Slashdot Mirror

If you're a service that wants to go 'legit' by asking me to help line these people's pockets, so that they can afford more of this and that, you can blow it out your ass.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

Aside from the point made about imprisoning someone for making software, that remark was made in general and not just as a comment on this particular "injustice". Without going into a whole diatribe, comparing the events that lead to the American Revolution (what other revolution would I be referring to in english, and how often is the term 'Revolutionary War' used to describe anything else) to current abuses perpetrated by the private sector, would need to include deaths caused by HMOs, deaths caused by drug companies (cures aren't as profitable as expensive, long-term treatment), corporate slave-labor, crimes against the environment, bribery, money laundering, I could go on and on. So yes, the revolutionary war started over less.

Big tobacco says: "All your politicians are belong to us."

From your reference:

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

Certainly Time Warner can do better than $52K ... or perhaps they should re-think taking on Microsoft.

-yb

In a word: yes. 145,100 (current Senate salary) doesn't go far inside the beltway. Align yourself with a few lobbyists, and champion an industry. This kind of thing isn't a one-off.
Corporate interests DO control the US govt.
Check out the rest of opensecrets.org for more info.

That's exactly what is going on. Take the Senator Seeks Injunction Against WinXP article from Tuesday... folks here were pretty quick to congratulate the senator on "getting it" and attacking Microsoft. But the fact is the only thing he "got" was bought for $52,000 by AOL/Time-Warner.

That is a GREAT resource!! My Congressman (Lamar Smith R-TX) got only 18% PAC contributions, with a good mix of big and small individual contributors.

You sure are right! Coble got 80%. No wonder he's their lapdog.

By the way, here is a breakdown of big media campaign spending. Soft money galore.

Check this out. The guy received 80% of his campaign contributions from commercial contributers. Even my Republican Congressman (DeWine - R - OH) didn't receive that level of commercial contributions!

- US Government

I think the Senator is talking about stuff like this

All this is is one corporation buying a politician to attack another corporation. Is this behavior acceptable this time simply because it's against The Great Satan?

Say Microsoft is taken down because AOL and Sun buy all of the politicians... then what? You thought Bill Gates was bad, imagine Steve Case and Scott McNealy with half of DC in their pockets. Yes Microsoft needs to be cut down a peg or three, but not like this. Do it with boycotts and public education. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

What do you think the probability that these companies lobbied this senator and convinced him to take action?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib/N00 001093.htm

Actually the check did come in. Only it was $52,000 from [now AOL] Time Warner.

Okay, I accept that these labels are only applicable from the public, or the Free software community's perspective. IBM is, of course, consistently self interested. When I say that IBM does things which are unethical, I refer to utilitarian ethics; although I'm not actually a utilitarian myself, I don't think there is another ethical framework which has the same legitimacy in discussions of public policy.

Many people defened the "free market" economy because they claim that it has many desirable utilitarian properties. Those people tend to ignore the distorting economic effects of power. When a large corporation actively lobbies for changes in, for example, IP laws, which are clearly contrary to the public interest, it is our responsibility as informed citizens to point that out to them (in the politest possible way, of course ;).

Microsoft Breakup Decision Overturned by the Court of Appeals

Judge Jackson had compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers".

by Michael Jennings

(Thursday, June 28, 2001) Today the Court of Appeals handling the Microsoft anti-trust case overturned the lower court's decision to split Microsoft into two or more companies. The breakup would have placed the Microsoft Windows operating system in one company and created a second business for everything else.

This decision of the Court of Appeals has been widely recognized as fair because of the behaviour of the judge of the lower court, in which he had not given the required appearance of impartiality. Judge Jackson had, for example, compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers", and Bill Gates to Napoleon. (See page 111 of the Court's decision [PDF format]).

The Court of Appeals found that Judge Jackson's 206-page Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal conduct, was entirely acceptable. It was his conduct outside the courtroom that was a violation of the code of conduct for United States judges. (For more about this, see pages 111 to 115 of the decision.)

Earlier, many people had praised Judge Jackson's skill in handling the case inside the courtroom. Technically oriented observers considered the Findings of Fact to be very well informed.

