Slashdot Mirror
Details of MSFT's Antitrust Lobbying
An anonymous sent in linkage to "A new ZDNet article detailing new evidence presented to the judge presiding over the Microsoft anti-trust case. It shows that Microsoft made political contributions during last year's (well, 2000's) elections on a scale never seen before... over $6 million. As comparison, this is four times the amount spent by Enron.
It also reveals that Microsoft has been hiring every political lobbyist, and every law firm, with anti-trust expertise and putting them to work on unrelated projects- anything to make them unavailable to work for critics of Microsoft."
I think we all kind of knew this, but it's nice to see someone is looking at the numbers, especially with the campaign contributions.
Microsoft doing something unethical to try to get out of a possibly harsh anti-trust penalty?! Surely you jest
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
We elected the politicans who made the laws in the first place which allowed campaign contributions to be illegal. Infact, during the last election, we didn't want the guy who was willing to do away with them. We wanted to play Bush vs. Gore instead.
Before you run off pointing fingers at Microsoft for doing what they are within the scope of the law to do, ask yourself where the core of the corruption sits. Its not with them, or the politicians. Its us, and our lack of desire to make our elected officials accountable for their actions.
Lobbying wouldn't exist if we as a people decide not to allow it. Anything beyond it would be bribery.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Does that mean that it's gonna topple like
Enron, shortly ?
Toon Moene
Political donations, especially soft money, SUCK.
Parties should be limited as to how much they can spend during a campaign (as they are in Europe) and should maybe even be paid for through taxation- it would cost less thant 1% of the military budget and is a far bettter way of safeguarding democracy.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
"Microsoft's campaign contributions significantly surpassed those of Enron," said Roeder in his report."
So? What does Microsoft have to do with Enron? Oh, I get it..It's popular to bash Enron right now.
More to the point, what did you expect MS to do? Suddenly start playing fair?
Oh, you got me, here's where I hid the bodies, etc.? Please.
Sent from your iPad.
Large corporations will be the death of us all. We used to have to be afraid of only the government. Now it's corporations that hold the power and make the government worse. Where does it end? It's so cyclic it seems impossible to defeat. Government gives corporations power. Corporations suck it up, grow more rapidly than expected and begin to manipulate the government.
Are we really any better off than the wild west?
science is a religion
Why we need to bring soft money donations to an end! If these types of unregulated donations are allowed to continue, we will just see a further buying & selling of the US government (yes, it IS possible, believe it or not!).
This news probably doesn't surprise too many people in this crowd, I think we all knew that MS was pretty generous with soft monies, but it's very nice to see an article like this. The best part of the entire article? The paragraph about the $25k given to buy off South Carolina's Attorney General.
P.S. Anyone else amazed by the fact that there is a place called Chevy Chase, Maryland?!
In South Carolina, one of the states originally participating in the antitrust suit, Microsoft contributed $25,000 to attorney general Charles Condon shortly before his re-election in 1998. According to the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party this was the largest unsolicited donation ever received. Three weeks after Condon won the election, South Carolina withdrew from the antitrust case.
Hopefully this will get picked up by the AP or something. I mean this alone in most people should arouse serious feelings of mistrust for any company. Microsoft makes software. It shouldn't even be making *any* sorts of political contributions or anything. I seriously doubt that within three weeks the attorney general had suddenly decided MS wasn't violating any laws without persuasion
If, at the very least, this and the enron scandal should be a wake up call for americans to consider political party financial reform.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
Amazing! Astounding! Unbelievable even!
Yeah, it's underhanded, maybe even a bit immoral, the problem is, *IT'S NOT ILLEGAL*!!
Both sides are throwing money at this, unsurprisingly MS is throwing more. First off, it would be a violation of their fiduciary responsiblities if they didn't defend themselves as vigrorously as possible. Heck, they've already crossed the line of good taste/credibility in their PR and lobying campaigns in the past, why stop now?
If we really want to do something about activities like this we need to correct the current political system. Now, I'll just remain in the legions who complain about it and don't have a good solution (the problem is WAY beyond my meager geek abilities to grok). The one item of interest I have heard is that the current proposed reforms may have allowed people to donate MORE money instead of less.
We vote with our pocketbooks, Microsoft votes with its. They just happen to have a slightly bigger one. Finally, it's ironic that the concept of "free" speech is used to defend monetary contributions...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You think the US government would decline contributions from any and all companies who have had their questionable business behaviour legally challenged.
Kinda makes sense, no? A lot like convicts being unable to cast a vote.
Microsoft just came late to the party.
Soft-money, political and legal maneuvering is old news to other businesses.
Its all part of our incestuous increasingly corrupt political system.
Nowhere near as much as Microsoft's did, by the way things look...
:/
Some people would consider giving large amounts of money to people with the potential power to ameliorate your legal troubles bribery -- luckily for Microsoft no-one considers this to be the case here.
A sad statement on the American political system, as far as I'm concerned.
deus does not exist but if he does
Errr... zdnet.com.com ? Is that actually a zdnet site? The article isn't on zdnet.com. I think someone has been had perhaps and this article is fake :)
Surely this is no different from the tactics used by other large corporations. Hardly big news.
Short of major changes to the political establishment in Washington it will remain in the interest of big corporations to use 'soft money' to nudge the law making process in their direction.
Size does matter.
According to Enron's Financial Highlights for 2000 Enron had revenues of $100.789 million, and net income of $1.266 million.
According to Microsoft's Financial Highlights (word document) Microsoft had revenues of $9,050 million and net income of $2,195 million.
To compare these two saying that Microsoft contributed roughly four times as much is kind of moot, considering the financial firepower of Microsoft. $ 6million to them is a deck chair on the Titanic to them and could have contributed a lot more.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
...or doesn't the cost of hiring " every political lobbyist, and every law firm, with anti-trust expertise and putting them to work on unrelated projects" dwarf the advantages that would come out of it (well, obviously they don't feel that way, otherwise they wouldn't do it).
No one could seriously have believed that Microsoft would be broken up into pieces. I'm not talking about if they deserve it or not, just that it's too drastic for a higher court not to change it. And thats probably regardless if they "just" sent in their normal army of lawyers or if they did this.
Something must make it worth this amount of money. IANAL but maybe they are fighting really hard to avoid class-action type lawsuits which could end up costing them much more than the remedies in the actual DoJ MS case?
And how would that benefit the politicians? I'm sorry, but they are the ones in power, and for several decades, the western democracies have been slipping more into a situation where it doesnt really matter who gets elected, because there is nobody representing the voters available for election.
Cooperating politicians in a democracy win over the voters every time. And they've realized that.
Why are we surprised? Microsoft has always entered the field late (ala Internet) but always with aggression. They figured out that greasing the wheel in a political system geared towards soft money can make a difference between being a player in industry or being just another company listed on the stock market.
They will always employ hard tactics if there is any gain to be made. It's not right, it's not fair, but that's how the game is played.
duhh....
MS-NBC
-rp
Shouldn't there be laws against stuff like this. Charles Condon should be kicked out of office.
Let's try an experiment. I am going to give you $1m. Now, do you think I might, just possibly, want something in return...?
I know that Microsoft is rich, but are they really THAT rich? Lawyers are expensive as heck; Can MS really through around that vast amount of money without breaking itself?
I'm just wondering if there is an order of magnitude problem here. $6 million is not the order of magnitude necessary to 'suck the oxygen' out of washington; there are pleanty of expensive lawyers to go around. It would take many billions of dollars to achive such an effect (think of it another way- decent lawyers can get $200,000 a year. Buying 200 lawyers could cost $40,000,000 and not put a dent of the pool of lawyers.
The article admits that these numbers come from a known critic of MS. Hmmm.
WTF are you thinking? At least when contributions are legal we know that good men will still get elected because they don't have to sacrifice their morals to get support. Just because the person handing you a $600,000 campaign contribution wants a favor later doesn't mean they will get that favor (especially when giving the favor will get the politician into the fire as well).
When contributions become illegal then bribes become more popular, and those unwilling to accept bribes will not ever come close to getting into office. This is the reason people who are against campaign contributions don't get elected as well.
IMHO the contributions are less trouble than not having them. They should be watched, just like they are being watched. People should scream bloody murder when they are used like M$ and Enron used them. If the populace doesn't rise up and scream for justice then the problem is with the populace not the corporation. Remember that the corporation is made up of people who work for it, and incidentally the populace is made up of the same people.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
... charges that Microsoft buys (bought?) shelf space in stores to prevent competing products from even being visible?
So, in other words, this is really nothing new. This is Microsoft being Microsoft; now, does anyone seriously doubt that this is an organization bent on doing whatever it takes, including things that are not just immoral, or violate common sense, but possibly things that are criminal, in order to ... what, make money?
