Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government The Almighty Buck United States Politics Technology

Where the Tech Industry's Political Donations Are Going 130

Posted by Soulskill from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Early estimates suggest the 2016 U.S. presidential election will result in $5-10 billion in spending by candidates and organizations — much more than ever before. To support this, they need lots of contributions, and the tech industry is becoming a significant player. (Not as much as the financial industry, of course, but tech's influence is growing.) Re/Code breaks down which candidates are getting the most money from the tech sector so far. Right now, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has gotten the most tech money by far — more than the rest of the field combined, thanks in large part to Larry Ellison. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, is a distant second, followed closely by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) are the only other candidates with significant tech contributions so far. Carly Fiorina, a tech industry veteran, has only managed about $13,000 in donations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Where the Tech Industry's Political Donations Are Going More

Where the Tech Industry's Political Donations Are Going

Comments Filter:

  • No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @11:13AM (#50426883)

    And Rubio supports increasing H1-B visas threefold. Coincidence? I think not.

    • Rubio is one of those politicians who is willing to change his opinion to.....whatever.....if it wins him the election. Smooth guy.

      That doesn't mean he'll lose. People sometimes vote for the slimeball who does what they want over the principled guy who doesn't. But it means as president he'll be an ineffective and weak leader, because he won't be able to convince people to follow him. Instead, he's a follower.

      • Yeah he seems just a little too slick for my liking. He has flip flopped on Immigration a few times as well. Of course, he is not alone in that respect. Hillary and Obama have done this as well. Gay marriage, middle east, immigration issues. Sadly it is more the exception than the rule these days.

        • The big difference between Obama and Rubio is that I have a good idea where Obama actually stood on those issues. Yeah, he said he opposed gay marriage, but did anyone actually believe him? Whereas with Rubio, I could easily see him switching parties to democrat if that were convenient.

          On the other hand, I'm not really sure what Hillary would do as president, either.

  • I'd pay Carly money too. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Lots of money, to go away.

    • probably fired half the tech industry workers at least once. made the rest want to quit.

      now, if everybody else knows, she can go back to counting her golden parachute money.

    • Holy shit your politicians are expensive! In any decent country you could buy one for a few tens or hundreds of thousands. Sheesh, gimme the "$5-10 billion in spending" and I'll buy you most of Africa, that's much better value for money.

      (Plus, people there are a lot less critical about what you do with your government once you've bought it).

  • anti H1B job protectionism (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I imagine most tech workers, in a hypocritical bid to protect their own jobs after participating in the destruction of most of the American workforce, will find out who will ban H1B program and vote that way. It harkens back to the old saw, vote your wallet. Unfortunately protectionism never works and paying artifically inflated wages when there are other people willing to do the job for significantly less money usually results in companies either moving offshore of closing entirely. But, still, I imagin

    • Re:anti H1B job protectionism (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @12:01PM (#50427283)

      after participating in the destruction of most of the American workforce

      As far as I'm aware most of the American workforce is still working. Even if it wasn't you'd have to explain exactly how tech workers destroyed their jobs.

      Unfortunately protectionism never works

      Protectionism works great quite a lot of the time, it's how China manages its economy along with currency manipulation which is pretty much the same thing.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by tnk1 ( 899206 )

        Protectionism is a short term solution at best. China is either betting that they are smarter than history, or they are betting they can quick start their economy before they have to deal with the fallout.

        • Re:anti H1B job protectionism (Score:4, Informative)

          by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @12:34PM (#50427589)

          And what do you think farming subsidies in developed countries are but protectionism? The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe has been rocking for almost sixty years now, and similar policies are in place in the US as far as I'm aware. These exist so you don't have to rely on whichever third world despot can whip his citizens the hardest for your basic food supply, but essentially they're strategic economic protectionism. Here's a good example of successful protectionism [theamerica...vative.com].

            1. The Japanese government has used a plethora of constantly evolving regulations to keep the combined share of all non-Japanese automakers to just 4 percent of the Japanese market. The share never varies, whether the yen is strong or weak. (The yen is up nearly 50 percent against the dollar in the last five years.)
          2. The Detroit corporations, in common with all major automakers, make many cars in Europe configured for Britain’s drive-on-the-left roads, and by extension for Japan’s. They also make countless components and assemblies that have been shut out of Japan for no other reason than that they are not made there.
          3. Even Volkswagen, which sells broadly as many cars around the world as Toyota, has been allocated—that is the right word—just 1 percent of the Japanese market; by contrast Toyota’s share is close to 40 percent. (Volkswagen is lucky, incidentally: Hyundai’s share is 0.02 percent and Daewoo’s 0.003 percent, and this in a country where close to 1 percent of the people are ethnic Koreans.) ...

