Slashdot Mirror

Because it's Boeing:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
vs.
0

Oh please.
Millions is admittedly and obviously an expression.

And the point still stands: to deny the existence of oil and gas subsidies, to deny their massive lobbying power, to promote the myth of the rich scientist, is to deny reality.

the myth of the rich scientist pushing it for his own personal gain is just that: MYTH. much like the supposed "vaccine" or "cancer" conspiracies: the idea that thousands of scientists or doctors or researchers are all complicit in a global conspiracy, with not one person of integrity among them (keeping in mind that science doesnt function without integrity), not one whistleblower in the lot is simply farsical on its face.

and the further idea, that their "stakes" are somehow in any way comparable to that of the oil and gas industries, is just laughable.

From 1950 to 2010 toil, natural gas, and coal received $600 billion in subsidies, or 10 billion annually. From the US alone.
The EU. being similar in size and makeup to the US, is probably similar. Then factor in the other big producers in Russia and hte Middle East and South America...
http://www.misi-net.com/public...

Their profits for last, excluding some Chinese companies as they dont have same reporting requirements, exceeded 270 billion.
And here's their *reported* lobbying ammounts: https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

So stuff you "credibility" attack.

How about any competent tech person whose company isn't on the president's top donor list? There are lots of smart people who don't work for Google, Microsoft, etc. Why start with someone who has already walked inside the revolving door?

Settlement? What settlement? This is a prima facie Clayton Act Anti-Trust violation. Multiple felonies, with jailtime due. Amazingly, this appearently exists on paper, so everyone who negotiated or signed it should go to jail.

The Clayton Act makes organizing supplier boycotts a prohibited activity. And that's just what they have done -- organized a boycott not to hire an employee, times the collective number.

That this has not gone to a Federal Grand Jury appears more like corruption than anything else.

Did you ever look at how much money those companies donat to a certain political party and its candidates?

Apple.

Google

Do you really think Eric Holder's politicized Justice Department is going to go after Google and Apple?!?!

BWAAA HAA HAA

They're too busy screaming "RAAAACIST!!!!" at any state that tries to enforce voter eligibility, despite absolutely no evidence that requiring a valid ID depresses minority turnout (which is why a US judge just bitch-slapped the DoJ in North Carolina just today...)

Settlement? What settlement? This is a prima facie Clayton Act Anti-Trust violation. Multiple felonies, with jailtime due. Amazingly, this appearently exists on paper, so everyone who negotiated or signed it should go to jail.

The Clayton Act makes organizing supplier boycotts a prohibited activity. And that's just what they have done -- organized a boycott not to hire an employee, times the collective number.

That this has not gone to a Federal Grand Jury appears more like corruption than anything else.

Did you ever look at how much money those companies donat to a certain political party and its candidates?

Apple.

Google

Do you really think Eric Holder's politicized Justice Department is going to go after Google and Apple?!?!

BWAAA HAA HAA

They're too busy screaming "RAAAACIST!!!!" at any state that tries to enforce voter eligibility, despite absolutely no evidence that requiring a valid ID depresses minority turnout (which is why a US judge just bitch-slapped the DoJ in North Carolina just today...)

Sony's strong push for DRM on everything from VHS to DAT to DVD to BluRay to Memory Stick has made me a Sony hater forever. They have lobbied for every industry restriction on fair use they can, and their campaign donations have funded congressional campaigns to advance their anti-fair-use agenda. I stopped buying their products in the 1990s, and I dropped my last aged Sony appliance off at the recycle center just a few weekends ago (a VCR that had been cluttering up the basement.) I can easily survive the rest of my days without Sony products, but I probably won't ever get my missing rights back.

So it's kind of surprising to me to learn that their e-reader wasn't as crippled as their other devices; but then again it could have been completely DRM-free, and it would still have been too little, too late.

and they were filed because Amazon pays a hell of a lot more bribe money in Washington than Apple ever will.

It is unclear what you mean by 'bribe' money, but both Amazon and Apple spent huge sums of money lobbying over the last 15 years or so.

Amazon spends more, but not 'a hell of a lot' more. Both organisations do their absolute best to influence policy in their favour. The idea that Apple is somehow pure in this way is fantasy that could only come from the most delusional fanboy.

Bribe money is the money that doesn't show up in official records like your cite uses.

and they were filed because Amazon pays a hell of a lot more bribe money in Washington than Apple ever will.

It is unclear what you mean by 'bribe' money, but both Amazon and Apple spent huge sums of money lobbying over the last 15 years or so.

