Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Spends $350K On Seattle Mayor's Race (jeffreifman.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the money-trail dept.

reifman writes: Until this summer, Amazon had never contributed more than $15,000 to a city political campaign in Seattle, but this year's different. The company is a lead funder in the Seattle Chamber of Commerce's PAC which dropped $525,000 Monday on Jenny Durkan's PAC, the centrist business candidate. Her opponent Cary Moon is an advocate for affordable housing, which complicates Amazon's growth, and city-owned community broadband. Comcast and Century Link joined Amazon contributing $25,000 and $82,500 respectively to the Chamber's PAC. Amazon's $350,000 contribution represents .00014 of its CY 2016 net profit.

32 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Units matter! by Mycroft-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amazon's $350,000 contribution represents .00014 of its CY 2016 net profit.

    .00014 what of its profit?

    1. Re:Units matter! by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm not certain what you're asking, but I think 14 1/hundred thousandths of $2.5 billion is $350K.

      What's truly interesting to me, is the idea this is even surprising news.

      A truly shocking story would be, "Half a trillion dollar company still refuses to influence local politics to its benefit."

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Units matter! by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Amazon's $350,000 contribution represents .00014 of its CY 2016 net profit.

      .00014 what of its profit?

      There are no units. It's a ratio.

    3. Re:Units matter! by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Democracy in action :(

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:Units matter! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      There are no units. It's a ratio.

      Correct. Although its more usual to state it as a percentage (it would be .014%), a bare number is still correct.

    5. Re: Units matter! by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Over two decades no, over the last three years, AWS has been raking in the cash.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  2. Super PACs by youngone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah yes, the best government money can buy.

    1. Re: Super PACs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corps are people, money is speech, voting R or D is useful.

    2. Re: Super PACs by Solandri · · Score: 1

      "money is speech"

      Considering people's mouths are more or less the same size, no one should be allowed to contribute more money than anyone else.

      Unfortunately that runs afoul of that pesky concept of "no taxation without representation." If you believe in that (as most red-blooded Americans do), then the fact that we tax corporations means they should have some form of representation in government. Since they can't vote, all that's left for them is to spend money on elections. And it also leads to the idea that someone who pays 10,000x more in taxes than you, might be entitled to a little more say in government.

      IMHO the solution is pretty simply. Eliminate corporate taxes - they just get passed on to people anyway (reduced income for employees, reduced distributions for stockholders, higher prices for customers). Then the link between taxation and representation vanishes, and you're free to prohibit any corporate spending on elections. If a corporation thinks an issue is important to it in an election, it should impress that upon its employees, stockholders, and customers so that they'll vote to help the corporation.

      This also has the side-benefit of encouraging corporations to be nice to their employees, stockholders, and customers. Because those are the folks it will have to convince to vote a certain way on issues which affect it. Landing on the most hated list will mean you have almost zero influence on government policies over your business.

    3. Re: Super PACs by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Considering people's mouths are more or less the same size, no one should be allowed to contribute more money than anyone else.

      It takes more money to be a successful challenger than to be reelected as an incumbent. So limits on spending tend to mean less turnover.

    4. Re: Super PACs by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that runs afoul of that pesky concept of "no taxation without representation."

      It also runs afoul of the "Congress shall make no law" clause in the pesky 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    5. Re: Super PACs by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unfortunately that runs afoul of that pesky concept of "no taxation without representation."

      What, you think "no taxation without representation" is in the Constitution? It was a a fucking slogan. The group of wine snobs that were the "Founding Fathers" were just looking for ways to get out of paying their own taxes. They weren't looking to establish some legal precedent.

      If "no taxation without representation" was part of the Constitution, then we wouldn't charge any taxes to the millions of Americans that are denied their voting rights in red states every single election.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re: Super PACs by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      "money is speech" Considering people's mouths are more or less the same size, no one should be allowed to contribute more money than anyone else.

      Unfortunately that runs afoul of that pesky concept of "no taxation without representation." If you believe in that (as most red-blooded Americans do), then the fact that we tax corporations means they should have some form of representation in government.

      The companies are represented via their owners. Giving them a separate voice just means the owners are over-represented.

      --

      Stephan

    7. Re: Super PACs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the millions of Americans that are denied their voting rights in red states every single election.

      You'd have done better to mention Puerto Rico.

    8. Re: Super PACs by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      IMHO the solution is pretty simply. Eliminate corporate taxes - they just get passed on to people anyway

      Actually, corporate income tax in 2016 drew $299.6 Billion out of $2,656 Billion from income taxes plus FICA. If my Universal Benefit had been in place, the tax rate would have changed from 35% to 34.6%; and the proportion going to the general corporate income tax would be $168 Billion. It's an ineffective revenue source; I only tax it for my Universal Benefit because that's a dividend off the entire economy--it's supposed to capture as near to a fixed share of all income as possible.

      So negotiating with the Republicans each year to shave down the Corporate Tax Rate in exchange for knocking $8Bn or $12Bn off their ask for discretionary military spending is a viable way to eliminate the excess tax in a decade.