          Perhaps the most graphic evidence of Tokyo’s true policy has been the story of the Renault-Nissan alliance. Originally established in 1999 and consolidated in subsequent years, this odd-couple partnership ostensibly gave Paris-based Renault control of Yokohama-based Nissan. In a powerful symbol of Japan’s ostensible acquiescence to American-style globalization, Renault’s Carlos Ghosn was even installed as simultaneous chief executive of both companies.

          Given that Renault enjoyed a fundamental advantage in lower French wages and was more than a match for Nissan managerially, many observers expected it to make big inroads in the Japanese market. After all, the Nissan distribution chain—Japan’s second largest—was now ostensibly Ghosn’s to reshape. As reported by the BBC in 2005, the two companies were “expected to go through a process of rapid integration.” In particular they hoped to achieve savings through “jointly owned distribution subsidiaries.”

          To the extent that the companies have cooperated on distribution, however, this has been confined entirely to markets beyond Japan. In the Japanese home market, Nissan has kept its distribution system strictly off-limits to Renault. The result is that, far from increasing, Renault’s Japanese market share has dropped from a negligible 0.08 percent in 1999 to a totally insulting 0.04 percent in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. Indeed, to the extent that the company’s brand is known at all on Japanese roads, it is as a minor brand of Taiwanese-made bicycles!

          And this is just the beginning of Renault’s woes. Judged by growth in total global sales, Renault has consistently been a hopeless also-ran, whereas Nissan has been a star performer. (Renault’s global sales are up less than 15 percent since the first full year of the partnership, whereas Nissan’s have zoomed nearly 78 percent. Nissan’s success has been attributable not least to increasing inroads in Renault’s home turf of Western Europe.)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tnk1 ( 899206 )

            Sixty years is nothing. Just about anything can work for a handful of decades if there is enough will behind it. Ultimately you build up an unstable exclusionary area that keeps wages and value artificially high and something comes through and knocks it over, hard.

            The reason that Japan and China are now competing with us is the fact that they have low priced labor that can do many things that workers in Western countries did do which is non-complex and required little skill, but still paid well. We attem

            • The reason that Japan and China are now competing with us is the fact that they have low priced labor

              Japan's labour is anything but low priced.

              which is non-complex and required little skill

              What? We're talking about Japan here?

        • quick start?
          They have been doing this for the last 30 years. What exactly do you think made them go so fast.
          Hell, with the clinton-china accord they were supposed to dump all of their subsidies, tariffs, etc. AND quit manipulating their money. Not a THING has been done.

      • Protectionism works great quite a lot of the time, it's how China manages its economy along with currency manipulation which is pretty much the same thing.

        You seem to be unaware of the enormous crash coming soon to China's economy.

        Also, the point about protectionism is the irony of rugged individualistic free marketeers suddenly deciding that government intervention is fine as long as it's just for their benefit.

    • paying artifically inflated wages when there are other people willing to do the job for significantly less money

      The I.T. support jobs in Silicon Valley that paid $25 per hour last year are now paying $30+ per hour today. From what recruiters are telling me, it's difficult to lure young hipsters who want to work and live in San Francisco to work in Silicon Valley. Hence, the pay rate and related perks are going up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mjm1231 ( 751545 )

      Knee jerk reactions are certainly popular among slashdot posters. For the rest of us, being informed about how immigration actually affects economic growth and wages is probably a good idea. Start with a conservative perspective, so you know you aren't getting a pro-immigrant bias:

      http://www.hoover.org/research... [hoover.org]

      • The problem is not that we have immigrants moving to America. The REAL issue is that they move here under H1B which means that they work only for 1 company getting paid extremely low wages and most will return to their home.
        What is needed is to REMOVE the [HL]1B programs, and then allow for more visas. Basically, it is not a problem to have talented ppl move to America. It is only a problem when they are replacing other ppl at much lower wages due to artificial constraints.

  • When we say "tech industry" ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @11:15AM (#50426911) Homepage

    We should be very clear this means "the (m|b)illionaire CEOs of tech corporations who are using company money to advance their own agendas".

    This is all about corporations doing what serves the interests of the rich people in charge ... which means it's really a measure of how influential CEOs are, and is in no way representative of the thousands of people who work for those companies.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )

      First, donating to politicians to advance one's own agenda is a sold as politics. It's not like these guys (COE or otherwise) are doing anything new.

      Second, it the "thousands of people" have a different agenda they can (and do) contribute.

