Slashdot Mirror
Where the Tech Industry's Political Donations Are Going
An anonymous reader writes: Early estimates suggest the 2016 U.S. presidential election will result in $5-10 billion in spending by candidates and organizations — much more than ever before. To support this, they need lots of contributions, and the tech industry is becoming a significant player. (Not as much as the financial industry, of course, but tech's influence is growing.) Re/Code breaks down which candidates are getting the most money from the tech sector so far. Right now, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has gotten the most tech money by far — more than the rest of the field combined, thanks in large part to Larry Ellison. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, is a distant second, followed closely by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) are the only other candidates with significant tech contributions so far. Carly Fiorina, a tech industry veteran, has only managed about $13,000 in donations.
And Rubio supports increasing H1-B visas threefold. Coincidence? I think not.
We should be very clear this means "the (m|b)illionaire CEOs of tech corporations who are using company money to advance their own agendas".
This is all about corporations doing what serves the interests of the rich people in charge ... which means it's really a measure of how influential CEOs are, and is in no way representative of the thousands of people who work for those companies.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
After slaughtering a once a beloved tech company, HP, and causing a big grief at Lucent, is this a big surprise that Carly Fiorina is not getting any love from the tech sector ? I think she should not be allowed to make decision even on her behalf, let alone technology or god forbid United States.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
please shut up about this for another year.
Most people in tech, or business, know Fiorina as the person who ruined HP. So the lack of support for her may indicate that most people don't want the country ruined.
Well, they don't THINK they want it ruined, anyway. They may well be uninformed such that they advocate for policies which have been ruinous to countries and states which have tried them. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it and all.
After the demonization of Brendan Eich for his personal donation in support of CA Proposition 8, the writing is on the wall. You can expect that most big tech donors of all stripes, regardless of party or political stance, will donate to political causes through the Super PAC of their choice.
These are advance payments for future services. There is no charity involved. Not a donation!
Bribery is when an elected official supports your agenda because you pay them.
Campaign contributions are when you pay an elected official because they support your agenda.
And yes, I'm being cynical, because at best it's difficult to distinguish one from the other, and at worst, it's impossible.
That our agricultural system needs to continue to function efficiently and at high capacity is a matter of national security, really, and that is the reason those subsidies exist - to keep farmers in business in lean years.
Farming subsidies exist to keep the famers competitive every year.
If using cheap foreign labor helps that goal then we tacitly encourage it. If only the tech sector worked the same way, most of the jobs might actually stand a chance of staying in the US. As it is, most will be gone inside of 20 years.
So, you're saying cheap foreign labour will keep jobs in the US? There's no world in which this makes sense. Also I note you didn't address the lengthy exposition on successful Japanese protectionism I included. I can find plenty of other examples if you like. Protectionism done injudiciously doesn't work, but managed properly it's one hell of an arrow in the national quiver.