Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Companies and Politicians: Who Pays Who?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-bit-of-skuldruggery dept.

fiorenza writes "An investigation into political contributions by technology companies shows that Republicans are the top beneficiaries of such donations, but the Dems aren't too far behind. Perhaps most interesting, it appears that tech companies know that to really get what they want, they need to lobby directly. From the article: 'It's not just Microsoft that is spending these massive amounts. The computer/Internet industry as a whole dropped $84 million on lobbying in 2005 — more even than the TV/movies/music groups. Although the firms at the end of the Internet 'pipes' are spending money, it's dwarfed by the expenditures of those firms that own the 'pipes' themselves.'"

8 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Net neutrality and campaign contributions by Salvance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, the net neutrality battle all over again. It's no surprise that the infrastructure and telecom firms are spending the most money. These are the firms that have the most to lose if Congress begins to support net neutrality and increased competition. Luckily the rise of the internet, message boards (like slashdot), and social networking has allowed Americans to increase their knowledge of the issues addressed by Congress on a daily basis, which allows us to raise our voices and dissent much earlier ... often before poor decisions are made.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:Net neutrality and campaign contributions by Salvance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, you caught me! I am eternally optimistic that technology has and will continue to provide Americans with a greater political voice and presence, along with better political accountability.

      Look at the influence of the internet and viral/social media on Howard Dean's campaign (before he made a fool of himself), on the net neutrality debate (where it's now basically dead after popular backlash driven by bloggers and internet petitions), and on corruption (where perverts like Mark Foley would never have been caught had they been operating in a less tech saturated world).

      We can poo poo the honesty and integrity of our politicians, but it's difficult to discount the increased importance that the tech savvy, non-elite, individual (or group) now has.

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    2. Re:Net neutrality and campaign contributions by rkcallaghan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Howard Dean's campaign still failed because as you say he "made a fool of himself". The internet didn't save Howard Dean -- even though the informed internet voter you hope for knew he was yelling over a crowd, unaware of the noise cancelling feature in use on his microphone. No, the only news that really got out was how "crazy" he obviously was.

      Mark Foley molested underage children and largely got away with it. This man should be in jail, and so should anyone protecting him. I'm normally never a fan of "think of the children" type responses; and I've seen far too many cases involving offended redneck parents and high school seniors (he's 19, she's 17) to want to brand anyone a child molester without some good evidence of an actual crime. The internet and it being so easy to find out available information hasn't even drummed up a serious investigation.

      Instead what I've seen is people like Bev Harris getting ignored, despite years of intense work on something that should be of paramount importance. Other than the circular answer of "because she's right" -- why isn't the internet helping Black Box Voting get heard? Her site is well built and is a legitimate charity; but you'd be hard pressed to find a link to her site anywhere except liberal choir-preaching grounds.

      I don't really know of any case where the 'tech savvy non elite' have had an impact.

      ~Rebecca

  2. perhaps... by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Who pays whom"?

  3. Re:Democrats already agree, and.. by MacDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps casual acceptance of blatant bribery won't be so commonplace in the US someday.

  4. Re:Democrats already agree, and.. by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    perhaps they spent more money convincing Republicans because the Republicans had majorities.

  5. Re:Democrats already agree, and.. by sonsonete · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or perhaps they spent slightly more on Republicans because there were a few more Republicans in Congress. We'll have to see if anything changes over the next two years, now that we'll have a few more Democrats.

    --
    "Folks bent on reinventing the wheel should understand that if it's not round, it ain't a wheel." - Jonah Goldberg
  6. Lobbying is legalized bribery by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1: Every politician's number 1 goal is getting reelected
    2: The US political system will remain corrupt as long as the politicians are permitted to take these bribes.
    3: The people in power do not want the system fixed because it would reduce their chances at reelection.
    4: The system can only be fixed by the people who are in power, since they make the laws.

    Campaign contributions should be limited to the 12 months before a primary and only from registered voters from a candidate's district.