Re:Congress should invest in open-source software
by marketingPro on Thursday October 15, 2020 @01:34PM
(#24791285)
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...
If you get caught up in details, you won't be able to understand.
Re:Congress should invest in open-source software
by Rebelgecko on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:03PM
(#24791655)
Those numbers are just what they're spending on staff doing lobbying around the country, right? Most of those don't seem too crazy. Like the AARP is spending $3 million, but how many lobbyists is that actually employing? 10?
Re:Congress should invest in open-source software
by sitkack on Thursday October 15, 2020 @01:39PM
(#24791359)
Those numbers are incredulous!
Re:Congress should invest in open-source software
by curtis3389 on Thursday October 15, 2020 @01:57PM
(#24791580)
You should ask yourself: how can a for-profit company like AT&T justify spending $16million on something with $0 ROI?
Re:Congress should invest in open-source software
by asdfadsfgfdda on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:23PM
(#24791926)
For a company that made $180 billion in revenue, $16 million is only .009%. I'm not denying that lobbying is effective, but there's clearly a limit.
There are probably thousands of individual government regulations that each could cost AT&T more than $16 million per year. If lobbying was as powerful as some think, why don't they lobby even more?
Re:Congress should invest in open-source software
by marketingPro on Thursday October 15, 2020 @09:35PM
(#24796479)
0 ROI? Are you aware of the total monopoly they have in parts of the country?
Without lobbying, competition would have destroyed profitability of telecommunications.
That's not remotely true. It is illegal to actually give any gifts to any government official (including elected officials). This extends in practical effect to "we have to charge the DoE for coffee when they're doing a site visit."
You can donate to political campaigns--just as you can in every democratic country I'm aware of. Candidates can solicit donations--just as they can in every democratic country I'm aware of. What's atypical in the US is that the party structure is incredibly weak (which means you get less relative funding from party sources, and therefore candidates have to get more funding from fundraising), and elections are so eye-wateringly expensive that you need to spend more time fundraising to be competitive.