Slashdot Mirror

Which leaves Californians with only one potential representative on this matter: Barbara Boxer. (ugh)

Has been for decades now. The congloms are in no danger of going under - they'll "petition" again and again for legislation until they get what they want. And don't think they can't get their way - lots of industries have been legislated out of existence, and the full weight of law enforcement is used to make sure no black market is allowed to exist at any large-scale level. What makes you think the same approach won't be taken in this case? Get ready for a Copyright Enforcement Agency with the power to execute no-knock raids on private citizens to confiscate unauthorized equipment and to break up 'piracy rings'. Get ready for a Copyright Czar. Get ready for a Copyright Abuse Resistance Education course in every classroom...

March 17, 2002

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Clinton,

I write to you today to express my concern regarding a bill sponsored by Senators Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens, the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (the SSSCA). In this letter I will be using the document at URL http://cryptome.org/sssca.htm as reference for the SSSCA.
The problems with the SSSCA are many and grave. The sole purpose of the bill is to remove the rights of the consumer to use his or her property as he sees fit and to give corporations like Disney and AOL Time Warner control over the user. For example, the very first section of the proposed text, Sec. 101 (a), states, "It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security systems standards adopted under section 104." What this does, effectively, is give the entertainment industry carte blanche in determining which "digital devices" are legal and illegal in the U.S. Digital devices include personal computers, portable MP3 music players, PDAs, and virtually every piece of electronics equipment sold today, so clearly this is a power the entertainment industry - most notably the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) - was never meant to have.
This bill seems to have been crafted by the RIAA and MPAA themselves. These organizations seem to be terribly frightened of the effects the Internet has had on distribution of music and video. While I have no desire to debate the ethics or legality of downloading music and video from the Internet, the proposed SSSCA's tentacles reach far deeper than that.
For example, when I purchase CD, the first thing I do with it is put it in my computer, convert all the audio files to high-quality MP3 format, and put the CD away on the shelf. The MP3 files are then streamed from my server to all the computers in my house, so that no matter where I am I have full access to my music. When I go to work, I can login to my server and transfer the files to my computer at work so that I can listen to the music there. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the CD and the music on it. I am not distributing the music to anyone, so any claims of theft or "piracy" would be completely unfounded. However, under the terms of the proposed SSSCA, my actions would likely be illegal, or heavily restricted by "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) technology. Such technology would limit or prevent my converting the audio to MP3 format, or copying from my computer to my server, or streaming from my server to my other computers, or downloading the music from my home computer to my work computer - actions taken on music for which I have already paid. My rights to use the music as I choose would be completely eliminated, and for no good reason.
Another terrible effect of the proposed SSSCA is that Free and Open Source software would effectively made illegal. The Open Source and Free Software communities create computer software for which the source code is freely available. This means that anyone with knowledge of computer programming can change the application to suit his or her needs, or send in bug fixes to the original author. The most famous piece of Free/Open Source software today is the Linux operating system. Linux is a UNIX-like operating system which, like Microsoft Windows, acts as an interface between applications like word processors and spreadsheets and the computer's hardware - processor, memory, disk, etc. The Linux kernel - the core set of functions of the operating system - was developed by hundreds of programmers over the internet because all had free access to the kernel's source code. Today Linux has become an important player in the technology industry, with companies like IBM and Intel showing heavy backing for it. Currently, Linux is mostly relegated to servers because of its robustness and nearly zero cost, though efforts are being made to bring Linux to desktop users.
As I said, the SSSCA would effectively render Open Source software such as Linux illegal. Because the source code to the entire operating system is freely available, any Digital Rights Management technology which a vendor might put in to comply with the proposed SSSCA could (and likely would) be removed by anyone with the technical ability to do so. That person would then be free, under the terms of the Linux kernel's license, to distribute his modified version of the software. Because of the ease with which the DRM technology could be removed, the distribution of the source code itself would likely be to be in violation of the SSSCA.
I find it extremely disturbing that a bill such as the SSSCA would even be proposed. I view it as a sign that the MPAA and RIAA have far too much influence over the goings-on in Congress. Such a law would be a blatant violation of our First Amendment protections on Freedom of Speech, as it would effectively limit how and to whom a person can give a computer program he has written, even though the program has no malicious or dangerous effects. It seems that the desires of moneyed corporations are taking precedence over the rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens, and, as a lifetime resident of New York, I urge you to do everything in your power to see that the SSSCA is not enacted into law.

