Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Politics

From Apple To Xbox, Tech Companies Lean Left 685

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the mind-your-balance dept.
Velcroman1 writes "Only a week to election time! How does tech feel about politics? If you guessed liberal, you're right: Big Tech leans left. 'They're dominated by coastal people who tend to be more liberal,' says Jim Taylor, a management consultant who writes about the business of psychology. 'Also, those in Big Tech tend to be educated in the better schools, which lean left. Big Tech skews younger and hipper [and favors] social and environmental issues. Their political values trump financial concerns at the organizational culture level and the missions of many firms, especially those that are new media.' For example, Marissa Mayer, known as 'the face of Google,' gave $30,400 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2009. In fact, of the top 10 contributions made by Google in 2009, only one — by CEO Eric Schmidt — was to the Republican National Committee. Facebook has donated almost exclusively to Democratic candidates, according to Transparency Data, including $1,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer a year ago, and more recently, almost $5,000 to Richard Blumenthal, who is running for senator in Connecticut."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

From Apple To Xbox, Tech Companies Lean Left

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:01PM (#34030198)

    The revelation that California and the Seattle area, where most of these companies are based, tends to lean left is a complete revelation to me. You see, I have been living under a rock on a desert island for the last hundred years and didn't realize that every state in the Union was not, in fact, like my home state of Alabama. I am shocked to learn that executives from these tech companies live in a place where each public school-day DOESN'T begin with school prayer, a mandatory salute to the Confederate flag, shooting practice, and a discussion of why America would elect a satan-worshiping negro marxist as President. I had always assumed, on my desert island, that America was a homogenous place, and that no region had its own unique political leanings. Now, I know that there are actually areas in the U.S. where it's not okay to beat down anyone publicly admitting to supporting fag rights--where even *calling* someone a fag is considered somewhat offensive (even if they are). I guess I can understand these executives' leftist points of view, considering that they come from a place where it's considered impolite to burn down the houses of non-Christians. Thank you for enlightening me.

    • by BergZ (1680594)
      There are some people who will be surprised by this news...
      Or they would be if they could stop brutally assaulting people they disagree with just long enough to hear it.
    • You see, I have been living under a rock on a desert island for ...

      Ah-ha! Your post would have been believable if you had lived on a deserted island.

    • by bondsbw (888959) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @06:47PM (#34031848)

      But the funny thing is, Democrats have been in control of the Alabama legislature for the past 136 years, and were in control of all politics in the state between the time of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement.

      These were fairly conservative Democrats, mind you... but they still swing in the liberal direction on many issues.

  • Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that energy companies leans to the right.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:16PM (#34030450)

      Somewhere in America right now there are two college students. One is trying to recruit for the Young Republicans in the art department. The other is trying to recruit for the Young Democrats in the business school. both are wondering why their results have so far been disappointing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra.

      Corporations read the tea leaves and buy influence accordingly. (D) and (R) are just prostitutes who peddle influence to the highest bidder.

      • Liar. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by copponex (13876) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:36PM (#34030788) Homepage

        So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry's $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.

        http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023945.php [washingtonmonthly.com]

        Sure, you can single out Exxon and Obama in 2008, because that's the exception to the rule you're pretending doesn't exist.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:39PM (#34030832)

        A more accurate statement about tech companies would probably be that at least until recently they were largely apolitical. They gave very little money, compared to their size and other companies, to politicians. It has been increasing, because politicians have been increasingly meddling (for good or for ill). MS is an interesting study in this. Prior to their anti-trust deal they gave only a token amount to either party, now they give quite a bit. Makes sense if you think about it, the government started bothering them, at the behest of their competitors. Now right or wrong on that, it let them know that they needed more influence, and so they set out to get it.

        In general though, tech companies seem to donate a hell of a lot less. They just aren't as interested in buying off politicians it seems. Perhaps because they don't need to, perhaps because they are younger companies, I don't know.

        Not really a bad thing if you asked me, I think companies out to stay out of politics, but there you go.

        • by MHolmesIV (253236) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @06:14PM (#34031388)

          We also donate more (per employee) to non-profits than any other sector. Dunno about other companies, but Microsoft will match your charitable giving dollar for dollar up to $12K a year, and will match hours volunteered by donating $17 per hour as well.

