Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Political Lobbying Record
pierreduFwench writes "With the U.S. national elections just around the corner, you may find this interesting: Opensecrets.org, a website focusing on 'Responsive Politics' recently published lobbying and donations info for the 2002 elections (to date). You can see the breakdown of
Microsoft's individual dossier here. Also, looking at the 'Top Donations by Industry', you may notice that Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet.'" Very interesting graphs.
what more evidence do people need?
huge organizations designed to aggregate money with all the rights and abilities as citizens. how can the interests of individuals even come close to being recognized in an arena like that?
they can't.
So where's the report on KPCB?
The venture capital firm behind Netscape, Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc etc etc etc...?
Until halfway through the antitrust trial, Microsoft's donations were nearly negligible. Compare and contrast that with the above. Don't forget to include the members of the boards of directors of these companies as individuals, as well as their spouses and immediate family when looking up their donations.
You may be surprised. Microsoft is very new at this game; Silicon Valley has been doing it for YEARS.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The American Federation of Teachers ($15,512,224
) is throwing in much more than Microsoft is on lobbying efforts ($9,468,287).
And look at how lopsided their contributions are toward democrats. They obviously have special interests- this needs a lot of attention from the media!
"Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet.'"" Microsoft also conspicuously has tens of billions of dollars in cash to sit on. Heaven forbid that they have any interests in politics.
And this is interesting how?
A company is bound to invest where it thinks its future revenues will lie.
In this case the future revenues will come from legislation protecting Intellectual Property monopolies. Sad but true. Every million dollars spent protecting interests in DC will return manyfold millions of dollars in terms of higher prices for product.
Maybe there is a ray of hope though. The so-called robber barons of the railroads, steel, shipping and oil back at the end of the 19th Century were eventually reined in. I wonder why they didn't lobby the hell out of government at the time, and if they did, why did they lose the battle against anti-trust legislation?
Perhaps we already have one (correct me if you know), but it seems that a lot of important tech issues are being decided in Washington by the highest bidder. Two things get action in the U.S. political system...money and votes. They pay attention to groups of people - like the steel workers of america - because they vote uniformly in mass and all contribute financially to their PAC. There are way more of us (the open source community) than many of these unions...we just need organization. I'd be more than willing to give the amount I owe in taxes each year to the Free Software Foundation to balance off as a tax credit if they acted as a PAC for our cause.
Both soft-money and hard-money contributions to either political party should be flat-out illegal.
With this kind of money flying around, there's no way in hell that the Senate and Congress will represent the people, and be for and held accountable to the people. They're for the corporations and accountable to them, as well as other money-laden organizations.
Money being given to politicians for political objectives is disturbing, no matter who does it. Its obviously disturbing when its MS and the Tobacco companies giving money to politicians, especially when the government's supposed to be trialing MS for being an illegal monopoly.
Its also disturbing when teachers unions donate 15M dollars. Sure, some of that goes to make sure that the teaching of evolution isn't outlawed in schools. But most of it goes towards protecting bad teachers who should be fired. Thanks to fanatical tenure terms enforced by teachers unions, teachers who should be fired aren't. Point in case, Rita Wilson. That child-molesting bitch sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and violated the privacy of at least twenty teenaged girls entering a school dance. Another great one is the case around Brandy Blackbeard, where some retarded teacher accused her of "casting a hex on him" and she was suspended.
Contributions to politicians from organizations are just thinly veiled bribes. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to be equal, but such contributions make that impossible. Ideas and laws are propogated not based upon how many voting citizens like them or how good they are, but on who has the most money to give to politicians. Point of case, the DMCA, and the 1998 Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I stridently disagree. Just because we don't have a law expressly that forbids action X -- that does not make X ok, moral, or helpful.
The assumption that laws are the only way to get people to act decently is the reason we have such a bloated, ineffective legal system.
You are also under-informed to suggest changing the constitution. The assumption that corporations have rights as people, and that money = speech, are nowhere there, but rather in many, much more recent rulings.
Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet
Hold on to those conclusions cowboy, just because they are the only entry does NOT mean that they are the only technology contributor.
Opensecrets is a GREAT site, and I really appreciate their efforts[1], but their database is far from complete. I've been browsing the site over the last few days, and I notice that Opensecrets has information for many of the Democratic congressional candidates, but not for many Republican candidates.
Check out the race in my District. We have information for Barbara Lee, for the other two candidates, it says "No reports on record for this candidate. ". Not a good measure, yet.
Does this mean that Democrat$ receive more money then Republican$? NO!
It simply means that, for whatever reason, Opensecrets has the data for the Democrats, but has less information for the Republicans.
[1]: So valuable that I donated money to them, even through I just got laid off. YOU SHOULD DONATE TOO).
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
The Pro-choice Democrats she supports are likely to raise her taxes quite a bit more than the pro-life Republicans she is seeking to defeat.
I have to call bullsh*t on this particular myth. In the 22 years since Reagan was elected in 1980 the only time the budget was balanced was when a Dem was president.
The Republicans, despite vociferous claims to the contrary, are much more for big, intrusive, authoritarian government.
I think we can all agree that Republicans are morre likely to spend money on defense. Well, the military represents over 40% of the federal budget alone! (source: FCNL)
The Republicans have had things far too easy for far too long on the tax-n-spend issue. This is the party of corporate welfare, bloated military spending, and intrusive, unnecessary policing of its own citizens (e.g. the 'war' on drugs, which has inflated the prison populations to unprecedented levels in the industrialized world - yes, prisons do cost money).