Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Politicians For Sale... On Amazon

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the own-them-all dept.

aldheorte writes "In either a brilliant move or a sick commentary on politics (or both), Amazon is now selling U.S. Presidential candidates, or at least contributions to such."

98 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. Decisions, decisions... by hendridm · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't decide between the serial killer and the dear hunter. Or maybe I'll just take a gamble this year...

    1. Re:Decisions, decisions... by McCrapDeluxe · · Score: 2, Funny

      That guy's more of a deer hunter. If you want someone who hunts his dears, you'd go for this guy.

    2. Re:Decisions, decisions... by Talinom · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think that I'll vote for Senator Palpatine. At least we know where he stands.

      --
      "Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
    3. Re:Decisions, decisions... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Speaking of which, does this pictures look like it was taken through a sniper scope? It looks like someones about to off him.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    4. Re:Decisions, decisions... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I can't decide between the serial killer

      You exagerate, or you are confusing LaRouche with Charles Manson. LaRouche was jailed for 15 years for fraud and tax evasion in 1988. He has been out on parole since 1993. I guess that the sentence probably expired completely last year (parole can extend longer than the original sentence).

      Amazon don't state the basis that they used to compile the list of candidates. Each election there are a couple of thousand people who file for president, so there has to be a cut-off at some point. Probably sending reports to the SEC.

      Its interesting the way that folk imediately translate dollars into votes. The fact that someone gives money to a campaign does not even mean they want them to be elected. Plenty of candidates in primaries get dollars from the other party, say there is a guy standing for re-election, folk will send dollars to a challenger in the primaries to help make it a rougher ride. I met a Democrat who freely admitted that 80% of his campaign dollars came from Republicans.

      The big issue in this campaign has been whether the Democrats would run the type of pusilanimous campaign that Gephart ran with in the mid-sessionals. Under that strategy the party would nominate 'Bush-Lite' - Lieberman or Gephart, someone who would not criticize the invasion of Iraq, someone who would basically roll over when the GOP press did their smear campaign.

      At this point Dean has made sure that whoever gets the nomination it will not be Gephart or Lieberman. Bush is going to be criticized on his record. Unfortunally for the poor Deaniacs they are now dispensible. We know full well that they will organize and vote for any Democrat candidate against Bush, except Lieberman that is.

      At this point I don't think anyone can say with confidence who the winner of the nomination will be. I think Kerry, Clark and Edwards all have a chance, Dean might recover. One thing I am sure of is that Edwards is the most likely choice for Veep. I don't think Clark or Kerry would even want it - Clark would almost certainly prefer Secretary of State. But Edwards is one heck of a smooth speaker, unfortunately the poor chump does not really have enough of a Resume to run. Last time that a guy with as little experience as he did became President was 2000 - and the results show it.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:Decisions, decisions... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow. I hope you don't have any firearms, sir.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    6. Re:Decisions, decisions... by nebaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LaRouche was jailed for 15 years for fraud and tax evasion in 1988. He has been out on parole since 1993. I guess that the sentence probably expired completely last year (parole can extend longer than the original sentence).

      Isn't it interesting that if you commit a felony (which I assume that this is, as a 15 year sentence is nothing to sneeze at), you can still run for president, but in several states (PDF, sorry) can't vote for president, even after parolled. Kind of like how 21 year olds can buy beer, but 18 year olds can sell it.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    7. Re:Decisions, decisions... by Elminst · · Score: 2, Informative

      Amazon don't state the basis that they used to compile the list of candidates. Each election there are a couple of thousand people who file for president, so there has to be a cut-off at some point. Probably sending reports to the SEC.

      RTFWP...
      It clearly states in the FAQ's-
      How does Amazon select candidates for listing?
      Candidates eligible for listing are those that have lawfully established and maintained a campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission (candidates can receive contributions only through such committees) and who, according to the FEC's monthly report, have raised/spent in excess of $5,000.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    8. Re:Decisions, decisions... by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You exagerate, or you are confusing LaRouche with Charles Manson.

      From what I've read about LaRouche, the idea of him as president is almost as scary as Manson as president. The guy is completely apeshit. I've seen a lot of his cultists around the Bay area; until I moved here, I thought he was pretty much defunct.