Has American society fallen so far into the pit of jade and cynicism that we shrug off the Enrons and Microsofts of the world as merely maladjusted money-seeking sycophants, instead of being so violently outraged that we take every chance to make them wish they'd never even started a business? What the hell are we doing?
Every person who reads about Microsoft's behavior should be so sickened that they vomit. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not "business as usual" in the United States. Just because it seems to happen a lot does not make it something we should tolerate, not even for a millisecond, and not for any reason.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
It also reveals that Microsoft has been hiring
every political lobbyist, and every law firm,
with anti-trust expertise and putting them to work on unrelated projects- anything to
make them unavailable to work for critics of Microsoft
So what? How is this any different than the way any other case is run? I mean, shit, if you're gonna rip on MS, do it for something they've done wrong, not something that every other damn company with a lawsuit does.
So they lobbied. So what?
... you could be in a shrinking pool of expertise. Hmm, could be worth your while holding of and getting hired by the opposition.
right
Of course you realise, this is the Microsoft philosophy applied to the legal field. Microsoft has had a history of buying up tecnologies and expertise, many of which have simply disappeared, never to see the light of day again.
It is perhaps the only real innovation that I know of, to take their billions and buy up anything their legal opponents could use to convict them of their crimes.
I am sure other big companies are taking notes. This convicts them even more in my mind.
Like I have said before, every time I turn around there is something else that comes out and dirties their reputation in my eyes. Heck, if PR LapDogs like ZDNet are taking shots at MS, you know rats are starting to leave the ship.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Microsoft's direct lobbying has also grown out of all proportion, so that it now retains more lobbyists than the handful of companies with more than 300,000 employees. Microsoft has just 30,000 employees. Part of the reasoning for extensive use of retainers, says Roeder, citing a Business Week article, is to "suck all the oxygen out".
Who finds this surprising? Even in politics Microsoft still tries to be a monopoly.
Microsoft isn't doing anything expressly 'wrong' here.. No more so than a local Pizza Hut constantly calling a local Domino's to tie up their phone line so no customers could place an order. Classic.. Brilliant.. And thanks to past campaign contributions, perfectly legal..
"You have to watch the violence Lisa.. Else you'll never become desensitized to it" -- Bart
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Now that's ballsy!
What a waste of resources.
The Best Government Money Can Buy (tm)
The real problem here is the idea of "corporate personhood" which extends all the civil rights meant for people (including buying congressmen, senators, presidents and supreme court justices) to corporations.
individual people, and and not-for-profit groups can not compete with the cash generated by a large corporation.
there is one easy solution to this (unfortunately, it's not easy:).
make all elections 100% publicly funded (I believe that england does this and each candidate can only spend something like 10,000 pounds), ban any political advertizing by any non candidate which mentions, depicts or hints where a particlar candidate or party stands on an issue.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
Just ask AOL and Intel how much of a contribution they make. Why do you think they didn't get sued? MS on the other hand started giving contributions too late and we all know what happened.
Personally I believe that the modern legal system is becoming more and more corporate and money controlled.
The problem is that when a politician is elected due to large campaign contributions, he can't help but think that the contributions put him there rather than the votes of the citizens. He is elected, supposedly, to represent the needs of the citizens, but instead he ends up feeling like he is elected to represent the needs of his financiers (even an individual with good moral fiber will have this difficulty).
A politician "should" be concerned first and foremost about how each decision will impact a private citizen. For example, how will DMCA impact the average consumer (loss of their fair use rights), how will extension of copyright laws affect the average individual (they will have access to no new public domain material in their lifetime), etc.
It is getting to the point that the individuals need to hire lobbyists to plead their case with the politicians. Except that the politician was hired in the first place to be our lobbyist.
Coding Blog
So how much did IBM, Sun, Oracle and AOL/TW/Netscape spend on political contributions at the same time they were working with the government against Microsoft?
It's just business.
I assert that it is not campain finance reform, but campain reform that we need.
Consider first why candidates need the huge amounts of money to be elected. They in effect need to run two entirely different campains - once for the primary, and once for the election. As a result, the cost more than doubles. Now, the thought is that once they've won the primary, their party will contribute to the main election. This is true but irrelevant to this discussion: the party must raise the money, and thus the need for money still is doubled.
Now, I assert that anytime there is a demand, there will be a supply. Consider the origins of soft money - in the old days you could directly support your candidate with any amount of cash you wished. This was deemed a bad thing and so limits were placed on direct contributions. Bang - you now have created "soft money" that doesn't get covered under the hard money laws. Do you really expect that as long as candidates need money they won't find a way around soft money? And realize this: if you put up a piece on your personal web page about how you feel candidate X is [good|bad], that can be considered a "soft" contribution. Do you really want to give the government that power?
Now, consider the 2000 elections. They were very close - so close that the actual vote difference between the candidates was lost in the noise floor. Was this really because the people were split 50/50 in liking Bush and Gore? Most people who voted for [Bush|Gore] did so because they disliked [Bush|Gore] marginally less than they disliked [Gore|Bush].
I assert that we need to make the following two changes to the system:
1) Allow anybody registered to vote to vote in any primary.
2) Require a binding "none of the above" entry on all elections.
Let's examine the results these two changes would have had on the 2000 US presidential election:
1) By allowing anybody registered to vote in any primary, we would de-emphasize the importance of the primaries and pull the results of the primaries back from the extremes. I doubt that Bush would have won the Republican primary, and I doubt that Gore would have won the Democrat primary. Additionally, candidates such as McCain would have had a much better chance of getting support.
2) By having a binding "none of the above", even if the election had been Bush/Gore, the bulk of people could have voted None Of the Above. Had None Of the Above won, then NOBODY in that election could hold the office, and there would have to be a new election. Ask yourself this: no matter your political affiliation, if you could have had a chance to block both Bush and Gore in favor of a shot at a better candidate, would you?
I assert that with these two changes, the following things would happen:
1) The third party candidates wouldn't run in the first race. Instead, they would encourage the voters to vote NOTA in the first race and knock the big boys out.
2) The big parties would no longer be able to take this "This is our guy, take it or leave it" attitude. Thus, they would tend to field more moderate candidates.
3) Because of 1 and 2, more people would feel their vote mattered, and we would get more turnout.
4) Because the primaries could no longer be used to limit our choices, they would become unimportant and would fad away. Remember - the primaries are entirely outside the election process as described in the Constitution.
Now, I don't assert that these changes would prevent lobbying by corporations. However, if a party knew that they could no longer annoint a golden child in the primaries and force them down our throats, they might be more aware of how the PEOPLE feel about an issue, rather than MONEY.
Discussion?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Instead of creating quality software that people would use because it is the most secure, efficient and capable software... they choose to write utter crap... and they hire marketers to tell us it's gold... hire political lobbiests to force policies and judicial decisions in their favor.
When I started out in computing 26 years ago I never conceived that we would be as backwards as we are today. I never dreamed we would require a 1 gigahertz machine to run a windowing system poorly.... I never thought that instead of booting faster... that machines would boot slower and slower.
Extremely disappointing that a marketing/political interest group has been allowed to pretty much destroy the computer industry.
I guess we can hope and pray that MicroSoft goes the way of Enron... that it's dirty dealings are opened up to the world and that the world responds by simply refusing to have anything to do with the MicroSluts.
Microsoft is sitting on a $38 billion pile of cash. $6 million is 0.15 cents on the dollar.
Ralph Nader says this cash pile is distortion of capitalism. Traditionally companies pay out dividends once they have grown into profitibility. The stockholders are being screwed.
Read the story /.ers... it's $1.6 million, not $6 million. Still a significant increase over $16,000.
Currently, Enron is the posterchild for the reason for campaign finance reform. If our politicians are swayed by the campaign contributions of Enron's scale, what corruption is seeded by a larger sum of money? If the advertising power of the campaigns is knocked askew by some soft money, isn't it knocked asunder by larger sums?
For a few stories linking Enron to campaign finance, you can look at this topic list on Salon.com. The topic is campaign finance. The headlines mostly discuss Enron in recent weeks.
[
...of the emergency broadcast system.
If you like how out political and economic system work, or at least mostly like it, then this is just how the game is played. Business wants the government off its back so it bribes (donates) money to whom will help them the best. Since the Republicans favour large corporations AND the Republicans are currently in power, they will get the money. The employees donated almost 10:1 to the Democrats, which is fairly typical too. Nothing in this article is suprising. I'm not saying I like how our government and economic system works, but THIS is how it is.
Microsoft's patented DoO2 attack. I was at IBM when they released OS/2 v2. When manufacturing went out to buy floppy disks in bulk for the product launch, they discovered that MS had bought up all the floppy manufacturing capacity for months into the future, allegedly just to screw with OS/2.