Amazon spends more, but not 'a hell of a lot' more. Both organisations do their absolute best to influence policy in their favour. The idea that Apple is somehow pure in this way is fantasy that could only come from the most delusional fanboy.

Bribe money is the money that doesn't show up in official records like your cite uses.

> who I guess are better at "lobbying" the FCC, where "lobbying" probably means effectively mailing them giant boxes of cash).

They mailed checks to Wheeler, made out to "Obama campaign". Obama then appointed Wheeler.
Bundlers like Wheeler only have to report the amount as "over $500,000", so we don't know the exact number but it's likely to be a few million dollars.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...

and they were filed because Amazon pays a hell of a lot more bribe money in Washington than Apple ever will.

It is unclear what you mean by 'bribe' money, but both Amazon and Apple spent huge sums of money lobbying over the last 15 years or so.

Amazon spends more, but not 'a hell of a lot' more. Both organisations do their absolute best to influence policy in their favour. The idea that Apple is somehow pure in this way is fantasy that could only come from the most delusional fanboy.

and they were filed because Amazon pays a hell of a lot more bribe money in Washington than Apple ever will.

It is unclear what you mean by 'bribe' money, but both Amazon and Apple spent huge sums of money lobbying over the last 15 years or so.

Amazon spends more, but not 'a hell of a lot' more. Both organisations do their absolute best to influence policy in their favour. The idea that Apple is somehow pure in this way is fantasy that could only come from the most delusional fanboy.

His name US Ellison, not Ellis. He's one of the top money men for the democrat party. Look it up.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...

What is this "democrat party?" Is it like the "republic party"?

His name US Ellison, not Ellis. He's one of the top money men for the democrat party. Look it up.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...

Exactly what I wanted to say. The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.

Alternatively, people should pool their resources and form a lobbying group to have greater influence in changing the law. Kickstarter has proven the potential for crowdfunding; there should be a Kickstarter-type site for forming issue-specific political action committees, so people can more effectively lobby for the change that matters to them most. I think this is very much in line with the spirit of the republic, while offering an effective voice to groups of like-minded people.

Of course, there are already many groups lobbying on many issues, so maybe all that's needed is a comprehensive directory of PACs and lobbying orgs sorted by topic, so people can find one aligned with their ideologies. I just found a decent list here which focuses on tracking financial contributions, but has quite a lot of info.

Comcast already pumped Mr. Franken this cycle.

Stop guessing.

Maybe he should send all that Microsoft, Honeywell, Comcast, Time Warner, Medtronic, Bain Capital, UnitedHealth and Nextera money back then, since candidates in podunk Mr. Rogers Minnesota don't really need it.

Didn't think so.

I don't think he cares.

https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

The big telecoms are perennially in the top 20 companies/organizations in terms of annual lobbying expenditure. In 2012 for example:

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

#10 AT&T $17,460,000
#15 Verizon $15,220,000
#16 Comcast $14,750,000

Imagine what they dump into PACs and campaign contributions? How many regulators are past or future execs in these companies?

You forgot the part where lobbyists give them $10 million

18 million in 2013 : http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

3 million so far in 2014: http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

so 21 million.

You forgot the part where lobbyists give them $10 million

18 million in 2013 : http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

3 million so far in 2014: http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

so 21 million.

Cantor spent just over five million dollars.

Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

And to the person who said that he wasn't spending enough time at home, you do realize that he's a Virginia Representative, right? His in-district home is less than two hours from DC. He was almost certainly spending more time in-district than any of the California Representatives.

It is amazing to me that politicians can take money from people and businesses with the expectation of favors in return.

This is perfectly legal. It is nothing but legalized bribery.

From a recent article on a court case which further loosened campaign finance restrictions: "For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks,” he said. “For them, it’s not about giving money, it’s about building a relationship. You’re not going to get any face time, they’re not going to hear your story.” Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate — legal, “completely non-corrupting gratitude,” Backer hastened to note."

Politicians shake down big donors. Big donors try to influence politicians. It's a symbiotic relationship. What's lost are the interests of the populace. Granted, those interests can be varied, in direct conflict and not monolithic. But the politician's incentives - while always self centered of course, they're only people - should be more aligned with the public interest rather than merely with the interest of a few large donors.

A quick google reveals that the owner of the team has donated 97% to the GOP. This is another retaliation using federal agencies to intimidate political enemies. Today the Redskins, tomorrow the "tea party" or any other name that the liberal democrats deem hostile (at their choosing) to their cause. "Racism" was just a shell covering their true motive.

