Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

Posted by samzenpus on from the going-the-other-way dept.

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.

58 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. This is great news! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Republicans will bring back peace and prosperity to our land... just like before..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:This is great news! by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last time I was subjected to a new round of their peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:This is great news! by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, thank God we have a Democrat President who won the Peace Prize, or who knows what a mess the world would be in right now.

    3. Re:This is great news! by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think the peace and prosperity (or war and destruction) are simply a matter of whether the red team wins or blue team wins in a game influenced by numerous vested interests, you are in for a surprise.

    4. Re:This is great news! by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      UUggh, I'm getting sucked into political bickering on ./ again.

      But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity? Especially, say, as compared to 10 years ago. I see tens of thousands fewer dying in American wars, and a booming stock market. It's like Clinton all over again, except without a salacious sex scandal.

      What is it you are thinking of when you say it? (With numbers please).

    5. Re:This is great news! by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      See, that's why I asked for numbers.

      Keep in mind, the amount of cable-news time that can be devoted to something has no relation to how big an event it actually is.

    6. Re:This is great news! by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You WAY overestimate the actual power POTUS has.

    7. Re:This is great news! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Last time I was subjected to a new round of their peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job.

      I was out of work for two years (2009-10), had 20 job interviews, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy before getting a new job. I was out of work for eight months (2013-14), had 60 job interviews, and took out a bank loan to pay rent before getting a new job. As a moderate conservative, I remembered when Republicans once stood for responsible government.

    8. Re:This is great news! by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity?

      Well, the last time Republicans were in charge was Jan 2007. At that time, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and falling, and the deficit was $161 billion. Since a year after the Democrats have taken Congress, neither the unemployment rate nor the deficit has been this low.

      As for now, 95% of the "recovery" has gone to the top 1% and the labor participation rate is at the lowest point since the '60s.

      As for "peace", we've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan in six years under Obama than we lost in eight years of Bush. Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men. ISIS, a group that makes Al Qaeda look like alter boys, has taken over much of Iraq and is even making money from the oil sales. In Africa, school girls are being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves or wives, as if there is a difference.

      Are these the numbers you were looking for?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:This is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to be a little insane to support either party, if all you are talking about is ideology.

      If you are a businessman, ideology takes a back seat: gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues mean little. The parties are almost identical on all important issues, so you put your money wherever your direct interests lie.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:This is great news! by wiggles · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, you'd think he was in charge of the State Department and the Defense Department, with a constitutional mandate to defend the country and exercise diplomacy or something...

    11. Re:This is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was flabbergasted at just how few people are involved in the fighting in Syria on the Turkish border. For all of the attention it gets in the media, you would think it was two mighty armies. Instead, we are talking about a war where "reinforcements" consist of 150 fighters and two airdrops of bullets and food.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:This is great news! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do remember the last 8 years of Republican presidential rule right? How much money was spent? How much more laws were enabled? How fucked up did our economy get? How much hubris did we generate running around trying to be pretend we know how to be an empire while still try to be all gooey and heroic about it?

    13. Re:This is great news! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really? REALLY? I'm sorry, perhaps you need to review how we got into Iraq, started two conflicts by choice at the same time, while having completely unrealistic expectations on how things would go. How many trillions of dollars were spent? What about the sheer millions of dollars given to Iraqi politicians, money larger than what we spend on education or infrastructure that have completely disappeared. Obama has done some stupid shit, but NOTHING compares to what George W. Bush has done in his 8 years as president. The only person who can even compete with Bush is Reagan.

    14. Re:This is great news! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to completely ignore the other branch of government called Congress who controls the money. When you brought up Benghazi, you lost all credibility with me.

    15. Re:This is great news! by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most new hires are scheduled for under 40 hours a week. They don't want to provide health care. Consider yourself lucky now.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:This is great news! by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Informative

      Great numbers. Not a single source on any of them. If your source is your ass then please state so.

      Unemployment rates:
      http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...

      Deficit numbers:
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... (First Spreadsheet)

      95% of recovery goes to top 1%:
      http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...