      My Universal Benefit also displaces some of the load from Social Security's OASDI program (providing the same total benefit in retirement, but not all of it from Social Security's OASDI Trusts) to guarantee future Social Security solvency. Because it grows faster than OASDI's cost-of-living adjustments, it cuts into the program further as time goes by. This immediately sets FICA at 5.15% (cutting back the payroll tax), and further erodes it over time.

      We can end with a 15% corporate income tax and an easy 1%+ cut in payroll taxes. Over time, this can reach a 10% universal benefit tax rate (my goal for my Universal Benefit is 10%, paid out starting at age 16) and a 5%+ drop in payroll taxes.

      That all has to compete with policy for a shorter work week, a healthcare public option, and possibly better social security retirement benefits. Still, it's a direction to which we can progress at an ever-falling tax cost with ever-increasing benefits to the American people.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  3. Amazon at the grass roots political level by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    soon to be the AI level

    1. Re:Amazon at the grass roots political level by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amazon's political team: "You think those Russian bots were good at influencing elections? Those are amateur hour, man... wait until you see ours! It's not an election, it's an Alexa-ion!'

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  4. If you're on the side of Comcast by ChoGGi · · Score: 2

    You're on the wrong side.

    Naughty naughty Amazon.

    1. Re:If you're on the side of Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You act like Amazon is any better than Comcast. How cute.

    2. Re:If you're on the side of Comcast by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      I don't recall saying Amazon is any better; just that Comcast is shit...

      I called 'em naughty that's gotta be worth something.

  5. If money is speech by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If money is speech, corporations have a lot more of it than you do.

    1. Re:If money is speech by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      If money is speech, then it cannot be regulated by Congress.

    2. Re:If money is speech by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      If money is speech, corporations have a lot more of it than you do.

      So do unions.

      So do political parties.

      And government has way more than any of them. And government can take their money too.

    3. Re:If money is speech by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If money is speech, corporations have a lot more of it than you do.

      It is not so much that they have more but that their money and interests are concentrated. The same applies to wealthy people.

      A corporation has a great interest in pushing for legislation which taxes the population a small amount and delivers it to the corporation, otherwise known as rent seeking. In many industries, the payoff from this is greater than any other investment a company could make including research and development or capital investment. But the individuals in the population being fleeced have little interest in preventing such small individual losses because it is not worth their effort. In most cases, it is not even worth their effort to become educated about it; they are rationally ignorant.

      This is magnified when candidates for elections are deliberately limited lowering the already marginal influence that voters have. How many politicians does a corporation have to own to control the government? Why buy one politician when you can buy two for twice the price.

  6. Re:I'm a mayoral candidate in NH and against all t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After reading your post, I'm tempted to move to New Hampshire (sounds like a state for Hobbits though) just so I can vote against you.

  7. Re:I'm sure they have a say but pretty indirect by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    They gave to the chamber of commerce which gave to a pac

    Wrong. They donated directly to the CASE PAC.

    If you want to fix it cap the election cycle to say 6 weeks, ban private donations and fund the campaigns from public funds.

    Who gets public funds? Anyone running? Including Nazis? If Nazis are excluded, then who else is denied funding? If funding is based on poll results or performance in previous elections, then public funding will just protect incumbents.

    Many countries have public funding schemes and none of them seem to work particularly well, nor lead to better government.

  8. Better deals ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... on eBay. Look up a local politician and bid. Or you can click 'Buy it now'.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Re:I'm a mayoral candidate in NH and against all t by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

    Posting AC with no links doesn't help your campaign. Why should anyone give you money when you clearly don't know about running for office?

  10. election limits: spending vs contribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Considering people's mouths are more or less the same size, no one should be allowed to contribute more money than anyone else.

    It takes more money to be a successful challenger than to be reelected as an incumbent. So limits on spending tend to mean less turnover.

    There's a difference between limits on total spending, and putting limits on what any one person can donate (either in total, or per candidate).

  11. Re:I'm a mayoral candidate in NH and against all t by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1
    You're doing better than the AC. And I like a lot of your campaign positions.

    But when you're raising money for an election, the real question is why do you think you can win? If you can't win, none of your policy matters. If you can't win, your donors are throwing away their money.

    You are running against an incumbent who has been in politics longer than you've been alive. He won his last election with 74% of the vote and won his last primary with 92% of the vote. If I had to choose between giving $100 to your campaign or spending $100 on Powerball tickets, Powerball seems like better odds. What is your plan to win?

  12. Excellent catch --- outstanding post! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Yup, they want Durkan, who has been endorsed by former governors Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke. Why is that important?

    Because Durkan, as a former US Attorney, led a three-year investigation of Washington Mutual in the aftermath of the global economic meltdown, and couldn't find a single action worthy of prosecution, while a 2010 congressional investigation found plenty!

    And the latest FBI stats indicate Seattle leads the nation in property crime (has for quite some time, if we are talking reality here) and that is a result of former governors, Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke, who signed the Interstate Compact on Adult Offenders, bringing in 3 out of every 4 ex-convicts to this region.

    Actions have predictable consequences . . .

  13. And here's a mighty big ($92.2 billion) reason . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    http://www.seattleweekly.com/n... Foreign buyers market of US real estate last year: $92.2 billion.