      Under that strategy the party would nominate 'Bush-Lite'

      Careful there. Ignoring the war issue for a moment (although there were many liberals who supported it, at least in principle, Clinton being the best example), this sounds a lot like an echo of Ralph Nader's preposterous claim in 2000 that there was no substantive difference between the Dems and the GOP. We've all seen how well that prediction turned out, havent' we? Ralph was just bitter because moderate neoliberal Democrats like Clinton didn't share his antipathy towards capitalism.

      At any rate, either of those candidates would have been capable of criticizing Bush on his record - and might have been better insulated against the inevitable RNC smear that they don't care about national security. (Note: I don't think this is a good reason for them to be president, however, nor do I support either candidate, although Lieberman's politics are closest to mine.) Personally, I would like to see a Democrat attack Bush from the right, and point out that we haven't yet captured bin Laden (but started another war anyway), he's ramped up the deficits, and the size of government (and spending) has actually expanded under Republican rule.

    9. Re:Decisions, decisions... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
      At any rate, either of those candidates would have been capable of criticizing Bush on his record - and might have been better insulated against the inevitable RNC smear that they don't care about national security.

      Rove belted Gephart silly in the mid sessionals. And as for Lieberman his sanctimonious attitude is as sickening as Bush.

      You don't have to agree with Nader to realise that the quality of the candidate matters as much as the platform. The problem with Lieberman is that he has assiduously engaged in every practice voters dislike on the hill. He was still fighting stricter accounting rules when the justice department were turning up at Enron HQ with a search warrant.

      Nader is going to be humilliated if he is stupid enough to run this time. He would be lucky to get a quarter of his 2000 vote, if the greens let him run the conclusion will be that the voters have turned of green politics. The number 1, 2 and 3 priorities for the green movement are to get rid of Bush, Cheney and Halliburton from the US government.

      The only exception is if Lieberman gets the nomination. In that case more Deanies will bolt the party than Lieberman will bring in from the middle.

      Rove's strategy is confuse the middle and deliver for the base. Delivering for the Democrat base is easy - anyone but Bush. The problem with Lieberman is that he does not deliver that for the anti-war faction.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. Can't Wait..... by OctaneZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait til I can donate my $200 to Al Hamburg! and with only One-Click no less! Boy, a grumpy 72 year old man is just what this country needs!

    1. Re:Can't Wait..... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tell me about it. The best part about him is:

      Education: Self-educated by reading

      Now that, people, is what I call a TRUE American.

      "I read me some books edumacated mah self."

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    2. Re:Can't Wait..... by sabNetwork · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention that he's divorced with 9 kids. I'm sure the American public looks at him with sympathy.

      --

    3. Re:Can't Wait..... by cybercuzco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thomas Edison educated himself by reading, Abraham Lincoln educated himself by reading, many other famous americans educated themselves. Just because you never went to school doesnt preclude you from being smart.

      --

    4. Re:Can't Wait..... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So my learning Java by, ya know, reading a rather thick text tome and tinkering around with the Java SDK + Notepad makes me a idiot, eh? Or learning HTML and CSS by hanging out on htmlhelp.org till I grasped the basic concepts?

      Don't knock self-directed book learning. Remember that quite a few geeks, especially younger ones in, say, high school who don't have access to computer classes do just what you're mocking him for doing.

      Not to mention that the US of 72 years ago probably didn't have near the educational resources available to them that we do -- what with them recovering from the great depression* and all that, his learning from books might be very impressive indeed, given the era.

      * Is my math/memory off? Wasn't Black Friday in 1929, which would put him growing up on the tail end of it all?

    5. Re:Can't Wait..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I read me some books edumacated mah self."

      Well he sure beats Bush on effort.

    6. Re:Can't Wait..... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh please. People like you are taking my casual remark WAY too seriously. I'm just joking! You people need to lighten up.

      If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure there are a lot of intelligent people who've learned JUST through reading books. I'm sure of them did it through reading about the Java SDK and only program in Notepad.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    7. Re:Can't Wait..... by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      * Is my math/memory off? Wasn't Black Friday in 1929, which would put him growing up on the tail end of it all?

      Your math is fine. Your memory, however, is a bit shakey.

      Black Friday was in 2003. In fact, it'll come around again in 2004, just as it does every year, the day after Thanksgiving.