      Death toll in Afghanistan:
      http://www.justforeignpolicy.o...

      Who knew my ass was sited all over the Internet!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    17. Re:This is great news! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention blaming gridlock on Obama. When he took office, the Republicans publicly said their goal was to block everything he wanted, no compromise. Obama, naively, tried to work with them and got nowhere. (It's hard to come to a consensus if your opposition's view of "consensus" is "You agree to all of our demands and we give nothing in return.") Any Republicans that wanted to work with the President were threatened by their party and treated as if they had committed high treason.

      I'm not saying the Democrats would be better with a Republican president, but you can't lay all of the blame of Congressional gridlock on the President Obama.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    18. Re:This is great news! by The+Technomancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MighyYar's right, and this is coming from a bleeding heart California liberal that is not happy the GOP is going to get rewarded for its antics with increased power in DC, and is also really not happy that Silicon Valley (also known as where I work and live) is starting to tilt to the right.

      The current difference between the two parties right now is pretty solely on wedge issues. They have the same monetary policy, the same foreign policy, neither party is realistic about tax policy on the middle class (it needs to be higher, along with the high earners), neither party wants to bust the cap on Social Security and Medicare (while I appreciate the extra bucks at the end of the year, I think those programs need it more than me), etc.

      For all the hype about the "core differences" in the 2012 election, Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama were so close on the political compass that it was a John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson situation.

      I happen to feel that the social issues are important enough for the Democratic party to be the clear choice, but to get back to MightyYar's point -- Silicon Valley is very business-driven, and CA law would preserve nearly all protections that the Republicans could take away at the federal level (barring the PPACA) as far social politics are concerned. From a Silicon Valley business perspective, both parties are roughly the same when considering the direct effect they'd have, and even more so when you realize that FWD.US and other H1-B visa supporters are realizing that they only way they'll get those increased H1-Bs they want is to get some sort of immigration reform done, even if that means supporting an odious Republican policy rather than a Democratic solution that isn't showing any signs of life.

      Not to mention that most Republicans in the Bay Area would be considered Democrats down in Bakersfield or Orange County.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

      -- Arthur C. Clarke

    19. Re:This is great news! by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      I remembered when Republicans once stood for responsible government.

      That old, eh? Your friends call you "Highlander"?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:This is great news! by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I blame bush for what he caused. I blame Clinton for the dot bomb. I blame Obama for the crap he caused(expanding wiretaps anyone)

      Why is it when the republicans controlled both houses and the presidency they didn't fix the obvious errors that the democrats did? Why are you blame 2 years of democrats controlling congress instead of bush. If republicans when the senate tomorrow and two years from now the economy crashes again will you blame Obama or the republicans?

      Think about it. i would bet you would still blame someone else even when the situation is reversed. Which it very well could be tomorrow.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:This is great news! by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to be a little insane to support either party, if all you are talking about is ideology.

      If you are a businessman, ideology takes a back seat: gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues mean little.

      Not to hear your typical Republican tell it. You have to hand it to the Republican party. They have managed to place those "meaningless" issues front and center for over two decades now. Despite their bald hypocrisy on such issues, they have managed to keep a large block of voters convinced that keeping homosexuals from getting married and depriving women of the right to control their own bodies were issues of critical importance, enough so that the sheep continue to vote against their own self interests.

    22. Re:This is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Democrats are just as guilty. There are many, many people who will vote on one side or the other based solely on one or more wedge issues, and Democrats seek these people out just as the Republicans do. As much as I support gay marriage, I cannot tell anyone with a straight face that this is an important issue for the country as a whole.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re:This is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The scale of the crap that the Republican party does is completely fucked up.

      Yes, like when George Bush started monitoring all of our phone conversations? That sucked - I'm sure glad the Democrats fixed that when they assumed power.

      Or when George Bush started "drone diplomacy"? I'm sure glad that Obama put an end to all of those drone attacks.

      That huge Wall Street bailout? Yes, I'm sure glad that Obama came in and ended that program.

      How about "Gitmo"? Obama really shined when he closed that down.

