Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Government Politics

Big Money Comes Out for the Inauguration 176

Posted by CowboyNeal from the good-to-be-a-capitalist dept.
randall_burns writes "Open Secrets is running an interesting story about major donors to Bush's inauguration. The founder of Dell is one of the high rollers funding Bush's party."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Money Comes Out for the Inauguration More

Big Money Comes Out for the Inauguration

Comments Filter:

  • Money isn't bad (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    But I do wish Badnarick was taking the oath. G Dubya has done some interesting things with politics, but no need to hate. Think that the "Right" sat through 8 years of Clinton. The Left through 8 years of Reagan. Eevrything is equal. And the world hates the US.

  • Money is bad (Score:3, Funny)

    by SimianOverlord ( 727643 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @05:38AM (#11429825) Homepage Journal
    Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

    The first leads down the road to chaos, as every splintered faction appears quite literally from the woodwork, holding their hand out for tax dollars to advertise their presence and garner votes. With the constitution being what it is, this is a dangerous charter for extremists, as a white supremist organisation (for example) would be just as eligible for public funds as a major political party, and one can only assume, would use those funds to push their hateful agenda. I can see Californica, in particular, as the worst hit by this sort of proposal, as it has more than its fair share of cults, drawn by the bright sunlight and fine oranges.

    Yet happily another option exists to go back to the glory days of rule by disinterested self-abasing, self sacrificing people like Mother Theresa. Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession. Just a thought.


    • > Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

      A third option would be to hand over the money to someone who would spend it wisely, such as me.

    • Re:Money is bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday January 21, 2005 @08:39AM (#11430471) Homepage Journal
      Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

      I don't think so...

      The candidates don't just get to keep that money and buy cars and shoes with it. The real reason the money is important is because they can use it to leverage voters votes.

      It's like this: Michael Dell wants to change the law or bend it. He gives money to Bush who spends it on ads and spreads it around where it will get him popularity and power. Then we (well, other people besides me) elect him and he let's Dell break the rules.
    • What's that?

      Corporate fat-cats and aristocrats get to hob-knob with government officials and politicians? And a of them have politicians in their pockets? And politicians give preferential treatment to aristocratic families and corporate leaders?

      You mean that billionaires and people that come from families with names like "Rockafeller", "Bush" and "Kennedy" are treated differently than the rest of the population that enables those people to do what they do and be what they are?

      No way! I call shennanigans

      • Re:Money is bad (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        So, because corruption is default, we should just accept it? We need to believe that this corruption is new to remark on it, to reject it? Who's naive?
    • While your post has been modded funny, I must respond to it because it runs with the general Slashdot mentality that corporations have a death grip on our government resulting in common day catastrophes thanks to big business malfeasance.

      What you have stated in your post is referred to as a false dichtotomy. There are many options available to us, not just the two (quite poor) options you have given us to combat the problem of corporate influence on the government.

      I would counter, however, that first of

      • Re:Money is bad (Score:5, Insightful)

        by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @03:42PM (#11434867) Homepage
        Your entire argument is bogus for one simple reason: We cannot expect rational behavior from a busy, harried electorate when the politicians use corporate money to advertise themselves as something they're not.

        For every voter who actually takes the time to figure out the problems arising from corporate influence, there are probably five who can be suckered in by simplistic sales pitches, fraudulent attack ads, and promises the politician has no intention of keeping.

        So, if I'm a politician, do I take the high road? Do I work hard, study issues in depth, write rational legislation that fixes serious problems, and make realistic campaign promises? That's what I'd do. But then I'd lose in a landslide to some pompous, self-aggrandizing bastard who tells people what they want to hear, while whoring the political process out to whoever will give him the money he needs to amplify his voice.

        Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

        Take, for example, the post-9/11 bailout of the airline industry. The taxpayers gave the airlines, what? Fifteen billion dollars? Why? Not to protect jobs, obviously. All the airlines cut tens of thousands of jobs despite the bailout. Not to protect against an interruption of transportation, either. In the end, we taxpayers basically handed a crapload of money to the people who invested in the airline industry. Corporate welfare at its finest. But politicians lied to us, telling us that if we didn't do this the planes would be grounded.

        Collectively, we accepted this because the corporations fund the means of communication that matter to most voters. Had there been a real debate over the issues arising from the bailout, said bailout never would have happened.

        You seem to believe that the system, as it stands now, is behaving in a basically fair and rational manner. Either you're making serious cash off the status quo, or you're seriously deluded.