      I believe you're thinking of Black Tuesday. :)

      KFG

    8. Re:Can't Wait..... by Jonathan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Abraham Lincoln educated himself by reading

      Yes, but his administration was the one that passed the "land grant university act", which started the public university system, thus making university education cheap and available.

  3. Numbers by mpost4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would like to see the numbers at the end of the year. I would like to see who got how much and a break down of who is generaly intested in what contributied to who, and location.

    1. Re:Numbers by CausticWindow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here you go.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  4. Not Compativle with Associate Programs by inertia187 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It appears that this aspect of Amazon is not offered to it's associates. At least, not that I could tell, and I really looked. ;-) Oh well.

    Then again, I don't see how it could be profitable to offer this through their associate program without taking it off the top, which isn't in the best interest of the candidate.

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  5. Contibutions by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    aldheorte writes "In either a brilliant move or a sick commentary on politics (or both), Amazon is now selling U.S. Presidential candidates, or at least contributions to such."

    Well, I suppose if you were completely cynical this is how one might view this, but to me, this is a great way to make political contributions, because this is about making contributions to your politician of choice.

    However, I would prefer to see an Internet based voting system that gets rid of the electoral college system....

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Contibutions by SkArcher · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it was a really sick commentary on Politics, they'd be selling them on eBay

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    2. Re:Contibutions by BJH · · Score: 2, Funny

      However, I would prefer to see an Internet based voting system that gets rid of the electoral college system....

      Well, you could always use Amazon's Sales Rank... ;)

    3. Re:Contibutions by Purificator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah, i don't see the down side for this. the site basically says it's for small (below $200) donations, which isn't going to buy you ANY influence. it just makes it easier for normal people to give candidates money.

      people should save their cynicism for corporate/special interest soft money and lobbying (you know, the things that ACTUALLY buy off candidates). really, if candidates got all enough money through small, distributed, contributions then they wouldn't have to sell themselves to bigger contributers who could want favors in return.

      you know, since campaign funds translate into votes (funds buying ads and all), this is pretty close to an internet voting system --plus it's got more security to it than any of the real electronic voting systems i've read about.

      --
      "Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
    4. Re:Contibutions by b-baggins · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, the electoral college was put in because STATES elect the President, not the people.

      Theoretically, at least, we're a federal republic.

      BTW, Jefferson and a number of the other founding fathers were terrified of pure democracy, considering it, rightly so, to be nothing more than mob rule.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    5. Re:Contibutions by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, considering that the US is a REPUBLIC that would be a bad thing.

      The USA is a nation of states, not of big cities.

    6. Re:Contibutions by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we get rid of the EC than small states will not get a say in the Presidental election which is why we have the EC.

    7. Re:Contibutions by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it stops the President from concentrating just on the Major Population centers and ignoring the rest of the country.

    8. Re:Contibutions by mahbidness · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great Politician! Would do business with again! A++++++++++++++++

      --

      "It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork."

    9. Re:Contibutions by vaguelyamused · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we end the Electoral College candidates will only campaign in the biggest states with the biggest cities and nowhere else. They would only serve those constituents and their interests, not the interests of the country as a whole. One could easily win by campaigning in New York, Texas, California and Illinois. Attempts to end the Electoral College are unwise and misguided.

      --
      STOP ROCK VIDEO
    10. Re:Contibutions by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but there is still no longer a need for the electoral college,

      It's unlikely that the electoral college will ever be changed. It would require a constitutional amendment to pass. It takes 3/4 of all the states to vote to change the constitution. The small states have no reason to vote for a change as it would decrease their representation.

    11. Re:Contibutions by k_187 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      FYI, Jefferson was very much in support of direct democracy, just on a much smaller scale than even the original 13 states. Make all the people in a small area make the decisions. Which is why he was called an Anti-Federalist. Madison and the Federalists pretty much set up the system we have today. And he was afraid of mob rule, which is why we have the electoral college. So otherwise, you're spot on.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    12. Re:Contibutions by syates21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kind of. Don't forget, though, that eliminating the electoral college would also presumably eliminate the "all or nothing" nature of most states' electoral votes. Sure if you won 100% of the vote in CA, TX, NY, and IL you would be in good shape, but more like the best any one candidate could hope for would be 55-60%.