      He got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, too!

      Under Bush, we treated illegal immigrants shamefully, but Obama has really fixed that, too!

      I'm sorry, but the difference between Republicans and Democrats in recent history has been a military that is slightly more gay and slightly more people on some kind of government assistance for healthcare (be it Medicaid or an "Obamacare" subsidy). Of course, George Bush enacted Medicare expansion as well, so...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:This is great news! by barc0001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > "Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men."

      Hmmm. I wonder how that came to be. I think someone went and invaded the country and totally trashed its infrastructure and and political power structure. Any guesses who that might have been? I mean Saddam was an asshole and a murderer too, but at least the average Iraqi didn't have to worry about being blown up by a car bomb or beheaded by the thousands by ISIS, right? They're both bad, no doubt about it, but one is definitely worse. Like Saddam in charge was like having HIV, and ISIS in your country is like having ebola. All things being equal most people would go for the HIV if it was an either/or choice.

      If I'm reading the intent of your point correctly you look to absolve Bush and co of all blame for the mess Iraq is currently in, and blame Obama for not cleaning Bush's mess up properly despite massive public calls to bring everyone home from Iraq.

    25. Re:This is great news! by mc6809e · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is it when the republicans controlled both houses and the presidency they didn't fix the obvious errors that the democrats did?

      January 2001 was the first time since 1957 that the Republicans controlled both congress and the presidency.

      They had about 8 months of a sane world before 9/11 happened.

    26. Re:This is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Obama fixed that, didn't he? If only he had passed some kind of comprehensive health legislation where he had an opportunity to fix that issue...

      -Zippy

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Funny how it's the business donations. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... and not the voting of the people that determines if an area is leaning to one party or the other.

    1. Re:Funny how it's the business donations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's just a shit headline. The real story is, "Political donations from businesses in Silicon Valley move in Republicans' favor."

      I don't expect that extremely liberal Berkeley and San Fran are going to be entreating Rick Perry to move to their area so he can represent them anytime soon.

    2. Re:Funny how it's the business donations. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And it's google who's now the country's biggest political donor, even over Goldman-Sachs! Here's an article from just one year ago, when google became #8 by surpassing Lockheed-Martin. And just 10 years ago, in 2004, "the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital's pay-to-play culture."

      So I guess that establishes the pecking order, doesn't it? Just when all eyes are on the military-industrial complex, Wall Street takes over. And then as they are in the spotlight, in sneaks the new corporate Stasi.

    3. Re:Funny how it's the business donations. by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bullshit! Just because the business of Silicon Valley are funding and endorsing republicans doesn't mean you have to vote for them. And they cannot legally occupy the office without your vote. The money can be rendered completely worthless by the conscientious voter. So please, quit your belly aching about the money. It is not an issue. The voters' obsession with it is. They keep voting for it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Funny how it's the business donations. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This ignores the reality that advertising works.

      Without changing anything about products themselves, statistically significant numbers of people will select the more advertised one more often.

      Marketing is social poison.

    5. Re:Funny how it's the business donations. by denzacar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't seem to understand how representative democracy works.

      See... People vote for REPRESENTATIVES to do the the law making and governing for them.
      Then, people and corporations with money BUY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES.
      Regardless for whom the people voted.

      You wouldn't go around the world buying grain and sugar cane and cocoa plants and all other basic sources for ingredients for a cake every time you want one, right?
      You just go down to a bakery and pay the baker.
      Regardless of where the resources that allow him to work as a baker came from.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    6. Re:Funny how it's the business donations. by njnnja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the causality is backwards. Republicans aren't going to win because Silicon Valley is contributing to them; rather, Silicon Valley is contributing to Republicans because it looks like they are going to win. The relationship between ad spending and margins of victory are statistically small, and politicians (with certain notable exceptions) are generally not blatantly for sale to the highest bidder. The real reason for contributing is to give to people who generally already agree with you, so that if they get elected they will choose to focus on the priorities that are important to you instead of focusing on something else. In this case, patent reform.