        • Re:Money is bad (Score:4, Interesting)

          by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @04:52PM (#11435693)
          Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

          One of the newer fund-raising techniques being used is to:
          1) Pick a victim,
          2) Write a piece of Legislation that would seriously damage the victim,
          3) Start the legislation through the process of becoming law,
          4) Visit the victim, making sure that he knows you could be convinced to abandon said legislation for a suitable bribe...er, campaign donation,
          5) Wait while victim writes the check,
          6) Go back and pull the Bill from the docket,
          7) Repeat the following year.

          Often as not, it's not the businesses controlling the policitians, but the politicians blackmailing the businesses. Yes, blackmail is such an ugly word, but it frequently fits very well in describing how politicians ask for campaign contributions from businesses.

          • How about an example? I don't doubt that this is the kind of thing that goes on - politicians are generally as corrupt as the power they wield - but it is still outrageous. And outrageous claims require evidence, even more than regular claims. Meanwhile, politicians are *supposed* to control business. And if a politician tried this kind of blackmail, what's to stop the corporation from exposing them? Unless the politician also has some *real* goods on the corporation, which could damage it even if the polit
          • I think parent post sounds a bit far fetched. Politicians don't have to go looking for corporate chums. When there is money to be made business will find the purse string holders. Usually the story is this: Politician with ties to industry is told what would be helpfull. Good reasons for legislation is given bad reasons are left for public to figure out. Politicians integrity will be held together with little bit of cash in various direct or nondirect ways - be it cup of coffee, trip to Bahamas or contribut

    • Re:Money is bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Sunday January 23, 2005 @12:22AM (#11445853)
      Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession.

      We already have this kind of system in place for teachers.

  • Not surprising really.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phaze3000 ( 204500 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @06:27AM (#11429979) Homepage
    This is, after all, the same Dell that expects to pay no state tax [theregister.co.uk].
  • ...no whammies!!

    idunno, wouldn't it be nice if we had a president that could have an inaguration where of their own desire, fireworks artists would want to donate a performance, the police would want to volunteer extra unpaid time, caterers would donate food, singers would donate performances, etcetcetc.

    large corporate monetary donations, fundraiser dinners, et all seem so cold to me.. inagural day comes off more as a stockholder's holiday weekend to me.
  • I would just like to remind you that the one recurring symbol of the inauguration was the boot.

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superyooser ( 100462 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @07:03AM (#11430090) Homepage Journal
    There is an inauguration every four years, no matter whom the president is. Inaugurations are always expensive. They always have big corporate donors. It's not surprising that some donors are in high tech. I see Qualcomm on the list, too.

    Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring? Slow news day?

    • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Funny)

      by tdemark ( 512406 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @08:13AM (#11430363) Homepage
      Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring?

      According to most TV reports and newspapers, any of the following should be fine:
      • Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the tsunami victims
      • Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war
      • Bush is a bad president because his inauguration total was around $40 mil, while Clinton was a good president because his '93 inauguration was only $33 million.
      • Bush stole the election


      - Tony
      • good job sir. While I'm left of center, I find the criticism of this annoying. Another thing I think should be mentioned about the donations, is that the incumbent always recieves a good deal more in donations from companies... not a conspiracy.

      • Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Seumas ( 6865 )
        That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio. In fact, all I've heard is about how stoic and somber he is. How he has a lot on his mind. How he's busy saving the free world from tyranny.

        Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.

        I didn't like Clinton. I wanted Bush instead of Gore. Bu
        • Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic.

          His personal rhetoric doesn't back up that claim (of course, he may just be being PC for a photo-op):

          "Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all."

          Check out Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations [positiveatheism.org]
        • I can think of a lot of people that have conversations with god "in their heads". Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, the Pope, everyone I see at mass.... So what is your point exactly here?
        • One thing..It sure stirs up all the people that are bigots against religion. So much for "tolerance".
        • And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate"

          On the other hand, Clinton thought that 49% of the votes, and 17% of the country was a "mandate", after his second election.

          And after his first, he thought that 43% of the votes, and 17% of the country was a "mandate".

          Incidently, Bush got 62,000,000+ votes, which is a lot closer to 22% of the country than to 16%.

        • Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.

          And at the center of it all... Kevin Bacon!

          Don't get carried away with that conspiracy theory bullshit, dude. So the Saudis bought and sold shares in a company that had previously been owned by a corporation that Bush Sr. was a big stockholder in? Big farking deal.

      • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @10:37AM (#11431446)
        Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war.

        Bush is a bad president because all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war. Life should not go on like normal for the people responsible for sending the military out to risk life and limb. Celebrate when the killing is over.

        If Kerry, or even Dean had won and were doing the same thing I'd say the same thing.
        • ...all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war...

