Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Big Tech Opponent Bernie Sanders Raises More Money From Big Tech Employees Than Anyone Else (vox.com) 265

Despite his criticisms of companies like Amazon, Bernie Sanders is raising more money from Big Tech than any other 2020 presidential candidate. From a report: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter employees funnelled almost $270,000 into the Sanders campaign during the last three months of 2019, according to new fundraising disclosures filed this weekend. Almost half of that money came from employees of Google, according to an analysis for Recode by GovPredict. Looking at contributions from workers at five large companies doesn't tell the complete story of Silicon Valley's financial support. But it offers one concrete way to stack-rank how the "tech industry" -- so nebulously defined -- is splitting when it comes to political support.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Tech Opponent Bernie Sanders Raises More Money From Big Tech Employees Than Anyone Else

Comments Filter:
  • Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @09:03AM (#59701116)
    Big Tech employees aren't happy with the "tech grind" and want someone to put their employers in their places. 50+ hour weeks and "unlimited" (read: no) vacay time get old really quickly. Also, tech employees tend to run smart, so they believe in science, not dogma, as far as things like global warming, criminal justice, education, and healthcare.
    • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by scourfish ( 573542 ) <scourfish@yahoCOWo.com minus herbivore> on Friday February 07, 2020 @09:11AM (#59701138)
      Working for a Tech company doesn't put you on a pedestal that makes you smarter than others.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TigerPlish ( 174064 )

      so they believe in science, not dogma, as far as things like global warming, criminal justice, education, and healthcare.

      And some of us think the climate numbers are being messed with to push an agenda, the educational system is rigged to produce a never-ending stream of Junior Marxists, and that the criminal system is being weakened to the point of not existing anymore. We also think immigration and felon-voting is being used to pad the rolls of the Left.

      If you're working 50+ hrs and no vacay, get a better job. I did. Cut commute in half, work 40 hours (plus on-call once every 5 weeks) and no one calls me outside of on-ca

      • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @09:41AM (#59701252)

        And some of us think the climate numbers are being messed with to push an agenda, the educational system is rigged to produce a never-ending stream of Junior Marxists, and that the criminal system is being weakened to the point of not existing anymore. We also think immigration and felon-voting is being used to pad the rolls of the Left.

        Do you also believe the earth is flat, and the moon landing is faked? Stop believing stupid shit.

        • Do you also believe the earth is flat, and the moon landing is faked? Stop believing stupid shit.

          Why, because *you* tell me to? You're the arbriter?

          Stop eating what they spoon-feed you.

          Moon landing was real. The reason we went there wasn't all that altruistic, though. I bet you thought JFK was all about space exploration, right? The real reason was to advance the heavy lifters for ICBMs. Lob a capsule into space, lob a warhead across the world. Same diff.

          JFK was a lying shit, just like all of them. If that's the party you remember, it died at the hands of Clinton.

          • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @10:36AM (#59701494)

            Moon landing was real. The reason we went there wasn't all that altruistic, though. I bet you thought JFK was all about space exploration, right? The real reason was to advance the heavy lifters for ICBMs. Lob a capsule into space, lob a warhead across the world. Same diff.

            I imagine this decision had a pro/con list a mile long, and I'm positive you are partially correct but entirely cynical. The pro list probably looked like business, education, rivalry and war, in alphabetical order. Each of those had a number of significant sub-bullets which contained a mixture of pragmatism and optimism.

            If we just wanted to lob ICBMs however, we did not need to go to the moon to do it. That's a rather significant detour. Further, landing a ship on the moon, with humans in it, letting them wander around a bit, and then returning them safely home is not at all relevant to lighting off a nuclear warhead somewhere in the Soviet Union. It's an extremely expensive burden to add to the project, to the point that it might have kept it from getting off the ground, pardon the pun. There were no doubt a long list of reasons they did this too, beyond simple exploration.

            JFK was a lying shit, just like all of them. If that's the party you remember, it died at the hands of Clinton.

            I don't care about parties, they're all paid for by people who don't share my interests and driven to goals that aren't necessarily mine. But yes, JFK was a politician and said what needed to be said to sell the agenda he felt needed selling. In hindsight however, voting for him right now would be the simplest choice ever.

          • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Informative)

            by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @10:52AM (#59701548) Homepage Journal
            If you want to see how serious the Left is about really opening the gates to illegal immigration (this pretty much does away with any illegal part of it), then take a look at the New Way Forward Act [congress.gov]...that is in the House.