Sincerely,

me

Why does everybody pick on those poor politicians. They are just doing what they are being paid to do. Opensecrets.org reports that the Entertainment Industry paid $37,821,232 for the SSSCA during the 2000 election cycle. They ponied up more than $108 million over the last seven years. That's real money, even in D.C. And all of that is just the above the table money. How many more future consulting contracts, directorships and what not are there? Obviously the Entertainment Industry has a plan, and they are willing to pay for it. Are you?

Are you willing to make a difference? Are you willing to take a little of your time to write a personalized letter? Are you willing to help educate everybody you know about the assault on our freedom? Are you willing to boycott products from major enemies of the people, like Disney et al? Yes, that means no dumb movies this Summer--at least from a few select targets ;-). But it also means we might beat this thing. It can be done. But we all have to take action to make it happen.

Remember, if this becomes too costly for the Entertainment Industry, they might just change their tune. Politicians just want to get reelected. Ultimately, your vote is a lot more important than those $100 million.

Why does everybody pick on those poor politicians. They are just doing what they are being paid to do. Opensecrets.org reports that the Entertainment Industry paid $37,821,232 for the SSSCA during the 2000 election cycle. They ponied up more than $108 million over the last seven years. That's real money, even in D.C. And all of that is just the above the table money. How many more future consulting contracts, directorships and what not are there? Obviously the Entertainment Industry has a plan, and they are willing to pay for it. Are you?

Are you willing to make a difference? Are you willing to take a little of your time to write a personalized letter? Are you willing to help educate everybody you know about the assault on our freedom? Are you willing to boycott products from major enemies of the people, like Disney et al? Yes, that means no dumb movies this Summer--at least from a few select targets ;-). But it also means we might beat this thing. It can be done. But we all have to take action to make it happen.

Remember, if this becomes too costly for the Entertainment Industry, they might just change their tune. Politicians just want to get reelected. Ultimately, your vote is a lot more important than those $100 million.

OpenSecrets lists donations from the TV/Movie/Music industries to senators. For example, this link shows donation totals over all election cycles they have info for all of the senators.
One thing I found interesting in that page is that Hillary Clinton is #4 in the $ amount for senators in all cycles with $601,345; >90% of that was in 2000 alone. Damn, she works fast... And to further screw those of us in New York like myself planning on writing both senators, Schumer wasn't far behind with $519,935 total; and he was #1 in 2002 with about $95K. Somehow I doubt they'll listen to my opinions on the matter...

Sirius is 25% owned by Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer gave $85,000 in soft money to the Republican Party in the 2000 Election Cycle and has not yet made any contributions for the 2002 Cycle.

is the much larger issue. it's not just that our politicians make decisions on theese entertainment industry issues based on who they take money from... it's part of almost every major vote they make. I wonder what Hollings would champion as his cause, if nobody *told* him what causes to pick.

It would be great to see finance reform, it would shake the way theese guys do their jobs up quite a bit, and surely could clean up a bit of the corruption that is present.

Heck i saw a truly telling story at DSLReports last week on the Tauzin-Dingell vote and how it passed based on contributions from the Bells. Is this how we want to choose what laws get passed?

I attended Sen. Hollings' SSSCA hearing last week, and can tell you a few of the things that Valenti (and Hollings, who practically repeated everything Valenti said, so it was transparently obvious that the "hearing" was nothing more than a one-sided sham to drum up interest in the bill) said there. The comments were not the same as those I've seen posted in the "official" transcript of prepared texts.

Valenti said that, sure enough, piracy is costing them money. He said that only 2 out of 10 movies made actually make their money back at the box-office; the rest have to do it through video and overseas sales, merchandising, etc. Of course, he never said how many movies make their money back in toto - I suspect it's close to 10/10, or they wouldn't be making them, would they? Still, the 2/10 stat resonated with the Senators.

He said that the *average* cost of producing and releasing a movie today is $83 million. (Hint to the MPAA: if your product is so expensive it's reducing your profit... maybe you should cut expenses, instead of asking Congress to prop up your non-functional business model?) What the hell costs $83 million? Oh yeah - a few stars' mega-contracts. Boo-hoo. I wonder if you took the top 20 stars' contracts out of the financial picture (since those vastly skew the distribution of costs), what the "average" cost would be then. Probably much, *much* lower. So tell me again why I should care... And by the way, the linked article states that the average cost in 2001 was $43 million - about *half* what Valenti just testified to Congress. Talk about talking from both sides of your mouth!!