However, the penalty that Judge Jackson recommended for Microsoft was voided because of his public misconduct. The Court of Appeals directed that a new district judge examine the case, using the Findings of Fact as a starting point.

The story is very widely reported. For examples, see: ABC, AP, BBC, Washington Post, Seattle Times, CNet, The Industry Standard, Reuters, Guardian, Motley Fool, and MSNBC. The NY Times article requires that you register. Registration is free.

Silicon Valley.com said "[Microsoft] can continue its brutal practices for a while longer..."

There were two parts to the anti-trust case, 1) the Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal activity, and 2) the remedy, which is what would happen as a result of the court finding illegal activity. Judge Jackson had ordered that Microsoft be broken into two companies. It is only this second part, the remedy, that has been voided (vacated) by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals wrote, "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte [outside the court] contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality."

The Court of Appeals added, "Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process."

The ruling of the Court of Appeals was unanimous, by a 7-0 vote.

More links:

Open Secrets.org report on Microsoft soft money donations

Common Cause report on Microsoft political contributions

Antitrust Law and Economics Review

Older Articles:

Microsoft Unfazed by Threat of New Antitrust Suits (Thursday, June 21, 2001)

What, me worry? Microsoft's Ballmer stays cool, confident, composed. (PC World, June 17, 1998)

Michael Jennings
Futurepower®
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606
E-Mail: jennings_michael @ hotmail.com (remove spaces)

Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001

That's a gutsy statement from a slashdot reader, that probably realizes that corporations can lobby for laws like the DMCA, and then prosecute people, and prompt raids to confiscate and arrest people who have DVD's that are region-coded for another country. Then there's the poison water and dead ecosystems from oil spills, the Nike sweatshops, the Gap sweatshops, the genetically altered food that isn't labelled because genetics isn't an exact science and corporations afraid that if people knew what was genetically 'enhanced' their profits would suffer. Did I mention that the corporations that make genetically altered foods are in this business because their previous business of making chemical weapons dried up? Then there's corporate welfare. Examples of this include billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's successful effort to build a $300 million dollar stadium for his billionaire Seattle Seahawks, and have taxpayers foot the bill. Corporate Welfare costs the country at least $150 billion a year, and it goes to companies like GM, IBM, AT&T, GE, and Motorola, to name a few. Drug companies and HMO's lobby on a daily basis to increase profit at the expense of human lives. They profit fine in Canada, despite being required to actually make life saving medicine affordable. You might've heard about elderly people taking buses there to get pills. Tobacco companies planned advertising campaigns to specifically target 11-18 year olds, and when the research on the results came out, when the lawsuits started flying, they bought off congress to bring the backlash to an end.

To say that any of this is the product of a free country and a government not empowered to take away rights is naive. The founders never meant for corporations to have rights. WHY SHOULD THEY? Why should an entity comprised of people who ALL have rights that are absolute have rights of it's own!? It's NOT EVEN A PERSON. And in fact the founders understood that business HAD to be regulated in order to preserve democracy for everyone, from a farmer to a CEO. But greed won out, and now we get all our news and information from corporate elitists. And people have a distorted view of democracy; believing that profiteers somehow have their best interests in mind, 'surely they're not driven by PROFIT and profit alone! Damn that evil government for picking on a poor multinational corporation!' And with attitudes like that none of it will change until corporations ARE the government.

Think of it this way; we all hate an oppressive government. This is America. Echelon, Carnivore, they both deserve to be brought to an end. The thing is, if you have a beef with the government in a democracy, you can run for office and change the government. At least you used to be able to. But ask any politician of any party what it takes to win an election, and they will tell you that these days, the guy with the most money wins. And where does that money come from? Corporations.