  3. Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When have you ever known a political party supporter switch affiliation because their party's policies don't work? Because the parties ideology has shifted, sure, but because they've tried their policies and they didn't work? Very rare.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with your laundry list of complaints is that most of they apply to the Republicans too. Plus there's an entire wingnut branch of the party that's probably openly hostile to you.

      A California geek in the GOP is like a black man at a KKK rally.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Insightful
      WTF, do you get all your "facts" from FOX news?

      Can't be Obamacare failures

      20M more people have health insurance: http://time.com/2950961/obamac... Lives are being saved in states that accepted the medicaid expansion (which is why even some of the deepest red states are moving to accept). Jobs are being created in health care. Some premiums are decreasing, but most are going up by a modest (2-5%) rate, much lower than before Obamacare.

      loss of press freedom

      Who are you going to vote for to fix that? Wasn't it Bush who introduced the "Free Speech Zones" at rallies?

      lowest labor force participation in many decades

      Employment tanked as Bush left office and banks destroyed the economy. (No one was regulating the banks, so we'll go with them just happening to tank under Bush - could have happened under any president).

      If you look at job creation it consistently weak under republican leadership and much stronger under democratic. 5000+ jobs created under Obama vs just over a 1000 under Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

      incompetence on Ebola

      Despite the right wing terrorizing the population with the treat of Ebola, there is no threat from Ebola. Nigeria, hardly a bastion of high tech medicine and good government manged to contain a real attack. Sequestration and cuts at the NIH have slowed efforts to create a vacine (it's not profitable to create one since most fo the people with Ebola are poor). I trust you favor reinstating funding for that (and the many other) governement efforts.

      lack of plans for ISIS

      See "Ebola". ISIS is not a threat to the US and, frankly, there's almost nothing the US can do to help (unless you consider Iraq an overwhelming success)

      overweening regulation

      Tell that to the people you were killed in the West Fertilizer explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion)

      Or to the people of West Virgina. (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/dont-drink-the-water-west-virginia-after-the-chemical-spill-20140312)

      politicization of DoJ and IRS

      Listen, the IRS investigated many political non-profits of all stripes, it was not just the right wing groups. This is what the IRS is SUPPOSED to do, investigate possible tax fraud. They did it, and (despite the political disinformation) it was non-partisen.

      extrajudicial killings of US citizens

      Come on, that completely crossed party line. Extraordinary rendition and redefining torture as acceptable started under the Bush administration, but nothing has been done to fix that and it won't be for the forseeable future. The 100ml bottles on planes has the same problem.

      crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM

      The banks collapsed under Bush and (even though it stinks) a bailout was the least worst evil. GM turned out to be a good investment, certainly for the people who now still have jobs.

      increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever.

      Easy, raise the minimum wage. Good for the economy, good for people working at that level. (Again, who you going to vote for who will do that?).

      Naaah, none of that. It's gotta be just Harry Reid.

      I don't know about just Harry Reid, but it sure seems that politician are going to have to take more care to see who's offering the highest bribe (sorry, campaign contribution).

    4. Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Replies:

      1. Obamacare failures -- New large programs often have initial glitches. W's medicare D did, and so did Medicare's roll-out. The GOP refuses to help with adjustments, instead just complains and tries to repeal it over and over. That's not problem-solving.

      2. Loss of press freedom -- Both parties guilty of press games. It doesn't excuse anyone, but changing parties won't solve it.

      3. Lowest labor force participation in many decades -- Most "mature" industrial nations are facing the same problem; it's not special to the US. It appears to be a combination of offshoring to cheap-labor countries, and automation. GOP has shown no intention of doing anything different to solve those. They seem to believe that if you can't compete with slave commies and robots, that's your problem: Social Darwinism.

      4. Incompetence on Ebola -- I have not seen anything specific and verifiable, just cherry-picking facts to make O look bad. GOP tends to want to cut fed. health R&D in general. That's not going to help the next outbreaks.

      5. Overweening regulation -- The devil's in the details. Most new regulations relate to preventing another banking melt-down. The banks failed to regulate themselves last time, so they have more rules now. Do you want a repeat? See also #8.

