Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's 'Men in Black' Kill Florida Open Standards Legislation
A NewsForge article was handed to us talking about pressure Microsoft recently brought to bear on a piece of Florida legislation. A few short paragraphs in Senate bill 1974 added by Rep. Ed Homan discussed the need for open data formats, but Microsoft's men in black responded by pressuring legislators and staff employees about the bill's language. "A legislative staff employee who would lose his job if he were quoted here by name said, 'By the time those lobbyists were done talking, it sounded like ODF (Open Document Format, the free and open format used by OpenOffice.org and other free software) was proprietary and the Microsoft format was the open and free one.' Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals. Note that lobbyists for IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Novell -- the only three companies with a major interest in open source who have registered lobbyists in Florida -- did not weigh in on this matter." Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
This just proves how much of a threat MS perceives OO.o and other open source projects.
Make a conscious decision to move away from Microsoft technologies, at whatever levels of personal cost you can accept.
Buy Linux. Buy a Mac.
Getting on Slashdot and whining about this crap is goofy if you're posting from IE, running XP or Vista, running MS Office; and especially stupid if your a corporate decision maker that hasn't at least spend a good amount of time figuring out if you can migrate from MS.
MS's business practices are bad. They're rotten to the core, and that's been proven over and over again. Don't do business with them; take it elsewhere.
It's really not impossible; major corporations have made the jump before, and we're building a first class IT infrastructure that will be MS-free end-to-end.
Stop whinning. Make a decision. Vote with your $$$, and whenever you have a choice don't buy MS.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I like the nice, thinly veiled reference to campaign fundraising that was made.
So what's taking so long with election reform again?
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
...wasn't that the plot on an episode of The Sopranos last year?
So can we hope^H^H^H^H expect to see Ballmer "retired" real soon now by the Florida capos?
The last comment about companies which have a vested interest (and let me add Google) in people adopting an open standard is very pertinent.
What do we expect Microsoft to do? Document standards, in my opinion, are the lynch pin of their entire dominance. Move to open file standards and they are in deep trouble.
Those companies who want to end that dominance need to step up to the plate. Microsoft has a right to withhold campaign funding. They have a right to lobby. But so do their opponents.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
It doesn't matter what the rules are, or how many foolish insinuations you can make about your enemies' dress codes, if your legislative process lets you put stuff in without anybody knowing about it.
"Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals."
When you're done hooking up your home computers with free software, make sure you notify your elected representatives that you know what bribes look like
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I've read the wikipedia article and such, but I still don't see how lobbying is any different than bribery and extortion.
Is lobbying just a superset of both those things?
Read my Very Short "Stories"
And then people wonder why I refuse to buy anything from MS.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
That is all that matters. Corporations shouldn't have rights, so I don't give a shit about what Microsoft's 'rights' are. Corporations have their special privledges because these privledges are supposed to impart more value to the citizens of this nation. When a corporation uses its privledges to profit at the expense of the people, they should be punished.
Of course, Microsoft is one of the few American companies that still produces things for export...the government is always going to give them special treatment.
Blar.
According to the article...
"Rep. Homan and his son Doug tried to add their little open standards boost to SB 1974 as quietly as possible. They wanted the modified bill to at least get through its first committee approval before anyone spotted what they had done."
Doesn't exactly strike me as an open or up front method of passing legislation.
So you see the absurd effort M$ must make to continue it's format monopoly. You can imagine they monitor all state legislators and are ready to send in people like this every time. Because there is such a huge performance and cost difference between M$ and their competitor's products, the "men in black" are going to be very busy.
The only person who has to be more vigilant than a free man is a slave owner.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The organizations with the money want the political influence.
The people with the political influence want the money.
Neither of those groups include the average person.
Open document formats make sense for every sector of society--- particularly state and federal government entities. We should be appalled that Microsoft Corporation is allowed to bully greedy legislators to the detriment of the public good. Money talks. There should be limits on where and how loudly it talks. It seems that the only open format legislators understand is pandering by uncontrolled special interest lobbyists.
Ichthus
This is exactly the reason that lobbyists should not be allowed any direct contact with politicians or their staff. Imagine if they had to submit peer reviewed research/arguments for every proposal.
Of course the MPAA/RIAA would prove that it would promote piracy, Microsoft would prove that it would encourage the use of closed standards and piracy, and the FBI would say that it would make fighting terrorism and child pornography more difficult.
"That's a nice little slush fund you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
-- Will program for bandwidth
Sure, MS uses all kinds of ethically suspect business practices. But if we were all to buy a mac today and continue to use proprietary formats for our data we'd have accomplished absolutely nothing.
I don't think which OS you use is nearly as important as what formats you use. If we could convince our friends and colleagues that closed formats were unacceptable, and collectively send that message to MS (and Apple, and ...), then things would change. I don't care what OS you use, but it is incredibly aggravating that for no better reason than social inertia I almost have to use .doc formats for my own ideas, at least if I want to share them with my supervisor, journal editors, etc. But once we reject undocumented, closed formats, I don't care what OS and applications you use. If you choose to edit your XML based document in MSWord, that's fine, so long as I can choose to edit that same document in OOo, Abiword, Emacs, ed, awk or whatever else.
'course, if we agreed to use only open formats, then MS would have to start competing on new features rather than the inconvenience of switching to other systems. But you never know, they might be capable of a few good ideas if we force the issue. That's the real point - not to eliminate MS, but to make them serve the needs of their customers, rather than imposing their will on their customers, and everyone their customers interact with.
yp.
This just proves how much of a threat MS perceives OO.o and other open source projects.
It also shows the costs of maintaining the monopoly we are all paying. The slave holder gets all tools and income from slaves.
It's a death spiral for M$. The harder they try, the more expensive the monopoly becomes the more people will want to escape. News of this "success" will quickly turn into dozens of challenges. Real successes, where states and businesses actually save time money and trouble by bucking M$, will be promote even more challenges.
It's funny that consideration of any alternative should be considered a "challenge" but that's they way M$ sees it and acts. Kudoos to you, Peter Quinn! The M$ monopoly is on the way out.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
my suit's black you insensitive clods >:(
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Im not so sure I buy into this. If all of this is true, a crime was commited. The employees are protected via whistleblower etc.