In the Star Trek evil Mirror Universe, virtuoso cellist Yo-Yo Ma is gangsta hiphop star DJ Yo Ma-Ma.
Money talks, BS walks as the old saying goes.. Let's face it, any company in this same situation would probably be doing the same. After all, we're talking politics here. Mo money equals Mo influence in washington, that's the way it has always been and probably always will be. That's why MS is probably going to win this war... It's all about the money when you get right down to it. And MS has a lot of it! Until they don't have a lot of it they will be a monopoly. Ironically that is a catch 22... They won't be a monopoly if they aren't making Mo Money from Windows, which means customers aren't happy and have better alternatives. So now we are back to good 'ol capitalism. It's the American way!
The biggest problem is that Microsoft continues with no major obtacles in its way. Microsoft has the money to do what it wants to do. What can stop something this large, only a large population. Do people not learn anything in history class? Does anyone remember big steel and oil? Why can we not stop it before it gets completely out of control? Why are no changes being made to prevent such evil? Does it take a revolution to make changes? It seems to me that most of the changes I see being made in government and corporations are to benefit the wealthy and powerful. Sure, you can just sit there and flame away at me and say I'm a crazy radical or even call me a communist like some of my friends. Communism is flawed, Socialism is flawed, dictatorship is flawed, and yes, even capitalism is flawed. Microsoft won't stop until some other large player sees an advantage to taking them on. The middle and poor class has nothing to lose when Microsoft loses, but they unfortunately do not know any better. Most do not even know about these tactics that Microsoft pulls. Should they get away with it, no, will they, it all depends on everyone.
It makes me sick when I hear someone praise Microsoft for anything they do, even if it is good. No matter what they do good, the harm they do outweighs the good. There is no excuse for it. Yes, I Microsoft bash, just like I bash anyone and everyone who is wealthy and/or powerful that abuse their power. Most important, I bash the systems, because that is the underlying problem. Microsoft is a corrupt organization, so bash away without feeling guilty about it.
Question everything.
Enron's net revenue was $1.266 million or roughly 1.1% that of revenue. How can they have a net income exceeding revenue, since the equation is NetIncome = Revenue - Cost.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
"The only truly effective Campaign Finance Reform is... " to remove the religion of capitalism that subverts the value of the democratic ideal of "one individual, one vote" through a republic based on the substitution of votes with dollars -- which will always give the loudest voice to the richest of the rich.
As long as the US is a capitalistic state, the dollar will be mightier than the individual.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Enron had huge debt and 75% of its claimed assets were phoney.
Microsoft has not debt to speak of and $38 billion in cash.
You'd make a terrible investor or stock broker if you cant tell the difference.
This practise has been common for decades. Microsoft is not only a minor player politically (it gives relatively little money to political lobbying and up until about 6 years ago didn't give ANYTHING to political lobbying).
How do you think IBM, SUN, Oracle, AOL, etc. got the attention of lawmakers in the first place - by LOBBYING and through political contributions. Don't point the finger at Microsoft and call it 'buying the government' - it's a well-established practise that was going on LONG before Microsoft, was directly responsible for the lawsuits Microsoft is now facing and will be around long after those lawsuits have been settled.
It's all very well to love your little toy OS and even to dislike Microsoft if the case may be, but don't try to call this 'Microsoft corruption'.
Big business has ALWAYS used lobbying and political contributions to get what they want. Do you expect Microsoft to just sit back and let their opponents do this? That's called STUPIDITY - and it's only within the last few years that Microsoft has realised that this is the way their competitors choose to get ahead in the market... not by creating better products but by buying politicians and lobbying to try and prevent Microsoft from competing.
Do you HONESTLY believe that the government runs the country? Are you TRULY that naive???? Please tell me you've got a better picture of the world than that!
If it wasn't for the fact that this site has such great news I'd have to seriously question my sanity for choosing to come back here and listen to such a bunch of whining, evangelical, biased morons who are so into their little love-fest with the toy-OS that they will slant everything to make themselves look like the victim. GROW UP!
Buying shelf space happens everywhere, even in supermarkets. Brands pay to have their product put on better (eye-level) shelves than their competitors.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
You're funny.
I imagine AOL-TimeWarner already make donations to the parties, so they are already sponsoring the next election in part.
There will always be conservative leaning and liberal leaning press, and it shall always be read by conservative and liberal leaning people. Candidates should not be able to buy adverts at all- whether TV, radio, magazine or any other. Television and radio should all have time set aside to provide election broadcasts one party at a time in a completly fair way, and naturally these media shall need to be compensated for this. Leave the debates for the news/current affairs programs.
This is what happens across Europe as I understand, and I don't think it's a coincidence that nearly 50% more of their electorates get out and vote or that the entire procedure seems a whole lot more dignified.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
Are they afraid or just not that observant? This is definatly newsworthy.
The ability to companies to donate money to politicians but shield which politician it is going to to is what is so evil about soft money. At least in the 20s the press could drag a politician through the mud based on his own specific donations. But what would the headline be now? at worst..."Republican party takes donations from Microsoft."
Campain money IS NOT SPEECH. It's just the opposite.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Well it would be a great leveller for starters, as well as The Big Two parties it would be a lot easier for smaller parties to get their message out instead of being drowned in the noise.
Maybe if you feel that nobody representing you is available for election you would be able to consider standing yourself under a new party banner
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
But, can the Queen of England wage war without parliamentary approval? I'd have to say that the Pres is a bit more than a figurehead. In the case of this congress, and with regard to corporate America in general, a puppet maybe, but a figurehead, certainly not.
I agree with everything else you've said.
Deepthroat: "Follow the money".
If the consumer cannot decide that msware is not good, they do not deserve any better. MS's lobbying is no worse than many, many other major corporations and labor unions. This shouldnt come as a shock or surprise. You think the FSF doesnt have lobbyists(though on a much smaller scale)?
I just saw a Microsoft Visual Studio .NET ad on the top of Slashdot!
The sky is falling!
It's th 7th sign of the apocalypse!
Hide your cheese!
Oh, the humanity!
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
when the system doesn't work the way it should. Forcing MS to include Netscape? Now that's anti-competitive.
you may also read the following text which is about "W" and Enron's connexions during and since W's campaign...
I actually don't know who this Michale Moore is but his letter is quite interesting if everything is true.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Definitely. I predicted this when MS's competitors sic'ed the Feds on them. All of the "I-hate-productive-people" crowd cheered them on. But they (both MS's competitors & the lefties) were too stupid to realize that MS would just strike back in kind. Only moreso since they had deeper pockets.
Oh wait.... we can tell just by counting the pro-microsoft comments in this thread!!
Easy!
Limited to 1%? wtf? arent we about freedom? and since when are the european's role models? in this country, we dont have a democracy, so I'm sick of people saying it. look - we make campaign contributions illegal they are still gonna keep happening, only behind closed doors, and the situation will worse. dirty politicians will become dirtier...organized crime anyone? ;)
That's a real fizzer of a story.
Spending money is one thing. Attacking
American tech workers is another. Microsoft
is the major funder of a large lobbying firm
inside the Beltway called the ITAA. This organization is run by Harris Miller. Harris Miller had previously made his career by lobbying for more migrant labor from Mexico so that rich farmers could pay less for work. It worked. Impressed by this,
Bill Gates hired him to bring in more migrant computer programmers. Miller succeeded: that's right, several special expansions the guest worker H1-B program. Instead of sponsoring a reasonable number of new Americans for citizenship track; large American companies could now import guest workers to replace American progammers. These guest workers do not have "green-card" rights; just guest worker "indentured servitude" status.
So, yes, it's news. Bill Gates throws millions around to get special favors. It's time we held him responsible for his callousness.
Bingo! Don't kid yourself. That is the ONLY reason the Feds went after MS. They didn't give contributions before.
True, but again, the ones in power are the existing political parties, and they are the ones who have the power to change the legislation... and they dont benefit from changing it.
We can complain all we want about bought politicians, but we cant change those rules, and the existing power structures appear unlikely to want to change it...
And, of course, I do feel that they 'represent' me. I'm included in the demographically researched groups they target for advertising. Well, except, of course, the targetted advertising isnt exactly true, it's just what they say to get elected, so again they arent representing the voters.
That, of course, means there isnt any real point to standing under the current system. You'll have to research the demographics yourself, and end up saying almost exactly the same things to get elected, after which you might as well just take cash, since you wont believe in the things you had to say to get elected anyway.
The problem with that is coporations can still buy things for the politicians themselves and not to the campaign. Eg. Cars houses, yatchs, etc.