            Its amazing what this appears to do to basically open our borders to anyone that wants to just walk come on over unregulated and makes it nigh impossible to get rid of them, even if they commit crimes.

            Where the hell did common sense and traditional US values go?

            • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Informative)

              by jbengt ( 874751 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @02:35PM (#59702432)

              If you want to see how serious the Left is about really opening the gates to illegal immigration (this pretty much does away with any illegal part of it), then take a look at the New Way Forward Act

              OK, I read most of that bill, and it doesn't do what you're claiming it does. What it does do is ban for-profit detention centers and put the burden on the government to determine within 48 hours why someone should be detained. But it seems they still would remain in custody another 3 days awaiting a hearing, and then the court could detain them, set bail, or let them out on their own recognizance or with other conditions. So in the unlikely event this becomes law, I suggest you invest in ankle bracelet manufacturing and monitoring companies.
              In the meantime, before, during, or after the detention, the alien could be deported in accordance with the laws.

      • Climate (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @10:53AM (#59701558)

        Isn't all the climate data published? Can't you do the verifications yourself?

      • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @11:33AM (#59701746)
        But who tells you the numbers are being padded? Are you as skeptical about their claims? You have the studies and papers being that skepticism? Or are you parroting what you’ve heard because it “sounds” like the truth because you’d rather believe it.
    • they want unions!

    • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @09:21AM (#59701186) Homepage

      Also, tech employees tend to run smart, so they believe in science, not dogma, as far as things like global warming, criminal justice, education, and healthcare.

      Is this the same crowd that had a collective meltdown over Damour's factually accurate memo?

      I'm just going to start laughing now.

    • If they were so smart, why didn't they choose another industry? You don't have to work for a tech company to do tech work. I personally work for the health care sector. They pay well no matter where you live; no need to stay in places where sidewalks are littered with shit and hypodermic needles, and rent high enough to eat up all of that high salary.

    • I believe the translation is "slow news day" and superficial analysis. Bernie raised $34.5m in the time frame so we're talking about less than 1% of total. If anything is remotely interesting from the stats, it's that Yang who raised $16.5m in the period had $237k from tech employees, so about 1.5% and seemingly over represented compared to the others proportionally. But we're still talking very small numbers so I don't know if they actually mean anything. (source campaign funds raised q4 https://www.theepo [theepochtimes.com]

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      The leaders of big tech companies are also smart and they realize that their companies, and everyone else, would be better off if certain things were changed. Business sucks because a) everyone thinks they know what the game is and how it's best played and b) everyone is scared not to play by those rules because if they guess wrong they'll be pariahs. So the enlightened want regulations to make everyone play by saner rules, all at the same time.

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      What they fail to understand is if their employers are squeezed, they will be squeezed. Shit flows downhill. Yeah you're going to be so happy when Jeff Bezos makes a few billion less a year, decides to lay you off and replace you with a robot, and no one else is hiring because of the same problem... you take THAT you fucking billionaire! Brother can you spare a dime?
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      I believe there's something else going on here.

      Modern, investor-darling tech ventures embrace the value of creative destruction and radical transformation. They Holy Grail is "disruption" -- breaking the rice bowl of an existing, complacent industry, like hotel rooms or taxi rides. These enterprises also engage in transformation for its own sake, creating products that people neither want nor use, but can be persuaded to use and become dependent upon.

      Even if this sounds repugnant to your personal values,

  • Tech Employees are like other workers. They like Sanders. The executives and the actual boards might be contributing far more to other candidates. The big donors are a lot more opaque because they contribute to super-pacs and pressure groups which are not explicitly aligned with any particular candidate. This is not Big Tech is in favor of Bernie. This is workers favour Bernie, management not so much.
  • by LatencyKills ( 1213908 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @09:29AM (#59701210)
    There are some group of people among us who are perhaps not voting in specifically their own best interests while screwing over their fellow man, but are instead trying to improve society as a whole as some reasonable cost to themselves.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )

      but are instead trying to improve society as a whole as some reasonable cost to themselves.

      That's what they believe they might be doing, but the Marxist policies that Sanders pushes (which even contrast quite heavily with the historical policies that Democrats have espoused) would do the exact opposite. There's the famous quote from Sanders that's been posted endlessly where he praises Venezuelan socialism. At the time it may have appeared to be a reasonable thing to say, but it's aged poorly and their country is in shambles. But as long as people can keep telling themselves "But that wasn't real

      • Not specifically a student of Venezuelan society or anything, but my perception is their problems came not so much from socialism, but a combination of corrupt-as-fuck(TM) people at the top and an economy based upon a single product (oil).
        • I won't deny that corruption played an issue, but you see that in all kinds of the so-called socialist countries where the party elite enrich themselves at the expenses of the average citizen. But that's hardly unique to socialism so it isn't fair to pin those problems on Marxist government policy.