    13. Re:Contibutions by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure if you won 100% of the vote in CA, TX, NY, and IL you would be in good shape, but more like the best any one candidate could hope for would be 55-60%.

      Not true. A candidate that is willing to screw over everyone living in the less populous 40 states could easily win the vast majority of the popular vote in a few key areas. That's the main reason why we need the electoral college.

      My personal preference for improving the election system would be to require all states to split their electoral votes in the same proportion as the popular vote in that state. It's not perfect, but at least it gets rid of the "safe states" where your vote doesn't mean anything.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  6. Cut out the middleman by glinden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amazon takes a cut of these payments. You'd be better off giving directly to the campaigns.

    1. Re:Cut out the middleman by Kr3m3Puff · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, the legally cannot not take money for their services, but they are donating the proceeds to Kid's Vote, so in the end, it is a good thing and an interesting social experiement.

      --
      D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
    2. Re:Cut out the middleman by MisanthropicProggram · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wonder if they're going to start a fundraising division. Like, click here to donate to the "Special Olympics" or some other charity.
      And their selling point to the charities will be: We take a smaller cut than other fundraisers.

      --

      There is no spoon or sig.

    3. re: Cut out the middleman by DrinkDr.Pepper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is Amazon.com getting paid to do this?

      --
      0xfeedface
  7. Move along, folks... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    The politicians have been selling themselves since forever.

    Arguably they're just a sub-specialization of the World's Oldest Profession.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Wait, let me get this straight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's a president of the United States now?

    This is all too much for me to handle!

  9. Might want to check their privacy policy. by junkymailbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amazon's privacy policy
    "We release account and other personal information when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law; enforce or apply our Conditions of Use and other agreements; or protect the rights, property, or safety of Amazon.com, our users, or others.

    1. Re:Might want to check their privacy policy. by realdpk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. Wonder how they'll use these donations to shape their book picks.

      Then again, I wonder what they'd do if someone donated $5 to each candidate. :)

    2. Re:Might want to check their privacy policy. by Grrr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's not forget their tendency to substantially change their own rules in midstream (and not honor individuals' requests to be removed from their databases)...

      <grrr>

  10. Not quite yet by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you actually look at the candidates, most say that amazon is currently asking for permission to accept donations. Looks like they may have launched this a little too early...

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
  11. Wow...they DO check the suggestion box by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been begging them for an easy method for buying a Politician, and here we go. Corporations shouldn't be the only ones with all the fun.

    Now, I hope they get around to the second part of my suggestion: Judges.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Wow...they DO check the suggestion box by Grrr · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only they'd accept Flooz...


      <grrr>
  12. Here's Who's Ahead by MissMarvel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is interesting, sort of a capitalist's popularity contest.

    Here are the standings between the top 4 Democratic contenders:

    Dean $385 from 33 contributions for an average of $11.67 per contribution

    Clark $545 from 34 contributions for an average of $16.02 per contribution

    Kerry $964 from 27 contributions for an average of $35.70 per contribution

    Edwards $475 from 18 contributions for an average of $26.39 per contribution

    Gee, Bush doesn't have any contributions. Surprise, Surprise!

    1. Re:Here's Who's Ahead by dublisk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gee, Bush doesn't have any contributions. Surprise, Surprise!

      If you had read the FAQ on amazon you would see:

      Why can't I contribute to the Bush or Lieberman campaigns yet?
      It's up to each campaign to decide if and when they want to participate. We have invited each of these campaigns to participate and we're hopeful that they'll come on board in the near future. Meanwhile, we have posted information about each candidate and his campaign, and we've provided a link to the candidates' campaign Web sites where you can make a contribution.

    2. Re:Here's Who's Ahead by mandalayx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Libertarian guy is currently leading, which is interesting.

      Nolan

    3. Re:Here's Who's Ahead by be-fan · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not an entirely accurate standing, because Clarck and Kerry have had the pages up since the 16th of January, and Dean and Edwards have had them up since the 22nd.

      And Bush isn't accepting donations yet, so it doesn't matter.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  13. If They're Going to Sell Them on Amazon, by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want:
    A) "Other Amazon Shoppers who contributed to Howard Dean also purchased..."
    B) One-click ordering

    1. Re:If They're Going to Sell Them on Amazon, by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about a 5-star rating while you're at it? User reviews anyone?

