Slashdot Mirror

Barack Obama 2012

Communications/Electronics $18,985,831

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...

Mitt Romney 2012

Communications/Electronics $7,119,313

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...

Barack Obama 2012

Communications/Electronics $18,985,831

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...

Mitt Romney 2012

Communications/Electronics $7,119,313

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...

Rep. Doug Collins

Top Contributing Industries, 2013-2014:

1. TV/Movies/Music $52,500 $11,500 $41,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

Here is some basic information about the legalized purchase of the relevant legislation:

Lobbying:

https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

Contributions:

https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

Here is some basic information about the legalized purchase of the relevant legislation:

Lobbying:

https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

Contributions:

https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

Let me guess, you believe the Democrats are "for the little guy"?

You're as stupid as the guy you replied to.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

You idiot, both sides are taking their cut.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

I think that we should lobby to break the cable(and other incumbent monopolistic ISPs) companies.

Comcast has over 100 lobbyists whose careers revolve around preventing that. They will scale up that spending as needed. And the FCC is practically a case study in how to execute regulatory capture.

To start with: vote out incumbents. Do it again and again with each election until behavior changes.

Vote third party. If the first candidate that gets elected fails expectations, see above.

The congressional re-election rate has been over 80% for the last 50 years. As long as there is little risk of losing their seats, congressmen will do whatever they damn well please. Add a little risk.

You should maybe grow up one day and pay attention to the facts. Democrats kill on PACs, not the other way around.

>(unless you can prove a bribe or conflict of interest.)

Bribe is legal.

>(unless you can prove a bribe or conflict of interest.)

Bribe is legal.

It isn't even close dude.

https://www.opensecrets.org/ov...

Actually it is close, and it's only in the most recent election that Republicans took the lead in fundraising. I expect this is largely driven by the general lack of progress on social issues and the outstanding progress towards a police state we have made.

The App's market is way smaller then hollywood
Just ask Congress!

https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just really confused. That big government is textbook democrat. Republicans are all about the free market. Time Warner and Cablevision are heavily invested in trying to get Hillary Clinton elected:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

Your right eye is blind, your only seeing out the left one.
http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...
-hint... There are way more donations to Republicans by these banks.
and these hedge funds, http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...
-although the hedge funds have way more independent group spending, probably because the hav less shareholders to answer to...

Time Warner does seem to lean Democratic, but those donations are lifetime and I don't see any for Clinton in the recent election cycles.

Your right eye is blind, your only seeing out the left one.
http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...
-hint... There are way more donations to Republicans by these banks.
and these hedge funds, http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...
-although the hedge funds have way more independent group spending, probably because the hav less shareholders to answer to...

Time Warner does seem to lean Democratic, but those donations are lifetime and I don't see any for Clinton in the recent election cycles.

That link lacks the "millions" you, it seems far less the the above stated $900 million. I guess there is technically "millions", $2 milion of you total the 3 banks. You'll note that this website you use as a reference indicates it doesn't track Koch PACS because that money is not hidden, https://www.opensecrets.org/or....

Here's a good estimate of the Koch PAC spending, http://www.republicreport.org/...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

That happens to be the first Google result for "Hillary Clinton donors". I see there are many sources with the same information.

This article doesn't tell who signed letters which were sent to them by Comcast. But it does tell who sent letters to the FCC backing the merger, which of these people got contributions from Comcast, and how much they got.

More information here. Click on the "Center for Responsive Politics data on lobbying contributions here." link on this page, to get to the data page.

Time Warner is the largest contributor to Hilary Clinton other than Wall Street firms, which make up her top six.

Cablevision is #10 on the list of top Clinton owners^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contributors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

Let's get the government to rescue us from the bad deal the government made. We can trust the government to help us to when dealing with Verizon, can't we?

You actually made me interested. Looks like most of her funding comes from law firms and universities.

John Thune doesn't have so much telecom money it seems, but the same cannot be said of John Upton, who received a lot from Verizon, Cox, Comcast, The National Assn of Broadcasters, and Time Warner.

John Thune doesn't have so much telecom money it seems, but the same cannot be said of John Upton, who received a lot from Verizon, Cox, Comcast, The National Assn of Broadcasters, and Time Warner.

Orrin Hatch is sponsoring the bill. Have a look at some of the top corporations and companies who brib....ahem...."donated" to him last year.

but your response was exactly the false narrative i was referring to. you live in a propaganda bubble. pay attention to facts

http://www.opensecrets.org/new...

How can one compete ...

A single person can not compete but groups can and do. Groups like ACLU and AFL-CIO lobby and contribute to campaign on behalf of there members all the time. Tesla does it too.

The thing is that lobbying is necessary as it is the only way to put alternate positions in front of the politicians.

Oil industry shill?

Fracking is about natural gas, not oil. Both fuels keep us warm in winter, let us travel places, and keep our electric and electronic equipment going.

The seismologists, however, are yet to learn even how to predict earthquakes — or come up with anything else to improve daily lives of their employers (us).

Here are some stats. https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

So, about $20mln all told? That's about half of what earthquake research has been getting from the taxpayers every year for decades...