          I'm much happier seeing corporate money going to these programs than lining some politician's pockets. At least charities have rules about how much overhead they're allowed to have.

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:39PM (#34030840)

        Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra.

        I can see how some people would be chafed by that tidbit, since it doesn't appear to be true.
        I looked.
        The best I could find was that Obama received more than McCain [cnn.com] -- not "any other person in office."

        Furthermore, those donations were only in the 5 digits, while it looks like Exxon regularly spends $600,000+ in political bribes every year. [exxposeexxon.com] Seems to me that any of their favourite senators could easily rack up triple digit donations over the years - and according to this article [boston.com] which does not name names so is unfortunately a PITA to verify, the top 20 cumulative recipients of Exxon money since 1990 are all republican.

        If you have some citations that show otherwise, I am all ears - I'm looking for the truth, not truthiness.

      • by brit74 (831798) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:53PM (#34031096)
        Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra. Corporations read the tea leaves and buy influence accordingly. (D) and (R) are just prostitutes who peddle influence to the highest bidder.

        "The [oil and gas] industry has donated $180 million to political candidates since 1989, making it the eighth biggest spender out of 80 industries analyzed. Currently, ExxonMobil has donated over $600,000 to political candidates - second only to Koch Industries, a small oil company known for its high spending on Congressional candidates. The oil industry clearly favors republicans to push its agenda on Capitol Hill and ExxonMobil is no exception. In 2006, 89 percent of ExxonMobil's donations went to republicans."

        http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html [exxposeexxon.com]

        "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500," the center said. But McCain has raised more from nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, including Hess Corp. -- $91,000 to Obama's $8,000. And, overall, McCain's campaign has received about three times more from the oil and gas industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to about $394,000."

        http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/both_mccain_oba.html [boston.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra.

        Actually, it was Exxon employees who donated more to Obama.

        Exxon, being a corporation, was forbidden by law from donating to any candidate for public office. The law is still in effect, by the way. Corporate donations to candidates are forbidden by law.

        You might want to contact the person who sent you the mass email telling you that Exxon gave more to Obama than any other

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:50PM (#34031026)
      All corporations lean to the right. The article is a troll piece, based on the misinformed notion that the Democrat party is "left wing" as opposed to "right of center." Both Democrats and Republicans have been receiving enormous corporate campaign contributions for the past 4 decades, and unsurprisingly, both parties have drifted further to the right. The Republicans are just more honest about being right wing; the Democrats continue to present a public face that says, "Hey, we're the left wing! Really, we swear!" I would guess that this is part of an effort to ensure that the actual left wing parties in America never get enough votes to make a difference. The mainstream media -- big corporate contributors to the Democrat party -- work to further the "Democrats are the left wing" image as well, probably because the real left wing parties might not be as friendly toward business interests.

      In case you have any doubt, remember that it was a Democrat president who signed the DMCA into law, it is Democrats who are pushing for ever stronger copyrights, and that like the Republicans, Democrats continue to push forward an agenda of "corporate interests first," and continue to try to spread that agenda to other countries. As for the media, well, when a left wing group wanted to pay NBC to run an advertisement that encouraged people to spend no money for just one day, as part of a general anti-corporation campaign, NBC refused to air the ad -- despite the fact that the group was willing to pay the same price as every other advertiser -- because the ad ran counter to US economic policy.

      Not that any of this should come as a surprise. After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?
      • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @07:13PM (#34032206) Homepage Journal

        >>All corporations lean to the right

        Do you mean "the right" in the European sense of the word, or the American sense of the word? To Europeans, all of America is "right wing". If you mean it in the American sense of the world, you should spend some time looking through Open Secrets.org to see how corporations actually give. Goldman Sachs gave nearly a million to Obama, and around two hundred thousand to McCain, for example.

        >>After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?

        Big businesses often trend Democrat because Democrats believe in protectionism, whereas Republicans believe in competition and small businesses. Small businesses represent threats to big businesses, but regulation and red tape (Democrat tools) can impose severe barriers to entry for small businesses. For an insightful lesson, look at the difference in how many big businesses failed in post-war France versus America in the same time period. Off the top of my head, something like 90% of France's large businesses in 1950 were still around in 1980, whereas only 10% of America's were. Competition vs. Protectionism. Too big to fail, and all that.