So why all the vieled secrecy...? Come forward, state your name, go on official record and report it.
Otherwise, the employees are just as guilty by allowing companies to corrupt our government system. Until then, this is nothing more than a FUD campaign, anonymous accusations and worthless info.
Microsoft must win every one of these battles. Let any reasonably sized enterprise outside of Sun/IBM, or governmental entity show that they can use OOS successfully and they'll become an example showing Microsoft's lies. It's a Whack-a-Mole game for MS, and sooner or later they'll miss one.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I thought Bill already tried and failed. :)
(Yes, yes, I know, you mean some distry... It just HAD to be said!)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I was wondering why there was an inordinate amount of men in black suits with sunglasses and little pens with red caps that take pictures running around and taking a picture of anyone who had OpenOffice running in the taskbar. Could explain all the recent cases of work amnesia, too. I better lock my office door so they don't see my taskbar...
These are no solutions.
You don't buy Linux.
If you're voting to save your dollars, which is what the OSS people are advocating, then buying a more expensive Macintosh is counter to your intended goals, and you still might end up running MSOffice on that Mac.
Think, folks, before you post. Next thing you'll know, you've ended up agreeing that OO is proprietary, and MSOffice is the open standard.
It seems that Steve Jobs isn't the only one with a working RDF these days. I'm sure MS stole that from him also.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is Slashdot, so Microsoft will get crucified here for sure, but they are a BUSINESS, and they are working to protect their business. Every shareholder of every company wants management of that company to protect their business. It is their duty to the shareholders.
The people who should be receiving scorn are the CAREER POLITICIANS who write legislation in exchange for corporate dollars. Substitute any big corporate interest for Microsoft (Tobacco, Oil, Autos....etc) and you will see that Microsoft is not the only company that engages in these shenanigans.
Sure bitch and whine about Microsoft and how evil they are....you don't have to buy their products.
I would much rather bitch and whine about elected officials that are not doing the jobs they were elected to do.
If they take corporate money - vote the fuckers out.
-ted
Nobody should be sneaking in legislation that mandates anything. An unbiased and open public debate about the issues would be far more productive, specifically one where Microsoft's marketing and lobbying budget is unable to tip opinion in their favor. If our concerns about proprietary lock-in and monopoly rent are justified (we know they are) then all we need to do is select an appropriate venue.
We gain a little ground here and there and it eventually becomes a landslide. Venomous anti-microsoft rhetoric doesn't help the case at all, arguments will need to stand on their own merits. I for one am not interested in destroying Microsoft, I just expect them to compete fairly in an open market (^;
Watch out, Texas is next -- I hope one of the news agencies pick this up, somebody call 60 Minutes (a CBS TV show). http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History. aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB446
Buy Linux. Buy a Mac. Getting on Slashdot and whining about this crap is goofy if you're posting from IE, running XP or Vista, running MS Office; and especially stupid if your a corporate decision maker that hasn't at least spend a good amount of time figuring out if you can migrate from MS.
Each of us can only do so much but none of us should shut up as you suggest. Migrating what you control from M$ is a great idea but that's hard to do when M$ makes sure everything in your life is done with their crappy formats. Reading about how they do that is not a waste of time, nor is thinking about and telling others the cost and implications of that kind of bullying. As word spreads, your legislators are apt to get on the bandwagon and M$ will lose.
The above goes double for all of those unfortunate state employees who know how bad M$ sucks from having to use it daily. They are the ones who can provide the most insightful commentary and should comment here more than others.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm in no way defending Micro$oft's business practices, but for better or worse, this is how government works. Most industries and many Fortune 500 companies have lobbyists. To think that Micro$oft wouldn't try to protect their interests is absurd.
Fuhgeddaboudit!
Here in Colorado, we passed an amendment 41 recently. Roughly, it prevents money from changing hands between lobbyists and (state congress|state employees). What I find interesting is how many congressmen are fighting this. In particular, it is the dems that are most upset. I think that an updated version of 41 is needed for ALL states and then finally at a federal level. But this does not go far enough.
Joel Hefley was a Colorado congressman who was on the house ethics committee. He was responsible for pushing the ethics committee to go after Delay for his numerous abuses. In turn the republicans booted him out. After having spent many years on the group, he came back that the only way to stop all of this is to move to public Financing of campaigns. Then ALL money would be prevented from moving from ANYBODY to a congressman. Many will fight this, and will claim that it violates their first amendment rights. But every time we have put limits on money flow to congressman, it has been approved by SCOTUS. IOW, it would probably pass muster. This would have a nice benefit in that we would get to see how politicians run a campaign on a limited amount of resources. If they fail at it, then we do not want them. They will prove that they are incapable of running a state|country. This would also stop these kind of wil situations where a companies needs are put above the states or even the countries. This is the cheapest way to get back our gov.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I send .txt files through email whenever I can't just inline the stuff. No one's complained yet; I assume people who use windows are easily opening these in Word or WordPad or lol Works
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Microsoft has a right to withhold campaign funding. They have a right to lobby.
Rights? What are you talking about? No one has the right to threaten legislators. Offering them money in exchange for votes is also a criminal violation. Even the usual "rights" you might ascribe to a public company have no force when you are talking about a convicted monopolist like M$. Microsoft's reported behavior is unethical at best, criminal at worst.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Here come the Men in Black
Monopoly Defenders
Here come the Men in Black
Cash your party members
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am thinking 282.0041(13) could be changed to say " nonproprietary, and non-vendor-specific technologies." and it would have the same effect as the entire section listed in the article.
It may even be OK as is.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Those companies who want to end that dominance need to step up to the plate.
They have, of course. Netscape, IBM, Sun, Google, Caldera, Red Hat, Novel, and many others have and are doing everything any company should be expected to do. They are producing superior alternatives and offering them at a fair price. It is only because of M$'s abusive anti-trust activities that their sub standard software "dominates" government and business data transactions. In response to M$'s many abusive practices, many of these companies have gone further than they naturally should. Sun has fostered and supports an entire alternative Office Suite, which is M$'s big money earner, as free software and spends real money reverse engineering M$'s dirty tricks. The result is competitive on both features and cost. When M$ blocks this natural competition by legislative tampering, we all lose the benefits of a free market.