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    2. Re:If They're Going to Sell Them on Amazon, by blamanj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you meant that as a joke, but there's certainly nothing (technically) stopping them from using that information.

      Also, they can certainly sell it in aggregate (e.g., Democrats buy Wusthof knives, Republicans buy Henkels) without violating their privacy policies, since no individual data is released about you.

      I personally am not thrilled about this kind of data collection.

    3. Re:If They're Going to Sell Them on Amazon, by hopemafia · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wesley Clark got the most stars of any of them, and he only had 4.

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
  14. But it used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll just wait a while and then click on the "Buy It Used" button.

  15. Dean by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 5, Funny
    From their page on Howard Dean:

    Current Job: Former governor of Vermont
    Prior Job(s): Vermont state representative, Vermont lieutenant governor, medical doctor

    How is "former governor" a current job? Given that he is no longer governor, wouldn't it make more sense to list governor as a prior job?
    --
    I'd rather be lucky than good.
    1. Re:Dean by nnnneedles · · Score: 4, Funny

      Current Job: Unemployed

      Yeah, that would look really good..

      --
      Will code a sig generator for food
    2. Re:Dean by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but what if he's getting payed to be the former governor of Vermont?

      KFG

  16. Umm.... by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All I see is Libertarian, Republican and Democrat. Where are the other parties? Green? Socialist Workers? Communist? Or any of those lesser-known parties on the right that I'm not familiar with but know are there because of their stench?

    It seems a shame to create a potentially "democratic" contribution system like this wherein all the candidates appear side by side, yet return in the end to the flawed two-party (or at most three-party) set of limited choices...

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  17. Sick commentary on politics ? by EmCeeHawking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clue to aldheorte: Campaign contributions have been a part of the democratic process for about as long as democracy has been around.

    I don't see how Amazon facilitating a higher-efficiency method of contributing somehow changes a standard adjunct of democracy into something that is "sick".

    1. Re:Sick commentary on politics ? by kenjib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is symbollic. This gives the appearance of crass commercialization of politics, whether or not helping to enable more people to donate smaller amounts actually supports that. The clear subtext here is that politics is now a sub-category of capitalism and candidates are up for sale in an online shopping mall. The ever implicit connection through history is now made explicit.

  18. Ratings? by jdunlevy · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, no option to "RATE THIS CANDIDATE"? No Customer Reviews? No "6 people recommended Howard Dean instead of Dennis J. Kucinich"? No "1 person recommended Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. in addition to Howard Dean"? ...

    1. Re:Ratings? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      George W. Bush:

      0 of 2,912,790 Florida voters found this candidate helpful.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  19. Not As Bad As It Seems by thedbp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure, it seems really cheesy and horrible to be able to "purchase" your candidate online, but at the same time, it give equal screen space to people like Dubya, Sharpton, and... holy cow, who is this?

    Al Hamburg?

    Divroced with 9 kids. Self educated ... by reading. This guy's got MY dollar AND my vote! God bless the democratic process!

    1. Re:Not As Bad As It Seems by lkaos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Holy crap. Check out these quotes from him:

      "White people are the victims when Affirmative action programs Hire those For race reasons only. White people Have no place to run to when illegals take over USA"

      "The Jews promoted the WAR on Iraq. The Jews are the only ones plus Halliburton Dick Cheney's Co that profited from the War in Iraq."

      "AIDS has spread because of stupid Catholic and right wing Nuts being allowed to much say about what causes AIDS"

      All via Project Vote Smart. While I'm all about supporting the little guy, I'd be careful about what you're saying giving him your money...

      Where's the uneducated under-dog who isn't a racist and bigot?

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
  20. I like this by Cranky_92109 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Be as cynical as you like, we all know it takes money to run for any public office. Amazon has put up a page with all the candidates, many of which I have never heard of, and it has a little biography and overview of their politics. From there you can donate a small amount of cash, $200 or less.

    Maybe this will help educate some people on the lesser known candidates and help even the playing field a tiny bit for those candidates who don't have a lot of cash.

  21. More info on info transferred by Rescate · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the FAQ:

    Will Amazon.com transfer information about me?
    As required by law, Amazon.com will transfer to the campaign(s) to which you contribute your name and address (your credit card billing address) and the date and amount of your contribution.