That's a gutsy statement from a slashdot reader, that probably realizes that corporations can lobby for laws like the DMCA, and then prosecute people, and prompt raids to confiscate and arrest people who have DVD's that are region-coded for another country. Then there's the poison water and dead ecosystems from oil spills, the Nike sweatshops, the Gap sweatshops, the genetically altered food that isn't labelled because genetics isn't an exact science and corporations afraid that if people knew what was genetically 'enhanced' their profits would suffer. Did I mention that the corporations that make genetically altered foods are in this business because their previous business of making chemical weapons dried up? Then there's corporate welfare. Examples of this include billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's successful effort to build a $300 million dollar stadium for his billionaire Seattle Seahawks, and have taxpayers foot the bill. Corporate Welfare costs the country at least $150 billion a year, and it goes to companies like GM, IBM, AT&T, GE, and Motorola, to name a few. Drug companies and HMO's lobby on a daily basis to increase profit at the expense of human lives. They profit fine in Canada, despite being required to actually make life saving medicine affordable. You might've heard about elderly people taking buses there to get pills. Tobacco companies planned advertising campaigns to specifically target 11-18 year olds, and when the research on the results came out, when the lawsuits started flying, they bought off congress to bring the backlash to an end.

To say that any of this is the product of a free country and a government not empowered to take away rights is naive. The founders never meant for corporations to have rights. WHY SHOULD THEY? Why should an entity comprised of people who ALL have rights that are absolute have rights of it's own!? It's NOT EVEN A PERSON. And in fact the founders understood that business HAD to be regulated in order to preserve democracy for everyone, from a farmer to a CEO. But greed won out, and now we get all our news and information from corporate elitists. And people have a distorted view of democracy; believing that profiteers somehow have their best interests in mind, 'surely they're not driven by PROFIT and profit alone! Damn that evil government for picking on a poor multinational corporation!' And with attitudes like that none of it will change until corporations ARE the government.

Think of it this way; we all hate an oppressive government. This is America. Echelon, Carnivore, they both deserve to be brought to an end. The thing is, if you have a beef with the government in a democracy, you can run for office and change the government. At least you used to be able to. But ask any politician of any party what it takes to win an election, and they will tell you that these days, the guy with the most money wins. And where does that money come from? Corporations.

Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C.

Similar concerns apply here: Bandwidth, disk space, and my time are all limited resources, and they all cost money. Others don't have the right to co-opt my resources (or those of my ISP or mail host) for their own purposes without my permission.

Interestingly, OpenSecrets.org lists Wyden as having gotten ~$100,000 from the "computer equipment and services industry". Couldn't find any particular evidence beyond that for quid pro quo, though.

OK,
- B
--

I wonder if this is in response to the fact that what used to be thought of as "betting" is now making its way into business schools and the mafias just can't stand the idea of losing yet another aspect of their monopolies.

Certainly the political contribution end of things, see OpenSecrets.org if they haven't mysteriously been taken offline by the men in black. Notice how corporate America hedges its bets, and often splits its contributions around 50-50 with the Dems and Reps.

Well, seeing as Ashcroft, the AG, is firmly in MS's pocket (http://www.opensecrets.org/)...

Thanks for the link, but hold off on the rhetoric unless you have something a bit more substantial to back it up.
--

Well, seeing as Ashcroft, the AG, is firmly in MS's pocket (http://www.opensecrets.org/)...

Thanks for the link, but hold off on the rhetoric unless you have something a bit more substantial to back it up.
--

I love open secrets

I love open secrets

Also buried within this article is a discussion on how Tauzin and a couple of others are getting big money from the telephone industry.
---

Go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org

Specifically this section of the site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.as p

After reading the above information, do you still feel that corporations have no political agenda? If you still do feel that way, contact me. I have some bridges you might be interested in.

Go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org

Specifically this section of the site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.as p

After reading the above information, do you still feel that corporations have no political agenda? If you still do feel that way, contact me. I have some bridges you might be interested in.

Check out some of Bush's other priorities.
--

Of course, the other companies shouldn't be throwing stones either. Still, they seem to know when to back off. Either that or they're more adept at buying off the tech press. I dunno which.

They don't just buy off the tech press (if they do that). They also buy off the political parties and presidents. Maybe MS has made donations since, but counter-offers aren't as bad as those who started it in the first place, and at least voters knew Dubya's views about the case, whereas 1996 voters didn't know about the anti-trust plans of the parties.

BTW, Gore hasn't seemed to have supported the suit. Was he happy to have his invention integrated into Windows?

