[IvyMike]

It's always interesting me to take the passion and fury of online discussions about politics and freedom and to reconcile that with the comparatively paltry amount of money donated to political organizations by people in silicon valley.

I think there's this feeling in Silicon Valley that "I'm changing the world through code" or "I believe the best ideas should win". And I wish that were the case. But in the meanwhile the Koch Brothers and hollywood quietly funnel bajillions of dollars into superpacs and get all the politicians in their pockets.

(I saw Lessig give this excellent talk at SCALE, and my take away from his talk is that we should remove the need for politicians to whore themselves out for money. And I strongly agree. But I guess I'm saying that in the meanwhile, if that's how the game is played, we need to put more skin in the game.)

[rayiner]

The refrain that politics is all about money is both destructive and counterproductive. If it were, that would be great, because Silicon Valley is rich. I don't know if you read the news, but Facebook is worth more than Halliburton and News Corp put together and Apple could buy both with cash on hand.

Lobbying is a big part of politics, but at the end of the day, the biggest aspect of lobbying is showing how proposals that benefit an industry: 1) fit in with politicians' ideological preconceptions; 2) create jobs. Silicon Valley punches beneath its weight in lobbying because its ideology doesn't fit neatly into either the left or the right, and because it employes relatively few people.

[protomyth]

"meanwhile the Koch Brothers and hollywood quietly funnel bajillions of dollars into superpacs and get all the politicians in their pockets."

Here's the problem. You probably think the Koch Brothers is one of the biggest spenders. The joke of it is that they aren't. Their PAC network isn't in the top 10, but they are good targets for certain networks (in the same way Soros is for other networks). Heck, some of the stuff Koch is for horrify Republicans.

Hollywood, as a whole, is much more effective with money, but money is not their only weapon. The glamour of Hollywood and mingling with celebrities has always attracted politicians. Look at the celebrities testifying in front of Congressional Committees. Does anyone honestly believe they are the most qualified to testify? No, but the can surely attract the attention of politicians so it makes up for the lack of expertise and is one hell of a money equalizer.

The media is not a neutral observer and their pointing to "enemies" is a distraction for themselves and their friends. Go find the actual contributions and PAC spending to see what is real. Big Tech needs to deal with reality and the actual system.

[asnyder]

Really odd, it's my firm opinion that the media is not only not a neutral observer, they're actually very damaging, but not in the way you suggest. It's my perspective that the media no longer points out outright lies and other silliness as demonstrated by the talking heads and punditry that's presented as fact and news, when the reporters know very well that their guests are liars, avoiding the issue, or misleading the facts.

Though for some reason most of conservative "friends" will tout similar talking points, when in truth the real issues are blatant untruths and misrepresentations being presented to the people. Only in America can we have a negative, lame-duck narrative of a newly re-elected presented who's had consistent job growth for 47 months, lowered the deficit the most aggressively out of any President over the past 20+ years, an obvious economic recovery as defined by numerous measures, and I could go on and on, but yet, somehow the media narrative continue to present Republicans as stewards of the economy, despite facts to the otherwise over the past 13 years, not to mention an unnecessary and financially damaging shutdown, along with whatever talking point they wish to present on any given day.

The facts of the matter is that the media loves sensational soundbites and talking points, over actual facts regardless. Which for whatever reason Democrats have been absolutely terrible at combating and presenting the actual situation. Furthermore, the cable news/social media driven 24hr self-selected news cycle doesn't help things.

Heaven help us.

[protomyth]

“lowered the deficit the most aggressively out of any President over the past 20+ years”

Clinton and a GOP Congress would have that title. This President is openning a large gap http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

"who's had consistent job growth for 47 months"

If you go over to the http://data.bls.gov U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics you will see that is nothing special as far as Presidents go (President Bush had 46 months even with 9/11). What should be troubling is the unemployeement rate (same website) taking into account workers who have given up. This is troubling. Also, the part vesus full time employeement figures are not happy ones.

"Which for whatever reason Democrats have been absolutely terrible at combating and presenting the actual situation."

Given the slant of the NYT, MSNBC, and CNN, I have a hard time believing Democrats cannot get their talking points out. In fact, CNN losing market share with their turn to more punditry probably doesn’t help your points either. Of course their sensationalist reporting during the shutdown (They should be happy they weren’t around for Speaker Tip O’Neill’s 12 shutdowns) given the history of the shutdown http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/08/6432513-this-w... was pretty pathetic.

// late because responding to this took more time than a I had at a rest stop

[cbsmith]

The deal with the Koch Brothers is that, for example, they are (or at least were) to a large degree bankrolling Tea Party in a huge way, but most Tea Party supporters saw the movement as a purely grass roots org. The other thing is that the specific agenda they are advocating seems like it'd cause quite a massive transformation on the country, yet that change doesn't seem to have a lot of currency with the general public.

[protomyth]

Well, Occupy had quite a lot of money coming into it from different groups, and I would imagine the participants think the same of themselves.

The money coming into the Tea Party (or Occupy) didn't get people out to protest or spend all day at events. The general public is never political as a whole and the Tea Party did a pretty good job during the elections. It will be interesting to see if the establishment triumphs or the grass roots push back hard in 2014. I would imagine the 2012 RNC will probably be remembered.