          However, the notion that Venezuela's problems are largely a result of somehow having an economy based on oil production don't stand up to closer scrutiny. If you look at the data [worldbank.org], even in 2014 Venezuela's oil e
          • by LatencyKills ( 1213908 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @01:09PM (#59702086)
            I followed your links, and honestly found the information interesting, but I think it still boils down to corruption/oil. If I put buddies in charge of things, and they're bad at it, that's corruption, and I'm not sure it's limited to socialist economies. Trump put some big donor in has head of, I think it was the EPA, and didn't he go out and buy a $40k conference table? Not that I'm knocking Trump specifically for corruption - Obama put buddies in cushy jobs as well. Perhaps had oil been a little more stable, or Venezuela a little less corrupt, it might have all worked out. You seem to attribute corruption as if it is a solely socialist concept.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Fine, we don't want socialism, marxism or any of the things that you think are scary words. We just want what all the other first world countries have figured out how to do.

    • by Minupla ( 62455 ) <minupla@gmail.PASCALcom minus language> on Friday February 07, 2020 @11:06AM (#59701600) Homepage Journal

      Hey, I'm not American, but I happily pay more then 50% marginal tax because it means I get to live in a society where I'll never be robbed because someone can't pay their medical bills. No mater what sort of bad luck my kid has, she will NEVER go bankrupt because she gets sick and needs medical care. These things impact the overall tone of the society you live in, and drives second-order effects that are not immediately obvious. I vote accordingly, not necessarily in my narrow "does it help my bank balance" interests but in the broader "does it make my life better" interests.

      "No, young feller. I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Justice Holmes

      Min

      • by g01d4 ( 888748 )

        I'm not American... I'll never be robbed because someone can't pay their medical bills.

        If you think this motive for robbery is anything more than infinitesimal you clearly don't live in America. While medical bankruptcies are an issue, socialized medicine has its issues as well. Also keep in mind the issues for any medical system ramp with population and, pace Justice Holmes, the cost of civilization varies with demographics - i.e. it's cheaper where there's cultural homogeneity.

  • The musical chairs strategy to socialism is that you can "win" if you purchase a chair (keys to the power) early enough. In a modern regime, there's a big symbiotic relationship between Socialist leaders and those that control the data on the masses. Both sides hold the keys to getting and maintaining power.
  • except "Billionaire" (Joe Biden's still got that distinction but Pete Buttigieg is close behind).

    It's pretty clear everybody else is in the tank for the Establishment. Even Warren doesn't want to rock the boat much (to be fair I think it's mostly out of fear, she doesn't think she can get a progressive agenda through, she just wants to stop Wall Street from crashing the economy).

    If I already know a candidate is awash in corporate cash why donate even if I support them? Let the rich folk give them mo
  • Sanders is out-raising the pack, so I would expect that he out-raises everyone else, including those that work for Big Tech.

  • disruption fetish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @10:01AM (#59701348)
    Intelligent people fall into this trap - since I'm smart and really successful at one thing, I must be an expert at many others as well. In this case, it's all about applying "disruption" to wildly different things and expecting the same results.

    For all the wonders of the tech world, the stakes are surprisingly low in many internet areas. Disruption is easy when all you're really doing is replacing an older social website (myspace) with a shinier new one (facebook). It seems like a big thing, but 50 years from now Facebook will barely be a footnote in history. The consequences of failure in such an area are very, very low. Oh, darn, my attempt at programming an app to go viral failed. *shrugs shoulders* oh well time to move on to the next idea. If Tesla fails entirely, the world continues to spin and, eventually, someone else will make electric cars.

    So, techies look at government and think that it needs to be disrupted. Haha, yeah. Study a bit of history, tech bros. Disruption of a major government usually means that people starve or a civil war that kills large numbers. It can last for decades and take many more decades to recover from. And the outcome is NOT guaranteed to be any better than the old system that was disrupted.