The size of those losses is the size of Bill Gates' fortune and the pile of money his company sits on. The cost of all the dirty tricks is rolled up in the billion dollars a month they spend on "marketing." Every dollar they spend comes out of your hide. It's part of the cost of everything you buy.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"This is a situation that validates the failure in our constitution and the degradation of political system. Lobbyists should not be allowed in government for a company that has a monopoly on a market. If Microsoft wants to have the governments use Microsoft products, they should donate them to the government and get a tax writeoff for it. I should not have to pay taxes so government employees can use substandard expensive software."
... what was the hilarious position of Citizens Against Government Waste (*against open formats in Massachussets)?
I forget
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Everytime the "M$" rings, an AC loses his wings.
They act angry about it too. How hopeless.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The parent wasn't talking about saving money, he was talking about voting with dollars. Well, if don't buy Linux or a Mac, you're not voting with your dollars.
You have to either buy Linux (over-the-counter box) or a Mac in order to not only lower the revenues of Microsoft, but also increase the cash-counted installed userbase, which seems to be the only things "serious/public" statistics check for. Browsers stats means absolutely nothing (so many variables that it's not even valid as a statistic).
Have you every tried to submit a resume in .txt format? Most everyone wants a Word file (.doc). Some will take a PDF, but Word is the preferred format. Either conform or forget about getting a job.
has every suggested to a politician that their financial support or vote might be in jeopardy if he didn't support their position. Apparently many politicians have become suddenly interested in the details of file formats because they certainly weren't informed by anyone pushing open standards. That might be seen as lobbying and that's wrong.
Any job ad I post includes the phrase "Word documents will be discarded unread".
did step up. They were the "Men in Black" 10 or 15 years ago that lobbied the government to start antitrust proceedings against MS.
I live in Florida and this infuriates me! I DO NOT want MS bossing around my legislators. So a call to action for those who care about this. Write a letter to the Representative Ed Homan. Feel free to copy my template.
Capitol Office:
317 House Office Building
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
Phone: (850) 488-3087
District Office:
Suite 311
9385 N. 56th Street
Temple Terrace, FL 33617-5505
Phone: (813) 983-3330
Legislative Assistant:
Janet Roder
District Secretary:
Paula Tonelli
Representative Ed Homan,
I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the recent successful lobbying efforts by Microsoft regarding Senate Bill 1974. As a tax payer of this state I am disgusted that the Congress of this state would cave to the wants and desires of a monopolistic company who have no intentions of serving the people or the state but only seek to increase their already enormous financial wealth. I am huge proponent of open standards and open software. The prospect of having open source software running on government computers is highly desirable. Millions of tax payer dollars could be saved by switching to free operating systems such as Ubuntu Linux (www.ubuntu.com) and switching to free office solutions like OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org). If Microsoft wants to have the governments use Microsoft products, they should donate them to the government and get a tax write off for it. I should not have to pay taxes so government employees can use substandard expensive software. When large monopolistic corporations send lobbyists to ensure the will of the Microsoft is fulfilled I should be able to have faith that my Congress will represent me accurately and realize the lies and untruths these lobbyists are spreading about open source software. Please consider ratifying the bill and rewriting it to embrace open standards and open source software. Thank you.
I suggest "Tinyflaccid" as an alternative nickname for Microsoft. It's one I'm sure the Tinyflaccid fanboys can empathize with.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Is Bill Gates running for President in 2008? If so, I'm fleeing.
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
You see, if just a few of the bills killed had lobbyists of their own, they might have been able to lobby back, and Microsoft wouldn't have been unopposed.
You can't get rid of lobbyists. If some psychotic corporation decides to bring in a lobbyist one day, they're going to find a way to do it. You just have to deal with the possibility, and outlawing lobbyists for the Good Guys just makes them all targets.
Doesn't exactly strike me as an open or up front method of passing legislation.
Advertising changes to a bill before you add them is not a common method of modifying bills. The process is as open as can be because everyone will get a chance to comment on it later. What's under the table is threatenting legislators to make sure the item is never talked about.
After what happened to Peter J. Quinn, everyone has every right to fear the Men in Black. In that case they:
What policy was that? you might ask. It was simply to use a cheaper, more reliable and more open alternative to M$ Office. Peter Quinn was crucified for thinking his state could save money and have their documents available in digital form 100 year from now if they simply moved away from the M$ domination. For this correct assertion, his reputation and career were damaged.
M$'s efforts are both civil and criminal violation and those responsible should be held accountable.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
When Microsoft illegally restricts the ability of my state government, funded by my tax dollars, to use only their document formats, they are evil.
Microsoft is not just any old self serving company. There is a full spectrum of bad corporate behavior and
Microsoft is way over toward the end where market control by indirect means (political and otherwise)
dominates over competitive service and products. Additionally the service that they are controlling is vital
to national security and indirectly to an increasing number of quality-of-life services.
Unfortunately many would argue that their products and services are superior. As Microsoft reaches deeper
and deeper into our pockets and lives many more will be inclined to argue on Microsoft's behalf rather than admit what
they have allowed Microsoft to do to them.
The ultimate solution is as you indicate: If at all possible don't buy their products. It seems to be the
only remaining type of voting that almost matters. Unfortunately, at this point in time,
the file formats for Microsoft products are not sufficiently readable by any other product to make
them a reliable substitute in today's business environment. Open Office is a great product but
the file format issue will eventually kill it unless these battles can be won.
Microsoft is says there stuff is open and free and that that's a good thing.
So now we just have to inform the legislators that Microsoft's format isn't but open and free is still good. They have got us half way there.
