Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans
phantomfive writes Silicon Valley is making a mark in Washington as Google has recently replaced Goldman as the largest lobbyist, but until recently, most of the money from Silicon Valley went to democratic candidates. In 2014, that has changed, and Republicans are getting most of the money. Why the change? Gordon Crovitz suggests it's because Harry Reid blocked patent reform. Reid gets a large chunk of donations from trial lawyers, who oppose the reform.
Republicans will bring back peace and prosperity to our land... just like before..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... and not the voting of the people that determines if an area is leaning to one party or the other.
Gotta be Harry Reid blocking patent reform.
Can't be Obamacare failures, loss of press freedom, lowest labor force participation in many decades, incompetence on Ebola, lack of plans for ISIS, overweening regulation, politicization of DoJ and IRS, extrajudicial killings of US citizens, crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM, increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever.
Naaah, none of that. It's gotta be just Harry Reid.
Yes. Do this. But beware that the person you put in office in his stead is not the same. The GOP is feared by trial-lawyers, yes, but they have not said one whit about patent reform that I can see. Indeed, most of them, being reflexively pro-business, are all in favor of the same zany IP laws as democrats. If someone has some counterpoints, I'd love to hear them.
Let's just put that out there, with 2 years to do whatever they wanted with a supermajority, and then 6 years of controlling the senate and presidency, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has been destroyed, and the progressives keep trotting out the same "Blame Bush" canard while doing their best to sabotage the few remaining Democrats. All my party has left are the corporatists (Reid, Pelosi, etc) and a bunch of screaming tantrums demanding class warfare. At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win, just for being less dangerous and more honest about their extremism.
Democrat/republicans must keep congress as evenly divided as possible, lest one or the other absorb all the blame. So, what we have are people deciding between crazy and evil when they go to vote. And then, there's always the little wallflower that everyone ignores. Little do they know that if they give some water, it would grow into a tree to overshadow the weeds currently overrunning the place.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law. After that law is in place, anyone who formerly worked in the lobbying "industry", (and how odious to use that word in connection with lobbyists), would be forbidden forever from seeking public office or working for the government as either an employee or as a contractor.
It's time to outlaw the purchase of favourable legislation altogether. In fact, it's long past time to aggressively outlaw ANY circumvention of democracy. Yeah, I know it isn't going to happen - but I can dream...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I disagree with the thesis that silicon valley is in some way "swinging" toward the Republican party. It's more like the writing was on the wall which way the wind was blowing this midterm and the only way to have any influence or say on policy in Washington is via contributions. As in contributed == friend, didn't contribute == not friend. That's all it is. In 8 years (or whatever) when it's swinging the other direction again money will be flowing back the other direction. It's nothing more or less than that. Be on the good side of the people in power. It's the only way to get anything done. A lot of businesses actually contribute to both parties every election cycle, even if one is more heavily contributed to than the other. Just want to be on the good side for the next wind change.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
Basically, if democrats refuse to listen to us - this is what they'll get.
I'm as liberal as people get, but that NSA thing pissed me off so bad that I consider voting Republican.
For those, who say that Republicans will not act on NSA either, I say this: Listen, elections is what in game theory considered a repeat game. In such situations it's often advantageous to enforce beneficial cooperation by employing fear of retaliation. And we're not bluffing this time...
"No Country for Old Men" tactics if you wish.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether
Absolutely! Because if 10,000 people all have the same thing on their minds, and want to present their case to a legislator in the interests of getting their issue some attention in the House or the Senate, then it makes much more sense for all 10,000 of them to travel to DC and attempt to get some face time with the same one politician (say, the chairperson of whatever committee might impact the way legislation surrounding the topic in question is handled). Yes, that's FAR more efficient than those same 10,000 people pooling a much smaller share of each of their resources and time, and sending a single person to have a single sit-down with that same legislator. We certainly wouldn't want to ask someone who already knows everyone involved, and who understands how the legislature works, to choose the best time and circumstance and context in which to bring up something important. No, that's far too sensible - it's much better if we make it AGAINST THE LAW for people to exercise the first amendment rights to assemble and talk to their government.
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
How does employing a lobbyist to efficiently do what 10,000 of you would do separately equate to "buying" legislation any more than does 10,000 of you individually doing exactly the same thing? Are you suggesting that 10,000 of you shouldn't be allowed to talk to your representatives, or show support for their campaigns, or saying out loud (online, in a newspaper, or a media ad) that you think a given referendum, law, or politician is doing something wrong? Isn't that exactly the point of democracy? Or are you suggesting that campaigns and political expression should be conducted entirely with taxpayer dollars, no matter who the candidate is or how moonbat crazy they are? Personally, I'd like to choose whether and to whom my financial support goes to, when it comes to campaigns. You equate supporting campaigns with buying legislation, but propose no alternative. The only other options are to either force media companies to provide their services for free (government compulsion to support people who you may not actually support) to any old single-topic obsessive who wants to grind some political axe ("911 Truthers For Mars Exploration By Separated Twins!"), or to tell people they're not allowed to spend money to communicate about their politics - something the first amendment specifically protects from people like you, which is a good thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So Silicon Valley (California) changes to Republicans because Harry Reid (D-Nevada) blocked patent reform. I suppose this means that Republicans are 100% in favor of patent reform, right? From what I can see both parties are split on this issue. Now there may be other reasons for Silicon Valley to be more Republican but patent reform is not one of them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
1. Republican power is increasing in Washington. If you want a powerful government friend to help you, you make friends with people who whose power is increasing.
