicans had to spend more to fend off serious challenges to their 49 seats and attempt to pick up seats in disputed areas to get a senate majority back. check this page for the details on the counts of runners.

incumbents tend to win, if they are the best qualified canidate, why shouldn't they?

As for emotional labeling, I was just stating my positions. I still stand by the statement that labor unions do not support their members beliefs by blindly supporting democrat canidates and that it is the liberals who rely on big ticket donors to survive, not 200-1000 donations from Joe and Jane Sixpack