Slashdot Mirror

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all

Apple paid Obama $308,081 in 2012.

Apple spent $1,410,000 in lobbying in 2013.
Apple spent $1,970,000 in lobbying in 2012.
etc etc

These are just the above-board, reported amounts. Thanks to recent SCOTUS decisions, corporate slush funds are becoming effectively cryptic. The declared amounts are more like a formality.

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all

Apple paid Obama $308,081 in 2012.

Apple spent $1,410,000 in lobbying in 2013.
Apple spent $1,970,000 in lobbying in 2012.
etc etc

These are just the above-board, reported amounts. Thanks to recent SCOTUS decisions, corporate slush funds are becoming effectively cryptic. The declared amounts are more like a formality.

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all

Apple paid Obama $308,081 in 2012.

Apple spent $1,410,000 in lobbying in 2013.
Apple spent $1,970,000 in lobbying in 2012.
etc etc

These are just the above-board, reported amounts. Thanks to recent SCOTUS decisions, corporate slush funds are becoming effectively cryptic. The declared amounts are more like a formality.

You are saying that the ITC judges accepted bribes? I assume that when you say this you actually have some evidence; right? I mean, where bribing a politician is a protected right in the USA (AKA "lobbying" etc.) and there are even web sites dedicated to documenting how much who bribed who, bribing a judge is an actual crime and if you could show just some hint that Samsung had done so I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be interested. You wouldn't just be randomly spouting off would you?

Actually, the revolution will be bloodless and quiet. It will, shockingly enough, happen at the ballot box.

Maybe...but I have serious doubts. Have you seem the re-election rate of the incumbents, despite the record low approval ratings of the President and Congress?

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States

What about unions? Look at the top ten contributors, almost all democrat and mostly unions: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php Sadly, I'm not sure they are much different than Corporations in the "unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people" area.

Every American is the beneficiary of the government in some way or form so we all have conflicts of interest. It's not like these workers can somehow vote in a way that impacts their compensation or that they are all that well paid compared to the private sector in the first place.

WRONG

Look who's #1 and #3 on that list - government employee unions. Gleefully recycling your tax dollars into political bribes via union dues.

Sure thing - here's the 2012 US election data.

Even Obama, the "grassroots" candidate, got about 70% of his money from "large individual contributions". (And before the haters start a-hatin', Romney clocked 80% of his cash from big sugar daddies, so he got nothing to talk about.)

Are you really, with a straight face, tell me that if Microsoft or Google (Obama donors #2 and 3 respectively) call up for a meeting, Obama's not going to take their call? (And anyone want to guess why all those bankers backed Romney?)

To give you some context regarding the size of the IEEE's political spending in 2012 (ACM spent precisely 0 dollars):

1) IEEE spent 70,000 dollars on lobbying politicians in 2012.

2) The National Association of Realtors spent 41 million dollars on politicians.

3) The American Hospital Association spent 19 million on politicians.

Source.

Many industries have a lobbying group:

1) Doctors have the American Medical Association
2) Teachers have the National Education Association
3) Realtors have the National Association of Realtors
4) Senior citizens have the AARP

And so on and so forth.

The employing companies certainly are represented in Washington DC. Which is why we get the system we have. There's the IEEE which gave a whopping 70-80 thousand dollars a year to politicians. The ACM - I couldn't even find them as a lobbying organization at all.

We can whine about it. But tech workers need a lobbying organization. Politicians do what's in their own personal best interests. And you can't expect them to vote against big donors. They won't even talk to you if you're not a sizable contributor or don't have some block of votes to present to them.

Many industries have a lobbying group:

1) Doctors have the American Medical Association
2) Teachers have the National Education Association
3) Realtors have the National Association of Realtors
4) Senior citizens have the AARP

And so on and so forth.

The employing companies certainly are represented in Washington DC. Which is why we get the system we have. There's the IEEE which gave a whopping 70-80 thousand dollars a year to politicians. The ACM - I couldn't even find them as a lobbying organization at all.

We can whine about it. But tech workers need a lobbying organization. Politicians do what's in their own personal best interests. And you can't expect them to vote against big donors. They won't even talk to you if you're not a sizable contributor or don't have some block of votes to present to them.

Well funded organizations - dealerships - are able to pad politicians pockets. Thus the politicians do what the organized contributors want.