      6. Politicization of DoJ and IRS -- Vague. There's no evidence of intentional bias at IRS. Sloppy procedures, perhaps, but not bias. DoJ has always been political for the decades I've been alive.

      7. Extrajudicial killings of US citizens -- I've seen no evidence the GOP is against such practices over-all. Both parties are arguably "war mongers".

      8. Crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM -- The real problem is lack of anti-trust enforcement. If companies and banks grow too-big-too-fail, then failure creates a domino effect, which can wreck a weak economy. And I've seen no evidence that the GOP is for stronger anti-trust enforcement. If anything, they see it as "gov't interference" and wish to do nothing to stop it in the name of "free markets".

      9. Increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever. -- See #3

      I realize "the other party also does it" doesn't sit well with voters, and they'll punish the party in charge regardless of what the other party would do instead. Voters are short-term thinkers, unfortunately, and that's why we get pendulum politics. Each side over-promises and then fails to deliver. Rinse, repeat.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  4. Savage candidates who are regressive by halivar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Savage candidates who are regressive by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where were the pro-market, anti-monopoly Republicans in the votes for the Copyright Term Extension Act? Both bills passed both houses of the 105th Congress by unanimous consent.

    2. Re:Savage candidates who are regressive by elfprince13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where were the pro-market, anti-monopoly Republicans

      Not in national office, and furiously shaking their fists at the neo- and social- conservatives who hijacked the party.

  5. Obama's rich got richer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Obama's rich got richer by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win

      No, the Democrats deserve to lose. Protesting dishonesty and corruption by voting for dishonesty and corruption, is not a protest.

      Letting Republicans win, gets you nothing. If anything, that'll just tell the Democrats that they weren't dishonest enough.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:Obama's rich got richer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, I love the "The Republicans screwed us last time they were elected, let's vote in a Democrat!" "Oh no, Obama sucked too and screwed us like the Republicans did! I know, let's vote in another Republican and see if they're different now!"

      Meanwhile the few sane people left are screaming from the sidelines, "Hey, we've got GOOD people here that actually want to, you know, represent their constituents.....if you'd just pay attention! Hello?!? McFly?!?"

    3. Re:Obama's rich got richer by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not party you want to change, it's the system. You can put whatever party you want, but all of them need money to run elections. They aren't getting it from you. They got to get it from someone else and they won't give it without something for something.

  6. Every time I hear the word 'lobbyist' I feel sick by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. Theory is flawed by keith_nt4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Theory is flawed by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind this is a Wall Street Journal editorial article, so pronouncements to the effect that "Silicon Valley is Republican now" should be taken with a big grain of salt.

  8. Bang-bang control in action. by sshir · · Score: 4, Insightful
    for non-techie types

    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.

    1. Re:Bang-bang control in action. by Enry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republicans are in charge and they haven't done a thing about the NSA. No reduction in budget, no oversight changes, nothing.

  9. Two reasons by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. The enemy of your enemy is your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  11. Re:Every time I hear the word 'lobbyist' I feel si by PseudoCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  12. Republican opposition to monopolies by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Republican opposition to monopolies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      Eisenhower was not a modern Republican. He'd not have an inkling of a chance to be permitted to run for either party these days. He's the guy who sent the army to desegregate the Southern schools. He's the one who warned about the military industrial complex. If you want to see what happens to people who think out of the box in our times, look up Derek Khanna.

    2. Re:Republican opposition to monopolies by bware · · Score: 4, Informative

      George W. Bush, 2001
      United States v. Microsoft Corp.

      Your own link hardly supports this. This action was initiated under the Clinton DOJ. On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its remedy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment

      In November 2001, the Bush DOJ settled with Microsoft in what was widely considered to be a slap on the wrist, and opposed by nine states and the District of Columbia as inadequate.

      So given that at least one of the examples is hardly a shining example of recent Republican opposition to monopolies, forgive me if I don't spend a lot of time looking up the others.

  13. With Steve Jobs dead... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.