The MPAA/RIAA and the tobbaco industry has done this for years. They just fly in judges in first class jets to Hollywood with 5 star dinning experiences every night all in the name of educating the judge. The judge in Newy Ork who ruled agaisn't Jon Johnson did this. This kid went to prison, all paid for in the name of education via $$$. ITs sick but pefectly legal and impossible to make it illegal.
http://saveie6.com/
Buy a fucking copy of your Linux distribution. Buy a Linux product. Donate some money to KDE/GNOME. Got a Linux user's group? Pass the hat around and send the cash to Red Hat or Suse for some T-Shirts. Buy a Linux magazine, or ask for a subscription to one for Christmas.
Don't bother trying to control politicians, the system is too fucked up for anybody to change except people who are in love with bureaucracy.
Don't try to change Microsoft. They have too much money to buy lawyers to manipulate and find loopholes in laws with, and too many people with their hands tied to it.
Instead, vote with your dollars. And vote for the other guy. Right now we have one company breaking even on the open source model, and it's a bloody miracle if you ask me how a company can generate income when the GPL pretty much guarantees free (as in beer) redistribution of their core product.
As far as the distros go, they're not expensive, and if you know what you're doing with Linux you know you're getting more for your dollar with the latest distros than you will with any Microsoft Windows release. Loki failed because of the business model, not because of the quality of games, so BUY a Linux game. Have you tried the different office software products from KDE or GNOME yet? They're good! The basic stuff is free and for a little extra cash you can get more. They can import all sorts of shit and they're getting better all the time. Did you know that they're working on an Open Source spinoff of QuarkXPress? They could use some money. The list goes on and on...
We have nothing to gain from being miserly. Power flows when you let your money flow. Give power to the competition.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
you guys will scream that encryption and discussing encryption is free speech (which i agree it is) but then political donations are not? they should be banned, you say. but donations by corporations (who are ultimately owned by people) and people are one of the basic expressions of free speech! no matter, you guys think microsoft is evil, corporations suck, so they should be punished for being successful.
you want to say the system is unequal, well yea it is. this ain't socialism.
There are some astroturfers hanging out here. Hey,
astroturfers, go read Slate or listen to NPR.
It may have been a little extreme but the point was made. Take a look at my response below for a little more insight to my thinking.
Quote from article in ZDnet
;-D
Roeder's report was submitted to Judge Kollar-Kotelly at the end of January. Microsoft has been unable to comment.
ROTFL, Exchange server down? Email got a virus? Heh heh.
Microsoft is the greatest company in the world, they make the most secure software and they are a exemple for every other company in the world. I love my window 95 that i paid 200$ for, it's so fun to reinstall it every 6 month or so... i cant wait till the next IE patch goes out!, patching system is fun!
I'm not paid by microsoft to tell that,
Sincerly yours,
Bill
As a Canadian, reading the reactions of various slashdotters, I find it very interesting.
We as a tech community are so ready to shout that Microsoft is evil. You guys are forgetting that this is the American way (which applies to us up too...). Remember those Railroad Tycoons, the Oil Tycoons? The Rockafellers of the world are still around. Why do you think Texas has so many industries that could have been put elsewhere? (Count how many military bases that there are in Texas?)Prominent Texans ensured that Texas was given the goods, and in our present system of government they did not only what they could, but what was expected and did what benefited Texans and especially those prominant citizens. (Sorry Texans, but its the only example I know of as an ignorant canuck ;)
Using money to influence government policy is how government has functioned for a long time. Remember in Ancient Rome, being in position of political power made you rich as businesses petitioned for your support. This is not going to change anytime soon unless we as a society decide that is unacceptable.
America is the land of the free. Its the land of who has got more $$$. The more dough you have, the more freedom you have to do as you wish for good or ill.
Don't piss on M$ because they are doing what is in their best interests and that they have the freedom to do so. Its disgusting that they did do it, but I am much more revolted that the so called democracy of the world is nothing more than auction and that THIS seems news to people . We have to as a society against this truly undemocratic behaviour.
Hopefully this will serve as a case in point for seriously look at our Politicians and their Political Parties and how they govern us.
Though I suppose it could be worse... at least we pretend to have democracy.
Don't mind me though I am just a jaded youth....
If some Arab would steer his plane into the Tower of London, you can guess that the Queen certainly would not be amused...
The candidates take the money and use it to buy ads so they can reach the public. This is not a serious problem, it's what comes after that is a serious problem -- the quid pro quo that the donor expects.
So the problem is not money, it is the influence of people who have money.
Making money harder for candidates to raise doesn't mean the need for money goes away -- quite the contrary. The candidates have to work harder for every dollar. The marginal value of every additional dollar raised is higher to the candidate because of the general scarcity of funds. On the flip side, the cost of buying influence drops. Let me propose this law of political fundraising:
As proof, let us suppose that Enron and Microsoft succeeded in buyin our federal government for a few paltry millions. This is unconscionable! It should cost billions to have this kind of influence; influence buying should require bribery on such a grand scale it either prices people out or requires a brazeness so affronting to the common votor that it becomes self defeating.
We should also repeal the notion that corporations are persons with respect to campaign contributions -- it's a legal invitation to bribery.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not because Microsoft's giving so much (I'm more worried about movie/record/media lobbies), but because OpenSecrets.org only has Microsoft down for contributing $1,167,162. If they really contributed $6 million, that's $4.8-ish million that opensecrets.org couldn't keep track of, and if they're losing that much with MS, I can only shudder to think how much more other companies might be contributing.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The real problem is power, plain and simple.
When we give the government power to regulate our lives and do this and that, it becomes necessary for businesses and groups to lobby the government to turn the tide of regulation their way. They are out to protect their interests, as are most groups and people. The real cure to the campaign system is to return to a government with less power. It's almost like a law of physics: power will currupt, period. The more power a government weilds, the more it will open itself up for corruption.
If we pass more laws (and you'll note that existing campaign laws are broken often), we'll simply be adding to the problem. Regardless of whether you like it or not, money is speech. To say that I can only give a certain amount of money to a politician whom I agree with, limits my free speech (IMHO). Apparantly, the Supreme Court mostly agrees with me. To say the answer is to give the government more power over the arena of political debate is like pouring gasoline on a fire to quench it.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Didn't you pay attention in government class?
1. The president carries veto power over any bill produced by Congress. They need a 2/3 vote to override. How often have you seen that happen?
2. The judicial branch can declare a law unconstitutional only *after* someone has been found guilty and appealed through the appropriate lower courts. This isn't something that happens overnight, but it does happen. See @all_important_cases_in_history.
Wake up.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
If Bill Gates wants to be charitable, he should make good software.
This is from http://www.mccain2000.com/
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: ACTION ALERT!!!
A bandaged Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., takes part in a Washington news conference to discuss campaign finance reform, Monday, Feb. 11, 2002. Last week, McCain had a cancerous lesion removed from the left side of his nose which was diagnosed as the earliest form of melanoma and was removed. (AP
Photo/Stephen J. Boitano)
One Last Push: Call Now!
Thank you to all those who phoned and faxed Members of Congress over the past week and urged them to support the Shays-Meehan bill. We've heard many reports of offices flooded with calls on the issue, but the fight is not over.
Recently, the republican party and its leadership stepped up the effort to fight meaningful reform. If you are a Republican, please make sure and mention that fact when you call or fax the following list of Members. Let them know that this issue is important to you and that the passage of Shays-Meehen is necessary in order to restore integrity to America.
Speaker Hastert has declared the campaign finance reform fight "Armageddon" -- and true reform won't come easy. The vote is Wednesday--and we need to keep the pressure on. Below, we have included a list of Members of Congress that we are asking you to call or fax. Please let these members of Congress know that they must vote for Shays-Meehan. In addition, let them know to vote against the poison pill amendments and the sham Ney Bill.
Please call or fax the following list of Representatives:
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL-6) (202) 225-4921 - (202) 225-2082 fax
Rep. Elton Gallegy (R-CA-23) (202) 225-5811 - (202) 225-1100 fax
Rep. Doug Ose (R- CA-3) (202) 225-5716 - (202) 226-1298 fax
Rep. Michael Collins (R -GA-3) (202) 225-5901 - (202) 225-2515 fax
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA-9) (202) 225-5211 - (202) 225-8272 fax
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-20) (202) 225-5271 - (202) 225-5880 fax
Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R -MO-9) (202) 225-2956 - (202) 226-0326 fax
Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI-7) (202) 225-6276 - (202) 225-6281 fax
Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN-2) (202) 225-2331 - (202) 225-6475 fax
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ-2) 202) 225-6572 - (202)225-3318 fax
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11) (202) 225-5034 - (202) 225-3186 fax
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ-3) (202) 225-4765 - (202) 225-0778 fax
Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ-7) (202) 225-5361 - (202) 225-9460 fax
Rep. John McHugh (R-NY-24) (202)225-4611 - (202)226-0621 fax
Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY-19) (202) 225-5441 - (202) 225-3289 fax
Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH-5) (202) 225-6405 - (202)225-1985 fax
Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH-16) (202) 225-3876 - (202)225-3059 fax
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH-19) (202) 225-5731 - (202) 225-3307 fax
Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA-4) (202) 225-2565 - (202) 226-2274 fax
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA-7) (202) 225-2011 - (202) 225-8137 fax
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN-2) (202) 225-5435 - (202)225-6440 fax
Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV-2) (202) 225-2711 - (202) 225-7856 fax
Please also call your Representative at 1-800-660-8244, even if you did so last week. Urge them to support Shays-Meehan and oppose the sham Ney bill and poison pill amendments.