Sun and Oracle charge monopoly prices, and used the anti-trust laws to try to regain their monopoly positions. If MS's ability to compete with Sun and Oracle is harmed, maybe it'd be worthwhile doing something about Sun and Oracle's price-fixing.

I think it's idiotic on both sides to label the other party 'the bad guys', as if they weren't organizations made up of individuals with different views and morals.

How are Republicans so pristine, when the Hagel amendment was possibly the worst thing that could've ever happened to campaign finance reform? Everyone I see supporting Hagel talked about how it limited soft money, how it was real reform because it also limited other groups and parties -- no one would address the fact that limiting (not banning) soft money, would have had the complete opposite effect of reform, because it would've been written into law that soft money was an acceptable practice, not deserving of complete removal. We're talking about illegal contributions here. A practice that isn't even necessary; that only exists to serve greed; to "legalize bribes and legalize extortion".

How are the Democrats any better, when John Breaux co-wrote the Hagel Amendment?

How is John McCain so evil? When did he try to put groups like the EFF out of the loop? Who does the EFF contribute to, exactly? Maybe you mean the restrictions on TV ads, which require disclosure of the people funding it? Restrictions that only ban an ad when it's aimed at electing 1 person or the other, and even then only when it's within 60 days of the election. Restrictions that have no effect on ads which only list facts or compare stances, without saying "So and so voted to kill babies." Restrictions that, despite that, still raise questions about the right of people to criticize their government, and so they are restrictions that many people (including McCain) didn't support. And when they were passed, people like McCain voted against the non-severability amendment so that when those restrictions are removed as unconstitutional they won't destroy McCain-Feingold.

How can Democrats be so bad with respectable people like Feingold, Joseph Biden, and John Edwards in their ranks?

There's good people, and there's stupid people. Both parties have their share. And I blame the way this slanted article was phrased for ever starting all this nonsense.

"These people are presumptively innocent," said Godwin, an attorney who writes frequently about law and technology. "Even if they are subjects of a federal investigation, the Secret Service should know better than to swoop in and engage in disruptive searches of people they're not ready to arrest."

This is what keeps me defending mp3's. I don't want to ripoff my favorite band any more than the next guy, but how can people who pirate their music be chastised, when the only alternative is putting money in the RIAA's pockets? Maybe I'm just a fanatic, but I'm the type that keeps a shitlist of companies to not do business with; so when a monopoly makes that list, where does a person go for the service?

1. AOL/Time Warner is on my shitlist, but in Charlotte NC you can't get highspeed access without 'Road Runner'. Hell, you can't get cable without paying Time Warner. So I turn in a resume to Carolina Broadband. TW's only competition is 2 years away from opening it's doors.

2. In America, I can't buy music without paying the RIAA. Who competes with them? So I download it for free, online.

How can any American support them when it amounts to funding crap like hard drives with copyright protection, or giving the RIAA money with which to pay off our elected officials? That's not for me, thanks. Maybe I'll start writing $15 personal checks to artists that say "for: the album I downloaded."

As usual, opensecrets.org has a per-sector breakdown.

He gets a decent amount of money from communications people (and Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth rank high on his list), but more from energy and finance. Virgina... hrm.

Here is his home page. He doesn't list his committee memberships, but he's member of the Energy and Commerce one, which explains the energy and banking money.

Here we see PAC contributions from computer equipment/services manufacturers. AOL, Intel, and so forth show up -- but these contributions are fairly minor. The National Assn. of Broadcasters did give him $7k via a PAC, interestingly. Whereas the MPAA didn't give much at all...

As usual, opensecrets.org has a per-sector breakdown.

He gets a decent amount of money from communications people (and Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth rank high on his list), but more from energy and finance. Virgina... hrm.

Here is his home page. He doesn't list his committee memberships, but he's member of the Energy and Commerce one, which explains the energy and banking money.

Here we see PAC contributions from computer equipment/services manufacturers. AOL, Intel, and so forth show up -- but these contributions are fairly minor. The National Assn. of Broadcasters did give him $7k via a PAC, interestingly. Whereas the MPAA didn't give much at all...

As usual, opensecrets.org has a per-sector breakdown.

He gets a decent amount of money from communications people (and Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth rank high on his list), but more from energy and finance. Virgina... hrm.