Little in return?? Why just look at all the generous aerospace contractor donations this project generated for Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker. You call THAT a FAILURE??

Little in return?? Why just look at all the generous aerospace contractor donations this project generated for Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker. You call THAT a FAILURE??

With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a representative's vote,

That's so cute that you believe that! The average congressional campaign cost USD$1.2 million this year. Money talks and it's corporations and other monied interests that are doing the talking, not "concerned citizens." Sure your congressperson will pat you on the head and say "I work hard to make sure our district gets what it needs! I work for you." But the truth is they work for those who pay their way.

You must think things work as they did back in 1946 when this was written. Sorry champ. Those days are long gone.

Money doesn't talk as much as people think, and the return rate on dollars to candidates elected for SuperPACs remains poor. It only works when the messaging goes unchallenged.

With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a representative's vote,

That's so cute that you believe that! The average congressional campaign cost USD$1.2 million this year. Money talks and it's corporations and other monied interests that are doing the talking, not "concerned citizens." Sure your congressperson will pat you on the head and say "I work hard to make sure our district gets what it needs! I work for you." But the truth is they work for those who pay their way.

You must think things work as they did back in 1946 when this was written. Sorry champ. Those days are long gone.

I'm fully aware that cablecos are paying my (democratic) elected reps, Adam Schiff, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I have, in fact, written them letters (both email and snail mail) lambasting them for being tools of the cable industry. Now that the Republitards have taken the Senate and are spewing all kinds of anti-net-neutraliy rhetoric, I think we can expect a poor outcome for consumers hoping for some relief.

Which brings me to my main point: we need to financially support Jeremy Zielinski so that we can set a good precedent.

I'm fully aware that cablecos are paying my (democratic) elected reps, Adam Schiff, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I have, in fact, written them letters (both email and snail mail) lambasting them for being tools of the cable industry. Now that the Republitards have taken the Senate and are spewing all kinds of anti-net-neutraliy rhetoric, I think we can expect a poor outcome for consumers hoping for some relief.

Which brings me to my main point: we need to financially support Jeremy Zielinski so that we can set a good precedent.

I'm fully aware that cablecos are paying my (democratic) elected reps, Adam Schiff, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I have, in fact, written them letters (both email and snail mail) lambasting them for being tools of the cable industry. Now that the Republitards have taken the Senate and are spewing all kinds of anti-net-neutraliy rhetoric, I think we can expect a poor outcome for consumers hoping for some relief.

Which brings me to my main point: we need to financially support Jeremy Zielinski so that we can set a good precedent.

They must have figured out that it's big money to provide preferential access on the internet. Probably had the brochures printed up for the different pricing plans for retail consumers. The compensation packages were going to be slightly bigger these year for senior executives. And political contributions were going to be that much more generous to sympathetic politicians.

Keep that political money flowing, AT&T (5th biggest all-time donor), and you can still be confident about getting what you want.

No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists. https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 [fcc.gov] , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?
So. No new regulations. No new laws. Nothing needs to "pass."

No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists. https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

They give plenty to both parties . No reason to think Democrats are in their pockets any more than Republicans.

Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group.

This was the first result for mid-term election spending that I found.
Feel free to dig up an alternative source of numbers
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/money-won-on-tuesday-but-rules-of-the-game-changed/
FYI - I cleaned up their word salad into a more digestible format

Democratic House candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $106,494 from donors of $200 or less, 8.8 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $89,194 from donors of $200 or less, 9.4 percent of the average total from individuals.

House GOP candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $153,209 from donors of $200 or less, 13.8 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $85,118 from donors of $200 or less, 7.3 percent of the average total from individuals.

Democratic Senate candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $923,000 from donors of $200 or less, 12.2 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $1,450,000 from donors of $200 or less, 17.2 percent of the average total from individuals.

GOP Senate candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $1,600,000 from donors of $200 or less, 16.3 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $508,275 from donors of $200 or less, 8.1 percent of the average total from individuals.

The numbers are very clear.
House and Senate Republicans got significantly less from small donors this mid-term cycle.
House Democrats got less from small donors and (seemingly a lot) less from large donors.
Senate Democrats got a lot more from small donors.

You can't draw any clear line between these numbers and what voters think of MAYDAY PAC, but it does seem to show that small donors (aka the average voter) were significantly less interested in supporting the winners this election cycle.

And to me, regardless of what anyone thinks about Lessig's efforts, this suggests the general public's speech is getting overridden by the kind of campaign spending which Lessig and others would like to stamp out.

What corporation owns Senator Bernie Sanders (I VT)?

I guess those nasty "unions" who hold "elections" to "represent" their largely blue-collar workforce to ask for things like "fair pay" and "increases in the minimum wage"? Oh yeah, those little guys. ...but let's pretend all politicians are equal -- because cynacism is easy. That will surely change the system.

Clearly, re-electing congressmen isn't having the desired effect, so how about we try it first?

The first thing to do is to follow the money trail and identify:
How do we get that effort started? What will it take, who can do it?