I totally agree with you, and have been advocating public funding of campaigns whenever the discussion comes up. Political fund raising must be decoupled from politics otherwise there is a conflict of interest. There are the usual problems like, how low is the bar, does every drunken lunatic who fills out the application for candidacy get campaign funds? There have been numerous discussions on that and other questions like it, and it seems like solutions exist, but I came up with another interesting problem recently and I wonder how we would get around it. It comes from that old addage "time is money" - if we ban all campaign fund donations, what about people volunteering time? Would corporations shift their lobbying contribution funds to hiring full time volunteers for campaigns? Then the subtle threat we see in this FL event might be more like "well sir, it would be a terrible shame if this legislation were allowed to pass, why many people might decide not to volunteer time for your re-election campaign...."
How would we effectively block lobbyists from donating volunteer hours in lieu of money? I ask this as a legitimate question that may have to be addressed. Removing the dollars from interest peddling will not remove the peddling, just that particular medium of exchange.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
because when they come up for re-election I'm voting for the other guy!
PS: I live in the 'sunshine state' and I'm pissed!
PPS: Common IBM, show some backbone and lobby back!
"A legislative staff employee who would lose his job if he were quoted here by name said, 'By the time those lobbyists were done talking, it sounded like ODF (Open Document Format, the free and open format used by OpenOffice.org and other free software) was proprietary and the Microsoft format was the open and free one.'
OK. But when looking at the disputed text of this legislation as shown on the linked article, it would seem that anyone believing this ODF=proprietary MS=open hullubaloo, would also believe that this MS=open should be compatible with that same text, and not see a reason to change it.
One would hope that politicians being told that MS's format is the most open one, and also being told that MS wants this "open format" legislation text removed, would notice some degree of conflict between the two things. If you want me to believe you're the open guy, then why do you also want the open text removed from the legislation? Hmmm...
So the average person is just about meaningless is this matter.
Which is why I keep saying that every person should form a voting bloc with his/her friends. Your vote is worthless. Your bloc's vote is valuable. Very valuable.
The bigger the bloc, the more valuable the vote. Join a bloc today.
This is another Microsoft (help I'm bleeding money) tactic. Recently Microsoft proclaimed it will end support for XP on January 31st 2008; this, a quick decisive 'squeeze as much blood out of the turnip before the turnip dries up' tactic which will keep money streaming in for Microsoft a little while longer: people will run out and buy whatever they need to keep on Microsoft-ing away.
Taken into consideration with this article on Florida bureaucracy out-bureaucracy-afied by Microsoft henchman.
And what of the empires (that'd be Microsoft) attempts in California? What about Texas and Minnesota-- Microsoft is there too?
Are our public (synonymous with open standard) bureaucrats bureaucratic enough to represent us and what is good for America?
Politicians/Bureaucrats are blind to the monopolistic efforts carried out by Microsoft -- maybe its time we elected some 'Slash dot-ers.'
...from amateurish stuff being implemented as a standard.
Seriously, though, you are correct that the legislature is culpable for being influenced in this way. No individual nor any corporation has any business running the Government, which is what this kind of stick/carrot lobbying amounts to, and no government employee (including public officials) has any business deferring matters of state to those individuals or corporations.
Microsoft does indeed have its own interests at heart, though one might quibble over whether protecting file standards is helpful or harmful to them. In the long run, lockins poison the vendors as much they do the consumer. It is also debatable as to what they may lawfully lobby for, given they are a convicted monopolist. (They don't have to agree with the decision, but they still have an obligation to abide by it. It is not for Microsoft to determine the law.)
However, ultimately nobody made the officials take what amount to bribes. Nobody held a gun to their head, although politicians probably have a hard time distinguishing immediate physical danger from a loss of election funds. I truly hope that there is a thorough investigation as to what was said and what was done by whom, and that those public officials found guilty of violating the ethical standards required of them are removed from office. In the end, as much as I dislike Microsoft's role in all this, and as much as I like to diss Microsoft for their conduct at times, this is ultimately not a tale of Microsoft's operations but a tale of corruption and manoevering in assorted halls of power. There are millions of companies no better than Microsoft and many are probably worse. The only common denominator, the only place you can throttle back on will-legislate-for-cash mindsets, is within the political system itself. You still need to fix the flaws in corporate politics, but one major scandal at a time, please.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Let any reasonably sized enterprise outside of Sun/IBM, or governmental entity show that they can use OOS successfully and they'll become an example showing Microsoft's lies.
Lowes made the move years ago. Just walk into any Lowes and have a look at the computers they are still running. Chrysler and many others have also made moves like this. The move is already on and Vista is going to turn it into a tidal wave.
M$'s lie is about public perception, not fact. It's always been this way and all lies ultimately are. If they had anything other than lock in as a competitive advantage, they would not have to lie in the first place.
2007 is the year of GNU/Linux.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Everything is "FUD" now, even constructive criticism. And everything is Microsoft's fault. What a disgrace.
I think you missed my point.
I'm not talking about wedging Debian into your homebuilt monster. I'm talking about random professionals I know, who currently buy whatever machines from Dell, with XP (now Vista). Instead, go buy a fully supported machine from a Vendor running Linux. They're are out there; or, buy a commercial Linux, with support.
I'm *definitely* not talking about saving dollars. I'm talking about taking your budgetary allocation for computers, and spending on something that *isn't* MS.
MS = bad business. Don't spend money on them. Buy a system preloaded with Linux, or buy a Mac. Either way, don't pay money to MS; because you should vote with your dollars, and refuse to contribute to a corrupt company well known for its bad business.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You are correct. It seems to me, that the Slashdot community would rather place all the blame on Microsoft, or big business in general, or the President (not in this case, but many others), rather than on Congress. The only interesting things about this is that they would have the best chance of influencing their represenatives from Congress, and that Congress is probably the most powerful branch of the government.
It's easier to bitch than to actually try to make changes.
What a confused and insulting post. It does not take long for the Microsoft Defenders to act, does it?
s/b: The harder they try, the more extensive the monopoly becomes the more people will be unable to escape.
You can't expand a monopoly, you can only lose it.
It doesn't show any costs to me. What it shows is that MS is willing to use its considerable clout to get what it wants politically.