Valenti said the one "moat surrounding their castle" that prevented the movie industry from totally being taken down (!!) was that broadband wasn't widespread yet. He said it was critical to get all these new restrictions in place on the Internet and in home electronics before broadband bacame widespread. Of course, even if they did, the Internet is international, and as soon as a pirated movie makes it overseas, it will no longer be subject to our laws. It was obvious from comments during the hearing that they haven't figured this out yet.

At the same time he was decrying the impending rollout of broadband, he had the balls to claim that his industry was the very reason broadband hadn't gotten accepted yet! Valenti said that the reason people didn't want broadband was that "producers haven't made their highest quality content available" yet. He also turned around and said that the only reason why someone would want to have broadband today was if they were a pirate (!!). Quote: "You don't need broadband to do email; you can do that on a 56K modem." So to Jack Valenti, the two possible uses of a computer are email, and viewing video/audio content, which today must entail piracy since *his* content isn't legally available. The fact that *other* people might have legal content available - CNN, MSNBC, independent movie producers, amateur artists, countless Flash animations - or that there might be other bandwidth intensive applications besides wanting to watch a Disney flick pay-per-view, is something that apparently isn't even worth consideration. It's a totally Narcissistic mind-set - they're the only ones that exist in their minds.

As an extra-scary note, at the same moment Valenti was saying this, over in the House they were passing Tauzin-Dingell, which practically locked in the one thing that *is* preventing broadband rollout: the unacceptably high monthly cost, caused by monopolistic control over the network by the Baby Bells. Yet at least one of the Senators sat there and praised Valenti and the MPAA as being "critical" to the economic recovery, because they had to succeed to drive broadband rollout, to create the next round of economic growth. It all seemed utterly clueless to me.

Now for some scary "justifications". Valenti said that it was critical to the economic recovery in the US that his content be protected. He said that "intellectual property" production makes up 5% of GDP. He listed IP as including movies, music, books, and software. Right... which of those things is not like the others? :-) Guess which one also makes up more of that 5%? Last year's MPAA member revenues, according to Valenti, were $30 billion. Try adding up the US software industry's revenues from last year: start with Microsoft's ($27 billion), and work from there. Estimate an order of magnitude (MS is just one company, after all), so maybe $300 billion. One of the other speakers estimated it at $600 billion. Tell me: Which one of these is more relevant to the economic recovery? Which one needs more safeguards to make sure it succeeds? Right... so WHY ARE THEY KOWTOWING TO THE MOVIE INDUSTRY? Oh yeah - because they pay the Senators more than we do.

There's more - I could go on at length about what was said. Valenti proclaimed the movie industry "the crown jewel of American industry", because it's the only major industry that has a trade surplus with every nation. Well, that's true, technically. However: A) given that the MPAA's member companies have a virtual monopoly on distribution to the number-one revenue market (the US), that's not terribly surprising, is it? And B) since many of the distribution companies are majority foreign owned (!!!), claiming that giving them money consitutes a US foreign trade surplus is downright disingenuous.

Watching him talk, it was all so obvious. But hey, what's a little song-and-dance to misdirect attention? Look at the pretty lights, people; don't watch the man behind the curtain taking your rights away. And frankly, I'm still not sure that they "get it" at all. Valenti said (regarding the inability of Intel or Cisco to utterly prevent copying of copyrighted materials in their devices), "I can't believe there aren't two young geeks in San Diego in a garage somewhere who can't figure out how to make this work." As if some "geek" is going to figure out how to undo the mathematics that make "Turing completeness" a reality. But then, explaining a Turing machine to one of these guys and getting any reaction other than slack-jawed disbelief is a trick that nobody seems to have figured out yet. That, friends, would be an awesome hack indeed.

Campaign contributions from Microsoft to the republican party this last election cycle have amounted to over $680,000. (They've been generous with the democrats as well, totalling at over $450,000). Their total contributions, just over 1.1 million dollars, are ten times bigger than those from any other software vendor, and nearly half of all the contributions from software vendors combined.

Check my source here.

Here is a link to a (very) summerized verion of the DMCA. This shows how the Senator is making no mention of the SSSCA on his own web site where he proudly lists the issues he has worked on. Lots of other gigantic conflicts of interest can be found here as well. I'd list more, but I have to go to work so I can make money to buy things that violate the DMCA..

They must. South Carolina, you will recall, was one of the states that begged off from the Microsoft antitrust suit when Bill bought them off for a measely $20,000. Best investment he ever made. Of course, the rat's price has gone up some since then -- he now cost Hollywood $260k for this election. But hey, they ggot the "Hollywood Wants A Pony For Christmas Act" introduced, didn't they?