          Do me a favor and call me when ANY ONE of the following ceremonies are cancelled:

          - Golden Globes
          - Acadamy Awards
          - Grammys

          Taking the costs associated with the events related any one ceremony above dwarfs the amount of money spent on the inauguration. At least the inauguration serves a real purpose.
        • Bush is a bad president because all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war. Life should not go on like normal for the people responsible for sending the military out to risk life and limb. Celebrate when the killing is over.

          Don't worry: you can just force the city of Washington, DC to pay for it [washingtonpost.com]
        • Well, with your logic then we should just shut down the Oscars and the Grammys as well. After all, we're at WAR!

          We might as well shut down all the night clubs and party spots while we're at it. What do these people thing we are doing? I mean, we're at WAR!

          We should go through and just shut down entire cities. Las Vegas, Atlantic City. Heck, we should probably shut down the entire state of Hawaii! Why would anyone want to go there? We're at WAR!
          • Well, with your logic then we should just shut down the Oscars and the Grammys as well. After all, we're at WAR!

            You will actually have a point just as soon as hollywood declares war and sends a thousand American troops to their deaths.

            And no, I don't expect the MPAA to get American troops sent in to "liberate" Hong Kong from DVD pirates.
        • Celebrate when the killing is over.

          When will that be? USA has been in continuous active military engagement (public or covert) for over 60 years. Taxpayers support over 700 military bases outside of the USA. Land mines are still exported. Other nations cannot have WMD, but the USA hoards and develops them, with an eye to monopoly and impunity, and a demonstrated willingness to use them. The 'war on terror' is designed to be endless, since it self-generates enemies (a perfect military ecology)--and the Adm

      • Bush is a bad president because his inauguration total was around $40 mil, while Clinton was a good president because his '93 inauguration was only $33 million.

        Mind you, in real (inflation-adjusted [westegg.com]) terms, they're about the same. I don't have the exact figure for both, but Clinton's 1993 expenditure is about $42m in today's dollars.

        To put it into perspective, that's about 18.1 cents for every U.S. adult.

    • I see Qualcomm on the list, too. Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring? Slow news day?

      Are you kidding????? This is quite possibly the best news I've ever gotten from slashdot. Perhaps now I can finally convince my fairly liberal sole Eudora user to let the program die. Die Eudora Die!! Even better, Michael Dell was a big contributor. Perhaps this is just what I need to convince the fairly liberal management to let me go with a local vendor using standard parts. Thank You Slash
    • I would say the something special is the lavishness and extremism of the celebration, with gala's and ball's and the like. ALl this glorification during a time when, I don't know if you knew this or not, when we are at war. It seems crass to celebrate an electoral vistory when our men and women are dying overseas.

      Did you know FDR skipped out on any big celebration during his relection during WWII? That's class, my man. Class.
    • For those that think companies are buying access to the White House or special treatment, one might compare some of the donation levels to see which party the company favors (thus implying which party would best serve the company's special interests)

      BIGGEST DONOR LISTED:
      Ameriquest Capitol (4 divisions worth)
      $1M to inaugural, $2.25M to the republicans, $470k to the democrats, $1M to Bush

      OIL (for the Iraq invasion fans):
      T. Boone Pickens $250k for inaugural, $125k to Reps, $1k to Dems, $4k to Bush

      Chev
  • Why would I be. Is this not the norm for things like this?
  • funding a lunatic.


    "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause."


    I once worked at a mental home; there, you could pick up sentences like that all the time. You know, people hearing voices, callings from the Great Beyond and stuff. Scary.

    • If you want to run with the "Bush is insane" ball, here's some linkage for you [unknownnews.net].

      I'm naturally inclined to agree, but that's because I think most religious people are at least a little insane.

      Don't get me wrong, some religious people are really nice. But nutty.

      • I'm naturally inclined to agree, but that's because I think most religious people are at least a little insane.

        Don't get me wrong, some religious people are really nice. But nutty.

        You should make a distinction as to which religion(s) you're talking about. There are a great many religions, and many of them share more in common with Atheism than they do with eachother.

        Lumping all "religions" into one category draws a lot of conclusions about the value structures of the participants.

        Even within a reli

    • Re:funding Bush's party? rather... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @09:42AM (#11430891)
      "Any American citizen who is athiest should not be considered an American, nor should they be considered a patriot. This is one nation under God." - George Herbert Walker Bush, 1988 (and again restated in 2004 in an interview on the Don Imus radio program)

      I suspect the apple does not fall far from the tree. As someone who believes strongly in freedom for all to believe or not believe in anything they want, I am extremely offended that two of my presidents do not feel that I deserve to be an American or a patriot, because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).

      That alone is all the reason I need to dislike Bush and not support him - the rest of his actions and policies be damned.