        Contrary to popular perception, the ultra-rich also like Democrats. If you believed the media, you'd think that Republicans were all about giving tax breaks to the ultra-rich. But we pay taxes in two different ways here in America - 1) income tax, and 2) capital gains. A reduction on income tax doesn't make the slightest difference to the ultra-rich, who get most of their money from capital gains. But all you hear about in the media is "Republicans pose tax break for the ultra-rich" and you don't hear anything about how John Kerry reduced capital gains taxes, or how Democrats recently killed the carried interest exemption (one of their 2008 campaign promises) after they had a lot of money thrown at them by lobbyists. Not that tax cuts aren't good things, but the carried interest exemption is just a bone thrown to Goldman Sachs.

        It's interesting reading to see how Billionaires actually donate to political causes:
        http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations [newsmeat.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by DavidShor (928926)
          "Big businesses often trend Democrat because Democrats believe in protectionism, whereas Republicans believe in competition and small businesses."

          ,

          Empirically, that's really suspect. Agricultural subsidies exist because of Republicans, while free trade is quite popular in highly democratic Washington. Clinton is the one who signed NAFTA and granted China most-favored-nation status. Meanwhile, Republicans tend to be against proper anti-trust enforcement and Democrats tend to be pretty enthusiastic about sm

      • by cmholm (69081) <cmholm@noSPAM.mauiholm.org> on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @11:14PM (#34034070) Homepage Journal

        I know it's second nature to tar both major US political parties with the "whores for business", and I've done it myself. However, in the 30 or so years since I started to pay attention to politics, this much has become crystal clear:

        • The Democratic Party gets confused, but is usually attentive to the interests of wage-earners.
        • The Republican Party is utterly attentive to the interests of concentrated wealth.
        • The Libertarian Party is a tool of the GOP, and always will be.
        • The only issues that make it onto the public agenda are where there's a balance of money and lobbying. So, the only way to do something that's helpful to 100 million working poor (or at this point, 300 million non-stinking rich) is to make it helpful to some segment of business interests.
    • by BlueStraggler (765543) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @07:59PM (#34032734)

      Actually, all large corporations lean to the right. Americans wouldn't recognize a real left winger if it blindfolded them, lined them up against a wall, and shot them for crimes against the proletariat.

  • Tech companies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:04PM (#34030240) Homepage Journal

    They tend to hire youth, and they are often based out of California. Youth tend to lean liberal, and Calfornia is often seen as the most liberal state. This is a shocking correlation!

  • Retest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by emkyooess (1551693) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:05PM (#34030254)

    The vast majority in tech I know lean more towards the libertarian side of things. These kind of tests, due to their flaws of being linear, usually fail to capture that. ("Left" comes up more commonly than "right" for many libertarians because of how self-extreming "right" has become lately.)

    • And, yes, I see this is based on political contributions. Sadly people buy into the "two party" system and don't even know what they believe in themselves.

    • Re:Retest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:09PM (#34030352)
      Exactly, really, we need to stop it with this "liberal" and "conservative" crap because neither qualifier tells how most people feel. There are two dimensions economic and personal freedoms. Either you want more state control of economic matters or you want more freedom in economic matters. Either you want more state control of personal matters or you want less.

      This idea of left and right is so screwed up that no wonder most young people don't even vote.
      • I'd go with at least two dimensions. I can easily see "strong" or "weak" governance ("political freedom" perhaps) axis fit in, as a few people have added.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by biryokumaru (822262)

        I don't vote.

        I didn't vote for McCain, because we'd have ended up with crazy crap like federal funding for abstinence only sex education, overt legal battles to maintain Don't Ask Don't Tell when the judiciary has deemed it unconstitutional, and the gutting of major NASA programs. And all this while multinational corporations buy more and more legislation in their favor to protect their "IP."

        I didn't vote for Obama and I got the same thing.

        I didn't vote for a third party candidate because not voting is just

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Wonko the Sane (25252) *

          What do you think you're doing? They need you to keep voting to preserve the illusion of consent.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Darkness404 (1287218)
          If you don't vote, you have no right to complain (assuming, of course you have the ability to vote and simply choose not to use it) at the state of affairs in the world.