Here is his home page. He doesn't list his committee memberships, but he's member of the Energy and Commerce one, which explains the energy and banking money.

Here we see PAC contributions from computer equipment/services manufacturers. AOL, Intel, and so forth show up -- but these contributions are fairly minor. The National Assn. of Broadcasters did give him $7k via a PAC, interestingly. Whereas the MPAA didn't give much at all...

If you haven't checked it out, www.opensecrets.org is a great reference for these things. For the 1999-2000 election cycle, RIAA contributed $46,888 to the Republicrats. The breakdown is 51% to the Republican half, and 49% to the Democratic half.

OpenSecrets groups 24 entertainment PACs under the heading TV/Movies/Music. I don't know that all of these companies / PAC's are DMCA fans, but some of them certainly are (MPAA, ASCAP, Sony, Disney, MGM, and Time Warner for sure are fans.) The group as a whole gave $3,288,367 to the Republicrats (split D's 43% R's 57%).

If you ever had any doubts that most political contributions are for the exclusive purpose of buying influence with both parties (AKA bribery) as opposed to offering support to the one party that they actually want to win, here is proof. Some of the companies actually give money to only one party. This accounts for a whopping $55,000 out of the $3 million given. The rest of the money was contributed by companies and PAC's who are giving significant sums to both parties. The most even split in the Movie/TV/Music category is Disney. R's:$141,071 D's:$140,500. Disgusting.

How about just open secrets?

The RIAA's 98 lobbying moneys

2000 donations by TV/movies/music combined. -- over 100% increase since the 96 presedential election. The entertainment industry is ranked 8 in amount contributed to elections across ALL industries.

Time Warner, Seagram and Sons, and Disney leading the pack.

You can also look up individual investors. Jack Valenti (MPAA) knows which side of the bread to butter--ALL of them, donating equally to Gore, Bush, and McCain. His congressional donations are...interesting.

Hilary Rosen actually has a decent donation list. She gave Hatch 1000, but then took it back (apparently) and donated a decent chuck to a pro-choice group.

How about just open secrets?

The RIAA's 98 lobbying moneys

2000 donations by TV/movies/music combined. -- over 100% increase since the 96 presedential election. The entertainment industry is ranked 8 in amount contributed to elections across ALL industries.

Time Warner, Seagram and Sons, and Disney leading the pack.

You can also look up individual investors. Jack Valenti (MPAA) knows which side of the bread to butter--ALL of them, donating equally to Gore, Bush, and McCain. His congressional donations are...interesting.

Hilary Rosen actually has a decent donation list. She gave Hatch 1000, but then took it back (apparently) and donated a decent chuck to a pro-choice group.

How about just open secrets?

The RIAA's 98 lobbying moneys

2000 donations by TV/movies/music combined. -- over 100% increase since the 96 presedential election. The entertainment industry is ranked 8 in amount contributed to elections across ALL industries.

Time Warner, Seagram and Sons, and Disney leading the pack.

You can also look up individual investors. Jack Valenti (MPAA) knows which side of the bread to butter--ALL of them, donating equally to Gore, Bush, and McCain. His congressional donations are...interesting.

Hilary Rosen actually has a decent donation list. She gave Hatch 1000, but then took it back (apparently) and donated a decent chuck to a pro-choice group.

It's nice to see that every once in a while, instead of taking the industry lobbyists' money and doing what they want, our "elected" representatives will have a fit of conscience, and take the lobbyist's money and not do what they want.

In the past I've humbly suggested that instead of giving money to the insurance companies who give it to congress which passes laws which require that we give more money to the insurance companies, we all just send our money directly to congress, in an unmarked shoebox. But in light of this new development, I suppose I'll have to reconsider.

This is only partially true. According to Open Secrets the TV/Movie/Music industry gave $21.6 million to the Dems and $13.4 million to the GOP in 2000.

The breakdown of the contributors is also interesting TV/Movie/Music "production" groups gave much more heavily to the Dems than the GOP, but Cable/TV/Radio stations/owners gave more heavily to the GOP than the Dems.

Basically, this industry is doing what many others have done for many years, which is give to both parties, that way they are covered no matter who wins.