You miss the point. Bruce doesn't state that the self-employed are more or less likely to vote in any particular fashion. Bruce states that the explosion of small businesses will move money away from mega-corps, diminishing their budgets and the large donations that they can then make toward Republican elections. That is what they fear.

I'm not sure that he's right but that seems to me to be what he's saying.

LOL. I got that. This is going to hurt:

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

This is large corporations donating to political campaigns. You have to get to #17 before you get to the first one that leans Republican.

Mega-corps give to Democrats. In return, they get "regulation" that helps keep them in business. Money moving away from mega-corps will help Republicans, not Democrats.

I can tell you are partisan, because you made NO attempt to name any names that donated to the republican party. I'm not saying the Ds are innocent. I'm only saying that your comment is clearly biased. Do you think we can't find big donors for the Rs? Which do you think pulls in more money from special interests? I'm sure the data is there to find, and we can look at it in an unbiased manner instead of just spouting your own opinion as if it's fact.

Lets go to OpenSecrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/ove... Now, I'm not sure this list includes dark money, or money funneled through PACs, which don't have to disclose their donors...

Now, if you're sick of this, why not do something about it? Join Wolf-PAC.com or look up the MayDay PAC. Help out. Volunteer.

Congress has a 10% approval rating. Yet 100% of the folks up for reelection won. We have less than 50% voter turnout. If those lazy slobs all voted independant, we'd have a completely different country. The country's problems are clearly OUR FAULT.

Everyone talks a big game about revolution, but we can't get 50% of the country to put in a few hours effort every few years to clean out congress. It's pretty fuck'in sad really. Apathy sucks.

Also, people that don't vote shouldn't have any right to complain, IMO.

Koch bothers and every other billionaire NOT on your list donates to the Republicans.

Never the less, going back and forth, naming names is pointless; since the bulk of done via corporate entities to skirt election funding laws and to keep the anonymity of the money.

Let's look at an actual list of organizations (where the bulk of the money comes from) and see what's up.

And let's look at the most famous case of big money getting into politics, Citizens United where their goals are

"assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security."

Now what party wants - at least on its public face - strong families, limited Government, and freedom of enterprise?

Hmmmm, it's not the Democrats. Which leaves,....

YOU ARE SQUEALING LIKE A STUCK PIG BECAUSE THE ACCUSATION IS TRUE.

(In normal conversational "voice" mode.) Let's look at a real world example. I know this is painful for you, because the truth hurts. It hurts even more when you have to leave Republican fantasy land, which you almost never do.

Let's take the very powerful and influential lobbying group, the US Chamber of Commerce. This is what I found when I asked Mr. Google the search terms "US Chamber Republican Democrat".

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=US+Chamber+of+Commerce

Money Spent For or Against Candidates 2013-2014 Cycle

Total Independent Expenditures: $12,157,051

For Democrats: $0

Against Democrats: $1,412,500

For Republicans: $9,744,551

Against Republicans: $1,000,000

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce

...the New York Times reported in October 2010 that half of the Chamber's $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 big-money donors, many of whom enlisted the Chamber's help to fight political and public opinion battles on their behalf (such as opposing financial or healthcare reforms, or other regulations). The Chamber is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries," according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce.

...

The report, “The Gilded Chamber: Despite Claims of Representing Millions of Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Gets Most of Its Money From Just 64 Donors,” analyzes the 1,619 contributions listed by the Chamber and its affiliate working against consumer access to courts, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), on their 2012 Form 990 tax returns. Just a tiny fraction of their donors account for most of their contributions, Public Citizen found.

The average reported contribution to the U.S. Chamber was $111,254, with the top 43 entities donating a combined $80.4 million.

“The U.S. Chamber is one of the largest conduits of dark money in the country, but it refuses to disclose its donors,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, where U.S. Chamber Watch is housed. “The American people deserve to know more about who’s influencing this powerful force in our politics. By looking at the size of the Chamber’s and ILR’s donations, we can learn a little more about what kinds of businesses they represent – seemingly, very large ones.”

So over here in the Real World big corporate interests are spending vast amounts of money to put "pro-business" (in reality pro-big business) politicians in office using untraceable money.

The Chamber is also a big players in the climate change denier network. (I'm tired of doing all this work for you, look it up yourself.)

So yes REPUBLICANS ARE WORKING FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE ULTRA RICH AND AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE ELSE. Glad I could explain that to you in your own language.

Seems likely. His motivation is pretty obvious.
$3.7 million (the majority) of Reid's campaign contributions from 2009-present are from Lawyers/Law Firms.