Microsoft spends about a billion dollars a month in marketing and dirty tricks like this. These three "Men in Black" are part of that, according to the article, costing a minimum of $100,000 in Florida alone. You pay for it everytime you purchase something from someone who's passed their M$ costs along to you. Slavery is one of the names used for situations where you have to pay and you have no choice due to fraud and force others have used.
What bothers me about your post is that it's the same as the rest of your posts -- all you ever really say is "haha M$ is PWNed". ... In all, I'm not surprised to see the same post from you as always -- but I'm also sure you actually have interesting and insightful observations. Why not bother thinking a bit before you post and include them in your comments?
My message is as constant as reality, try arguing with something of substance rather than my supposed writing style, history or personality. You can't really, because there is little of substance behind M$. The people of Florida will be better off with Open Formats but M$'s dirty tricks would keep them from even discussing the issue. This is a game M$ can't really win.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
MS playing dirty to defend its monopoly. News at 11. No, wait, I think that slot is pretty much filled up already, so make that 11:15.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.
If we're going to allow campaign contributions, is there a possible way to seperate the money from any sense of obligation to the donor? Some organization should be set up to collect campaign contributions and distribute them to the campaigners with the money having since been cleansed of any information as to who gave it or why. Donors would get a receipt that they gave money to a political campaign for tax return purposes, but should not have proof of which campaign so they couldn't take their receipt to the campaigner and ask for something in return.
Doing things in return for possible future contributions should be a red flag anyway. If you need all that money to win an election, and can't win without it, maybe you're just the wrong guy for the job, especially if you already have it. Anyone who voted against this text for the reason of future campaign contributions should be fired immediately.
OK, if no one outside this organization can know how much money goes where there's chance that people inside could divert things to the wrong campaigns and no one outside would know or have proof. But I would like to remove the idea of obligation in return for "contributions" in politics.
Maybe a system where each campaigner gets an equal amount of money from a generic contribution pool would be more fair. Maybe not. What about other ideas?
Well, slipping it in was just as shady.
TV commercials, in the most expensive case. From the politician's point of view, they don't care whether a person or corporation gives them money to buy production and airtime or whether the donor just buys those things directly, so banning the donation of money won't remove the influence of anyone who gives in large chunks. It'll only remove the influence of smaller donors who need to pool their funds to buy a campaign commercial.
Really, the root of the problem is that people tend to vote for whoever most of the talking heads in the picture box tell them to. Trying to haphazardly control how the talking heads and the picture companies get paid is just an attack on the problem's symptoms, usually proposed with insufficient consideration of the potential side effects.
why does being a business mean you can be unethical? That single notion which is apparently accepted by many people is the source of a tremendous amount of harm in the world.
Last time I checked, IBM has a written corporate policy of not giving money to political candidates.
I happen to think that's a good thing.
(Opinions mine, not IBM's.)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
cite, just one cite, of how the "rights ascribed to a corporation" (public company has screw all to do with it) are revoked upon a finding of monopoly.
A coercive monopoly does not even have the right to exist under US anti-trust law. A famous example is Standard Oil, which was not as bad as M$ has proven themselves but was broken into three competing companies. Another famous example is ATT. The successors to these abusive companies still enjoy many forms of government protection that real free market advocates should frown on. M$'s slap on the wrist punishment, it's dependence on government purchases and bogus "IP" laws are a national disgrace.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
same basic idea, different presentation... i'm happy to see at least one other person who sees corporate abuses for what they are.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Your state government is not required to use their software. If you don't like your government's handling of the situation, vote them out. In fact, vote to keep out anyone who says they would continue to keep the status quo.
Stop blaming a business for being a business and do something about elected officals and their mindset.
This is not about helping OOo. There is no reason for MS to do anything to help OOo. But if we let the argument get reframed into a MSword vs OOwriter debate we miss the larger picture.
The big picture issue here is maintaining access to our own data. My thesis, in .tex format, could be read by any editor from the past three decades. .doc didn't exist 30 years ago, and even over the timespan when it did there's not guarantee that documents are forward and backward compatible. There's every reason to expect that a .doc file written today will be totally unreadable by any editor available in 30 years time. My .tex file will read just fine.
The point is it's in our best interest to use open formats. MS gets the job done *today*, but at the cost of placing our trust in a notably untrustworthy company. If they change the format they force us all to upgrade to maintain the ability to freely access and exchange our data with each other. MS can choose to change the rules at any time. Or they could just get out of the wordprocessing business altogether, leaving us high and dry.
The fact that 90% of the world currently uses .doc format for exchanging formatted text doesn't preclude improving on that model. I'm not demanding that we all switch to .tex format now, although that would be most convenient for me. I am demanding that we put all public data into a publicly available format. It is a very bad idea to let ourselves stockpile large volumes of information in formats that we don't control. Granted, there is no compelling moral reason to impose this on private individuals, although it would be in their best interest as well in the long run.
Your car analogy is flawed, as they usually are. Proprietary document formats are like books that can only be read when sitting in an approved chair, or under a special light. That may be marginally acceptable when the chair or light is ubiquitous, but it is ultimately an unnecessary restriction. There are better alternatives, so why should we accept such arbitrary limits?
The .doc format isn't really the issue here, it just becomes a target because it is the main obstacle in returning to a situation where we control our own data.
yp.
Just being a business does not excuse Microsoft's behavior. Obviously we need to hold politicians who are overly influenced by corporate money accountable but we also need to hold the corporations accountable.
In a world where Microsoft holds a monopoly AND fights to prevent interoperability a comment about not having to use Microsoft products is a hollow statement at best.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Speaking of H&R Block... I'm trying to figure out who in their right mind would want tax preparation done by a business that advertises a lottery as good financial planning.
"Have you every tried to submit a resume in .txt format? "
.txt file but then I thought a XHTML with its CSS in the document with style for both screen and print media types would provide a more attractive resume and still be "plain text". So in a rare instance, yes, you can submit a resume in "plain text".
