Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Where the Tech Industry's Political Donations Are Going

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

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.

28 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by erp_consultant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And Rubio supports increasing H1-B visas threefold. Coincidence? I think not.

  2. I'd pay Carly money too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lots of money, to go away.

  3. anti H1B job protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I imagine most tech workers, in a hypocritical bid to protect their own jobs after participating in the destruction of most of the American workforce, will find out who will ban H1B program and vote that way. It harkens back to the old saw, vote your wallet. Unfortunately protectionism never works and paying artifically inflated wages when there are other people willing to do the job for significantly less money usually results in companies either moving offshore of closing entirely. But, still, I imagine this is how things will go.

    1. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      after participating in the destruction of most of the American workforce

      As far as I'm aware most of the American workforce is still working. Even if it wasn't you'd have to explain exactly how tech workers destroyed their jobs.

      Unfortunately protectionism never works

      Protectionism works great quite a lot of the time, it's how China manages its economy along with currency manipulation which is pretty much the same thing.

    2. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Informative

      And what do you think farming subsidies in developed countries are but protectionism? The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe has been rocking for almost sixty years now, and similar policies are in place in the US as far as I'm aware. These exist so you don't have to rely on whichever third world despot can whip his citizens the hardest for your basic food supply, but essentially they're strategic economic protectionism. Here's a good example of successful protectionism.

        1. The Japanese government has used a plethora of constantly evolving regulations to keep the combined share of all non-Japanese automakers to just 4 percent of the Japanese market. The share never varies, whether the yen is strong or weak. (The yen is up nearly 50 percent against the dollar in the last five years.)
      2. The Detroit corporations, in common with all major automakers, make many cars in Europe configured for Britain’s drive-on-the-left roads, and by extension for Japan’s. They also make countless components and assemblies that have been shut out of Japan for no other reason than that they are not made there.
      3. Even Volkswagen, which sells broadly as many cars around the world as Toyota, has been allocated—that is the right word—just 1 percent of the Japanese market; by contrast Toyota’s share is close to 40 percent. (Volkswagen is lucky, incidentally: Hyundai’s share is 0.02 percent and Daewoo’s 0.003 percent, and this in a country where close to 1 percent of the people are ethnic Koreans.) ...

      Perhaps the most graphic evidence of Tokyo’s true policy has been the story of the Renault-Nissan alliance. Originally established in 1999 and consolidated in subsequent years, this odd-couple partnership ostensibly gave Paris-based Renault control of Yokohama-based Nissan. In a powerful symbol of Japan’s ostensible acquiescence to American-style globalization, Renault’s Carlos Ghosn was even installed as simultaneous chief executive of both companies.

      Given that Renault enjoyed a fundamental advantage in lower French wages and was more than a match for Nissan managerially, many observers expected it to make big inroads in the Japanese market. After all, the Nissan distribution chain—Japan’s second largest—was now ostensibly Ghosn’s to reshape. As reported by the BBC in 2005, the two companies were “expected to go through a process of rapid integration.” In particular they hoped to achieve savings through “jointly owned distribution subsidiaries.”

      To the extent that the companies have cooperated on distribution, however, this has been confined entirely to markets beyond Japan. In the Japanese home market, Nissan has kept its distribution system strictly off-limits to Renault. The result is that, far from increasing, Renault’s Japanese market share has dropped from a negligible 0.08 percent in 1999 to a totally insulting 0.04 percent in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. Indeed, to the extent that the company’s brand is known at all on Japanese roads, it is as a minor brand of Taiwanese-made bicycles!

      And this is just the beginning of Renault’s woes. Judged by growth in total global sales, Renault has consistently been a hopeless also-ran, whereas Nissan has been a star performer. (Renault’s global sales are up less than 15 percent since the first full year of the partnership, whereas Nissan’s have zoomed nearly 78 percent. Nissan’s success has been attributable not least to increasing inroads in Renault’s home turf of Western Europe.)

    3. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      One small problem: Just try and find a place that you can rent on a $30/hr wage in that area, without having to commute 120 minutes or more in total each workday.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by mjm1231 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Knee jerk reactions are certainly popular among slashdot posters. For the rest of us, being informed about how immigration actually affects economic growth and wages is probably a good idea. Start with a conservative perspective, so you know you aren't getting a pro-immigrant bias:

      http://www.hoover.org/research...

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    6. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      The reason that Japan and China are now competing with us is the fact that they have low priced labor

      Japan's labour is anything but low priced.

      which is non-complex and required little skill

      What? We're talking about Japan here?

    7. Re:anti H1B job protectionism by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Protectionism works great quite a lot of the time, it's how China manages its economy along with currency manipulation which is pretty much the same thing.

      You seem to be unaware of the enormous crash coming soon to China's economy.

      Also, the point about protectionism is the irony of rugged individualistic free marketeers suddenly deciding that government intervention is fine as long as it's just for their benefit.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. When we say "tech industry" ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:When we say "tech industry" ... by tomhath · · Score: 2

      First, donating to politicians to advance one's own agenda is a sold as politics. It's not like these guys (COE or otherwise) are doing anything new.