    For campaigns that may accept federal matching funds, Amazon.com will also send the type of credit card you use (e.g., Visa) and the last four digits of your credit card number.

    The campaigns then will send a report including this information about you and about other contributors, no matter by what means (e.g., by mail or telephone) they contributed, to the Federal Election Commission ("FEC"). The FEC eventually publishes each contributor's name and address, the campaign supported, and the dates and amounts of the contribution, but not any credit card information.

    For further information, see the privacy policies posted on the campaigns' web sites.

  22. Re:check thre ref before you spend by joe_bruin · · Score: 2, Troll

    i believe michael has been trolled

    the link posted adds a refer that contributes a small portion of your money to george w bush as part of the amazon refer program (notice ref="gw_pres_cand").

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/misc/flag.html/ref=gw_p re s_cand

    the proper link
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/misc/flag.html

  23. That's right, *you* can be a lobiest... by hardaker · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... for Amazon.

    These guys are smart, you have to admit. They've convienced you, the nice citizen, to pony up some dough and help fund a senator. You know the next thing they're going to do is go to the senator and say "See how much money we raised for you? See how nice we've been to you? Now... Let's talk about patents for a moment..."

    --
    The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
  24. Duh! by toupsie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All I see is Libertarian, Republican and Democrat. Where are the other parties? Green? Socialist Workers? Communist?

    You have got to be kidding! Greens, Socialist Workers and Communist are ANTI-CAPITALISTS! Signing up with the biggest online capitalist tool would be make them look silly and go completely against their political beliefs.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  25. Re:check thre ref before you spend by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
    Don't you think that if "ref=" refered to an affiliate (which it doesn't, that's not how affiliate URLs work), it'd be "ref=gwb_pres_cand"?

    In fact, the link on the front page redirects to another page which redirects to the URL in the Slashdot link (ie with gw_pres_cand) with the usual big long session string on the end. I'm guessing gw means "gateway" or some other internal code, and the idea is Amazon are tracing who went through what to get there.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  26. And the burning question is... by Arcanix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can you get your money back if the candidate turns out to be defective?

  27. Re:i'm sure by TaGirl_Keri · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sorry Sir, This item has been sold already. It was bought in 2000.

    --
    My fav units are dead Mavs
  28. Just to clear something up. by The+Spanish+Ninja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before everyone goes off about democracy this and that, one thing should be made clear. The United States of America is not - I repeat, NOT - a Democratic nation. It is a Constitutional Republic. There is a small but significant difference.

    Also, our econimic system - for those of you who don't know - is commonly known as Capitolism. Such is the nature of a capitolist economy that the government, in order to function effectively, must operate as a business. They offer services - courts, police, etc. - and we pay for those services with our taxes.

    Now, running for president is not a government service, therefore the money must come from somewhere. Thus, camapign contributions. After all, it would be kind of hard to organize a Bake Sale large enough to support this kind of operation, wouldn't it?

    Of course, there are those who would love to see this system collapse and a new take its place. They are known by a variety of names and methods - Communists, Socialists, some Democrats (Not all, just the worst, like this Dean guy), and in general, idiots. In some places, they have already managed to gain some power. Like Oregon. Or New York. If this trend continues, we will all end up where Russia is now, and where China, France, and Australia will be before long. Poverty stricken fools, deluded by the promise of so-called "true equality" and condemned to a life of servitude to the very entity created to serve us - the government.

    Now, I believe in equality, but in ctual equality, which is that everyone has the same chance to succeed, not this crap they are trying to feed you, which is that no one should be rich and successful, and any who become so are the tools of an evil empire bent on keeping the average man down. I know I'll probably be called a troll or something for all this, and if that is the case, so be it. But the rest of you have a choice. You can either beome a pawn of those who would truly seek to rule over you completely, or you can be thankful that the founding fathers of this great nation had the incredible foresight to put into effect a system that is admittedly not perfect, but something much more important than that. It's free.

    --
    "I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic particles."
    1. Re:Just to clear something up. by be-fan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, our econimic system - for those of you who don't know - is commonly known as Capitolism.
      ---
      Its even *more* commonly known as capitalism. Beyond that, the United States preaches capitalism, but does not practice it. If it did, we would not have so many protectionist laws fouling up our legal books. A Republican president, someone who in theory believes in allowing the free market to do its work, recently passed (and later had to retract) a tarrif on steel! That goes against the recommendations of a majority of economists. They continue to favor subsidizing farmers, because although subsidies are uncapitalistic, they secure crucial votes in the Midwest.

