15 ms·

Noticeably absent from Warren's target list is Comcast. IMHO, they are more anti-trust than any of the tech companies she is targeting. Comcast also happens to

Noticeably absent from Warren's target list is Comcast. IMHO, they are more anti-trust than any of the tech companies she is targeting. Comcast also happens to be the 15th biggest donor to her campaign. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00033492&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...

jessedhillon 8y ago
Wait until you see who #9 is! (It's Alphabet, parent of Google) The list you linked shows the common employers of the individual contributors to her 2018 campaign.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
That’s a great point. I hope someone asks her about that. The fact that Comcast can institute data caps on broadband while offering a similar service, on-demand video over cable, without caps is absolutely insane.
- azeotropic 8y ago
  Especially since it has a bunch of (local) government-granted monopolies. Let's eliminate those.
apcragg 8y ago
Wow. Your post is so misleading it borders on outright lying. Those $31k contributions come entirely from individuals. Comcast the company did not donate any money to her. Conflating individual contributions with Corporate contributions is massively misleading. Comcast has 164k employees. Do you honestly expect that most employees of Corporations agree with the political goals and objectives of their parent companies?
- Rooster61 8y ago
  Your argument is equally misleading. Does the fact that those contributions come from individuals somehow make them less profound? It's exceedingly important to point out who these individuals are associated with employment-wise.
  - apcragg 8y ago
    I mean, yeah it makes them less profound. Individual identity is not entirely defined by place of employment. I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support.
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      > not entirely No, not entirely, but it absolutely can and does factor into one's decisions in life, including who to contribute to politically. > I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support. The vast majority aren't the ones typically contributing to political candidates/PACS. Contributions tend to be from those with wealth, which are inherently not the majority. In this particular case, that wealth is at least in part derived from the employers these employees work for. It's also not coincidence that those higher up in a company, and thus more invested in the company doing well, are the ones getting paid more.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  If the donor's employer has no impact whatsoever, then why is the employer listed at all?
  - nagVenkat 8y ago
    It has a long history about how corporations will use employees to pay for candidates. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presidential-campaign-donations-must-submit-employer-and-occupation https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...
    - Cyph0n 8y ago
      Thanks for the link, but it was a Socratic question (or at least an attempt at one).
jmull 8y ago
> Comcast also happens to be the 15th biggest donor to her campaign. Alphabet happens to be number 9 on your list, so what's your point? The "Comcast" amount is $31K out of over $8 million, and is 100% from individuals, not Comcast itself. You're implying Warren has been bought-off in some way, but your own link clearly refutes that. Will you explain?

jessedhillon 8y ago

Wait until you see who #9 is! (It's Alphabet, parent of Google) The list you linked shows the common employers of the individual contributors to her 2018 campaign.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

That’s a great point. I hope someone asks her about that. The fact that Comcast can institute data caps on broadband while offering a similar service, on-demand video over cable, without caps is absolutely insane.

azeotropic 8y ago
Especially since it has a bunch of (local) government-granted monopolies. Let's eliminate those.

apcragg 8y ago

Wow. Your post is so misleading it borders on outright lying. Those $31k contributions come entirely from individuals. Comcast the company did not donate any money to her. Conflating individual contributions with Corporate contributions is massively misleading. Comcast has 164k employees. Do you honestly expect that most employees of Corporations agree with the political goals and objectives of their parent companies?

Rooster61 8y ago
Your argument is equally misleading. Does the fact that those contributions come from individuals somehow make them less profound? It's exceedingly important to point out who these individuals are associated with employment-wise.
- apcragg 8y ago
  I mean, yeah it makes them less profound. Individual identity is not entirely defined by place of employment. I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    > not entirely No, not entirely, but it absolutely can and does factor into one's decisions in life, including who to contribute to politically. > I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support. The vast majority aren't the ones typically contributing to political candidates/PACS. Contributions tend to be from those with wealth, which are inherently not the majority. In this particular case, that wealth is at least in part derived from the employers these employees work for. It's also not coincidence that those higher up in a company, and thus more invested in the company doing well, are the ones getting paid more.
Cyph0n 8y ago
If the donor's employer has no impact whatsoever, then why is the employer listed at all?
- nagVenkat 8y ago
  It has a long history about how corporations will use employees to pay for candidates. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presidential-campaign-donations-must-submit-employer-and-occupation https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    Thanks for the link, but it was a Socratic question (or at least an attempt at one).

jmull 8y ago

> Comcast also happens to be the 15th biggest donor to her campaign. Alphabet happens to be number 9 on your list, so what's your point? The "Comcast" amount is $31K out of over $8 million, and is 100% from individuals, not Comcast itself. You're implying Warren has been bought-off in some way, but your own link clearly refutes that. Will you explain?