      It's also not clear what Ellison's agenda really is here; maybe H1b, maybe immigration, maybe something else that has nothing to do with Oracle. Who knows?

    • which means it's really a measure of how influential CEOs are, and is in no way representative of the thousands of people who work for those companies.

      I don't see any rules that require those thousands of people who work for those companies to vote for any specific politician. The money should not make one bit of difference.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bondsbw ( 888959 )

        It is not about requiring votes from employees. It is about influencing voters at large. The number political ad impressions is generally much larger than the number of people who work for the company whose money pays for the ad.

        An impression doesn't usually make a huge difference... but it does make an amount of difference that is measurably as large or larger than "one bit".

        • The voters have to have their own personal 'epiphanies' and break away from the 'influence'. But let's not blame the influence. The real issue is that those won't resist and just want to play along. In the animal world the rules are absolute. We can make things a bit more 'fluid' if we ever decide to lose the fear. The simple fact is that we must be held responsible for our choices, and we shouldn't go crying when bad choices produce undesired results. It is the voter that gives value to the campaign dollar

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bondsbw ( 888959 )

            You are naive if you believe that companies spend billions of dollars each year on something that doesn't work. Just because people can be strong-willed enough to completely ignore all influence that advertisements carry, doesn't mean they actually are.

            • Where did I say any different?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by bondsbw ( 888959 )

                Here:

                The money should not make one bit of difference.

                Another problem with your logic is when you say people shouldn't go crying when their bad choices produce undesired results, but those results affect people who made informed choices.

                • The money should not make one bit of difference.... You saw that, right? The fact that it does is the problem. It is a result of our desire, nothing to do with the money itself. Controlling the desire is where the effort needs to be directed. The object really does not make a difference, money, sex, drugs, the same rules apply. But, it's much easier to project our own foibles onto something/someone else, and spend the next few millennia "debating" it. Yes, I live in blessed naivete (ironically I survive in

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by bondsbw ( 888959 )

                    Controlling the desire is where the effort needs to be directed.

                    Ok, so how would we do that?

                    • Practice, my dear, practice...

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by bondsbw ( 888959 )

                      You misunderstand. How should we as a society create this control over such desires?

                      We can't put it on the people. You can't expect people, through self-control, curb their desires not to self-control...

                    • So, what then? You just going to say we're stuck? Sorry, all choices are personal.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by bondsbw ( 888959 )

                      These choices are personal, but not all are adequately informed. It's a problem when someone with a lot of money gets to decide the information which people will see when making such choices. That's an area that can be improved.

                    • Well, nobody is going to come and rescue us. We are on our own.

  • the donations of a few rich plutocrats who siphon their cash from technology companies does not represent the tech industry's views or opinions, not in aggregate, not even a significant minority bloc of opinions

    larry ellison? really? shouldn't we say he represents yacht buyer's political donations? that's much more accurate

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

      You have a free will, right? Just don't vote for the people who take their money. Otherwise don't complain. Problem solved.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by circletimessquare ( 444983 )

        if you have money to spend you influence media, which influences' people's attitudes. people don't derive attitudes in a free will vacuum. they hear positive things about candidates, paid for by the candidates, and they gravitate to those candidates. or they hear negative things about the actually better candidate, because the attacks are paid for, and they gravitate to the plutocrat's stooge. so the tendency to have a lot of money results in the tendency to win elections

        welcome to reality

        now try to form an

        • Eh, do what you want, but while you're trolling away here, try to hit the right target. The problem is the voter is just goes along to get along. People like you, it seems. Don't rock the boat. Don't tip the apple cart. Wouldn't want to jeopardize the value of the pennies in your pocket. Just keep the game going.

          • ah yes, the problem is human nature itself

            if only human beings didn't behave like human beings always have and always will, the world would be a better place

            thanks for the dumbfucking obvious observation

            but, at some point, perhaps you would actually like to try solve the actual fucking problem, *working within the actual fucking parameters of reality*: the human condition

            then the crap you spew might be worth something

            • Eh... Be a chimp and follow along, I don't really care. I just like the way you get excited and stuff. The 'system' loves you, and you love it!

              • you're not arguing against a system, you're arguing against the reality of human nature

                your thoughts are invalid because you imagine the solution to our problems is to just make people behave in a new way. a way humans never did behave, and never will

                you need to make peace with certain ugly aspects of reality you currently reject or unaware of. then put forth solutions that work within those confines. currently you criticize me. that's called shooting the messenger. i'm not supporting the ugly status quo yo

                • It is not human nature. Don't try to separate us. All of 'nature' responds to its environment precisely the same way. To become human you must transcend those desires, described as the *Seven Deadly Sins*. You are just following the herd. I will not blame you for that, self preservation and stuff works that way. I don't argue with proven survival traits. The only human thing you express are the denials (and the projection, of course). The rest is right out of the savanna.