      Such is the nature of a capitolist economy that the government, in order to function effectively, must operate as a business.
      ---
      Actually, capitalist economic theory says nothing about government functioning as a business.

      They offer services - courts, police, etc. - and we pay for those services with our taxes.
      ---
      The situation is nothing like that. Transactions between (competitive) businesses and the people are efficient. Transactions between the government and the people are closer to transactions between people and a monopoly --- they are inefficient in that they create a deadweight loss. FYI: "Efficient" has a very specific definition in economic theory, so do not look at the word in the traditional "government is inefficient" sense but in terms of the precise economic definition.

      They are known by a variety of names and methods - Communists, Socialists, some Democrats (Not all, just the worst, like this Dean guy)
      ---
      I propose a corollary to Godwin's rule. The first person to compare liberalism with communism in general automatically loses. Substantiate your arguments, don't use peoples' irrational reaction to communism as a crutch for fuzzy thinking. Plus, capitalism, as an economic theory, is somewhat orthogonal to socialism, as a social theory. Modern capitalism specifies how markets should be organized. It acknowledges the existence of a government that must tax its citizens, because a limited number of goods, such as defense and a clean environment, are produced in inefficient numbers in a purely free-market system. Capitalism says nothing about how government should spend the money that the free market creates. Indeed, most economists agree that the distribution of income in the United States today is far too inequitable, which suggest a policy favoring greater redistribution.

      and in general, idiots.
      ---
      Like people who cannot spell "capitalism" and don't even understand the economic system they espouse?

      we will all end up where...France, and Australia will be before long.
      ---
      You mean in a country that makes a reasonable compromise between absolute economic performance and reasonable social services? Your arguments against socialism would be more compelling if the healthcare system in the United States, and social services in general, was not so horridly unsatisfactory.

      Now, I believe in equality, but in [a]ctual equality, which is that everyone has the same chance to succeed
      ---
      In the United States, everyone does not have the same chance to succeed. One's odds of succeeding go up exponentially with the amount of money one's parents have. Let's use some actual capitalistic theory here. Production is a function of the amount of capital you have. The function is exponential, which means that the more capital you start with, the faster you can grow your capital. This suggests that if two people start with unequal amounts of capital (ie: rich parents vs poor parents), and are given an equal chance to succeed, then not only will this gap remain, but grow exponentially larger. This precisely describes what is happening in the world today --- both the rich and the poor are getting richer, but the gap between them is growing. You make the mistake of assuming that people start out at the same level. They do not. If you have two equally good runners, and give one of them

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  29. FAQ: Is Amazon.com getting paid to do this? by Beolach · · Score: 4, Informative
    Is Amazon.com getting paid to do this?
    U.S. federal law prohibits us from donating services to any or all presidential campaigns, so we are charging the campaigns our usual and normal Amazon.com Payments fee.
    On a less capitalistic note, the answer continues:
    We've also decided that we'll eventually contribute the aggregate amount we're paid in fees to Kids Voting USA, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, national organization that works with schools and communities to enhance civics education and provide youth an authentic voting experience.
    --
    Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
  30. Libertarian by Teppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting that Gary Nolan has raised more money and has a higher average contribution than Dean, Edwards, Clark, and (almost) Kerry.

  31. Does this qualify? by JRHelgeson · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I contribute over $25, does that qualify for FREE Super Saver Shipping?

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
    1. Re:Does this qualify? by AtomicBomb · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> If I contribute over $25, does that qualify for FREE Super Saver Shipping?
      Yes, of course. Empty promise are always delivered for free. :-)

  32. Re:Lucian Wojciechowski by petabyte · · Score: 2, Funny

    I couldn't do that to my (not yet existing) children. I mean what would they think?

    "Dad, I got a B on my History exam because I couldn't spell President Wojciechowski. How could you vote for him!?!"
    "Son, I'm so sorry ..." *tear*

  33. Amazon isn't making money on this... by Hawkxor · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you read the FAQ links on the left side of the Amazon website screen, you'll notice that Amazon isn't making money off this - by Federal Law they can't just donate, but have to charge they're normaly money moving fee. But, they're donating to full revenue that they make from this project to charity (a Kids learn about Voting group).

