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.
A few decades ago, this used to be called corruption.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
It never hurts to own the people who are making the laws
There is a principle about business I learned decades ago: Give campaign donations to the political parties in power. Since they change frequently, give small but regular campaign donations to all the politicians.
This happens from the smallest mom-and-pop shops up through the megacorps. If you eventually want a favor --- and the larger the company is the more favors it wants --- you can point out that you've been a contributor to their campaigns for many years. The business doesn't have to agree with their policies nor even like the person. It also doesn't need to be much. For a local business it might be $10 per year to each group, so perhaps $100/year total. For some influence at the state level perhaps $1000 spread around 20 people and groups. Small investment each year for the ability to say "You can see in the books I've given you money for fifteen years, I'd like some help with a political problem...".
Give to all the political parties over your geographical control, and you'll have a say in policy. Call it owning them, call it influence, call it gaining some power over your destiny. Whatever you call it, millennia of history show consistently putting a small amount to all the politicians is a wise business move.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
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).
Give to all the political parties over your geographical control, and you'll have a say in policy. Call it owning them, call it influence, call it gaining some power over your destiny. Whatever you call it, millennia of history show consistently putting a small amount to all the politicians is a wise business move.
It's called baksheesh.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We need to fix the funding of our political system or just accept bribery as the political norm.
I've found the only realistic first step is contribute to causes that get money out of politics. Then support their candidates. I think there's other orgs that do it, that's just my favorite.