Slashdot Mirror


Big Money Comes Out for the Inauguration

randall_burns writes "Open Secrets is running an interesting story about major donors to Bush's inauguration. The founder of Dell is one of the high rollers funding Bush's party."

16 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Money is bad by SimianOverlord · · Score: 3, Funny

    Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

    The first leads down the road to chaos, as every splintered faction appears quite literally from the woodwork, holding their hand out for tax dollars to advertise their presence and garner votes. With the constitution being what it is, this is a dangerous charter for extremists, as a white supremist organisation (for example) would be just as eligible for public funds as a major political party, and one can only assume, would use those funds to push their hateful agenda. I can see Californica, in particular, as the worst hit by this sort of proposal, as it has more than its fair share of cults, drawn by the bright sunlight and fine oranges.

    Yet happily another option exists to go back to the glory days of rule by disinterested self-abasing, self sacrificing people like Mother Theresa. Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession. Just a thought.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
    1. Re: Money is bad by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

      A third option would be to hand over the money to someone who would spend it wisely, such as me.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Money is bad by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

      I don't think so...

      The candidates don't just get to keep that money and buy cars and shoes with it. The real reason the money is important is because they can use it to leverage voters votes.

      It's like this: Michael Dell wants to change the law or bend it. He gives money to Bush who spends it on ads and spreads it around where it will get him popularity and power. Then we (well, other people besides me) elect him and he let's Dell break the rules.

    3. Re: Money is bad by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it really matter? People act as if there is ever much of a choice in who we elect. The world would not be drastically different if we elected Kerry instead of Bush or Dole instead of Clinton or Dukakis instead of Bush.

      They're more or less the same people, same parties, funded by the same corporations, imbued with the same corruption and hell-bent on jamming their ideologies on the entire country.

      300,000,000 people and only two viable parties with little difference. But you see, in the same way that the current administration uses perpetual war and terrorism to control and bend the citizens toward their want, so are they distracting you from the real problems of the world/country/government by convincing you that the real difference is in whether you vote for a Republicrat or a Libservative.

    4. Re:Money is bad by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected?

      In a nutshell, his major opponent was an imbecile who couldn't campaign his way out of a wet paper bag - he lied when he should have told the truth, and told the truth when he should have lied.

      Just how stupid is America?

      Not quite stupid enough to let the Agriculture and Fishery Meeting adopt Software Patents for all of Europe without a vote, but beyond that, no brighter than anyone else.

      It's always interesting to see people who assume that THEIR interests should be assumed by a foreign government. Hint: the EU government, nor any member nation has my best interests at heart (these days, I'm not even sure it has the European people's best interests at heart). The US government doesn't have the best interests of Europe or Europeans at heart (and it may not have the best interests of the American people at heart - at least not the hlaf that's out of power at any given time). And that (the non-parenthetical part) is the way it should be.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re: Money is bad by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 4, Informative
      SS is just another slight of hand. His proposal is not that different from the British system implemented under Margrett Thatcher. And look how well that turned out.

      His plan is just an excuse to give more money to investment houses...

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    6. Re:Money is bad by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your entire argument is bogus for one simple reason: We cannot expect rational behavior from a busy, harried electorate when the politicians use corporate money to advertise themselves as something they're not.

      For every voter who actually takes the time to figure out the problems arising from corporate influence, there are probably five who can be suckered in by simplistic sales pitches, fraudulent attack ads, and promises the politician has no intention of keeping.

      So, if I'm a politician, do I take the high road? Do I work hard, study issues in depth, write rational legislation that fixes serious problems, and make realistic campaign promises? That's what I'd do. But then I'd lose in a landslide to some pompous, self-aggrandizing bastard who tells people what they want to hear, while whoring the political process out to whoever will give him the money he needs to amplify his voice.

      Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

      Take, for example, the post-9/11 bailout of the airline industry. The taxpayers gave the airlines, what? Fifteen billion dollars? Why? Not to protect jobs, obviously. All the airlines cut tens of thousands of jobs despite the bailout. Not to protect against an interruption of transportation, either. In the end, we taxpayers basically handed a crapload of money to the people who invested in the airline industry. Corporate welfare at its finest. But politicians lied to us, telling us that if we didn't do this the planes would be grounded.

      Collectively, we accepted this because the corporations fund the means of communication that matter to most voters. Had there been a real debate over the issues arising from the bailout, said bailout never would have happened.

      You seem to believe that the system, as it stands now, is behaving in a basically fair and rational manner. Either you're making serious cash off the status quo, or you're seriously deluded.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:Money is bad by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

      One of the newer fund-raising techniques being used is to:
      1) Pick a victim,
      2) Write a piece of Legislation that would seriously damage the victim,
      3) Start the legislation through the process of becoming law,
      4) Visit the victim, making sure that he knows you could be convinced to abandon said legislation for a suitable bribe...er, campaign donation,
      5) Wait while victim writes the check,
      6) Go back and pull the Bill from the docket,
      7) Repeat the following year.

      Often as not, it's not the businesses controlling the policitians, but the politicians blackmailing the businesses. Yes, blackmail is such an ugly word, but it frequently fits very well in describing how politicians ask for campaign contributions from businesses.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Money is bad by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession.

      We already have this kind of system in place for teachers.

  2. What's the point? by superyooser · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There is an inauguration every four years, no matter whom the president is. Inaugurations are always expensive. They always have big corporate donors. It's not surprising that some donors are in high tech. I see Qualcomm on the list, too.

    Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring? Slow news day?

    1. Re:What's the point? by tdemark · · Score: 3, Funny
      Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring?

      According to most TV reports and newspapers, any of the following should be fine:
      • Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the tsunami victims
      • Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war
      • Bush is a bad president because his inauguration total was around $40 mil, while Clinton was a good president because his '93 inauguration was only $33 million.
      • Bush stole the election


      - Tony
    2. Re:What's the point? by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio. In fact, all I've heard is about how stoic and somber he is. How he has a lot on his mind. How he's busy saving the free world from tyranny.

      Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.

      I didn't like Clinton. I wanted Bush instead of Gore. But in retrospect, Clinton is looking damn good and Bush is just a mess. Christ, the guy has conversations with God in his head. And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate". Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic. (Okay, so his father actually said that in the early 1990s and then again in late 2004, but one may presume that since all of the other beliefs between the bushes are similar, this might be too).

      Oh, wait - I thought of other reasons that Bush is a bad president.

      * John Ashcroft
      * Michael Powell

      I'm not saying that the Democrat's feces doesn't stink. But it's a conservative turd that's sitting at the desk in the Oval Office at the moment. I can't wait to get the next four years over with and, while I find it incredibly unlikely, hope that the next administration (whatever party they may be) have more respect for civil liberties and the wellfare of someone other than his fat-cat corporate buddies.

    3. Re:What's the point? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war.

      Bush is a bad president because all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war. Life should not go on like normal for the people responsible for sending the military out to risk life and limb. Celebrate when the killing is over.

      If Kerry, or even Dean had won and were doing the same thing I'd say the same thing.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. Re:funding Bush's party? rather... by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Any American citizen who is athiest should not be considered an American, nor should they be considered a patriot. This is one nation under God." - George Herbert Walker Bush, 1988 (and again restated in 2004 in an interview on the Don Imus radio program)

    I suspect the apple does not fall far from the tree. As someone who believes strongly in freedom for all to believe or not believe in anything they want, I am extremely offended that two of my presidents do not feel that I deserve to be an American or a patriot, because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).

    That alone is all the reason I need to dislike Bush and not support him - the rest of his actions and policies be damned.

    (By the way, I'm actually agnostic; not atheist.)

  4. Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time! by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ""Bush's inauguration costs too much! Rich people are paying for it! The money should go to Tsunami relief! The money should go to the poor! There shouldn't be an inauguration!!!""

    I'll have to agree with you on this one. Ranting about the cost and extravagance of the inauguration is silly. About the only criticism I can make of it is:

    - Some of those singers they were unbelievable. Kind of proves Republicans are some combination of tone deaf or don't know how to throw a party. The fact they are going after Sponge Bob now confirms a few screws are loose someplace.
    - That speech Bush gave was silly. All that never ending repetition of freedom, democracy and liberty. Everyone knows he his only going to liberate countries that are:

    o Anti American
    o Have oil
    o Are a threat to Israel

    Amazingly Iran pops to the top of the list on all counts. Venezuela is right up there too though they happen to have a democraticly elected government, it wasn't a perfect election but it was better than all the countries below. Meanwhile he ain't gonna lift a finger about the dicatorships in:

    o Saudi Arabia
    o Kuwait
    o Egypt
    o Pakistan
    o Russia
    o China
    o Tajikistan, etc.

    I love it how right wingers used to rant about Communist dictatorships but now that they are all making a killing in China they love the place and its government, though it hasn't really changed other than they threw open the door to the running dogs to make a fortune on their cheap labor, and transfered the world's economy to China's control. The Chinese are genius, they beat capitalism at its own game and destroyed it without firing a shot.

    So all in all I'd agree ranting about the inauguration shows a lack of focus on the part of the media and the left. Lets:

    - Focus on the quagmire of a war in Iraq. Here is an interview with an Army medic back from Iraq. Right wingers rant Iraq is going great and its the "liberal media" thats just making it look bad. Well this is grunt that was there and his main complaint is nobody in Iraq wants the U.S. there anymore and he had no clue what the point of the war is other than control of oil and he apparently isn't alone among the enlisted men. Don't listen to officers on Iraq, they are gonna spew the company line, the grunts will tell the truth.

    - Focus on the fact Bush has increased government spending over 25% in three years at the same time he slashed taxes for the wealthy and is pushing U.S. debt to unsustainable levels. The U.S. government is becoming so in debt to China and Japan they can start dictating policy to the U.S. There is an old axiom the Bush administration has forgotten, "Neither a borrower or a lender be", well at least the borrower part is true. The U.S. is by a huge margin the world's largest debtor nation now and that debt is going to come home to roost. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it wont especially when its hitting these extravagant levels.

    - Focus on the staggering trade deficits the U.S. is running with the world especially with China. It is crossing the 5% of GDP market and deficits of those levels violate every tenent of sound fiscal policy and again are not sustainable. The U.S. will be come so mired in debt it will again be vulnerable to foreign blackmail or foreign induced economic collapse

    - Look at the state of the U.S. dollar especially compared to the Euro. It makes U.S. exports cheap but otherwise its a disaster waiting to happen and its cratering because of fundementally unsound fiscal policy coming out of the Bush administration. Foreign investors, especially OPEC states are getting tired of taking a bath on their dollars and are dumping them for Euros. There is also a real risk now they will start selling their oil in Euros and the dollar will stop being the worlds main currency. That will be another devastating blow to the U.S. economy and the dollar's value.

    - Foc

    --
    @de_machina