An interesting note on that. At work, Google advertised on our Python mailing list for resumes. They specifically requested the resume be in a "plain text" format. My first thought was a
Maybe - and this is just a wild guess - people grow tired of the mindless hyperbolic "M$ IS TEH ZUX" mantra, the unecessary lies and dumb generalizations backed up with lots of irrelevant links that the people who mod you up obviously never bother to pull up. Maybe it's that simple, and not as complicated as your weird theories of a vast "M$" conspiracy designed to stalk you personally on teh interwebs.
Just a thought.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
That measn he could no longer be involved with MS, and that would be a good thing.
BG and SB are still trying to get to a goal, and the fact that the market doesn't want to go there is hurting MS because they won't adapt to the market.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Agent S walks into the room, and motions to the chair sitting in front of the politicians desk. "you see this chair". Agent B picks up the chair and hurls it right over the politicians head. Agent S then asks, "Do you really want ODF?" No Neurolyzer needed.
Your argument falls apart the minute you say that you don't have to buy their product.
.doc files, they do not always translate and read 100% perfectly on microsoft software, and so you usually have to use MS Office to check it before sending it in to make sure it shows right, or risk fines or other government penalties.
Because you do.
You work for the government? You get stuck on microsoft office. You want to turn in a document to the government? Most require that it be in a word format.
While open office can do
As long as microsoft strongarms business and the government, you don't have a choice. And that is why this is such a big deal.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Amen, brother! Can I get a witness from the congregation?
This sig intentionally left blank.
Once you get out from under the oppression of your supervisors format preferences, give http://www.lyx.org/ a try. It is a nice interface to LaTeX that is almost WYSIWYG like MS Word but outputs documents in the same way as LaTeX so they are always beautifully typeset. With the new "track changes" tool LyX has, you might even be able to convert a few others as well.
YAAARRGGGGHHHHH!
$signature_views++;
i really wonder, why microsoft even cares? they got billions anyways!
You mean Florida's legislation was swayed by a lobbyist? Color me surprised.
If they change the format they force us all to upgrade to maintain the ability to freely access and exchange our data with each other. MS can choose to change the rules at any time. Or they could just get out of the wordprocessing business altogether, leaving us high and dry.
Ah but MS does change the .doc format. Everytims MS releases a new Office/Word app the format is changed. While you can open an old document in a Office version and keep to formatting, you can't do the same and keep the formatting of a document created in the new version when opened in an old app. If I were to create a document in Office XP I would not be able to open it and have it properly displayed in Office 97 for instance. I have opened old documents in a newer Office only to have the app ask me if I want to convert the format to the new version.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Have you every tried to submit a resume in .txt format? Most everyone wants a Word file (.doc). Some will take a PDF, but Word is the preferred format"
.doc to humor them. But that hasn't happened yet.
What rubbish. If they think you're good for the job, all they want is the *information in the resume. I've sent plain text, often inlined in an email. I've also sent HTML versions when I wanted to control the layout a bit more.
Naturally if they kick and scream ("how the hell do I open an HTML file?") I'll export a
"Either conform or forget about getting a job."
Thanks, I'm actually doing fine in that department.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Matching funds is based on an ethically unsound idea. Say I give $10 to a candidate that supports my viewpoint. Now the U.S. Government cuts checks to two or three other candidates whose views I do not support - indeed, that I am not willing to even give $10 to. Worse, now, assuming that there are two basic methods of campaigning - building yourself up and tearing your opponent down - I'm suddenly in a conundrum. If I give $10 to the candidate I choose, I have effectively caused my candidate's opposition to earn a collective $20. Let's say they each use half the money each to tear down my candidate: My candidate has $10 to build himself up, and $10 tearing him down. Each of my opponents are left with $5 to build themselves up. I have succeeded in sinking my candidate. But lets take that a step farther; suppose I start fielding straw-man candidates? Does the government have to pay them, too? Suppose I field twenty candidates from my party to one from yours? I probably don't even need to do anything substantial with their campaigns; just collect money to tear yours down with. Mathematically speaking, matching funds works against the system, encouraging people to engage in tear-down campaigns with straw men. There is a more insidious problem, though; namely where that money is coming from. It is not the people's burden to provide for all electoral campaigns. As a citizen, I certainly do *not* consent to giving my tax dollars to any candidate for the purposes of getting them elected. This has an entrenching effect; the government pays itself to elect itself. It flies in the face of democracy. I recommend a far, far simpler plan. I'll even skip over the idea that greater (indeed complete) transparency of where money comes from would eliminate much of the corruption from the process. Rather, I will suggest we remove all restrictions to how much money you can raise. Indeed! All restrictions. Save one. The government - nay, the People - get's it's take, and gets it in a graduated fashion. I won't suggest a particular formula, but for illustrative purposes will use f(x) = 1 / x, where f(x) is the part of the next dollar you earn you get to take back to your campaign, and x is the count of the dollar you've earned. The first dollar you keep all of. The next dollar you keep fifty cents of. The third dollar you get a third of. The fourth, a quarter. The tenth a dime. Obviously you would not want such a severe progression, but any function whose f(x) goes to zero would work. That way, someone could have raised $10 to your one, but is only getting (not quite) $3 out of it. At a certain point diminishing returns sets in, and you *have* to turn your attention to being the sort of candidate people want to hire, rather than being the sort of candidate that people mindlessly hire. And in the process, the government has profited - perhaps paying for that oversight and transparency that would help root out the rest of our problems.
[Ego]out
Having invested the time in learning to use emacs efficiently, Lyx felt like a step backwards. At this point I'm far more efficient with Emacs/auctex/bibtex than I ever was with Word/Endnote. But LyX might be a way to convince others to give it a try. At this point, though, I think the best hope for widespread use of open formats is going to be OOo/Word style interfaces to something like .odf. Once that becomes an accepted standard, it shouldn't be too difficult to convert back and forth between .tex and .odf. Or between any commonly used open format.
yp.
Wow, that one post says a lot about this guy. It also says a lot about Slashdot as a culture that he can go about his business of posting crap at +2.
