Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Donated To 46 of 55 Members On Committee That Will Question Zuckerberg (usatoday.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be questioned about user privacy protections next week by members of the House and Senate committees, but as USA Today notes, many of these members were also "some of the biggest recipients of campaign contributions from Facebook employees directly and the political action committee funded by employees." An anonymous reader shares the report: The congressional panel that got the most Facebook contributions is the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which announced Wednesday morning it would question Zuckerberg on April 11. Members of the committee, whose jurisdiction gives it regulatory power over Internet companies, received nearly $381,000 in contributions tied to Facebook since 2007, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center is a non-partisan, non-profit group that compiles and analyzes disclosures made to the Federal Election Commission.
The second-highest total, $369,000, went to members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which announced later that it would have a joint hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Zuckerberg on Tuesday. Judiciary Committee members have received $235,000 in Facebook contributions. On the House committee, Republicans got roughly twice as much as Democrats, counter to the broader trend in Facebook campaign gifts. Of the $7 million in contributions to all federal candidates tied to the Menlo Park, Calif.-based social network, Democrats got 65% to Republicans' 33%. Of the 55 members on the Energy and Commerce Committee this year, all but nine have received Facebook contributions in the past decade. The average Republican got $6,800, while the average Democrat got $6,750.
The second-highest total, $369,000, went to members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which announced later that it would have a joint hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Zuckerberg on Tuesday. Judiciary Committee members have received $235,000 in Facebook contributions. On the House committee, Republicans got roughly twice as much as Democrats, counter to the broader trend in Facebook campaign gifts. Of the $7 million in contributions to all federal candidates tied to the Menlo Park, Calif.-based social network, Democrats got 65% to Republicans' 33%. Of the 55 members on the Energy and Commerce Committee this year, all but nine have received Facebook contributions in the past decade. The average Republican got $6,800, while the average Democrat got $6,750.
We'll see if members of the House and Senate committees are truly honest.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The notion that corporations are people is ludicrous. Campaign contributions shouldn't be considered speech, either. These campaign contributions are tantamount to bribery. The wealth is cleverly spread around to guarantee the support of whoever gets elected, regardless of party. There's no legitimate reason that corporations can make campaign contributions. Require that donations be placed by individuals through non-partisan government agencies. Those agencies can then be responsible for providing the money to individuals candidates, without revealing the donors. Stop the bribery.
cease fire stand down,, there's moms & babys in every town.. perspect along: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvtJPs8IDgU
It never hurts to own the people who are making the laws, and I predict that after a thorough investigation, Markie will get a congressional Medal of Honor
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
A few decades ago, this used to be called corruption.
#DeleteFacebook
Comment removed based on user account deletion
munch ! this facebook show is really cool to watch
This is it right here.
for each member who recieved $$$ from FleeceBook.
That's because the little fag can't find his own.
Corruption removes control mechanisms and allows unchecked and unrestricted use of power. This allows those without morals and without loyalty to their society (current case is a nice example) to eventually take over most of the running of society, and, since they have no stake in it, its destruction.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>The average Republican got $6,800, while the average Democrat got $6,750.
Remember this when you think corporations are on your side.
...I'll wait and see if this actually makes any difference. It's good that SOMEONE is looking out for this kinda thing and actually pointing it out to people, but just because we're aware of it, doesn't mean anything'll actually come about.
So they have received about 800 USD / year?
I was not aware that members of a congressional committee come so cheap.
Real life is overrated.
It's no wonder the US is broken.
Your government is corrupt to it's core.
We need to fix the funding of our political system or just accept bribery as the political norm.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Supreme Court ruled corporations are people. See the Citizens United case. This can only be undone with an amendment to the constitution. Good luck accomplishing that in today's political climate.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
And people are worried about Russia interfering?
He more or less suggested the United States needed such an entrepreneur free so as to work his magic for the economy. Bill Gates had the wisdom and foresight to conceal nothing, and not lie about anything, when Microsoft got caught trying to impede Netscape's presence on the Windows desktop, and was finally held to account (albeit imperfectly). Let's see if Zuckerberg shows equal wisdom, or is placing his bet on being less accountable today than Bill Gates was back then. He's wealthier than Gates was, and already a huge philanthropist, so that could be the case given how things work these days.
If Zuck pulls a dump truck full of "speech" up on my front lawn I will also throw him some softest of softball questions.
'Mr Zuckerberg, if you were going to be a tree what kind of tree would be?"
I will not even mention William Randolph Hearst or personally picking Presidents.
There is no way a consensus is going to be had with 55 people on the committee. Sounds more like a photo opportunity than something designed to accomplish anything.
This is an illustration of the folly of the dream that government will fix all our problems if we give it more power to regulate us.
This is exactly the sort of garbage that would be going on with oversight and regulation of the internet after a decade of net neutrality - when government is big and has its burueacratic fingers into EVERYTHING, there's too much for the average citizen to pay attention to. Big companies with a direct interest and lots of money, however, will have lobbyists that study congress and tell their employers who to give "campaign contributions" to.
Who NEVER has lobbyists giving to the right politicians?
(a) small startup companies trying to enter the marketplace.
(b) individual citizens.