      (By the way, I'm actually agnostic; not atheist.)
      • I see this quote thrown around quite a bit, so I looked it up on Snopes [snopes.com]. Guess what? They've talked about it quite a bit, and no one can substantiate it. The only source for the quote comes from an atheist website. Boy, that's a shock, eh? Bush denies he said it, and the only semi-credible website that referenced it (MSN Encarta) has now removed it. If you've got REAL proof Bush 41 said this, post it.
        • If you've got REAL proof Bush 41 said this, post it.

          Okay. How about this. Though I'm sure you'll nit-pick and say that he doesn't explicitely say the same phrase here. But he does elude to his initial comment over a decade ago and re-affirms it, in the context of being president rather than being a patriot. When he first made the statement (I remember it, I was about twelve years old when it happened), he had continued by saying something to the effect that an atheist could not be president, because an at
      • Let me just go ahead and call bull shit on that one. That was never said. Some idiot posted that on the internet and you dutifully quoted it back. For fucks sake people. If it sounds too stupid to be true, it probably is. Take a moment and actually check your sources if you are going to post something that is obviously stupid and untrue.
  • If Peroutka or Badnarik had won, we'd see companies donating to the inaugeral balls and such but we wouldn't be seeing these corporations getting benefits from the government.
  • .. did Michael Dell hedge his bets and also donate a substantial pre-election sum to the democrats? It's certainly known to happen - hedge your bets, butter up both candidates, win either way..?

    not that I believe it for a minute, but it would add a depth to the story...

  • Cancel the Academy Awards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @10:40AM (#11431488) Homepage Journal
    If we are supposed to be offended at the expense of throwing an event of this nature in light of the tsunami, where are the voices calling for the MPAA to cancel the Academy Awards? The inaguration costs a fraction of what is spent on the Oscars. Take all of that money and send it to Asia, and I'll be impressed.
    • First off, the MPAA does not run the Academy Awards. The Academy Awards are run by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is made up mostly of actors and writers.

      Second, call me when the Academy is able to force the city of Los Angeles to pay for the award ceremony. Since the city of DC -- not the fed. gov't or republican party -- has to pony up for this. Who do you think is more deserving? DC schools or cops, or parties for the wealthy? Justice is a timeless ideal.
      • http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/ledgerenquir e r/news/10630192.htm

        Less than 6 million will be on DCs plate after they are re-imbursed. As for deserving? The DC Council is a bunch of idiots that have driven the city into the ground and severly missmanaged their finances. And it also appears you forgot about the Commander and Chiefs ball that is free to all military when you say "parties for the wealthy".

        DC cops? Their gettin OT pay for this. The schools suck but that isn't due to lack of fundin

  • Soft bribery (Score:3, Insightful)

    by booch ( 4157 ) <slashdot2010NO@SPAMcraigbuchek.com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @12:03PM (#11432406) Homepage
    Generally such contributions that are not directly for candidate election purposes are called "soft money". (Although that generally refers to contributions to the general political party funds, so I'm not sure if this technically would count as "soft money".) Contributions directly to candidates are limited to $2000 per donor, to limit bribery, or at least the appearance of quid pro quo. So effectively, we're limiting direct bribes to $2000 per person, which doesn't get you too far in Washington these days. So instead, the big donors hold dinners and such, or donate to 527s or the political party itself, which are "soft money" contributions with no limits.

    So I was thinking about this yesterday. There's an argument that 1st Amendment free speech requires that spending on political speech not be limited. But is that what's going on here? If I give money to the Democratic Party, is that me expressing my opinion? Or is it me trying to buy influence? And if I'm free to spend my money any way I please, doesn't that mean bribery should be legal? So obviously, there must be limits to what we're allowed to spend our money on.

    Language matters. The labels we put on things effect the ways we think about those things. So let's change the language here to call a spade a spade, just like RMS suggests we call DRM "digital restrictions management". So I propose that we call these "soft money" contributions "soft bribes". Because that's what they are.

  • Can a tax accountant/attorney answer this one? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:53PM (#11434327)
    Can the corporate contributions to this event be tax-deductable? Are menial wage earners like myself paying for any of this?

    Or am I asking something I already know the answer to?
    • The contributions are tax-deductible up to 10% of their taxable income. So say if a corp make $1 million in taxable income, they can donate $100 thousand as tax deductible. Any more and they still pay taxes on the amount beyond that.

      As for you paying for it? If you don't live in DC, you are not paying for any of it directly, but might be paying part of the re-imbursement that the city spent. (~11 million re-imbursement.

      If you live in DC, the remaining 6 million that is not getting re-imbursed has prob

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close