If Tesla wants to do this, he needs to grease some politicians' palms. Not directly of course, but through the legalized channels - buying things for family members, contributing to shell entities which funnel money to politicians, that sort of thing. There are many ways to effect this.

Do that and Tesla's problems should go away.

You might have noticed that your latest approval rating is 10%.

They probably noticed, but they don't care. Why should they? House Representatives have had a >80% re-election rate for the last 50 years, and Senators have had a >=75% re-election rate for the last 30.

Congressmen will start caring about approval rate when it starts to correlate with re-election rates, and not before. Until then, campaign contributions and promises of cushy post-Congress jobs account for far more influence, and Congressional votes reflect that fact.

Who is paying him to say this?

OpenSecrets.org takes a lot of the mystery out of who is paying whom in politics.

As far as Chuck Schumer goes, the information is here.

I'm sorry.. the last 2 years especially have left me with nothing but cynicism.

It's not cynicism, it's realism. It's a simple understanding of normal, rational human nature, and how the system works. The Founders instituted a system of checks and balances because they understood it would be self-interested, normal, rational humans who would be leading the country. They weren't cynical in doing this, merely taking into account reality and trying to reach the best outcome.

I hear politicians always say, to the effect, "Trust us, or else you're cynical." It's stupid and naive to believe their words. Look at their actions, and who is paying them to get a clearer picture of what they're trying to accomplish. They are normal, rational, self-interested people and will do things to help their current financial position, their future financial position, help their friends and contributors, and punish their enemies.

Be skeptical of politicians. The Founders were.

Who is paying him to say this?

OpenSecrets.org takes a lot of the mystery out of who is paying whom in politics.

As far as Chuck Schumer goes, the information is here.

I'm sorry.. the last 2 years especially have left me with nothing but cynicism.

It's not cynicism, it's realism. It's a simple understanding of normal, rational human nature, and how the system works. The Founders instituted a system of checks and balances because they understood it would be self-interested, normal, rational humans who would be leading the country. They weren't cynical in doing this, merely taking into account reality and trying to reach the best outcome.

I hear politicians always say, to the effect, "Trust us, or else you're cynical." It's stupid and naive to believe their words. Look at their actions, and who is paying them to get a clearer picture of what they're trying to accomplish. They are normal, rational, self-interested people and will do things to help their current financial position, their future financial position, help their friends and contributors, and punish their enemies.

Be skeptical of politicians. The Founders were.

Will there be a bug bounty program for our codes of law, or do I still have to be in a corporation and pay them for my fixes?

One merely needs to look:

Apple

Now compare it to three companies I named elsewhere in this thread as actual "political merchants" (by that I mean companies whose primary profit strategy is in obtaining public funding or publicly enforced rent-seeking opportunities):

Boeing,
General Electric,
and General Motors.

I imagine there are a number of companies with campaign contributions and lobbying costs that are even larger than these (particularly in health care, investment, entertainment, and legal sectors).

Apple seems to be on the same level as Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle in terms of campaign contributions. I didn't notice them spending much less than these other large companies. But Apple certainly spends much less than certain obvious businesses.

One merely needs to look:

Apple

Now compare it to three companies I named elsewhere in this thread as actual "political merchants" (by that I mean companies whose primary profit strategy is in obtaining public funding or publicly enforced rent-seeking opportunities):

Boeing,
General Electric,
and General Motors.

I imagine there are a number of companies with campaign contributions and lobbying costs that are even larger than these (particularly in health care, investment, entertainment, and legal sectors).

Apple seems to be on the same level as Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle in terms of campaign contributions. I didn't notice them spending much less than these other large companies. But Apple certainly spends much less than certain obvious businesses.

One merely needs to look:

Apple

Now compare it to three companies I named elsewhere in this thread as actual "political merchants" (by that I mean companies whose primary profit strategy is in obtaining public funding or publicly enforced rent-seeking opportunities):

Boeing,
General Electric,
and General Motors.

I imagine there are a number of companies with campaign contributions and lobbying costs that are even larger than these (particularly in health care, investment, entertainment, and legal sectors).

Apple seems to be on the same level as Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle in terms of campaign contributions. I didn't notice them spending much less than these other large companies. But Apple certainly spends much less than certain obvious businesses.

One merely needs to look:

Apple

Now compare it to three companies I named elsewhere in this thread as actual "political merchants" (by that I mean companies whose primary profit strategy is in obtaining public funding or publicly enforced rent-seeking opportunities):

Boeing,
General Electric,
and General Motors.