Source:
https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

According to opensecrets.org Patrick Leahy -D(umbass) took $572,000 from Lawyers and Law Firms in 2014 alone. In his career from 1989 - 2014, he's taken $1.5 million. The United States of America: best government money can buy.

According to opensecrets.org Patrick Leahy -D(umbass) took $572,000 from Lawyers and Law Firms in 2014 alone. In his career from 1989 - 2014, he's taken $1.5 million. The United States of America: best government money can buy.

because one of their biggest financial pillars is the trial lawyers (the type of lawyers who sue other people or defend people being sued). If you properly reform the patent system, you reduce the number of cases in the courts that need trial lawyers (on BOTH sides of every fight), you reduce the total number of "billable hours", and thus reduce campaign contributions to the Democrats. Incidentally, as Howard Dean (former DNC chairman) admitted this is the same reason why "Obamacare" included NO "tort reform" (reform of malpractice lawsuits) which would have reduced insane medical malpractice insurance rates, reduced unnecessary "defensive medicine" procedures, and would have driven down the costs of healthcare. Obamacare does not attack the costs of healcare so much as it attempts to drive down the cost of insurance to pay for that care, and because there's a big limit on that without tort reform, it tries to shift the money around to subsidize insurance for many people to pretend that it has lowered costs. At this point, somebody opposed to tort reform usually points to states that have done limited tort reform and says "it didn't lower costs THERE!" - but of course state-level reform cannot truly lower the potential payouts for malpractice policies (thereby making premium payments for such policies lower) as long as there are multi-state medical businesses and no national tort reform.

This is not some partisan trolling; Expecting laws that hit trial lawyers directly in the pocketbook under Democrats is about on par with expecting liberalization of abortion laws under Republicans - in each case you are expecting something that is nearly toxic to an important segment of the base of a party and therefore to that party's ability to raise funds. It's simply a FACT that trial lawyers give WAY more money to Democrats.

It started last summer, when patent trolls started messing with one of the biggest political donors of all time - the National Association of Realtors.

If you take a look at Patrick Leahy's donors, you can see real estate is down the list.

Summary - this issue got before Congress only when the NAR was bitten by it. I don't the issue is dead, not by a long shot. The NAR has deep connections in government and unless they somehow get the issue to go away for them personally, anti-patent troll legislation is likely to come back. Perhaps more quietly next time.

It started last summer, when patent trolls started messing with one of the biggest political donors of all time - the National Association of Realtors.

If you take a look at Patrick Leahy's donors, you can see real estate is down the list.

Summary - this issue got before Congress only when the NAR was bitten by it. I don't the issue is dead, not by a long shot. The NAR has deep connections in government and unless they somehow get the issue to go away for them personally, anti-patent troll legislation is likely to come back. Perhaps more quietly next time.

Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.

No, the situation we are in is the result of a House and Senate with a 90%+ re-election rate despite a 13% approval rating.

The message sent by this is that congressmen can do whatever they like, as they're going to get re-elected no matter how much they work against the public's interests.. It also makes bribery (via gifts, campaign contributions, and lucrative jobs upon leaving office) quite affordable.

I would be surprised if this becomes an anti-trust issue. If it does, then it means Google hasn't been paying off their politicians, or those politicians are trying to shake Google down for more. But Google has been paying off the politicians, so no worries there.

You have big players on either side of this, but the big communication companies have probably donated much more to politicians. AT&T is the 4th largest donor to federal politicians over the period 1989-2012, for example. Also, the big communications companies got their man on the inside as the head of the FCC. These rules could go through, and it'll start driving prices up, but by then, the voting public won't make the connection between any politician and rising prices or worse service. Most people don't understand what net neutrality is.

Net result: Keeps the big donors happy, very little or no voting consequence, especially with responsibility plausibly divided between both parties.

Al Franken? No thanks! Besides, he thinks the NSA is a-okay...

He is owned by Time Warner, among others and is probably why we see him defending things like SOPA. And in regards to our privacy, he's busy defending the NSA. I am certain that the industries that support him expect a return on their investments.

He also defends the NSA and SOPA. He looks like a regular politician to me

Really? Here's a fact-check. Here's a list of the biggest donors over the past 25 years: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... The top group did support democrats (at $100 million). The second highest also went mostly to Democrats (at $61 million, 81% to Democrats, 19% to Republicans). Those numbers are the TOTAL donations over the past 25 years. Keep those numbers in mind for context. What about Republican donors?