Watch what happens here. Zuck will probably be supportive of new regulations (which his now huge and rich company can easily afford to comply with and will be written by people he has given money to). The congressmen will pretend to be critical of their paymaster, but nothing bad will actually happen to Mr Facebook - they need his cash for the next election.
Best to free-up the marketplace to allow all competitors in, eliminate the reasons for "campaign contributions", and end the farce of phony oversight; return the federal government to what it was designed to be: much smaller and only involved in critical national things like diplomacy, the military, patents and currency etc. With the feds involved in fewer things, the people will have an easier time keeping an eye on them, corruption will be much easier to spot, and politicians will lose the ability to say "sure you hate my position on policy X, but you NEED me for my position of policies Y and Z" (which is how they play is in every election while they have their fingers in hundreds of things).
for crooks first. And while people hate the crooks in other states, they seem to like _their_ crook.
I'd like to see a movement to get people to refuse to vote for anyone who takes corporate PAC money. But then we just elected a Pres who in turn handed the FCC over to a guy that let one media company buy up each and every local news station.
Also, I couldn't even find the original video for the above link. I had to settle for an article on Vox.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
either wait until we can pack the Supreme Court with left wing candidates (good luck with that) or call a Constitutional Convention. And my God, good luck with _that_. The same folks who bribe everyone bribed the State legislatures.
The only real hope is to show up to your primary and vote for Bernie Sanders style candidates who refuse corporate PAC money. Your votes count in your primary more because so few people show up for them. And yes, this means voting for the Ds. I don't know of a single Republican who's refused corporate PAC money. Well, there's this guy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What could possibly go wrong? Democracy is done here now, right?
anything to do with Zuck, I'd watch my wallet, my back, my security status, my junk mail, and maybe my kids...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
story
They decided to block a couple of black women on Facebook fore being a "Danger to Society". Where they advocating "punching a facist", or civil war (like the owner of Twitter just did)? Nope. They expressed that they like Trump, and since they are black and Trump supporters they must be blocked.
“The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.”
I've seen these women a few times, and they are quite entertaining, but don't even come close to inciting violence like AntiFa.
What a fucked up situation where being a bigot in Silicon Valley is now acceptable, and Trump reducing black unemployment to historic lows is unacceptable and Pelosi is running on reversing this. Looks like the DNC is full bore bigots now.
That just makes them smart. Leave it to the Slashdot.Org libtards to turn this into a fake controversy.
The origin of government is warlords. People became "king" because they conquered and subjected others. It's the same today, just wrapped up in different packaging.
Government is the enemy of freedom, peace, and prosperity, and it exists primarily for the enrichment and glorification of its members set the expense of everyone else.
It's another storm in a teacup brewed by people with nothing else better to do. Repeat after me: nobody must use social media. They're toys. Hobbies. If you choose to surrender your private life in exchange for nothing to Facebook or Twitter or what have you, that's not their problem. What we need instead is a committee that'll question people on why they're so stupid.
"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." - H. L. Mencken
I agree with all of this. Wish I had mod points to give you.
What a hilarious notion. You clearly aren't aware of how non-American organizations like the UN, EU, and IMF and other organizations move trillions of dollars around to prop up their crony schemes.
You lost me at "non-partisan government agencies"
As the FBI and DOJ and NSA and EPA and IRS and a heap of other alphabet allegedly 'non-partisan government agencies' have already demonstrated, even the government agency assigned to the task of preventing non-partisanship cannot be trusted to be non-partisan.
I like the first part of the solution though, very simple. Ban corporate campaign contributions. That's a great start!
Everyone on here sees the same problem: money in politics. But in the fifteen 3+ posts, not one. single. solution. Saying "we need to take the money out of politics" does not actually do a darn thing to take the money out of politics. Voting by yourself doesn't do it, there's another popular mantra "my vote doesn't matter, waahh."
How about we actually do something? https://represent.us/
Reversing Citizens United v. FEC should be a bipartisan priority. That is the root of all evil in American Politics today. But it is easier to rail against Immigrants instead. So let's continue doing that.
Am I missing something, or this trying to invent a scandal where none exists? They're including contribution from Facebook employees. Facebook currently has about 25,000 employees who undoubtedly give money to all sorts of causes. Most of the recipients probably have no idea where the donors work. And we're talking about really small amounts of money. $6000 over ten years wouldn't come anywhere close to making you a major donor even if you gave all that money yourself. But more likely it's a whole bunch of donations, most of them under $100, coming from a bunch of people who just happen to work for Facebook. Do you think a senator knows the identifies of the thousands of people who send small donations to their campaigns, or what companies they work for?
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Yes indeed America has the best politicians that money can buy!
I wish it cost more to grease a palm at the Federal level. Currently, we are just giving it away.
Part of me wonders whether Musk truly believes AI to be a threat, or if he’s just trolling the Silicon Valley flavor-of-the-month set.
If people cared about what I thought, I'd be fucking with you block-chain talkin’, “raw” water drinking, pretentious, hipster-douches, too.
Question is, will Zuck show up as an immature little asshole like he normally does or actually dress like an adult. He runs an international business, he should drop the immature act and act his age. Maybe they'll actually listen to him. Look at how real men dress, like Martin Luther King with his movement, Bill Gates when he testified, Meg Whitman when she shows up in public, etc.