The House of Representatives uses an e-mail system called "Write Your Rep". You can send e-mails only to your Representative by entering your zip code into the e-mail form - http://www.house.gov/writerep
Will you also send this alert to a friend - or two or five - and ask them to do the same? Let's win true reform THIS WEEK.
Thank you for your continued support.
But what about my new party that I just created? Should the networks be required to give me time? Should I get the same amount of time as the Democrats?
If MS was smart, they'd port SQL Server to Linux.
Actually, they'd be better off porting SQL Server to *BSD (even coming up with their own fork to *BSD, if necessary) and sell it on any architecture Oracle is on.
Then you can say goodbye to IBM & Linux, as well.
And you thought the posters at the post office were just advertisement.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Michael Moore is a filmmaker and positive irritant of corporate corruption. He became famous for his documentary called "Roger and Me" about the closing of the auto plant in Flint, MI. If you've not seen it, it's definitely worth the rental. He also did a short-lived US TV series called "TV Nation" that was cancelled shortly after. Recently he did another movie called "The Big One" and a series on A&E that I'm blanking on the title of. He's generally a very funny guy who's humor comes in flying in the face of the status quo. Or, if you don't agree with him, he's a hack filmmaker who stirs up conspiracy theories. Whatever you want, I don't care, I like the guy and he still sometimes goes farther than I'd like.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
And it's even on-topic...
Best Slashdot Co
I know I'm picking nits here, but the Pres can't wage offical war without Congress approving. (You imply that is true with your (rhetorical) question). He can however have us fight someone else (it's a police action, we're just involved, etc) without Congress having a say. Congress did approve the current war, but, if any of them tried to vote no, they would be impeached, or "mysteriously" resign.
Hot damn. You're the man now, dog!
A list of the least corrupt countries (as of 2001)c pi 2001.html
can be found at
http://www.transparency.org/documents/cpi/2001/
(with USA ranking 16)
If the candidates are not allowed to buy ads, someone else will buy them on their behalf, TV ads work some group that has a point of view will but advertising on behalf of their issue, the main difference will then be that there will be less responsibility for the ads that come out. All of the ratings I have seen have indicated that fair reporting, particularly debates, about rivasl candidates is avoided as much as possible. There have been recent Gubernatorial elections that had difficulty finding anyone to run them. Higher turnout is usaully indicative of either great issues at stake or high degree of party loyalty, neither of those have been true in many of the last few elections, at least in the mind of the public
--- Ron
If you can put up as many candidates as the rest of the party you should get the same amount of time, money should be based upon election performance- and will affect how many candidates can be put up. Obviously this would need a lot of thinking about and will have problems to iron out, but the potential is there for it to be a lot better than what we have presently- it certainly shouldn't be thrown out immediately.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
What I don't understand is how corporations are allowed to give so much soft money TO BOTH SIDES!?!
It's pretty obvious that they aren't trying to further a political agenda (which I could see arguments for and against.) They're just making sure that whoever wins owes them a favor. They aren't making any pretense that their donations are anything more than bribery. I don't see where this would even be a grey area in the whole campaign finance reform issue.
The wonders of multi-party democracy, where one small group of people can ram their agenda down the public's throat because they are the difference to a majority in the Congressional Branch. Whether it is Nuclear Power in Germany or Religous laws in Israel, or the stability problems of Italy, more parties is definitely not the answer. Most of those wonderful messages that smaller parties have are in most cases are not interesting to the majority of the public or are opposed by powerful interests (not neccesarily monied) that will fight tooth and nail to stop any discussion of them
--- Ron
----
WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
I can't believe that /. as such a huge promoter of 1st amendment rights, doesn't see the relationship that limiting or banning soft money has to limiting the freedom of speech.
Here's the deal. If I pay for an advert in support of electing Jimmy Schlessenbaum, that money is counted as a soft money donation to Mr Schlessenbaum. If I give him the money for the ad, and his campaign pays for it, that's a hard contribution and it gets handled under the existing rules and limitations.
This is the problem. I have a right to express my opinion of who to vote for. If we start saying that there are limits on soft money contributions, then we're volunteering for legalized limits of individuals to express their opinions.
For a better description of this, see This article.
I don't like the fact that corporations can buy elections. But I'd rather have an undamaged 1st amendment, than limits on soft contributions.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
So hiring a law firm, and keeping them on 'retainer' is a valid business practice?
Say I have a legal issue with someone.. I 'retain' the best lawyer in town.. Now, my legal adversary can't use that lawyer because it would be a conflict of interest for the lawyer to take up that commission.. But I'm not actually using the lawyer.. I'm paying a lower fee, to 'retain' him, to have him available if I want..
It's really rather brilliant.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Somebody else buying the TV ads is exactly what soft money is, it can be stopped after all it simply does not happen in Europe.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
The Register
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, in an earlier post I remark that M$ can buy any outcome it wants and get modded down.
Then this comes out.
I want my money back, or something.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Perhaps Microsoft should be investigated for monopolizing the influence-peddling business.
You mean the mafia did a favor for me, only to expect something in return?
I will say good day to you, sir!
...
Real life imitates the Simpsons
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dude, it's the American way to buy legislators and influence.
On further thought, that occurs in EVERY country!
There's an old saying that goes "We may not want to get the kind of government we want, but we always get the kind of government we deserve." This applies to industry and journalism as well. As much as I would like to spend part of this message bashing Microsoft, it really would be hypocritical of me. I would be writing my diatribe at work on a computer loaded to the fans with MS software, including the browser I'm using to read Slashdot today. Although my e-mail and homepage are based on a Linux server, most of my home computer is laden with the same MS products. So who am I (are we) to talk? On the same hand, how much talking about Enron can we do in good faith? Many of the Enron employees lost their life savings because most or all of their retirements were tied up with Enron stock. For those of us who have bothered saving money (and I don't have a lot in savings either, so I'm forced to recuse myself from much Enron criticism), doing so intelligently doesn't mean going for something that looks like it'll make you a Lotta Money Quick. As quite a few people in and out of Enron have discovered, you can lose it just as fast. (Is this "blaming the victims?" Yes it is, at least to some extent. It wasn't their fault that the Enron execs were scheisters. It *is* their fault if they were stupid investors, however.) So then we come to the politicians, but don't expect much there. 71 of the current 100 senators, including Tom Daschle, received contributions from Enron. Discussions of campaign finance reform are good fodder for election years and are forgotten shortly afterwards after the politicians tally up the donors who helped them win their place on Capitol Hill. And once again, we elected 'em, folks. We can talk all we want about accountability, but WE are the ones who need to hold them accountable. Yet that takes a lot of time and trouble, and not a lot of people are willing to put out the effort. Heck, tens of millions of adults in this country didn't even make the effort to vote in the 2000 election. Finally, we have the media. And how much do we trust them? Too much, when we don't hold accountable people like the NY Times' economic columnist Paul Krugman. Krugman has spent months now flaying Bush alive for his connections with Enron and has beaten a venomous anti-Enron drum ever since the bankruptcy, while only recently being forced to acknowledge (after this was revealed by his own paper) that he himself got $50K from Enron in 1999 for serving on their advisory board. A board where, by his own admission, he did absolutely nothing. Krugman has stated several times that he sees no hypocrisy in this. Is it really too much trouble for us to hold these people accountable? Or are we more afraid that in holding light up to them we'll blind ourselves? We may not want these people controlling our lives, but ultimately they may be who a lot of us deserve.
Microsoft is trying to buy out a market! say it ain't so!!!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The multi-million dollar donations we see here might not happen if we just repealed the Seventeenth Amendment
grep -ri 'should work'
Executive Orders have turned the president into a dictator.
if microsoft was found guilty in the findings of fact if they buy out the politicians. all they need is for enough higher-ups to say "go easy on beav ward, I think he's learned his lesson."
and don't tell me this can't happen- I bet you'd ease up on microsoft if Gates appeared on your doorstep with a 6 pack and a trailer full of dell laptops.
this is why you should be scared.
...except that spending money on behalf of a political candidate is considered free speech. Contributions to a specific candidate are limited to avoid the appearance of impropriety; restrictions that do not pass that test fail Buckley v. Valeo. After all, both free speech and free association rights apply.