Matching funds is based on an ethically and mathematically unsound idea. Say I give $10 to a candidate that supports my viewpoint. Now the U.S. Government cuts checks to two or three other candidates whose views I do not support - indeed, that I am not willing to even give $10 to. Worse, now, assuming that there are two basic methods of campaigning - building yourself up and tearing your opponent down - I'm suddenly in a conundrum. If I give $10 to the candidate I choose, I have effectively caused my candidate's opposition to earn a collective $20. Let's say they each use half the money each to tear down my candidate: My candidate has $10 to build himself up, and $10 tearing him down. Each of my opponents are left with $5 to build themselves up. I have succeeded in sinking my candidate.
But lets take that a step farther; suppose I start fielding straw-man candidates? Does the government have to pay them, too? Suppose I field twenty candidates from my party to one from yours? I probably don't even need to do anything substantial with their campaigns; just collect money to tear yours down with. Mathematically speaking, matching funds works against the system, encouraging people to engage in tear-down campaigns with straw men.
There is a more insidious problem, though; namely where that money is coming from. It is not the people's burden to provide for all electoral campaigns. As a citizen, I certainly do *not* consent to giving my tax dollars to any candidate for the purposes of getting them elected. This has an entrenching effect; the government pays itself to elect itself. It flies in the face of democracy.
I recommend a far, far simpler plan. I'll even skip over the idea that greater (indeed complete) transparency of where money comes from would eliminate much of the corruption from the process. Rather, I will suggest we remove all restrictions to how much money you can raise. Indeed! All restrictions. Save one. The government - nay, the People - get's it's take, and gets it in a graduated fashion. I won't suggest a particular formula, but for illustrative purposes will use f(x) = 1 / x, where f(x) is the part of the next dollar you earn you get to take back to your campaign, and x is the count of the dollar you've earned. The first dollar you keep all of. The next dollar you keep fifty cents of. The third dollar you get a third of. The fourth, a quarter. The tenth a dime. Obviously you would not want such a severe progression, but any function whose f(x) goes to zero would work. That way, someone could have raised $10 to your one, but is only getting (not quite) $3 out of it. At a certain point diminishing returns sets in, and you *have* to turn your attention to being the sort of candidate people want to hire, rather than being the sort of candidate that people mindlessly hire. And in the process, the government has profited - perhaps paying for that oversight and transparency that would help root out the rest of our problems.
[Ego]out
If you're voting to save your dollars, which is what the OSS people are advocating, then buying a more expensive Macintosh is counter to your intended goals, and you still might end up running MSOffice on that Mac.
I guess you haven't seen the prices of today's Macs, they generally have the same prices as equivalently equipped PCs. Unfortunately Apple does not offer low priced expandable computers like most PC OEMs do. And not everyone uses MSOffice. The last verson I got is Office 97 and I haven't used it in a few years. Though I'm using a Windows PC, an HP PC, now I've decided when I get a new laptop I'll get a Macbook Pro. I was thinking about getting Apple's Keynotes for an office suite however I've decided I'll tryout the Mac version of OO, NeoOffice, first. If MS didn't treat it's customers like criminals then I probably wouldn't mind too much continuing to use Windows.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Any job ad I post includes the phrase "Word documents will be discarded unread".
Most publishers that accept email submissions pretty much say the same thing. RTF is allowed (and in some cases, preferred), but DOC gets flushed.
-- Alastair
Would you use a screwdriver to brush your teeth? Come on, if its paint on paint, its a litte tricky, but there are all kinds of solvents to take off decals, labels and everything else. At the worst, disassembly and a heat gun might be required.
Besides, who owns a DVR anyways??? I thought they were all leased, like cable modems (in most cases).
yeah, but were they coming two by two, with hands of blue?
The people with the political influence want the money.
Neither of those groups include the average person.
Not until you add the third line.
The people with the political influence also want votes.
The average person has the votes
Ah but you left out something, the average voter votes for the candidate that promises to bring home the most bacon.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Microsoft is one of the few American companies that still produces things for export
Add agribusinesses to the list that produce for export. With the massive subsidies, billions of dollars, the US gov gives to these corporations they can sell food cheaper than it costs farmers to grow it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The root of the problem (MS) is not just the symptoms (Florida "Men in Black").
Head of nail, meet hammer.
...
I call the SOGC and talked with Ray Wilson, another very helpful human.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
You failed to read the rest of the article. THE FINDING WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. In the eyes of the law, it never existed. If you are found guilty of a crime, appeal and are found not guilty, are you still 'found guilty'?
Funny, but the word "OVERTURNED" does not appear in the DoJ document referenced. Care to point out where any of the findings of fact, such as violations of law, are documented? M$ has engaged in the same kind of behavior in other "markets" since and continues to thumb their nose at the world's governments and people.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't think that's true, although I could be wrong.
My understanding is that companies lobbying and offering financial donations as a free speech issue stems from a court case which decided that companies have limited 'personage' and thus rights to free speech. As far as I know, it would require either a law that directly contradicts this and/or a Supreme Court ruling to the same effect. If a company is no longer considered an entity with free speech rights, they can easily be prevented from making political donations.
Obligatory IANAL and all that jazz - if there's someone with more knowledge, please correct me.
-Trillian
they're = they aren't
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
SOP is no excuse for any BUSINESS to substitute content creation or services with non-competitive practices. Get better at your BUSINESS, not at excluding others from competing. BUSINESS and CAREER POLITICIANS together form the problem. There is no one or the other. You must have a M$ in order to exploit some CP. Likewise, a CP is likely to make the right decisions with no M$ to "persuade" him.
Cheers
I find your argument interesting and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. This could be the campaign financing solution of the future. Nothing wrong immediately jumps out at me that aren't features of other proposals. The real challenge is probably to figure out that function. Obviously it has to take into account inflation. You can probably get a good starting point by saying, I want all contributions after 1000000 dollars are raised to have a gain of .433. Something like that.
Using .doc is not a big problem. Abiword, OpenOffice, and others use .doc. Just don't ever "upgrade" your office suite. No upgrades == no sales. For msft, that's almost as bad as switching products.
.doc, it's the only format recruiters will accept. Don't know why.
BTW: job seekers may also be for forced to use
in the real world HR are the morons who do the hiring, and HR like things that shine
Don't send an email, print it out, sign it, and send it snail-mail. It gets much more attention that way.