          Go ahead, vote for a third party, it might not mean much but it will go into a tally of people who said "fuck you" to the republicrats. If you don't like either candidate for local office make up something for the write in spot.

          You might not be able to change the system, you might not be able to make a huge impact, but at the very le
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Hatta (162192)

            If you don't vote, you have no right to complain

            This is exactly wrong. If you vote, you have no right to complain. By voting you have had your say. By participating you legitimize the contest and are bound by its results. Complaining only makes you a sore loser.

            On the other hand, if you realize the contest is entirely unfair to begin with the only logical course of action is to refuse participation. Then you are entirely justified in complaining about the unfairness. It won't do any good of course, bu

        • Re:Retest (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:47PM (#34030976)

          I didn't vote for a third party candidate because not voting is just as effective.

          That is absolutely not true.

          The more people who vote for 3rd parties, the more the two ruling parties have to worry about bringing voters back. One way to bring voters back is to co-opt the most popular policies of the 3rd parties. There are a bunch of other underhanded ways to bring voters back, but incorporating parts of 3rd party platforms is common enough to make it worth while.

          You won't vote for a winner, but politics isn't a sport - there's no value to voters for being "on the winning team" - what matters is if the policies you care about get implemented the way you want.

        • by superdave80 (1226592) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @06:12PM (#34031354)

          I didn't vote for a third party candidate because not voting is just as effective.

          And the Republicans and Democrats both thank you for continuing to prevent any competition.

          I'm always amazed at people who believe the "voting for a 3rd party is like throwing your vote away". Are you really saying that because your particular candidate didn't win, that you wasted your vote?

          I had a conversation with a co-worker about our recent vote. I said that I had voted Libertarian (Bob Barr) for president. He laughed and claimed that I wasted my vote. I then asked him who HE had voted for. He then stopped laughing and quietly mumbled, "John McCain". I then proceeded to laugh, as we live in California, and Barr and McCain had roughly the same chances of winning the state (about 0% chance). Was his vote for McCain a "wasted vote", simply because McCain didn't win? Or was his vote OK, since it fell into your acceptable category of being a (R) or a (D)?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Idiomatick (976696)
          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/02/dont-ask-dont-tell-promise-now-rated-works/ [politifact.com]
          Don't ask don't tell is being repealed, its happening. Just slower than you;d have liked.

          http://www.peoplesworld.org/obama-administration-ends-bush-abstinence-only-sex-education-policy/
          http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-11-abstinence-only_N.htm
          Obama ended abstinence only sex education.

          The huge corporate gain was caused through the supreme court anyways. Nothing really has changed in the IP fi
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by xaxa (988988)

        The Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] website demonstrates this well. I suggest taking the test before reading the rest of the website.

        (My result: -9.25, -8.21.)

      • Re:Retest (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr. Slippery (47854) <(tms) (at) (infamous.net)> on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:55PM (#34031122) Homepage

        There are two dimensions economic and personal freedoms. Either you want more state control of economic matters or you want more freedom in economic matters. Either you want more state control of personal matters or you want less.

        While the "two dimensional" Nolan chart makes a nice recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party, it's not much more realistic than the two party approach. It completely ignores libertarian socialism [blackened.net] for example -- and since the Libertarians pretty much outright stole their name from this movement, perhaps that's no accident.

        Deregulating big business and handing power to corporate plutocracy is not "more freedom in economic matters", it actually lets powerful interests decrease your freedom.

        There are at least five big questions in politics:

        • Should the state dictate, or at least encourage or favor certain personal choices -- family, religion, sex, drug use, etc. -- or should it take a "do your own thing, man" approach?
        • How should we deal with criminals -- harsh punishments, or rehabilitation?
        • Should the benefits of our economic resources -- the "means of production" -- accrue to a minority (capitalism), or be democratic (socialism)?
        • Should decisions about production and consumption be centralized (controlled market) or de-centralized (free market)?
        • Should our nation attempt to dominate others, or mind its own business?