If anyone is thinking of making a campaign contribution, you might want to look at whoever runs against Ted Stevens in his November 2002 senate reelection in Alaska, for the following reasons.

While most Replublicans seem skeptical of SSSCA, Ted Stevens cosponsored it. Without Stevens' support, this kind of bill will seem much more partisan, reducing its chances unless the democrats manage to get control of both houses of congress and the white house.

Alaska has a small population, so a little money should go a long way in an election. Stevens has $1.5 million, including PAC contributions, an amount within the fund raising capabilities of a bunch of slashdot's wealthier nerds, less than half of the 1996 national average of $3.6 million. Also, Stevens might not get critical support from his fellow Republicans if he finds himself in need, as he has embarassed his party with his pork barrel politics, netting Alaskans $766 per capita of federal money (making the state #1 in this category), in comparison to the national average of $25.52, as calculated here. By the way, I'm not trying to pick on a Republican. It's just that the Democratic sponsor of the bill, Fritz Hollings, does not run for reelection until 2004.

Please note that I really have not done much research on this. Other more researched specific suggestions are welcome.

If anyone is thinking of making a campaign contribution, you might want to look at whoever runs against Ted Stevens in his November 2002 senate reelection in Alaska, for the following reasons.

While most Replublicans seem skeptical of SSSCA, Ted Stevens cosponsored it. Without Stevens' support, this kind of bill will seem much more partisan, reducing its chances unless the democrats manage to get control of both houses of congress and the white house.

Alaska has a small population, so a little money should go a long way in an election. Stevens has $1.5 million, including PAC contributions, an amount within the fund raising capabilities of a bunch of slashdot's wealthier nerds, less than half of the 1996 national average of $3.6 million. Also, Stevens might not get critical support from his fellow Republicans if he finds himself in need, as he has embarassed his party with his pork barrel politics, netting Alaskans $766 per capita of federal money (making the state #1 in this category), in comparison to the national average of $25.52, as calculated here. By the way, I'm not trying to pick on a Republican. It's just that the Democratic sponsor of the bill, Fritz Hollings, does not run for reelection until 2004.

Please note that I really have not done much research on this. Other more researched specific suggestions are welcome.

Senator Hollings,

You are a shill.

You do this nation and the office of U.S. Senator a grave injustice by lining your pockets with the filthy dollars of Jack Valenti, Michael Eisner, and their greedy ilk.

In case you've forgotten your constituency, let me remind you that it doesn't reside in California. Drop the SSSCA nonsense or We, The People will run your sorry ass out of Washington on a rail.

Fuck that dumbass cracker sellout.

Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.

As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here

If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.

Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.

As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here

If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.

Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.

As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here

If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.

Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.

As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here

If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.

Actually as some of the other articles on the issue have pointed out, the Tech industry PAC that represents Intel has been in Washington far longer than the "Content Industry" people they just have not hed the need or the inclination (given their stated opposition to oversight) to buy politicians. See here for donations by Computer/Internet companies, and here for dontaitions by the (non-book) entertainment industries.

As to Microsofts donations as you can see here Microsoft was in the top 20 industry donators to congress back in 1992. You can do a more detailed search for All Microsoft soft-money, donations by Microsoft Employees, and other groups here

If you want to go Here you can look up everybody's two favorite Senators.

If we look at the financial contributions listed on opensecrets.org here, we see that the top three contributors to his 1998 Senate campaign were:

Lawyers/Law Firms $1,197,317

TV/Movies/Music $282,984

Lobbyists $185,762

This nonsense in Congress is nothing but the logical conclusion of his campaign payola.

If we look at the financial contributions listed on opensecrets.org here, we see that the top three contributors to his 1998 Senate campaign were:

Lawyers/Law Firms $1,197,317

TV/Movies/Music $282,984

Lobbyists $185,762

This nonsense in Congress is nothing but the logical conclusion of his campaign payola.

from opensecrets it's pretty obvious that Hollings is in the pocket of Hollywood.

from opensecrets it's pretty obvious that Hollings is in the pocket of Hollywood.

Being a trained attack dog for Disney and AOL doesn't serve anyone living in your state. It just gets him campaign money.

If you find that it's literally impossible to back up your hard drive or your company's data storage a year from now because he got those "anti-piracy" (note: in Hollings-speak, fair use = piracy) laws passed, do you think Hollings will help you? Maybe he can get a law passed making it illegal for hard drives to fail.

His public contact page is http://hollings.senate.gov/webform.html.