  34. Great Motives as well by llamashoes · · Score: 4, Funny
    From Vote-Smart.org
    Greatly Increase Funding: k) Other: program to stop school Bullying of litler kids
  35. Donations from outside United-States? by starm_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if they accept donations from people outside of the United-States. I know a lot of people that think the current administration is a menace to the world and I think some of them would even be willing to pay to help its competitors.
    It would be an interesting phenomenon if it ever happens.

    1. Re:Donations from outside United-States? by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if you're a Democrat. You may then donate if you are from any of the following nations:

      France
      Germany
      Canada
      Communist China

      You may also donate if you are any buddhist monastery.

      Communist China is the preferred donor, because they will give you big bucks in exchange for a few little US technology factoids, and they are very good at laundering the money (ooh, a racist joke!)

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  36. Re:Nitpicking by TheShadow · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, what if the real number is 90,001? That's not less than 90,000... but it's more than 89,599.

    --

    --
    "What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
  37. Circumventing Capmaign Finance Laws? by Scorpion_1169 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd be interested to know how exactly the donation is made, be it represented as a donation from Amazon or from the individual/corporation that makes the donation. This could be a VERY clever way of making large anonymous donations or 'donations-by-proxy.' Out side of that, what if you find out down the roand that some foreign national terrorist type has made large donations using Amazon? I see many dangers in this concept.

  38. Gave $5 to Clark. by Axe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just want to see what happens: how many solicitation for donations I will receive. That will test how much do they sell my personal information.

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
    1. Re:Gave $5 to Clark. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      No need to sell it. Presidential campaign contributors have to be disclosed...

  39. Re:i'm sure by murphyslawyer · · Score: 2, Funny
    • The US is about ready to sell bush to the highest bidder.

    Ironically, this statement is equally true no matter how you interpret the phrase "sell bush", especially since we're discussing whoring out politicians.

    Of course, the easy thing to do here would be just to make a comment about someone's mother, and be done with it.

    --
    I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
  40. Maybe this is stupid... by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe im missing something big here but why not just ban all donations and have strict and dire consequences for anyone caught taking money? You do not want money being passed around when running the country is involved because ofcourse people are going to push their own interests and politicians are going to follow their own financial gain! Its a bad idea, you wouldnt have a jury taking donations from people involved in a case so why would you allow it in an election? Surely you dont need that much money to fund an election campagain (im thinking most of those baby-kissing photo ops are pointless) so maybe the government could finance _equally_ everyone and make sure that election campagains are all done on an equal stand and that no-ones policies are being 'swayed' in any way by money, threats, or a few the fact that they play golf with the head of global-cheap-labor-mega-corp.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  41. If They're Going to Sell Them on Amazon, by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should try to keep them in stock. I ordered a Carol Moseley Brown, but it says that she's Out of Print.

    And after the Iowa primaries, they should post a notice: Howard Dean [EXPLICIT LYRICS]

  42. What this country needs... by Pfhreak · · Score: 2

    ...is for a black, Muslim female to be elected president.

    --
    The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
  43. Bush contribution schedule by Animats · · Score: 3, Funny
    • $5. Added to campaign mailing list.
    • $50. Called back by telemarketer.
    • $500. Called back by junior campaign staffer.
    • $5,000. Called back by senior campaign staffer. Invitation to minor Bush campaign event.
    • $50,000. Called back by Cabinet member. VIP invitation to major Bush campaign events.
    • $500,000. Bush calls you back and thanks you. Invitation to major event at White House.
    • $5,000,000. Karl Rove calls you back, finds out what you want, and makes it happen.
  44. Re:Is it me... by munch0wnsy0u · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, yes it is you. George W. will run unopposed in 2004 because the Republican Party would like to see him re-elected. That is why there are no other Republicans in the race because George W. is the only Republican that needs to be in the race.

  45. Voting by Popageorgio · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Was this contribution worth anything in the grand scheme of things? Rate from 1 to 5."

  46. Quote of the day: by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Funny
    Did anyone else notice the following quote at the bottom of their comment pages this morning?

    "I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating." -- Boss Tweed

    Ah, delicious.

    --
    ~Idarubicin