        That's not even counting the one big issue in American politics today: are you part of the reality-based community, or not? More and more, dialog on the conservative side is dominated by out-and-out nutcases: birthers, creationists, climate science deniers, homophobes, et cetera. Sure, on the left you have the occasional truther or Maoist, but they're not generally being promoted as serious candidates for office. The GOP's been leaving rationality behind since the Reagan era.

        That being the case, it's no wonder that the tech sector -- generally more educated folks -- leans left. If and when rational conservatives come back into dominance in the GOP, you might see more techies tilt less to the left.

      • Re:Retest (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:59PM (#34031186) Journal

        There are far more than two degrees. I tend to want fiscal conservatism in terms of government spending (which does not mean "cut everything", but rather "fund responsibly"), social liberalism in terms of personal freedoms, but increased restriction of corporations, and no deregulation. Put another way, in my view, personal freedom applies to a person acting as a person. As soon as you have the corporate veil protecting you from personal responsibility for your actions, the corporation should cease to have those same rights.

        Here are a few of the higher level axes, each of which contains several areas that fall under it.

        • Individual freedom vs. strict government control
          • Domestic spying vs. not
          • Abortion rights vs. not
          • Regulations on drugs, alcohol, etc. vs. not
          • Regulations on whether you can work on Sundays or not
        • Government spending vs. government saving
          • Spending on arts vs. not
          • Spending on defense vs. not
          • Spending on education vs. not
          • Spending on social programs vs. not
        • Socialism/government-run corporations vs. capitalism
          • Government-run corporations that can't help being monopolies vs. not
          • Government-run essential services vs. private
          • Social security vs. private investment
          • Other corporations
        • Government control over corporations
          • Trust busting vs. trusting the market
          • Limitations on collusion vs. trusting the market
          • Product safety vs. laissez faire
          • Consumer rights laws and warranty laws vs. laissez faire
          • Trade tariffs vs. free imports
          • Taxation of foreign income vs. not

        And those are just some of the many areas that people disagree about. And although many people will have the same leaning about most of the things in each of the larger groups, that still gives you a minimum of four political axes instead of just one or even two.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dgatwood (11270)

          And as someone else pointed out above, there are at least two more:

          • The Colonialism-Interference-Isolationism spectrum
          • Punishment vs. rehabilitation

          Neither of these is likely to be a hot button political issue at the national level except when somebody does something catastrophically stupid like going into Vietnam or Iraq, but still, they represent distinct differences in opinion. And while we're at it, I might as well add:

          • Death penalty vs. life imprisonment

          That's a particularly interesting one because b

    • The vast majority in tech I know lean more towards the libertarian side of things. These kind of tests, due to their flaws of being linear, usually fail to capture that. ("Left" comes up more commonly than "right" for many libertarians because of how self-extreming "right" has become lately.)

      Well, no. Measuring employee donations to political candidates by party of candidate is not linear; it can vary in as many directions as there are different political parties (in the US, that's quite a lot.)

      The fact tha

  • democrat != left (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RLiegh (247921) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:05PM (#34030272) Homepage Journal

    Seriously -in the US we have two parties. The far right party, and the psychopathic kill-and-censor-everyone-in-the-name-of-patriotism party.

    In practical terms, we have no left. This article is BS.

    • by modmans2ndcoming (929661) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:12PM (#34030398)

      We have not had a true left in this country since the Kennedy assassination. Johnson was a corporate whore, and since him, Democrats have been pro business all the way down. You can not be pro business interests AND pro labor. If you dump labor rights and issues then you are not a left leaning people.... at this point it is a fight between libertarianism values (those are indipendant of left or right leaning) and how responsible we should be with our taxing and spending (more borrowing or less borrowing)

      • There is no such thing as a "pro-labor" party, parties are the ideals, either they want more economic freedom or less economic freedom, more state control over private issues or less control over private issues. A "pro-labor" party simply is a party that wants less economic freedom and more state control over what you can and can't buy/work.

        Plus, there has never been a president that has completely stood up for their beliefs and not been a cooperate (or other special interest) whore.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)

      Seriously -in the US we have two parties. The far right party, and the psychopathic kill-and-censor-everyone-in-the-name-of-patriotism party.