I imagine there are a number of companies with campaign contributions and lobbying costs that are even larger than these (particularly in health care, investment, entertainment, and legal sectors).

Apple seems to be on the same level as Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle in terms of campaign contributions. I didn't notice them spending much less than these other large companies. But Apple certainly spends much less than certain obvious businesses.

Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.

There ALREADY is a strong bias toward incumbents. Re-election rates pretty much never drop below 90% for House seats and rarely below 75% for Senate seats. Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.

Even the current limits on campaign contributions have greatly increased the percentage of politicians that get re-elected, while also greatly increasing the number of millionaires in congress, since they can just use their own money.

The data I linked to above does not agree with your assertion. Re-election rates haven't changed appreciably since 1980 and there ALWAYS have been a large number of wealthy candidates. George Washington was among the richest Americans of his day and adjusted for inflation was the wealthiest president ever with an inflation adjusted net worth of over $500 million. Jefferson, Jackson and Madison were in the top 5. Mitt Romney by way of comparison would have been the 2nd or 3rd richest ever had be been elected.

In 1998, Microsoft was pursued by the DOJ in an antitrust case. In 2001, the case was dropped.

1) Amount of money Microsoft contributed, from 1990 to present.
Scroll down to the graph titled "Party Split" to see the totals by year.

2) The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty.

It's a voluntary prostitute-john business. Politicians can threaten to shake down businesses. Businesses give money, politicians do what they want.

Every remedy has its own set of costs and benefits. But, I don't think the Founders foresaw this type or level of corruption. They instituted a system of checks and balances, because they understood human nature, and the system was designed to keep the leaders in check. I don't think they foresaw the power of various business-political complexes.

I'd like to add a litte more along these lines:
As suggested, taking a look at Opensecrets shows that big money in politics does come, in a large part, from unions: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
So, a lot of big money in politics comes from unions and goes mainly to the Democratic party (at least the top 15 or so), which may be contrary to the only big corporation and Republicans thing most of us expect (especially from all those Obama campaign emails I get about "grassroots").
What the big unions do is strongarm you as a young person into becoming a VIP member (whose fee is eligible for political contributions) and then don't give you a say. Also, when layoffs happen, you're the first to go since the ONLY thing that matters is seniority. Sadly, when it comes to many things, the big unions don't look too different from the big businesses.

lawmakers are turning up the heat on the Obama administration

lobbyists are turning up the heat on Congress.

Fixed that for you.

Hint: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076 [AT&T profile at opensecrets]

Guess which political party the MAFIAA bought in order to get the DMCA passed?

Yeah, the party that LOVES more and more government.

The very same party that by some crazy-ass "logic" thinks that the same government that runs the TSA should run health care for everyone.

Imagine that.

(How the hell can the Slashtards who rail against rampant government incompetence when the TSA is involved or when the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretaps are mentioned suddenly love handing over 1/6 of the economy and control of their health care decisions to the same bureaucrats? IT'S THE SAME OVERWEENING INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT YOU FUCKING MORONS! IT ISN'T GOING TO MAKE ANYTHING BETTER BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS!)

It was passed unanimously which means some republicans voted for it too. This is especially true since they controlled the senate and the house of representatives in 1996 when it passed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

If the GOP gave two shits about the DMCA they have had ample opportunities to change it since. They haven't because they don't give a shit. Maybe the only reason for the vast payments to the Democratic party that year is simply because they needed more buying off, the republicans were on side already.

Guess which political party the MAFIAA bought in order to get the DMCA passed?

Yeah, the party that LOVES more and more government.

The very same party that by some crazy-ass "logic" thinks that the same government that runs the TSA should run health care for everyone.

Imagine that.

(How the hell can the Slashtards who rail against rampant government incompetence when the TSA is involved or when the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretaps are mentioned suddenly love handing over 1/6 of the economy and control of their health care decisions to the same bureaucrats? IT'S THE SAME OVERWEENING INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT YOU FUCKING MORONS! IT ISN'T GOING TO MAKE ANYTHING BETTER BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS!)

... the bankers who caused the problems paid for BHO's election/relection rather then being prosecuted...

The "banker" (financial institution) money went very heavily for Romney, not Obama, 3-1 in Romney's favor in fact. Obama did not prosecute the numerous (extremely rich) malefactors in the Bush Crash it is true, but their attitude is always: "Well, what are you going to do for me now?!".