Frankly, if somebody wants to start a Monster Raving Loony party or contribute to it, they're fine -- even if they boys in Washington wouldn't allocate a taxpayer dime to it (which would lock in existing parties, under your proposed system -- either that, or attract fringe parties seeking to game the system).
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
soft money is the money given to the parties for them to run to engage in party activities, they then use that money, with the full involvement and cooperation of the candidates, to run ads.
I am talking about independent groups that will run ads that have not had the input of the candidate, and if the issues matter to them they will run ads.
As evidenced in the UK by many of the books that have banned because of National Security reasons there in not the equivalent of the way the American Law has treated the First Ammendment in most of Europe. The French and German cases regarding Hate Speech on Yahoo and eBay are further examples
--- Ron
At the turn of the century America was a nation populated by a bunch of unsophisticated, childish, ignorant, and easily deceived rubes. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
All the way back in our last election's primaries it was a well known fact that Bush was brought to us by the reactionary, jingoistic right, and sponsored by big-corporate-America. I said to myself, "I'll vote for a monkey in a suit before I vote for this bought & paid for asshole." Did anyone else even stop to consider who's president Bush really intended on being? No, of course not! The mindless sheep who helped put him in office did so out of the un-Christian desire to force their concepts of morality down everbody's throat; and money minded people and business owners voted for him because they thought he'd be "good for business." Now, at a bare minimum, we have to endure another four years of Bush's anti-civil liberties executive orders, political appointments, and policies; and the burden of yet more interest payments on our mind-bogglingly large national debt for no better reason than to line Bush's handlers pockets. Don't even get me started on Congress or the Senate!
I have no optimism that us Americans will wake up and put anything more than the shallowest thought into our collective political decisions. All the while, the pigs will continue their feeding frenzy at the public trough and become ever greedier and bolder in a political climate that increasingly seems to be marked by apathy and a lack of accountability.
...so not only do you want to restrict association and free speech, but you also want to compel speech by forcing the broadcasters to provide what would probably be very-low-rating events. (Low-rating, 'cause much of the audience probably made up their mind by their party affiliation, I suspect... you don't often see Texas swing left or Massachusetts swing right, eh?) Hrm.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If the public elects someone that they actually want, the other two branches will step in and block that official from doing anything useful. The "checks and balances" are actually designed to prevent the public from having a say in the law.
Wisdom from a video game!
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Everything can be stopped given strong enough regime ( as proven numerous times by ... yeah, Europeans.)
But is it worth it ?
" simply does not happen in Europe. "
Sure it does not.
Every now and they have a huge corruption related scandal.
Europe if fucking famous for its corruption and red tape.
I've heard this, too.
So either it's true, or an urban legend.
If true, are they getting away with it because the stockholders aren't complaining to the SEC? So how about if a bunch of Slashdotters buy a share of MS each, and then complain to the SEC, as stockholders.
I'll have to agree with Nader, the wad of cash they're sitting on distorts capitalism. There's an equivalent in the real world of physics, too. It's called a black hole.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I don't think this is a big story as far as ZDNet is concerned either:
1. The ZDNet article was poorly written even by the standards of internet journalism. Two examples from the beginning of the article: "Edward Roeder, a self-styled expert on efforts to influence the U.S. government" self-styled? Sarcasm like this is fine in a Slashdot post but is unprofessional in any writing that aspires to being unbiased journalism. If there are questions about Roeder's qualifications they should come from MS's lawyers or the court not from the journalist.
"Roeder's report was submitted to Judge Kollar-Kotelly at the end of January. Microsoft has been unable to comment." Journalists have to make an attempt to get the other side of the story and if they fail to get it they must explain why: this comment regarding MS's comments doesn't cut it in this case. The sentence is just unclear: is MS legally forbidden to respond, even to the media? has MS just not had a chance yet to respond in court? will they have a chance? have they responded in a press release? presumably they are not literally unable to respond, unless their phones have been disconnected or something. At the very least they journalist could have called MS PR department and given the classic "Calls to Microsoft were not returned" line to show that they were given a chance to respond.
Clearly this story was handed to an inexperienced staffer who was not expected to do much other than paraphrase the testimony of the hearing. It's revealing that none of the columnists or editors saw this as a big story or expose.
2. The article is not on the front page of ZDNet's main news site. (it may have been there yesterday)
3. And the story was posted on the UK ZDNet site, not the US site, which is significant. The IT press has been docile and obedient, which is unfortunate considering how important this particular industrial niche is in our society. Now that the boom has burst will they start doing more than rewording press releases? Hard to say. They still rely on ad revenue after all. (ASIDE: Could argue that pay-per-view and subscription funding provide more grassroots support than advertising, which enforces conformity by giving power to a handful of funders. Interesting since Slashdot tends to dislike pay-per-content schemes.)
This reminds me of the old OS/2 days.
OS/2 was sorely lacking in midi/music software. Some (forgot who) company had finished developing a program called "Easy Keys for OS/2" and was on the verge of release.
Microsoft bought the company. "Easy Keys" never was released, and as far as I can tell, the company was never heard from, again.
History repeats itself because nobody listens the first time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If part of the problem with the fairness of political campaigns is that too much money is spent on the media in order to influence public opinion, then the media has every incentive to use its own influence to hold on to this income flow. In other words, if you, as a politician, support campaign finance reform, then it is in the broadcasters interests to present you in a bad light in the media (or no light at all) whenever possible.
It really is quite a conundrum...
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
We can say at this point, with absolutely no reservation, that this was a really bad idea. The magnitude of this power is matched only by its abuse.
From what I understand, this was enacted under the Wilson administration, and the rules for the passage of the amendment were not strictly observed (leading to some constitutional challenges for the IRS).
Supposedly, the federal goverment existed largely off tariff income prior to this time.
What would it really take to get the damned thing repealed?
Giving money to politicians (directly or indirectly) is not always legal--there have been cases where bribery was charged, even though legal chanels were used as the basis. As an example, it is legal to give as much money as you want by some methods, but to threaten withholding those funds unless a politician votes your way has been found to be bribery. I'm not accusing MS specifically of this, but it sure seems that they are trying to influence legislation (outspending Enron's whole year spending in the seven days before the verdict in the orginal trial).
science is a religion
Both MicroSoft and Enron plus many large companies have employee politcal action groups. As an employee you are encouraged to contribute a modest amount much like the United Way. The PAC funds are then disbursed to political candidates according to what the employees suggest. The concept of the employees PAC is that pooling money together will have a bigger voice. Many employees will follow their company leaders in what they think is best for the company, but you'll see dissenting contributions other candidates.
I really really doubt that. I mean, Jeanette Rankin voted against both World Wars, but she didn't get kicked out of office by hordes of pro-war hawks.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
> What would it really take to get the damned thing repealed?
Another amendment. Or a miraculous win by the guys who are taking the fed. gov't to court over the irregularities of the 16th. Dare to dream.
Let the anti-microsoft - slashdot geek - group masturbation fantasy begin!! You losers are incredibly pathetic. You all whine about MS and tout the advantages of "open source", but do you know who's making the big $$$ in development these days? Not anyone writing code for open source and java, that's for sure.
Some countries reverse this and use the comma as a decimal and the period between hundreds, thousands and millions. (ie. In Brazil, $3.409,75 would be Three Thousand Four Hundred Nine REAL and 75 CENTAVOS.)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
He's a film maker. There is no 'peer review' process for making films, so he can pose as if he is producing a 'documentary' but hire actors to pretend whatever he wants.
There's a word for that: propagandist.
Enron is the posterchild for campaign reform only because most people lack any ability for logical reasoning.
1. Enron donated a lot of money to politicians.
2. Enron also lied about their financial position.
3. Enron forced employees to have most of their 401(k) assets in company stock.
4. Enron went bust because of #2.
5. Employees lost their retirement savings because of 3 and 4.
There is no connection between anything that ailed Enron and their campaign contributions. NO ONE has alleged any connection and in all the reading I have done of the case, they seem to be completely independent: The politicians did not lie about Enrons finances. The politicians did not cover up the lies (Arthur Anderson did). The politicians did not encourage Enron employees to invest most of their 401(k) funds in company stock. The politicians did not cause the company stock to tank - in fact afaik some politicians actually lost the money they had invested in the companys stock.
I have heard no evidence to give me any reason to suspect that the politicians had any knowledge of the fudging of numbers and fraud that was committed. Regardless, it's not the politicians job to stop that - it's the SECs.
Sheesh. A bunch of clueless articles about under the title Campaign Reform do not make a valid argument.
Mmmm.. Donuts
If it had not been for the lobbying of MS competitors there would not be an antitrust case. To be fair the judge should ask for the records of lobbying on the part of Oracle, Sun, AOL etc. I suspect that the total money spent by all of these companies on anti-MS lobbying over the years exceeds MS's total.