      Left and right are and always will be, relative. In the non-political sense, my right and your right are only the same if we're facing the same direction. Even then, if you're standing on my right, the area to your right is further to the right than mine.

      In political terms, you look at the parties and apparently they're both more conservative than you are, or maybe you're comparing it to other countries where the average voter is more liberal than the average American voter. Still, to say that we have no

  • by citylivin (1250770) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:10PM (#34030358)

    Come on editors, i know you desperately want to talk about american politics, but isn't that what the poll to the right is for?

    Who needs a big stupid flamewar? No one but Ralph Nader leans LEFT in the usa ANYWAYS!

  • Unfortunately they are unwilling to use their corporate power (i.e. money) to create a media campaign in the way that corporations that lean right do. It's sad that only the right has the courage to anonymously funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into non-profits like Americans for Prosperity that were created for the purpose of supporting Right Wing candidates. According to their tax filings these non-profits have a primary purpose that is not political. Education, I suppose?

    But the Supreme Court has

  • Note I said "liberal", not "progressive", not "Democratic Party", not either libertarian or "Libertarian".

    The problem is that too many people confuse "fiscal responsibility" with "conservatism". Fiscal policy is separate from "liberal" and "conservative". I am *EXTREMELY* fiscally 'conservative'. But I'm also *EXTREMELY* liberal.

    In fact, one could even argue that fiscal responsibility is, itself, liberal by definition.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      A Europe currently struggling with how to deal with its unintegrated immigrants and with no comfortable resolution in sight begs to differ.

  • ... this means left in the US. For the rest of the world it still to the right.

  • Telling me that only one donation was to the RNC or that so-and-so donated $5,000 to the Democrat is completely and utterly useless. It's a single number without context, people. (Yes, I know it's FOXnews. Doesn't mean Slashdot has to waste space repeating it.)

    Where did the OTHER NINE donations go? The RNC is only one part of the Republican political machine to which one can donate: there are candidates and PACs, for example.

    How large were they by comparison? One donation of $10,000 is surely more signi

  • by PatPending (953482) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:27PM (#34030640)
    Want to get money and influence peddling out of the hands of feds? Pass a Constitutional Amendment to strip Congress of the Commerce Clause, relying on state's rights instead.
  • False premise (Score:2, Insightful)

    This article has little to offer other than to highlight the most prevalent problem with our electoral system. Leaning left, leaning right, either way, a country whose leaders are funded by wealthy corporate donors tars the very notion of democracy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:40PM (#34030846)

    People complain that our universities, urban elite, etc. 'lean left'. Now let's see, the smarter and better educated you are, the more liberal you are. What does that suggest to you?

    It suggests to me that we have too many ignoramuses, who lack the education and experience to learn to deal with different kinds of people, to understand how progress is made, and to be informed or to deal with complicated policy issues like global warming. And those ignoramuses are called "conservatives".

     

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @06:34PM (#34031678) Homepage Journal

    This "psychologist" can't see that people at these companies are more liberal than average simply because they're smart. Not just any kind of smart, but the kind of smart that knows how to communicate with lots of other people, even if just in the abstract, technologically, not just with their hillbilly brother-cousins. Which is why they leave those hillbilly hollows to go places where companies like Apple and Microsoft can function. Back in hillbillyland they'd be burned as witches, or worse as homosexuals.

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

  • by bhcompy (1877290) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @07:28PM (#34032390)
    Odd that the summary neglects to mention two very high profile elections that have former major tech CEO's running as Republicans for this election cycle.
  • by doom (14564) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @07:44PM (#34032588) Homepage Journal
    Then there's amazon.com, which in addition to their ground-breaking aggressive use of an inane software patent, was also donating money to the Republican party during the rise of the Bush Jr. regime... in contrast to Barnes and Nobles, which has been solidly blue, all along.
  • by dafing (753481) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @01:51AM (#34034712) Journal
    “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill [wikipedia.org]

    Note, I'm "Right Wing" by international standards, the USA's main two parties are Right, and Ultra Right, why can you not simply have Centre Left and Centre Right like the rest of the world? And also colour them correctly, Red is for "left wing", Blue for "right wing"! You know, like, "The Reds are invading..."?

    Things America needs to change reason #42 the Metric System....

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.

Working...