Be as nasty as you like, there's no possibility of working with him. He has been bought and being an honest politician, will probably stay that way.

From http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00002423&cycle=2002
The top industries supporting Ernest F. Hollings are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $1,151,134
2 TV/Movies/Music $260,034

Note: you may safely assume that at least some of the law firm contributions are from organizations on media industry payrolls.

Since I don't live in South Carolina, the only way he's going to pay any attention to what I say as a non-constituent is if I send it via snailmail with a check for over $1,000 enclosed. Since hell will freeze over before I send him money, I didn't see any reason to bother writing him.

Here's a copy of the e-mail I didn't bother sending. Perhaps some of you who live in SC can get some inspiration from it. Note: URL below is

a fair usage quote from Yahoo News:

Senator rips tech fears on piracy curb
Threatens government standards to protect copyrights

By Lisa Smith, Medill News Service

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- A powerful senator criticized Silicon Valley's high-tech firms Thursday for obstructing efforts to fight movie and music piracy.

If the electronics and content industries can't agree on a solution to digital piracy, the government will step in, promised Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Hollings told Intel (INTC: news, chart, profile) executive vice president Leslie Vadasz that it was "nonsense" to say that protecting intellectual property rights would damage the high-tech industry, stifle innovation, reduce product usefulness and slow new technology investment, as Vadasz had testified.

There was a time I used to admire you. After you decided you now represent AOL/TimeWarner, the MPAA, and Disney instead of the poor suckers who voted for you, I no longer can respect you as a public leader or even a human being.

You're just another political whore. You are a disgrace to the US Senate and a living indictment of American democracy.

Of course, this is not news to any of your staff member who reads this, but if that person had any personal integrity or decency, he or she wouldn't be working for you anyway.

Hopefully, when those companies you attack finish with you, you'll be just someone who's trying to become a lobbyist and finding that nobody in politics can afford to be associated with you, instead of the "powerful senator" you are no longer fit to be.

A.Lizard

Very good idea. I also think politicians should wear ad patches like racing drivers the way Bill Maher suggested.

> Perhaps it's time to send a couple of hundred dollars to the South Carolina Republican party in the hopes that they can defeat him in the next election cycle. -- Greyfox

That was one of the funniest things I've read in a while, thanks. Douglas Adam's "Take me to your lizards" lives on!

Huh?

Go to OpenSecrets Search, put "microsoft" into the individual donor search field and click the "Go!" button. I think the answer as to why the Republicrats are behaving this way will become immediately apparent.

The Center for Responsive Politics provides a break down of who filled his treasure chest in 2000, you can see where the proposed legislations is really comming from.

The Center for Responsive Politics provides a break down of who filled his treasure chest in 2000, you can see where the proposed legislations is really comming from.

Crap. I forgot this very useful URL: Open Secrets.

According to opensecrets.org, Representative Ernest F. Hollings received $260,034 from the TV/Movie/Music industry from 1997-2001. This was the second highest contributer; the highest was lawyers and law firms. He also received $18,000 in contributions from TV/Movie/Music PACs for 2001-2002. You can read all the details here.

So, yes, Hollings is in the entertainment industry's pocket.

According to opensecrets.org, Representative Ernest F. Hollings received $260,034 from the TV/Movie/Music industry from 1997-2001. This was the second highest contributer; the highest was lawyers and law firms. He also received $18,000 in contributions from TV/Movie/Music PACs for 2001-2002. You can read all the details here.

So, yes, Hollings is in the entertainment industry's pocket.

Of most interest on that page? Top Industries and Top contributors on the left hand side. And yes, big media companies are giving him a lot of cash. And yes, I'd say he's probably just returning the favor.

Hmm. Perhaps it's time to send a couple of hundred dollars to the South Carolina Republican party in the hopes that they can defeat him in the next election cycle.

FYI, for significant information regarding political contributions in the USA, check out OpenSecrets.org.

As much as we would love this idea to go away on it's own due to it's sheer stupidity one must remember that in the good ole USA that politicians can be bought. It happened with the DMCA and it happened with this in the form of (R-SC) Fritz Hollings and the SSSCA. See slashdot story here

Yes it's stupid.
Yes it can happen.
With enough money it will.....
How much did the MPAA contribute to politicians in 2000? $132,837 54% went to Republicans

So far in 2002? $86,707 60% this time to Democrats (like our buddy Fritz)

As much as we would love this idea to go away on it's own due to it's sheer stupidity one must remember that in the good ole USA that politicians can be bought. It happened with the DMCA and it happened with this in the form of (R-SC) Fritz Hollings and the SSSCA. See slashdot story here

Yes it's stupid.
Yes it can happen.
With enough money it will.....
How much did the MPAA contribute to politicians in 2000? $132,837 54% went to Republicans

So far in 2002? $86,707 60% this time to Democrats (like our buddy Fritz)

Or maybe they just had to wait for a patent to expire?