> Microsoft is NOT doing anything illegal when it spends money on political contributions. It is the politicians that are doing
> something illegal if they let that money sway their votes.
Hmm. And do you also argue that it's not rape if a woman wears a tight sweater & a short skirt? (After all, if she was dressed that way, she *must* have been asking for it.)
Only someone truly arrogant & so monomoniacally focussed on success at any cost would accept this argument in defense of an unethical action.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
MS has a fairly large support center in Charlotte, NC (very close to SC). The center had outgrown its site in the late 90s and MS was looking for a new site.
Among the candidates for the new sites:
Downtown Charlotte
South Charlotte (where they ended up)
Northern South Carolina
There are many more issues such as the public's disdain for states suing large companies just to get a cash settlement (SC is pro-tobacco and pro-gun). SC suing MS could have ended up promoting more of these types of cases (in the eyes of some SC folks).
Many MS employees live in SC.
$25k isn't a lot of money.
IANAL, I try and look at things logically.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) submitted this filing as part of our 3 part Tunney Act filing. The other two parts are our legal analysis and an economic analysis by nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
You have some good ideas here! Something I have thought about is whether or not corporations should be allowed to contribute at all. Another post talked about how, even if banning corporations, one is still left merely with the wealthy, powerful, individuals at the top of the corporations making the contributions.At least in that case the money is coming from the individuals, as opposed to directly out of the company coffers.
Since any large corp, such as Microsoft, is based upon the efforts of thousands (who are not all fabulously wealthy), why should their collective efforts - as quantified by part of those corporate coffers - be available to speak on behalf of the few at the top. Let those few at the top instead contribute personally. Though their wealth is tied quite closely to the coffers, they still must have the money removed from them through compensation or salary, before they can spend it. Much better than merely speaking on behalf of all the employees through one entity...
>and the rules for the passage of the amendment were not strictly observed
Yeah, I keep hearing some story about some constitutional scholar that pays no income taxes. The IRS won't come after him because they know it would be ugly.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I can tell yhat you didn't move to Chevy Chase from Bowie or Odenton (or, for that matter, anywhere in Anne Arundel County). You probably aren't native to Maryland at all. Here's how I know:
The cities of Odenton and Bowie were both named after Oden Bowie, the the first president of The Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company (and later elected Governor of Maryland). He pronounced his name boo-ee, as did his whole family. The pronunciation difference is intentional, and probably due to their Scottish ancestry. The pronunciation is preserved to separate these Bowies from those of "lesser" lineage.
The Bowies are considered heroic State historical figures. The Bowie family was one of the first to settle the area that would become Maryland in about 1702, and as such is one of the oldest in the state. Other notable Bowies from this family include Rezin Pleasant Bowie, Jr (the inventor of the Bowie knife, also correctly pronunced boo-ee), and Col. James Bowie who died defending the Alamo.
So, I guess the singer David Bowie is cool enough (I love his music), but being a Maryland native I have to hold it against him that he pronounces his name wrong :^)
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
Yes, but immediently changing this would lead to million of fed workers out of a job. Sure there jobs are pointless most of the time, but they are jobs. The only practical solution is to cut the budget until we can afford to get rid of income tax.
Politics is generally much more complex than this, and much more "old boy network" than you assume. This experiment hits closer when it's laid out like this:
Your friend, who works with you, introduces someone as one of his friends. Your friend asks you to do a favor for his friend, and his friend offers some form of compensation for your effort, be it money or something you want done or whatever. Normally it's not a problem, and over time this person needs occasional favors, always for return consideration. Soon you've got a big history for helping this person. Now, he approaches you and asks for a favor that's not exactly legal, but he can set it up so that you get your return, he gets his favor and nobody is the wiser. It's easy to say no, you'd think. Here's the catch. First off, if you say no, your original friend will be upset with you. Second, people in your industry start shying away from you since you're "not a team player" in their eyes. Third, if you sell out your friend's friend, your history for helping that person will come out, and most likely those who learn of it will take that out of context. Fourth, all of the considerations you've taken from this person will immediately fall under suspicion, even if at the time they were perfectly innocent. Fifth, and most important of all, you're suddenly not able to do your job very well, because nobody in your field will help you out or work with you. Soon, when your boss reviews your work, (s)he'll find that your performance is declining, and won't want to hear you say that it's because your coworkers are submarining you.
Not looking so simple any more, is it?
Virg
No, that's just American democracy in action. Don't worry.
After all, nobody was angry about criminals being let go, why should it anger anybody that they bought their way out?
It's been a long time.
Suppose Microsoft hires a legal firm to do some small yet non-trivial task... In searching for lawyers, the prosecution against Microsoft would then not choose that law firm, for conflict of interest reasons... (They worked for Microsoft in the past, why should you trust them to be hard on MS.)
As long as all the law firms (not necessarily each individual lawyer) are are on the payroll for something small, that's considered a conflict of interest, so they won't be considered. $40,000,000 suddenly will go a long way if you want every law firm in New York to give you a review on an EULA and suggest grammatical changes, or other such trivia.
Scary.
*sigh* Ethics .01
The difference is in one being morally wrong to accept and the other being necessary for people to get enough publicity to get noticed and thereby get elected.
(FYI, good and bad below denotes moral character, not political stance.)
There are always going to be very rich people who want to get people elected to help then get away with bad things: i.e. bad people. Bad people accept bribes with no problems because they are bad people.
There are always going to be good people who want to get elected so they can make a difference in a gov. which is constantly under the threat of being taken over by bad people. These people are usually backed by huge sums of money from a.) rich individuals who also want to make a differnce b.)rich companies which want to make a difference/offer money to everyone in hopes of getting help later c.)large groups of poor people who want to be protected from rich evil people.
If you make "contributions" illegal, you have hurt good and bad politicians pockets. The difference is that they bad guys can get their funding via the other route.
The fundamental difference between a bribe and a contribiton is that they report the contribtions, the bribes are kept pretty hush-hush.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
It would lead to a lot more than that -- no more social security, medicare, welfare, or any other entitlements.
However, it would also (hopefully) bring an end to the worst of our government's foreign policy. I think that takes priority - I'll take a smashed economy to any more people that hate us.
When it was Netscape, Sun, and Oracle who were dumping cash into the Clinton coffers at an obscene rate, nobody here even raised a peep. When Netscape's lead counsel hosted the head of the DoJ Anti-Trust division for a weekend at his vacation home (and just magically in a few weeks the investigation was started), I don't recall you losers crying about "the best government money can buy." When Microsoft was giving nothing at all to ANY politician at the national level, did you applaud them for taking a stand against government corruption, which you claim to oppose NOW? Hell no!
But now, when Microsoft is excelling yet again at playing the game that was brought to them by a bunch of whining competitors who want to sit on their backsides instead of produce software, you children are crying foul.
Of course, if Netscape et al hadn't sought to corrupt the anti-trust prosecution of the US government by overtly and directly buying this case, Microsoft would not even be showing up in opensecrets.org's database. But don't let the facts or history stand in your way. Rant on against Microsoft, you pathetic losers.
The only problem I see with approval voting is, sad to say, the average person wouldn't understand it.
I think BNOTA has a better chance of being understood.
As for the primaries - Just don't let them ask what party you are registered for. Only let them ask "are you a registered voter in this district". Remove the party affiliation from the voter registration card. IMNSHO, the political parties have NO DAMN RIGHT to ask me my affiliation.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Is a complete repeal of universal suffrage. No doubt there'll be a great deal of knee-jerk shock and outrage to such a suggestion, but I stand by it: universal suffrage is a crock.
What would I replace it with? *Earning* the right to vote. That is, upon turning 18 (or any time thereafter) you get all the rights afforded to you by the Constitution *except* the right to vote. If you want that right you have to either:
a) spend four years in the civil service doing jobs you're assigned - you don't get to pick; or
b) spend two years in military service in the position you're assigned - you don't get to pick.
Now why would I advocate such a thing? Because anyone who wanted to become a voting citizen would have to prove that they actually care enough about that vote to sacrifice some portion of their lives obtaining it. I have no evidence that these folks would be any *wiser* in their voting patterns than people are today under universal suffrage, but my guess is that at least they'd care more about it and be more likely to research what the hell it is they're voting on.
You could always pass and remain a non-voting citizen if you wanted. Up to you. If you don't care to spend the time earning the vote then that's fine by me.
Note: before anyone starts ranting on how this would bloat the size of government, you could use these folks to *replace* quite a few current beaurocrats and military short-timers, at a lower pay scale. Most government positions don't require a great deal of skill or training, nor do many of the positions held by privates or the equivalent rank (generically known as "cannon fodder") in the armed forces.