    I'm not saying that government should stay static. Just that major disruption can have much more serious consequences. Think *very* carefully and move with caution.
  • by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @10:17AM (#59701392)
    I think the reality is probably that a lot of the people working in "Big Tech" tend to be more liberal. I know that most of my working life in IT (and before that, software development), I've been surrounded mostly by people on varying ends of the liberal spectrum. I think this is probably compounded by the fact that people working in "Big Tech" make decent money and therefore are more able to donate than people working elsewhere.

    As far as Sanders goes, I'm in a weird position. I lean libertarian on many issues, and as far as that's concerned, Sanders is pretty distant from where I'm at. But I also think he's uniquely genuine and actually cares about the things he talks about. I remember watching him in the earlier days of YouTube (2010ish?) raising hell in the Senate, likely well before he had any Presidential aspirations. He's also passionate about the right things -- things that actually matter to people like healthcare, jobs, student loans, etc. I tend to disagree with his approach (I worry that it may do more harm than good, especially considering how much deficit spending Trump has already done), but I at least like that he's talking about the right things. I'm also not entirely certain in my own beliefs on everything; maybe he can do the things he's talking about, maybe I'm wrong. It's a very attractive message and I can see why it resonates so well with a lot of people I'd definitely be interested in seeing him come out on top, as the second most likely choice (Biden) ranks near the bottom of people I'd want to see win.
    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @10:27AM (#59701466)

      As far as Sanders goes, I'm in a weird position. I lean libertarian on many issues, and as far as that's concerned, Sanders is pretty distant from where I'm at. But I also think he's uniquely genuine and actually cares about the things he talks about.

      My opinion on why Sanders is a good option: first, as you point out, I think the platforms he runs on are things he actually cares about. He's not just saying things to court voters (like every other politician does). Second, a lot of his policies are out there, but they are far enough out there that he wouldn't be able to push a lot of the crazy ones through Congress. Congress would (or should, at least with historical versions of Congress; who knows these days) dampen down the crazy a little bit.

  • by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @11:29AM (#59701738)
    I work in a liberal big tech bubble. Why are we liberal? Most of us are well educated and can consider the world beyond our paycheck. Most of us believe in science. Most modern conservative dogma is pure religion and has been objectively disproven. We know the laffer curve has been disproven. We've seen the effects of tax cuts....they made the rich richer and our local communities and services broke. Many of us are sick of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican party in the last 20 years.

    If the Republicans were capable of balancing the budget, I would consider them, but they simply haven't delivered results...just dogma, empty promises and recently, overt racism.

    Ignoring Trumpism's ties to white supremacy and the Kremlin, the RNC hasn't delivered financially. All they've done is cut taxes and underfund the government. If they balanced the budget, I could overlook the social issues, but their deficit spending is far worse than any liberal.

    The economy is an ecosystem. My prosperity is dependent on people buying my company's services, not me being awesome. If the people who buy our stuff prosper, we prosper, if they suffer, our sales decline. Republican voters seem to only think of themselves and not their community. Your stupid tax cuts have huge impacts on those around you and funding government agencies. They make the rich richer and leave everyone else poorer and the government having to find ways to pay the bills creatively. Republican voters are individualists and Democratic voters are collectivists. If my company's stock rises 20%, but everyone around me suffers, this will bite me in the end...in the form of declining sales and maybe my company going out of business.

    It is in my rational self interest to see my entire country prosper, particularly our customers...not the wealthy. We've had 2 decades of severely worsening income inequality. We've seen what happens and I'm not impressed. I have more faith in Bernie or whomever the DNC nominee is will bring more prosperity than Trump or Bush has.
    • by The Snazster ( 5236943 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @11:52AM (#59701814)
      Flipping from one extreme to the other is no better than pouring boiling water on frostbite.

      If I could see a hell of a lot less extremism in either party, they would have me.

      Gerrymandering (which actually punishes politicians that compromise), and a complete disinterest in cleaning up campaign funding, pretty much ensure that's not about to happen.

      Right now we have over 70% of campaign funds coming from around 80,000 households (out of 129 million). There just happen to be about 83,000 households with 50 million or more in wealth. That's not coincidence. So politicians of either side cater to them and their interests are not those of the single-digit millionaires, or even the folks living check to check.

      Why do they need all that money? To buy professional assistance in manipulating the media so they can get the votes of the masses.

      Ever wonder why so many people call an estate tax, or an inheritance tax, a "death tax" even though only one-percenters will ever need to be concerned about them?
  • by skaralic ( 676433 ) on Friday February 07, 2020 @12:51PM (#59702022)
    Tech workers are a young demographics and, like all young people, are more likely to believe in top-down Socialist fantasies...

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Working...