2. People don't love Hillary Clinton. Support for Hillary Clinton rests mostly on hatred for her opponents. But her opponent hasn't been chosen yet. It might be Rand Paul. So it's hard to get your hate on enough to write the big check.
I might go out on a limb and guess Rand Paul and some backbenchers in the House, but how many of them are "pro-market" that doesn't just stop at government regulation but acknowledges the anti-consumer/anti-competitive aspects of big business?
Usually any attempt to reign in big business results in "pro-market" responses about as complex as "Because Business."
I think the bigger concern should be the various artful forms of bribery that lobbyists use to buy legislation. Doesn't that bother you?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Bribery? Be specific. Every last dollar contributed to campaigns is a matter of public record. Unless you're talking about stuff like that Democrat congressman caught with $90k of cash in his freezer as he got arrested for obvious political racketeering, or Chicago-type blatant pocket-stuffing. When a lobbyist sits down for dinner with a congressman or a senator, that's on the books, right down to what the steak cost. What are you referring to, specifically?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The saddest thing here is that for most people, every time they get disenchanted with the Democrats or Republicans, so many of them switch to supporting Republicans or Democrats.
Which is best for clear throught: to take cocaine, or heroin?
Which is the path to a long healthy life: to shoot yourself in the head or stab yourself in the heart?
Which is more in the interests of America: Democrats or Republicans?
Depending on your preferences and values, you might actually have real, valid answers to these three questions. But you ought to also know that all these questions are absurd. Why do we still take that last one seriously?
Foundationally, lobbying is a good thing. It allows for a certain form of representation. What lobbying has turned into these days is disgusting. I know a lobbyist and know the difference between the two.
This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). While popular election of senators is sold as "the people's voice", that is already achieved by the House of Representatives as originally intended. And what really happens is senators get elected and stop representing their constituents as soon as wheels hit the runway in DC and come under the influence of lobbyists, and other congressmen offering them deals, committee positions, etc. If senators were once again commissioned by their state legislatures, the state could recall them when they stop representing the state's interests.
Instead, the existing power structures will cry about "muffling the voice of the people" if you repeal the 17th amendment, but in reality it would keep a leash on these supposed public servants who somehow end up staying in power for decades and becoming disproportionately richer at the end of their senatorial run by way of things like shady land deals that benefit them in roundabout ways (I'm looking at you Harry and Nancy; both have favored legislation that effectively increases the value of their land investments - shock!).
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
Some selected examples of Republican opposition to monopolies; note that both Republicans and Democrats have opposed them at various times, but you asked for Republican examples, so here are some Republican examples:
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1956
IBM Consent decree
http://news.cnet.com/40-year-o...
Richard Nixon, 1972
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Richard Nixon, 1973
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
Reagan, 1983
Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp.
http://scholar.google.com/scho...
Reagan, 1984
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
George W. Bush, 2001
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
George W. Bush, 2007
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Make every single elected official list their top 5 corporate sponsors next to their name on the ballot.
Also every single bit of legislation that is not written by said congress critter needs to have the same thing we require on all ad's: This law bought by evil corporation here
With Steve Jobs dead, he's having a hard time sending out his pre-election "I urge you all to vote Democrat" emails. And yes, I have about 5 of those archived.
I don't think this is actually a major factor, I think it's more people are pissed off by the people currently in power, and want change - any change - from what's currently happening.
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
You DO have a valid point. But what about all those people who don't have the time to even get together with like-minded individuals, much less the money to pay a representative to lobby on their behalf? Working single mothers, and people holding down two or three jobs spend a lot of their lives in survival mode. The institution of lobbying effectively makes political change either a rich man's sport or the province of revolutionaries.
Then there are all the sub-rosa deals made during lobbying - "My client will or won't build, (or close), a factory in your district, depending on how you vote", and the like.
How does this NOT subvert democracy?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The *real* answer is to find the individuals out there who want to "break the cycle" and actually offer something more beneficial than the status-quo, and vote for them regardless of party affiliation.
I know you don't get a lot of real options when you're talking about a vote for the next President. (Truth is -- I think a lot of the people best suited to do the job well have NO interest in ever running. That's why you get such poor candidates, time after time.)
Personally, I would have really loved to see Ron Paul as President when we had the opportunity to elect him. May not have agreed 100% with him on everything, but I liked a LOT of his thinking. And realistically, you can only change or do so much while in office, since you have an entire judicial system AND a senate/congress who are probably filled with people holding opposing views. So anything Ron tried to do would have been tempered and watered down significantly before becoming law.
Right now? I like Dan Bongino for Congress in my district of Maryland. Former secret service agent who knows all about the political system and wants to stamp out a lot of the corruption - giving the common man more of a voice. There are others like him out there.... but you have to search for them and support them when they come out of the woodwork.