                  • you want us to transcend the seven deadly sins to achieve our goals

                    ok, got it

                    why do i even bother responding to these socially retarded wackjobs?

                    • If you find another way, let us know. In the meantime feel free to keep flinging your poop. Your little show really is quite the sight.

                    • i have found another way. work within the parameters of a fallible human nature

                      your "way" is to insist we all become saints first

                      you're a moron. socially retarded. not a baseless insult, an objective description of the quality of your "thinking" on this topic

                    • Okay, so you're a follower, nuzzling up to the alpha. Good for you!

                    • you should read what someone writes

                      then form a response

                      rather than regurgitating canned crap that has nothing to do with what someone said

                      if you just want to have arguments with boogeymen that only exist in your head, you don't even need the internet for that

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by skam240 ( 789197 )

                      Petty and weak retort (not to mention condescending). His point is spot on. Your solution to humanity's problems seems to be we all have to become saints. Hasnt that been the goal of almost every major religion since civization began? Don't get me wrong, it's a noble ideal but humanity has made zero progress on this over the course of its history. What little "progress" you can point to is a function of wealth, take that away and we regress. History is full of examples of this.

                      Working within the bounds of o

                    • not to mention condescending

                      He's just a fucking screaming troll who doesn't think. He likes it...

                      What I said was the 'solution' to humanity's problems is to become humane. I said nothing about giving up anything, except the desire to subjugate others to reach your goal. It's just not necessary for humans. In theory we know better. But primitive instinct still prevails, and all our intellect is there to serve. You are perfectly welcome to stay in your cage. The choice is entirely personal. I said nothing mor

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by skam240 ( 789197 )

                      You're being condescending by standing on high as an enlightened soul and personalising your responces to the individual (which is why you're getting hostile responces). Whose to say what choices i make in this context? I certainly havent stated how i personally behave. What i'm advocating for though is policy that deals with human nature as it is, not as we'd like it to be. It doesnt take much of a look at history to tell you that if you base policy on the way people "should be" rather then how they really

                    • Eh, your choice. You can stagnate, or evolve and progress. I'm not here to advise you which choice to make. It's entirely up to you. I make no judgement.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by skam240 ( 789197 )

                    So then Marx was right all along and everyone else was the problem? After all what you seem to describe is what Marx laid out as necessary for communism to work.

                    • The issue and your choices are entirely personal. The cumulative choices made by all of us results in what you see today.

  • Carly Fiorina ?? Oh My Gawd !!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nomad63 ( 686331 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @11:25AM (#50426975)
    After slaughtering a once a beloved tech company, HP, and causing a big grief at Lucent, is this a big surprise that Carly Fiorina is not getting any love from the tech sector ? I think she should not be allowed to make decision even on her behalf, let alone technology or god forbid United States.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by c ( 8461 )

      I'm surprised she still managed to get $13,000 worth of love from the tech industry.

    • Yep, I'll take Trump any day over Fiorina. At least he has a reputation for usually getting NYC construction projects done, instead of driving successful, venerable companies into the ground and then trying to blame it on the economy.

    • On the other hand, if she were still CEO of HP, she'd be getting lots of donations to run for president - from HP employees and shareholders.

  • ...Carly Fiorina, a tech industry veteran, has only managed about $13,000 in donations.

    I wonder what it says about the industry when the one person with actual experience of it is the one not getting donations. Could it reflect on H1-B visas?

    • we know she ruins what she runs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @11:50AM (#50427219) Journal

      Most people in tech, or business, know Fiorina as the person who ruined HP. So the lack of support for her may indicate that most people don't want the country ruined.

      Well, they don't THINK they want it ruined, anyway. They may well be uninformed such that they advocate for policies which have been ruinous to countries and states which have tried them. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it and all.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GlennC ( 96879 )

        So the lack of support for her may indicate that most people don't want the country ruined.

        At least, they don't want it ruined by her. It will be ruined by someone else.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Carly Fiorina, support the woman to do to the U.S. what she did to HP!!!

      • Carly Fiorina, support the woman to do to the U.S. what she did to HP!!!

        You mean taking an entity that used to make cutting-edge, ultra-high-quality, high-profit stuff and instead making low-profit generic cookie-cutter crap? Basically instead of competing with Germany, she wants us to compete with China?

        BTW, has anyone else here used an HP business laptop recently? WTF is with the horrible keyboard layout?

