Political High-Tech

Let’s take a look at how technology and politics play together. To do this, we must ask “Is technology right-wing or left-wing? Using data from two websites (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php and http://government.zdnet.com/?p=8836&tag=nl.e620) we can look at how high-tech companies have bought politicians in each political party by the amount of their campaign contributions. Of course we have to keep in mind that these contributions are made in the name of “Political Action Committees” (PAC) and “individuals” since it is illegal for corporations to contribute directly. Let’s tell it like it is.

According to ZDNET.com, the high-tech community contributed more to the Obama campaign than to McCain. That correlates to the overall campaign expenditures in that Obama spent nearly $700 million, where McCain spent around $350 million.

Some of the big, high-tech, spenders were AT&T, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Verizon, BellSouth, and MCI. During the 2007-2008 election Obama’s technology contributors were: Microsoft Corp at $833,617, Google at $803,436, and IBM at $528,822.  In the same 2007-2008 election, John McCain’s gained support from AT&T at $201,438. It is plain to see that most support from these companies went to the Democrat candidate, but it is not always that way. ZDNET states that the Republicans outweighed contributions to Democrats by a small percentage during the waning years of the Clinton presidency. Contributions to the Democrats outweighed contributions to the Republicans by a small percentage during the Bush presidency. Let’s take a look at a much broader look by averaging political contributions of a few of these companies. The following figures breakdown the total contributions between Democrat and Republican party tickets.

AT&T:    Total contributions in the last 10 years: $44,361,209.

Democrats: 45% at $19,778,890 and Republicans: 55% at $24,496,932.

Total contributions in the 2008 election: $4,514,205

Democrats: 49% at $2,222,982 and Republicans: 51% at $2,282,623

Microsoft: Total contributions in the last 10 years: $20,221,604

Democrats: 53% at $10,748,115 and Rep: 47% at $9,408,095

Total contributions in the 2008 election: $3,302,491

Democrats: 73% at $2,396,960 and Republicans: 27% at $899,981

Verizon:  Total Contributions in the last 10 years: $18,868,752

Democrats: 41% at $7,695,922 and Republicans: 59% at $11,093,373

Total contributions in 2008: $2,507,019

Democrats: 50% at $1,259,585 and Republicans: 49% at $1,234,909

BellSouth:  Total contributions in the last 10 years: $12,993,782

Democrats:  46% at $5,915,983 and Republicans: 54% at $7,063,676

MCI:  Total contributions in the last 10 years: $8,093,472

Democrats: 47% at $3,772,425 and Republicans: 53% at $4,317,826

ENRON:  TOTAL contributions in the last 10 years:  $6,546,585

Democrats: 29% at $1,902,165  and Republicans: 71% at $4,642,420

Total contributions in the 2008 election: $3,050

Democrats: 75% at $2,300 and Republicans: 25% at $750

Ok, I had to throw Enron in for laughs. However, this is what happens when political purchasing doesn’t pay off. As for the totals in the examples I used, there has been more high-tech contributions to the Republican party over the past 10 years. This is probably due to the normal Republican support of big business. However, the big shift in Microsoft is very interesting. Their contributions over the past 10 years ran almost equal; but, the 2008 election shows them shifting ¾ of their contributions to the Democratic party. Without having research it in length, I think it had to do with Obama’s foreign policy in that he was supposed to open up and improve relationships with other countries which would allow Microsoft to expand into more countries. Just a thought. What really amazes me is how big business contributions tend to shift from one party to the other throughout different elections. I’m convinced that it goes like this: The party they contributed to failed to keep promises. Next election they support the opposing party. The party they contributed to failed to keep promises. Next election they support the opposing party. Sound like a broken record? Well, it is.