      Second, it the "thousands of people" have a different agenda they can (and do) contribute.

      It's also not clear what Ellison's agenda really is here; maybe H1b, maybe immigration, maybe something else that has nothing to do with Oracle. Who knows?

  5. this has nothing to dow ith the tech industry by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the donations of a few rich plutocrats who siphon their cash from technology companies does not represent the tech industry's views or opinions, not in aggregate, not even a significant minority bloc of opinions

    larry ellison? really? shouldn't we say he represents yacht buyer's political donations? that's much more accurate

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:this has nothing to dow ith the tech industry by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Informative

      if you have money to spend you influence media, which influences' people's attitudes. people don't derive attitudes in a free will vacuum. they hear positive things about candidates, paid for by the candidates, and they gravitate to those candidates. or they hear negative things about the actually better candidate, because the attacks are paid for, and they gravitate to the plutocrat's stooge. so the tendency to have a lot of money results in the tendency to win elections

      welcome to reality

      now try to form an actually valid and intelligent opinion, rather than your know-nothing purposeful intellectual dishonesty, or outright low intelligence ignorance

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re: this has nothing to dow ith the tech industry by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      This is why I believe New York state should be broken up, along with a bunch of other places around the country. "Upstate" New York should be split off from the NYC metro area, and given a new name and made a separate state. NYS is already one of the most populous states, so breaking off the upstate part will bring its population in line with other east coast states, and will still probably be one of the larger ones. Then the metro NYC area should be made into a new city-state, but by combining it with the surrounding states of NJ and CT. The northern half of NJ should be made part of the new NYC state, along with the western side of CT (especially the Stamford area). Of course, Long Island would also be part of NYC-state.

      The southern half of NJ should be combined with Philly into another city-state, broken off from Pennsylvania. Then the remains of Connecticut (I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line) should be combined with Rhode Island. This will give us a total of 50 states, same as now. But we'll have two new city-states where the metro areas don't cross state boundaries (providing much greater administrative efficiency and better services, especially with transit), and the populations will be more balanced, with RI gaining a lot of population so they don't so much undue representation in Congress, and the citizens of NYS, NYC, and Philly all gaining representation in the Senate (because their two senators each will answer to fewer citizens). Also importantly, states with vastly different cultures will be separated so that state-wide politics have less infighting (upstate NYS vs. NYC, Philly vs. the rest of PA), and the people of each new state can have a state government that answers to them better, instead of constantly arguing with urban/rural people in the other part of the state about how things should be run.

  6. Carly Fiorina ?? Oh My Gawd !!! by nomad63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Carly Fiorina ?? Oh My Gawd !!! by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, if she were still CEO of HP, she'd be getting lots of donations to run for president - from HP employees and shareholders.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  7. 435 days to go until Election Day 2016 by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    please shut up about this for another year.

    1. Re:435 days to go until Election Day 2016 by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, there are primaries between now and then. And the first primaries are in only like 5 months.

      Still seems like it's really early, but not 1 year+ early

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  8. we know she ruins what she runs by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. After the Mozilla fiasco, they will be careful by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:After the Mozilla fiasco, they will be careful by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Possibly, but not many tech people are at Eich's level. I know I'm never going to be CEO of any well-known company, for instance, and neither are most of the other people here. Of course, most conservatives these days seem to think that they're all millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck, even when they're living in a trailer, so they could very act the way you describe anyway.

      Anyhow, there's a big difference between supporting a *candidate* and supporting a particular *law* (proposition). You can always argue that you liked the candidate and/or his/her stand on the issues. Even if it comes down to the H1B issue, you can argue that you believe the program is mismanaged, used to keep engineering salaries low, etc.

      There really isn't any way to argue support for Proposition 8, except that you hate gay people and think they should have lesser rights. There is no other rational explanation for supporting that proposition. You simply cannot claim support for equal rights (a cornerstone of western society), and support a law which denies equal rights, so anyone who does deny equal rights for fellow citizens is nothing more than a bigot.

  10. Bribes? by Milharis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can someone explain me how giving money to someone to advance one's agenda is different from a bribe?

    1. Re:Bribes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  11. Re:Interesting by gtall · · Score: 2

    Carly Fiorina, support the woman to do to the U.S. what she did to HP!!!

  12. Stop calling it donations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These are advance payments for future services. There is no charity involved. Not a donation!

  13. Re:One more industry to hate by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Prior to the antitrust case filed by the Justice Department, Microsoft spent zero dollars on Washington lobbyist. Afterward, Microsoft spent $100M+ per year on Washington lobbyists. Some story with other Silicon Valley companies. You can't make billions of dollars without paying the piper in Washington.

  14. Re:One more industry to hate by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's a nice piece software you have there. It would be a shame if it were illegal tomorrow.