  • 435 days to go until Election Day 2016 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Monday August 31, 2015 @11:39AM (#50427099) Homepage

    please shut up about this for another year.

  • Way to leave out Bernie Sanders (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Ranked 4th on the chart but they don't discuss his campaign at all.

    • Candidates that scare them get ignored. Not unlike how Ron Paul was placing in the primaries in previous elections yet wasn't discussed much by mainstream media. For this election cycle we were clearly told that the preselected candidates were Clinton II vs Bush III, with an outside chance of Bush III being replaced by Rubio. Sanders is not supposed to get taken seriously, and the fact that he is getting traction could upset the script. Trump is definitely a wildcard that they didn't expect to get much

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Bernie "free stuff for everyone" Sanders is a joke candidate that has no chance of winning. Once it gets closer to election time everyone outside of Reddit will forget he exists.

  • After the Mozilla fiasco, they will be careful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @11:59AM (#50427265)
    After the demonization of Brendan Eich for his personal donation in support of CA Proposition 8, the writing is on the wall. You can expect that most big tech donors of all stripes, regardless of party or political stance, will donate to political causes through the Super PAC of their choice.

    • Possibly, but not many tech people are at Eich's level. I know I'm never going to be CEO of any well-known company, for instance, and neither are most of the other people here. Of course, most conservatives these days seem to think that they're all millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck, even when they're living in a trailer, so they could very act the way you describe anyway.

      Anyhow, there's a big difference between supporting a *candidate* and supporting a particular *law* (proposition). Yo

      • Of course, most conservatives these days seem to think that they're all millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck, even when they're living in a trailer, so they could very act the way you describe anyway

        I know what you are trying to say here but you are wrong. The problem with statements like yours is they are too simplified.

        For example, during the gay marriage debates, how often did you hear about the fallouts from states that did enact this law? Did you hear on the nightly news all the religious orphanages that were shut down by the state since they wouldn't allow kids to be adopted by non-traditional families?

  • Bribes? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Milharis ( 2523940 ) on Monday August 31, 2015 @12:01PM (#50427289)

    Can someone explain me how giving money to someone to advance one's agenda is different from a bribe?

    • Re:Bribes? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31, 2015 @12:20PM (#50427455)

      Bribery is when an elected official supports your agenda because you pay them.
      Campaign contributions are when you pay an elected official because they support your agenda.

      And yes, I'm being cynical, because at best it's difficult to distinguish one from the other, and at worst, it's impossible.

      • Bribery is when an elected official supports your agenda because you pay them.
        Campaign contributions are when you pay an elected official because they support your agenda.

        Bribery is when you pay an elected official for actual results.
        Campaign contributions are when you pay an elected official and HOPE to get some results
        Voting is when you attempt to choose an elected official and then can gripe when he DOESN'T deliver results.

        The first two have real and political ramifications; the latter has only good intentions.

    • It's worse than that. Corporations are playing both sides by giving money to both the Democrats and the Republicans. No matter who wins they are owed favors by someone.

      The well publicized differences on Immigration, Abortion, etc. is just window dressing. Democrats and Republicans agree on more than you think. It's all about money and power.

    • As I see it, it has to do with the order in which things occur.

      If I say we should, oh, cancel the H1-B program and you agree with me, you could donate to my campaign. "Free speech." If you say, "I'll give you money to cancel the H1-B program" and I accept it, that's bribery.

  • Stop calling it donations! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31, 2015 @12:08PM (#50427349)

    These are advance payments for future services. There is no charity involved. Not a donation!

  • To hell with them all! If we don't turn our backs, next campaign will cost 50 billion. All this does is reward corruption. But, if that's what people want, all I can say is, *knock yourselves out*. Just remember all your complaints go straight to the round file.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Backing a republican is understandable...but risky in this day and age. This is a political party that has shut down the US Government twice.

      No, the Democrats are the ones that "shut it down" - to the extent that a "government shutdown" actually shuts anything down - and the Replublicans caved both times and gave them what they wanted.

      The "power of the purse" is SUPPOSED to be the House of Representatives' check on a runaway executive branch. When the executive does something Congress doesn't want it to do

  • And the only one even talking about H1-Bs is the one not taking money from these assholes.

    The rest of the candidates are all fat losers. I want an administration with class. And you know the Trump Administration will be the best, most successful administration in history, because Trump doesn't put his name anything that doesn't exude quality and class.

    Can't wait until President Trump cleans up this H1-B mess.

  • Carly Fiorina has actually been given $13,000,000, she's just turned it into $13,000.

  • Carly Fiorina, a tech industry saboteur, has only managed about $13,000 in donations.

    FTFY

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close