"this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs — enough to put him at No. 2 on this list." In other words, Sheldon Adelson *alone* has almost topped the highest donation to democrats, and he almost did that in a single election.

How about the Koch brothers? "They have donated more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Really?

Here's a list of the biggest donors over the past 25 years: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... The top group did support democrats (at $100 million). The second highest also went mostly to Democrats (at $61 million, and it wasn't entirely to democrats - 81% to Democrats, 19% to Republicans). Those numbers are the TOTAL donations over the past 25 years. Keep those numbers in mind for context. What about Republican donors?

"this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs — enough to put him at No. 2 on this list."
In other words, Sheldon Adelson *alone* has almost topped the highest donation to democrats, and he almost did that in a single election.

How about the Koch brothers? "They have donated more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Everything you wanted to know about money in politics is located at Open Secrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/

the Democrats, which is why there is NO legal reform in Obamacare (as Howard Dean admitted in 2009 when he was running the Democratic National Committee). FYI: "Trial lawyers" are the type of lawyers who sue people for things like medical malpractice (as opposed to prosecutors, defense lawyers, patent lawyers, contract lawyers, etc)

So, given that Obamacare is a Democrat thing and you claim it's not to blame the legal culture of American medicine, but THAT culture too is driven by the Democrats, perhaps you ought to think a bit more...... there's a common thread to all this.

The Koch brothers epitmize how big money has taken over politics.

Koch Industries currently leads the oil and gas industry as the top contributor to federal candidates and parties, and is the fifth highest lobbying spender in the industry this year. Soros' hedge fund, Soros Fund Management, has also lobbied at the federal level, but employees have not made campaign donations through a Soros-sponsored political action committee.

How business interests trump individual interests. How they are distorting and even eliminating rational discussion - case in point: "What's the deal with this Liberal/Progressive/Leftist obsession" - "Liberal/Leftist"?

The Kochs are out to screw us. Soros gave over $8 billion to causes related to human rights, public health, and education.

Here, we the little people are fighting among ourselves while the billionaire class is screwing us over - even harming us Kochs want to enslave us. Soros wants to educate us and make sure people have basic human rights.

It's striking how "environmentalism" has turned into this disparaging term when in fact it's about preserving our health - everyone's health and well being.

the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms. It wasn't the platform, the electorate's exhaustion with the party, the bad economy, ...

If the Republicans have their way, the economy would get even worse. They want to cut unemployment extensions, raise H1-b limit and eliminate the social safety nets.

That's why the '08 crash wasn't like the Great Depression because of all those "progressive" safety nets.

As far a "losing" the mid-terms, mid terms are mostly old people coming out to make sure gays can't marry, poor people can't abortions (rich people jump on a plane and get one where it's legal), and basically lower taxes while protecting their medicare, SS and making sure we have a strong military - keeping up the military industral complex: keeping the status quo.

FYI, Mr. Backer's background:

"Does Backer know what he's talking about? Besides being the lead attorney for Shaun McCutcheon, over the last three election cycles he has overseen a proliferation of new PACs and helped organize what may be the largest-ever joint fundraising committee, in terms of the number of participants. " -- ibid

From an article on a new shell organization, the JFC, enabled by a recent Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon vs. FEC:

"Backer added that the biggest reason he thinks super JFCs won't take off is that, while they may be an efficient way to extract money from a single donor, from the donor's perspective, they are impersonal and don't offer any advantages -- an assertion that has many skeptics.

"For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks," he said. "For them, it's not about giving money, it's about building a relationship. You're not going to get any face time, they're not going to hear your story." Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate -- legal, "completely non-corrupting gratitude," Backer hastened to note." -- OpenSecrets.org

Tort reform has been aggressively resisted by half of the US political system for decades, despite its issues exerting a pernicious effect on everything from education to medicine to the economy.

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

Notice which party they're giving to.
Vote accordingly.

They're opposed to Prop 8 yet in 2008:

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

Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was. Doesn't seem to have bothered too many people.

Eich was not just some employee of Mozilla - he was the CEO! You know, the guy who gets to decide what political causes that the "corporate person" of Mozilla will support, where is political contribution money would go, what it lobbyists say in Washington, or elsewhere. Would Mozilla, under Eich, continue to contribute to opponents of gay rights as it has in the past (it contributed to Tom McClintock's House campaign in 2010).

The politics of the CEO is a matter of considerable relevance in this day and age of virtually unlimited corporate influence.

Here's a link from your site: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne... It's obviously not possible to say with 100% assurance about the voting patterns of rich, but their Republican leaning is not a secret. Here are some data points: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n...