Flame away!
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Consider:
/ sz.html#People]
Population of Switzerland: 7,283,274
[source: CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
Population of USA: 286,445,937
[source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock]
That's roughly 40 times the amount of people. 7 million people voting on a lot of issues may make some sense (this is why many states have similar setups). Nearly a quarter of a TRILLION people voting on issues makes things a mess.
The larger the vote, the longer it takes to hold it, the more it costs, and the less well informed people are. Especially as you multiply it by many votes.
Representative governments (republics) can work, and when they do work, they work more efficiently.
$.02
Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Yea, just making the point that changes like that have to be done over time. For example I live in florida, and right now the government is all really excited about implimenting service tax in order to reduce the tax rate from 6 to 4.25 percent. Well it has its merrits (not many) but whats ultimatly stupid is making any drastic changes in the middle of an unstable economy in which you don't know how the changes will have an effect. People are saying why don't we just tax a few services and drop the percent by an half a point. And if that works out maybe we can go farther. But the law makers arn't listening. Luckly the governer doesn't support it, but the lawmakers are trying to overthrow the veto.. how stupid.
... paragraph breaks!
Absolutely. I don't want to be the victim of an international terrorist who doesn't understand that we share a common enemy.
That was on of the best posts I've read in ./ in a while. I really like the way you've caught them either way; If I were a M$ stockholder I might consider filing a law-suit.
Personaly I don't think that any contribution is wrong, but crearly the amonts spent by MS is unreasonalbly large, and clearly irresponsible fiduciarily.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
oi
Y'know what would solve this sort of conundrum?
ROBOT JUSTICE.
This was emailed to the President. It will never be read the Administration. So I am posting it here, so its point can be conveyed and possibly echoed elsewhere.
Mr. President,
As this nation's leader, leader of your political party, and successful businessman, I am disappointed with your administration's actions regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case. I am not a Microsoft basher, a bleeding heart liberal , or a hacker. I am an IT professional who has seen the effects of Microsoft's monopoly first hand. I have seen the company bully it's way to the top for 10 years. I have seen choice after choice taken away. I have seen others play by the rules laid down by Microsoft, in order to compete on their operating system, only to have Microsoft disregard them entirely to secure an edge. I have not only seen this, I have had to deal with it, work around it, and eventually live with it. This is why is disappoints me to see that you allowed Microsoft to buy its settlement.
I voted for you, not once but three times. Twice for governor of Texas and then as President. I have seen the good you can do. I saw the improvements with the education system. I slept easy at night with you and your team guarding the country. But I am afraid you have made my chosen profession much more difficult, and in the long run it will not only affect the economy, but it will impact my bottom line. Without competition, Microsoft is charging whatever it fills like. We really have no choice, so my company has to spend whatever Microsoft feels like charging, which will affect my bottom line. That is money that would have gone to salaries, or opening more stores, which in turn employees more people. I'm not trying to rob anyone of their bounty, but it is obvious that Mr. Gates has certainly received more of his share than most others.
I know this is a very technical and sometimes difficult issue. But I had confidence in your ability to lead and assemble the people that could do the right thing. I have defended the Republican party against the assumption that it is the party of big business on multiple occasions, but this one issue, in its handling, has changed my mind. I know the business of America is business. I also understand that you have other business to take care of at the moment. I have full faith and confidence that we will come through this. I'm just not sure I will like how. What good is ridding the world of religious terrorists, when there will still be financial ones.
To sum up what happen in regards of your administration's handling of this issue. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly, the government had a real chance to invigorate the tech sector of the economy and the ball was just not fumbled, the quarterback handed it to the other team! No one was asking for a public hanging of Mr. Gates. Just the correction of an industry that can not move around the bulk of one company.
The saddest part of this email is that I don't expect a response. The decision has been made. The money is in the bank. This email will be read by some junior underling and deleted. A part of me understands that. There is a lot happening in the world. But another part of me wishes you really understood the damage you did. Will it eventually be repaired? Yes. America is strong; America has a way of righting itself. But you have set that process back maybe 10 years and a lot of my money. And in the end, that makes your campaign promises and subsequent dealings on the economy hollow at best and lies at worst.
Thank you and good day
It goes like this:
~1989: Sun has this neat little box called the i386 - it ran OpenView and had the ability to run x86 programs like Excel, Word, etc. McNealy approached Gates to have him release the Windows API (in it's entirety) as open-source (yes, the Open-Source War has been going on for THAT long) in order to provide more compatability for the i386, and Gates flatly says "NO". McNealy is pissed, complains to all of the trade magazines and practically vows to get back at Gates & Microsoft for the snubbing.
~1991: Larry Ellison is trying to capture the Server Database market with Oracle 6.2, and is doing just that. Microsoft reveals Windows NT at the Microsoft Professional Developers Conference (PDC) in August 1991, and it's ability to run a "future" SQL Server being developed by Microsoft as well. Ellison is "piqued" at Microsoft's attempt to enter a market that Oracle had, at that time, pretty much sown-up.
~1995: MSN is about to launch, and Gates "discovers" that the Internet is a much bigger thing than he previously supposed (DOH!). MSN decides to expand it's yet-to-be-turned-up Online Service to include Internet Access, but they don't have a browser of their own. MS decides on licensing code from Spyglass for ther "Internet Explorer" instead of going with Netscape's browser. Marc Andreessen is upset that Microsoft is releasing their own browser, and for FREE. Up to the point before IE 4.0 is released, Netscape's browser leads the industry and is superior to IE in most aspects. When IE 4.0 is released, the popularity of IE eclipses Netscape's Navigator, and is vastly more stable than Navigator.
Basically, this is what is know as "Revenge"
So, Netscape/AOL, Oracle and Sun hired the United States Department of Justice as their own lawyers/law firm to file a lawsuit against Microsoft that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "Fairness in competition" or "Monopolistic Business Practices", regardless of what the lawyers or the media tell you - although it is agreed that Microsoft can be identified as a "monopoly"; it has everything to do with REVENGE!
Be carefull whom you throw out of the sandbox - they might come back to file suit against you for "non-inclusive activities"
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
-- Beatrice Hall (attributed to Voltaire)
can i have your autograph?
Bowies from this family include Rezin Pleasant Bowie, Jr (the inventor of the Bowie knife, also correctly pronunced boo-ee), and Col. James Bowie who died defending the Alamo.
Amazing what you can learn here.
I thought the Alamo Bowie was the knife Bowie.
Could all the young cynic types, who don't have to deal with the consequences of their cynicism just yet and enjoy trying to look with-it and cool by remarking how 'everybody does this so what's the problem', please-
(since you're gonna die anyway, why mess things up for the rest of us with your cynicism and opinions on what WE should tolerate in our environment, our government, and the corporations we allow to operate?)
Then, we can feed you to the poor and you'll be good for something at last! :D
For even more fun, set a limit for how much any one person is allowed to contribute towards a single candidate and/or group per year; say 5 or 10 thousand dollars. Sure, 95% of Americans can't afford to do that anyway, but it keeps the 5% that can afford it from doing more.
Uh, yeah. Anywya. Enough of that for now. (Note: This has not been proof-read or edited. Any spelling errors, mistakes or Stupid Ideas are due to my own laziness.)
Require a binding "none of the above" entry on all elections.
there would have to be a new election.
Major problem! What the heck happens if this happens 10 times in a row? Or 100? The process can be endless.
How does eliminating the major candidates magically gaurentee that the minor candidates aren't fruitcakes?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Worst case scenario - the voters get tired, and vote for the lesser of two evils. In other words, it degenerates to what we have now.
However, remember that when that happens, the major parties will have had their big boys cut, and so the odds are much better that a minor party player would win. Do you really think the Republicats would allow that? They would get their act together within two elections.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I have seen several politicians who I honestly believed wanted to get rid of soft money, but the problem is that labor unions spend just as much money (in the US, and last time I checked) on campaign ads. The Republicans make their money on Soft Money, and the Democrats on labor ads. I moved to Thailand, where two bottles of beer is the going price for a vote. Things seem a lot simpler....
Put identity in the browser.
McNealy approached Gates to have him release the Windows API (in it's entirety) as open-source (yes, the Open-Source War has been going on for THAT long) in order to provide more compatability for the i386, and Gates flatly says "NO".
This story is so farcical I will assume you are just deluded and not a pathological liar. If you can find just one source for that story, hell your own web page will do. I will give you a dollar.
Worst case scenario - the voters get tired, and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Most likely scenario - no matter who the candidates are, and no matter how many repeat elections there are, nobody ever gets more than 40% of the vote. I'd actually supect that the percentages would tend to go down after the first election or two, once you've eliminated the "major" candidates, and no one has ever heard of the new ones.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.