It's that already done: https://www.opensecrets.org/
How do plan we make people care?

So he asks for evidence, you dont provide any, and you get a +5 mod.

Good work, guys.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

Democrats do this to appease their brand of science deniers, the far left environmentalists who oppose everything and anything nuclear. Note that not all environmentalists are of this type, some are even former deniers who decided to listen to what actual physicists say rather than what far left environmentalist leaders say on the topic of physics.

And Republicans nee 'conservatives' kill Nuclear because despite a ~2.5:1 ratio of conservatives over liberals in super-PAC contributions, which I equate to be what these billionaires consider to be "disposable income"... it is evident that the people they trust to advise them are failing to suggest investments in commercial nuclear technologies, both legacy and new. Perhaps they don't give a hoot about their grandchildren. Perhaps they see the span of fossil fuel decline (amid increasing energy demand) as a time of financial opportunity, and a renaissance of nuclear energy would interfere with vested interests. Perhaps they do not consider the inevitability of global war to secure resources to be a personal expense. Whatever the reason -- I am more likely to believe it is they who could save us, especially if it comes down to investment strategy. Because their position on nuclear energy would be based more on potential reward and applied risk -- especially the lower risks of Molten Salts and other nuclear approaches -- rather than fear.

Virtually limitless energy from a small Thorium mining footprint, ~300 year storage of waste is the best workable idea we have come up with. At present the stall of progress in nuclear energy is a bi-partisan disgrace, an affront to the whole human race.

They benefit in at least three ways:

1) Direct contributions.

2) The Revolving Door

3) Trading on insider information.

There are many other ways I'm sure, smaller and more subtle. But these are the big ones AFAIK.

They benefit in at least three ways:

1) Direct contributions.

2) The Revolving Door

3) Trading on insider information.

There are many other ways I'm sure, smaller and more subtle. But these are the big ones AFAIK.

SNC is not a publicly held company, it is privately owned by Erin and Fatih Ozmen, who are originally from Turkey. SNC has does well over $1 billion a year in business with the Federal Government, mostly in the defense sector. They follow a business strategy of acquiring small to medium size companies, which is how they got into the orbital crew capsule business. I worked for a small technology start up that they bought (not their space group).

SNC is a big gun in Nevada, because they are based in Reno. Most of the other defense related work in the state is run by big contractors outside of the state. The Ozmens are very well connected politically, both at the state and federal level. SNC has a PAC and they encourage their employees to make contributions (all perfectly legal).

The Ozmens were close politically and personally to former Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. Before he was Governor, he was a member of the House from Nevada. Gibbons is a real piece of work. Among his dubious accomplishments in office:

Gibbons' alleged attempted sexual assault of a Las Vegas woman in 2006. This happened in a parking garage in a casino, and somehow the security video disappeared.

Investigations into the allegations that Gibbons secured defense contracts for his friend Warren Trepp in exchange for gifts and money during his time in Congress, 1997–2006.

'A newly available document states that Gov. Jim Gibbons "has admitted" that he urged federal authorities to pursue criminal action against a software developer whose business dispute with a friend of Gibbons has prompted a federal investigation.' according to the Los Vegas Review Journal.

And: A nepotism scandal regarding Sierra Nevada Corporation's hire of Nevada first lady Dawn Gibbons as a consultant. Sierra Nevada paid Dawn Gibbons $35,000 at the same time Jim Gibbons helped the company get a no-bid federal contract.

Before Dawn Gibbons was working as a consultant, to SNC she and her husband went on a luxury trip to Turkey with the Ozmens and Gibbons was never able to produce any receipts showing what he had spent. Since he was in Congress at the time, this appears to be an illegal unreported personal contribution, aka a "bribe". There was never any prosecution over this.

Recently it turns out that SNC has a multi-year no-bid contract with an ultra secret Air Force intelligence program called Big Safari. SNC really likes no-bid contracts, and they also like having a very low public footprint. Remember, since they are not publicly traded they have very minimal corporate reporting requirements.

Frankly, I doubt that the Ozmens and SNC are any worse then their bigger competitors in the military-industrial complex. It's just that with the big places, there are all kinds of ways that the top people are insulated from pervasive quid pro quo industry wide questionable behavior. With SNC it's likely that if there are any sketchy dealings, the people in charge must be aware of what is going on.

So when I read that SNC is suing and stopping NASA and it's competitors from working on contracts, I can't help but wonder what is going on behind the scenes. It's hard not to imagine that someone is leveraging political infl

Eh I guess you can sue anyone for anything in 'merica

And the great thing about suing someone in the US of A is that even if you lose, there is no penalty. The guy you sue is out a ton of legal bills and time defending himself, and if you lose, you can just walk away. That's why so many companies and individuals in the U.S. will just settle even if they know the person has a bogus suit.

Fuck all those silly European countries with their "loser pays the winner's legal bills" socialist shit! USA! USA! USA!

And guess who the lawyers in the US support.

That's right - the Socialists, err, Democrats.

And guess which party is vehemently opposed to tort reform in the US...

That would be those same Socialists.

Sorry that facts don't coincide with your reality.