Good thing the big drug companies haven't scrounged up $6 million a piece to donate to Congress to get the Cherilyn LaPierre Patent Term Extension Act passed.

(See also the work of her late partner Sonny Bono, the campaign contributions that led to that law, and the lawsuit to get it overturned.)

Damn Opensecrets is a cool site...

"many people chose to vote with their pocket book."

It sure would be nice if I had a pocket book I could vote with. Except these are the real voters. Enron is a classic example. They got their guy elected, set the US's energy policy and placed their executives into positions where they could do the most good for big oil. This is not new and it's not going to stop. Moron defending big business. Brainwashed into thinking that they are on your side.

"many people chose to vote with their pocket book."

It sure would be nice if I had a pocket book I could vote with. Except these are the real voters. Enron is a classic example. They got their guy elected, set the US's energy policy and placed their executives into positions where they could do the most good for big oil. This is not new and it's not going to stop. Moron defending big business. Brainwashed into thinking that they are on your side.

The problem is that the FCC deals with so many different facets of the internet it's hard to really tell anything. I mean, Electronic/Communications industries gave more than 343,000,000.00 US dollars since 1990. That includes such players as SBC, Microsoft, Global Crossing, and more.

My head hurts. All I know is that there is too much money from business going to political coffers to let me be comfortable. So, I didn't defuse anything here. Made myself think for once...

The problem is that the FCC deals with so many different facets of the internet it's hard to really tell anything. I mean, Electronic/Communications industries gave more than 343,000,000.00 US dollars since 1990. That includes such players as SBC, Microsoft, Global Crossing, and more.

My head hurts. All I know is that there is too much money from business going to political coffers to let me be comfortable. So, I didn't defuse anything here. Made myself think for once...

The problem is that the FCC deals with so many different facets of the internet it's hard to really tell anything. I mean, Electronic/Communications industries gave more than 343,000,000.00 US dollars since 1990. That includes such players as SBC, Microsoft, Global Crossing, and more.

My head hurts. All I know is that there is too much money from business going to political coffers to let me be comfortable. So, I didn't defuse anything here. Made myself think for once...

The problem is that the FCC deals with so many different facets of the internet it's hard to really tell anything. I mean, Electronic/Communications industries gave more than 343,000,000.00 US dollars since 1990. That includes such players as SBC, Microsoft, Global Crossing, and more.

My head hurts. All I know is that there is too much money from business going to political coffers to let me be comfortable. So, I didn't defuse anything here. Made myself think for once...

Not to mention the fact that $6 mil. would have ranked somewhere around 25th in lobbying money...in 1999. I would imagine they would be no higher than that now. People are huffing and puffing about amounts of money that (in the bizarre scheme of things) isn't that wacky.

You're looking at the wrong year. The contributions being spoken of were made for the 2000 campaign, not the 2002 campaign. OpenSecrets.org has Microsoft down for contributing $4.5 million for 2000. Now, that still leaves a $1.5 million difference, but that may also be a difference in exact definition of what counts as a Microsoft donation, or in exact time period it applies to.

Yes, but I can't post them because of the Junk filter (frickkin' lameness)

Open Secrets has all the info you'll ever need.

For example, in 1999, Oracle, Sun, Netscape and AOL pitched in for $6.8mm of lobbying. THat's not including soft-money donations, which pushes the total way higher.

Given that all of these companies work together (Steve's a friend of Scott's, who is a friend of Larry... and all of them get money from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and all of them get legal help from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati), it is suprising that they would lobby together too?

Silicon Valley doesn't need to donate 6mm all from one company. They can share the load.

Not because Microsoft's giving so much (I'm more worried about movie/record/media lobbies), but because OpenSecrets.org only has Microsoft down for contributing $1,167,162. If they really contributed $6 million, that's $4.8-ish million that opensecrets.org couldn't keep track of, and if they're losing that much with MS, I can only shudder to think how much more other companies might be contributing.

I think people are taking the evil way out of hand.

Evil:
*Owns Time Warner. Time Warner helped buy the DMCA.

Why not AOL?

Because AOL Time Warner funded the DMCA.