The SEIU has 2.1 million members, so that is less than $9/member being contributed.

If you are talking about political total contributions, $18 million is peanuts: $6 Billion was spent on the 2012 elections (source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6.html).

Yeah, I didn't think you were very close with those numbers, and it didn't take much digging to confirm that suspicion:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

If you ignore outside spending, party spending, and anything other than what the Obama/Romney camps spent directly, then you're *sort of* close to 730/330 but still off by a factor of 30%, rather than the 200% that those living in the real world saw.

--Jeremy

They're not bribes. They're campaign contributions, and it's perfectly legal free speech protected by the first amendment. What are you, some kind of pinko commie?

So believe me when I say that if the judge I worked for, of if the judges my friends were working for were being offered bribes, I would definitely know about it. He isn't, and they aren't. Not even close. It just does not happen. Sorry.

And nobody's saying it does. Read the thread. I believe the originating sentiment is "the law is bought and paid for". That doesn't mean people are bribing judges; it means that people with money can drive the legislative process. The average net worth of first-term congressmen is almost four million dollars. "Lobbying" is a 3 billion dollars a year and growing industry. Really, the question isn't "is the law bought and paid for?" it's "how can anyone reasonably expect such a process to generate just laws?".

if you aren't a lawyer and you think a decision is crazy or wrong, the more likely explanation is that you just don't know the law that's being applied.

People who are judging the law aren't doing so on the basis of which laws were infringed, they're doing so on the basis of justice - which, increasingly, does not overlap with the legal technicalities.

AT&T Is not the largest campaign contributor.. Act Blue, Nation Educational Association, and American Fedn employees unions all spend more. AT&T is the biggest "non-partisan" campaign contributor. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php The Republican's complain of union money... the Democrats complain of the Koch brothers and the NRA..

Obama Treasury dude Jack Lew knows where to hide his cash

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz knows where to hide hers

Obama's pal and advisor Valerie Jarrett seems to like Bermuda for her cash

Nancy Pelosi Seems to like hiding her money in asia (see: Matthews International Capital Management LLC)

And then Obama himself seems to like parking cash in the Cayman Islands

The truth is that the political class lives by a very different set of rules than the rest of us and if you think Democrats are any more "for the people" than Republicans then you're just another "useful idiot". Many of the richest politicians in the US who hide cash offshore to avoid taxes are Democrats.... and it's worse when they do it because they are being hypocrites; Republicans at least call for everybody to have lower, flatter taxes...... but Democrats are always trying to fool the public into liking them by yelling "Tax the Rich!" while quietly hiding their personal fortunes from those very taxes they endorsed.

Considering that Obama was the top donor recipient from Verizon, is it of any surprise? Yet he can't issue an executive order for this stuff but can to restrict guns or assassinate people because it's somehow within his authority...

Yeah, I love that "continue to have" part too...can't tell if the WH is being sarcastic or the telco money actually convinced them so.

It doesn't matter who is voted into office, what matters is who is willing to pay for the campaign. It takes money to run for Congress and these creatures are acting no differently than their predecessors or successors.

It takes a small number of people with a strong vested interest to fund a campaign when the opposition is not willing to fund an counter campaign. To wit

Judy Chu, a Democrat, has raised $80,000 from people, pacs and companies associated with the movie industry.

Howard Coble, a Republican, has raised $40,000 from the same sources.

$120,000 tells you why these people are doing this. Slashdot isn't raising $120,000 against the legislation so it goes forward..

This snippet sums it all up, "I've put in two calls to your PAC director, and I haven't received any return phone calls," the Congressman said, according to Williams. "Now why am I taking this meeting?" The minute he left the office, Williams called his PAC director, and she cut those checks. "

It doesn't matter who is voted into office, what matters is who is willing to pay for the campaign. It takes money to run for Congress and these creatures are acting no differently than their predecessors or successors.

It takes a small number of people with a strong vested interest to fund a campaign when the opposition is not willing to fund an counter campaign. To wit

Judy Chu, a Democrat, has raised $80,000 from people, pacs and companies associated with the movie industry.

Howard Coble, a Republican, has raised $40,000 from the same sources.

$120,000 tells you why these people are doing this. Slashdot isn't raising $120,000 against the legislation so it goes forward..

