Marco Rubio pushes to allow Telecom to keep bending over consumers

[calfoxwc]

oh, he did, but he continually bashed Cruz again and again, didn't bash higgardly again and again.

I posted that thinking of all the mentions of Cruz and Rubio.

 

and, btw,

 

obama got money from Time Warner too. He didn't mention obama at all.

 

University of California $1,350,139

Microsoft Corp $815,645

Google Inc $804,249

US Government $736,722

Harvard University $680,918

US Dept of State $638,237

Kaiser Permanente $592,761

Stanford University $532,246

Columbia University $478,123

Deloitte LLP $458,275

Time Warner $447,521

DLA Piper $415,390

US Dept of Justice $402,280

Sidley Austin LLP $400,671

US Dept of Health & Human Services $391,978

IBM Corp $370,491 Walt Disney Co $369,598

New York University $357,822

University of Chicago $354,282

University of Michigan $351,118

[calfoxwc]

so, obama is guilty of supporting big cable, that commie big cable supporting bastidge.

[bbedward]

so, obama is guilty of supporting big cable, that commie big cable supporting bastidge.

 

Fuck everybody that supports big cable/telecom and is loyal to their money - including Obama.

 

It's just one issue, but I'd really like to see something done about it (as an IT/Software professional who is sad Cleveland and other cities are sitting on top of a bunch of untapped infrastructure potential that's already in place and doing nothing with it)

[LogicIsForSquares]

They all get money from the same folks. Big companies have enough money to spread it around to make sure they have all the candidates covered. It is smart by the companies but really isn't conducive to having politicians willing to make the smart choice even if it goes against their handlers. Goldman Sachs bet the house on Bush and Obama so political allegiances mean jack squat to them.

[bbedward]

They all get money from the same folks. Big companies have enough money to spread it around to make sure they have all the candidates covered. It is smart by the companies but really isn't conducive to having politicians willing to make the smart choice even if it goes against their handlers. Goldman Sachs bet the house on Bush and Obama so political allegiances mean jack squat to them.

 

It's smart and good for the companies, but not good for the people. I really hope whoever is elected pushes for some campaign finance reform - seems like Trump/Sanders would be the guys most likely to get something done in that regard.

 

Even if we did lower the individual campaign contribution limit (around ~$2500 now) and ban super PACs. There's still the issue of kickbacks. Like "Hey Rubio, be our bitch for 6 years then when you're done we'll offer you $1M/year salary to be an 'advisor' *wink*" (like Jeb Bush got from Lehman)

 

I'd like to see something done, regardless.