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.

Comments

Interesting test

[hcs_$reboot]

We'll see if members of the House and Senate committees are truly honest.

Re:Interesting test

[Anonymous Coward]

The english language is not capable of conveying the required amount of cynicism and sarcasm to answer this question.

Re: Interesting test

[Z00L00K]

Here it would mean that 46 of the members would be automatically disqualified for the task.

Re:Interesting test

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yeah, they should be ashamed of themselves--they missed 9 of them.

Ban corporate campaign contributions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ban corporate campaign contributions

[dryeo]

There's no legitimate reason that corporations can make campaign contributions.

If you stop corporations from making contributions you would also need to stop unions. But that's never going to happen, because if the unions know that if they don't own their lawmakers the unions would cease to exist.

Here in Canada, both corporate and union donations have been stopped, as well as real people (actually only citizens and permanent residents) being limited to just over $1000 donations. We still have both unions and corporations.

Donations?

[DontBeAMoran]

A few decades ago, this used to be called corruption.

Re:Donations?

[Anonymous Coward]

In most other civilised countries, it is STILL called corruption today.

Any member who had received any "donation" should withdraw from the committee due to conflict of interest. The fact that none did is a testament to how corrupt America is.

Re:Donations?

[gweihir]

It still is called corruption by anybody that understands how societies work. It is the cancer that corrodes a society.

Re:Donations?

[Jason1729]

It happens just as much in other civilized countries, the only difference in the US the people can see the "donations" and the companies can use them as tax write-offs.

Re:Smart Move

[Frobnicator]

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.

A 55 person committee?

[jfdavis668]

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.