This snippet sums it all up, "I've put in two calls to your PAC director, and I haven't received any return phone calls," the Congressman said, according to Williams. "Now why am I taking this meeting?" The minute he left the office, Williams called his PAC director, and she cut those checks. "

American politicians (most of them, at least) don't care one way or the other about the NRA. What they care about is how they look to the (voting) public.

The NRA presents itself as speaking for the voters. Maybe they do. But the NRA certainly spends a few million a year to lobby in Washington. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

No politician wants to have to do something so official and public as voting to remove a constitutional right...that would be political suicide. They're afraid, yes, but not of the NRA.

That you state the issue in those terms shows how effective the NRA has been.

Well, Exxon is in the top ten here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=s

But can anyone explain why the US Chamber of Commerce is the top money giving lobbyist, by 3x?

The goal of a political donor like this is to have undue influence on whoever ends up holding the office. In other words, it's a bet on the candidate winning. Most companies hedge their bets a bit - for example AT&T gave $241K to Romney, and $215K to Obama, so either way they win, but their only real allegiance is to themselves.

So the reason Gary Johnson doesn't get that kind of cash is because he isn't perceived as being likely to win. It has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with bribery.

even if Obama wanted to, he's going to save his political capital for those fights which advance his own goals

Obama got twice as much money as Romney in the last election from Verizon. And that was just one cellular carrier.

You all think the law as it stands was not very much supported and driven by Democrats? Well enjoy laying in the bed you all voted for. I'm not going to sign the petition because I figure America should get what it asked for, full bore. Enjoy the next four years rubes! That should give you just enough time to truly understand the term Liberal Fascism.

It seems like Verizon and AT&T spend millions that they collect from their monopoly of the spectrum and give it to politicians to who then make laws in their favor. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B08&year=a

The government sales of the free spectrum to the highest bidder is one of the biggest scams ever. Carrier-less mesh networking technology has been a viable alternative for a long time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking ) but the government persists in licensing the most useful spectrum frequencies to the highest bidder for billions of dollars ( http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=about_auctions ) while restricting the unlicensed spectrum like 802.11 to limited frequencies with severe power restrictions.

$5.3 Million in political contributions from AT&T? http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076. I doubt that Andrew can match that level of purchased justice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-46840313/google-political-donations-where-company-execs-put-their-cash/

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115&cycle=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2012&type=P&id=D000022008

Bottom feeders? Whatever - we're used to hearing that from the predators in the republican party, and the !% that the party seems to represent. Bottom feeders. Thanks a lot.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-46840313/google-political-donations-where-company-execs-put-their-cash/

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115&cycle=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2012&type=P&id=D000022008

Bottom feeders? Whatever - we're used to hearing that from the predators in the republican party, and the !% that the party seems to represent. Bottom feeders. Thanks a lot.

Just have a look at the last election where Obama whipped Mitt-and-the-1%ers collective behind.

If you really think Obama isn't beholden to 1%ers and massive corporate interests you are a complete idiot. He got as much of his funds from 1%ers as Romney did.

Now, tell me how homeowners who signed contracts for mortgages they couldn't afford is different from companies who signed contracts for labor they couldn't afford?

You mean something different besides the fact that the UAW spends millions of dollars annually in order to get what it wants?

You mean something different besides the fact that the UAW actually actively lobbies to maintain the bankruptcy laws that allows home owners to get out of their debts?

Citation not needed

Yeah.. these things are exactly the same.

Every time I see someone say we need to take our freely elected government back, I always ask "from who?".

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/

Not sure what the problem is. Put more explanation into it.

I checked opensecrets and the accenture PAC only paid bribes of about 2/3 mil last year.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00300707

The normal RICO style bribe is somewhat less than 1/10th. So yeah the contract "shoudda" only been about 6 mil. There's a lot of wiggle room, I'm sure this isn't their only contract, and I'm sure that PAC isn't their only bribe paying system. But its not too many orders of magnitude outta line for what tax money they're getting vs what they paid to get it. They don't seem to be getting too much or too little contract for the "donations" they provided, compared to everyone else at the feeding trough.

But then the point is, the 2 party system isn't the real problem. It's our system of voting that is wrong. So by focusing on breaking out of the 2 party system, we're focusing on the wrong problem (treating the symptoms rather than the disease).

It's the system of financing the voting system is what's wrong. Influence and Lobbying