Or, so I've heard.
I just paid four speeding tickets (due to the recent police fetish).
the bumpkin ticket in Florida cost me TWICE what the other tickets cost.
the FL legislature is FORCING the U. of FL to name their education school
for Jeb (is this slang?) Bush, against their wishes too! Incredible. INCREDIBLE!
I am sooooo glad I do not live in that state right now.
PS
DIE MICROSOFT, WOULD YOU F'IN DIE ALREADY!!!!!!
happy in linux land,
reader
I'm sure they get their own just desserts from MS with the devil pact they signed....
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
And that would be the point of matching. Perhaps I'm a candidate from poor or middle class areas where people can only afford $5 a plate spaghetti dinner put on by volunteers instead of the $1000 a plate designed to "weed out" the "riff-raff". I think we'd see many more interesting candidates if they could know they'd get extra credit for their $5 patrons to make up for other candidates getting $1000 per person. That would let lesser candidates have meaningful grass roots efforts.
Throw in "99% off on football tickets", and you will have officially kicked "bread and circuses" *ass*!
but that's exactly what they're doing... they're hiding behind quid pro quo, but in reality that's just another name for "no bid contract". Fighting laws that require openness is stupid... We all know it's cronyism when DoD contractors do this and expect it to be fought. Why is Microsoft any different. THIS is the action that states should have taken years ago instead of crying about anti-trust. Think of it as software "equal opportunity". Almost all states disallow single-source contracts without renegotiation as a matter of rule.. Microsoft is a huge exception to these basic laws as they call "dual source" a choice between Dell or HP for PCs.
exactly, my business makes us take ethics training and much of what we discuss on slashdot as "industry standard" behavior would get me fired at my job.... it's just not cool. Of course I work at a nice, cozy middle-sized company. We don't have to worry about things like "world domination" cause it will never happen.
It's all very well me attaching my resume, calendar, map with directions to my new house or funding spreadsheet to an email but if the person at the other end can't read it then i've just wasted their (and my) time.
Where is the web site that says in big letters: "Download and install this 200k setup exe (signed by IBM) to install ODF support for your Office suite (MS,Lotus,etc.) to begin using ODF right this second!" that i can link to in said email with attachment?
Firefox and Thunderbird are most of the way there with that, but bloating of said products over time means that the download size is creeping up the MB scale.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Understanding does not imply endorsement.
If there is some guy who isn't right in the brain and thus is "forced" by his nature to kill people, the fact that we can (in this hypothetical example) understand how his brain chemistry causes his action doesn't excuse his actions or makes his removal from society any less desirable - a nuance often overlooked, which is why people call those who try to understand and cure them bad, because they believe that understanding implies endorsement and they who seek understanding would therefore want that anyone becomes a mass murderer.
As an aside: this also works as an argument against free will, as free will asserts that if we weren't to have a God of the Gaps we would understand and therefore excuse those actions ("he couldn't act any different"), therefore being unable to judge him.
Applied to Microsoft this means: While we may realize that it is in the best interest of some short-sighted manager to destroy competition and therefore human progress, it doesn't mean that we have to endorse this stance. Instead, we should use the understanding of Microsoft and the system of society it utilizes and creates to get rid of it and any institution like it. The same goes, of course, for politicians.
However, it should be noted that not buying Microsoft products doesn't help - if it were even possible, and most people aren't willing to put together their own computers and learn Linux etc (thus, it would make a great idea for a startup, except that there won't be any customers).
Secondly, in a system which acknowledges parties, you can never ever vote out the corrupt politicians. This can be seen especially easily on two-party-systems like those employed by the US and UK: Let there be one politician from party A elected. This politician is corrupt. As you are sufficiently intelligent to realize that the ideology of party A doesn't significantly from that of party B and only serves to catch as many voters as possible, you vote for the politician from party B. However, that politician is corrupt, too. Of course, you are voting him out of office, by voting for... politician A. Therefore, you only switch between corrupt politicans, never getting rid of them.
As I live here in Germany, I can tell you that voting for a third party is useless, too: As soon as they get into a position of power, they immediately become as corrupt as the others - and they stay that way even after they lost power again, because they are now on the radar of the corporations who keep them paid so they still vote for laws they want.
Maybe there is some sort of screening software that requires .doc format?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a certain untaxed amount. In fact, if all taxes were done this way, I would leap for joy - as it would truly show that math would be applied to the economy, rather than some simple accounting and hacked solutions. Personally, though, I would pin that 'baseline number' around the region it would take to have an 'adequate minimum staff' and 'reasonable advertising'. I think that would have the effect of coralling salaries and advertising costs, which get egregious. Why, after all, should the media networks be the primary profiters of election season?
[Ego]out
Corporations are citizens of a locality.
They're really not, though.
A) They're not citizens
They cannot vote. They're not People in the sense that our government is For the People, By the People and Of the People. They are a framework for commerce, but they do not magically gain meta-citizenship simply because they involve a lot of people.
B) They're not of a locality
Take Amazon. If it sells books to a certain region, is it of that locality? Or do they have to employ someone there? How many someones? If a company chooses to open ghost-offices in a locality for each of their people, are they part of that locality? What about businesses that have jobs that move, like trucking? Suppose an employee spends time in two localities? Can one employee therefore cover multiple localities? What about a Real Estate agent who might one month spend the vast majority of their time in a given locality, and the next month in another locality?
First, I think it is an incredible mistake to continue to build new economic systems based on locality. Gerrymandering has long since corrupted that thinking, never mind the fact that we currently have highly mobile populations. Secondly, I think that it is against the idea of "One Person, One Vote" to allow a few people in charge of large companies to pool the resources of those companies - against the potential interests of all the employees, nevermind the customer base - and spend it to influence the political process. This nation started off with the idea of separating Church and State for a very similar reason; the influence of a select caste (the clergy) over both a populace and their secular political interest led to too great a concentration of power. It was abused. Corporate influence is in a similar category, and truth be told, I would not oppose the banning of all corporate contributions - for campaigns or otherwise. I see it as undermining my vote.
[Ego]out