Geez. I suppose it’s par for the course, but after hearing about MicroSoft withdrawing its support for the Washington state gay rights bill, I wasn’t prepared to hear that MicroSoft is a big DeLay contributor.
The 19-year-old charity, the DeLay Foundation for Kids, has consistently declined to identify its donors, citing their desire for privacy. But a review of corporate and charitable records shows that recent donors have included AT&T, the Corrections Corporation of America, Exxon Mobil, Limited Brands and the Southern Company, as well as Bill and Melinda Gates, the Microsoft founder and his wife, and Michael Dell of Dell computers.
The Gates and Dell family foundations have donated at least $350,000 to Mr. DeLay’s charity since 2001.
I’m not surprised about Dell, as I’d heard that Mike Dell himself is a big Republican donor. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t go with Dell when I bought my last PC. (If Apple is a big Republican donor too, I’m not sure I want to know about it.) I guess I shouldn’t be surprised about MicroSoft either. After all, it’s common practice for corporations to up contributions to the party that happens to be in power.
So, is it wrong to hold something like that against a company?
If MS wants the government to use PC’s instead of MAC’s then it needs to suck up. There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s a business decision and nothing more. If the Dem.’s were in power I have no doubt MS (Gates foundation) would be supporting them.
After all, if you want the government to use your product and the competition is faster, less likely to crash and more secure from hacking. And it clearly is. Well that calls for a lot of sucking up.
Bill Gates isn’t the richest man in the world for no reason.
Not surprising. DeLay and Eleanor Holmes Norton, I believe have teamed up on this non-partisan issue. Perhaps some contribute to it to get more access to the majority leader, but all-in-all, it does show a willingness by corporations to give to this good cause. Don’t draw the wrong conclusions from it.
Um… Terrance hon… we’re talking about a *charity* here, not a political fundraiser. Even things we don’t agree with might do good works–Catholic Charities comes to mind. Breathe, okay
I may hate the products, but MS is a pretty good corporate citizen. Bill & Melinda Gates have given a lot of money to good causes (inluding HIV stuff). When I interviewed at their Redmond campus, I was prepared to hate it, but I had to admit: it seemed like one of the best corporate environments I’d ever seen, in terms of the openness of the people, the general IQ, and the freedom people had.
So, when I read the story on MS and the WA gay rights law, it left me really wanting the whole story. The thing from the Stranger is full of unnamed sources and he-said she-said. I’m not saying nothing is amiss but I would really like to see some better reporting on it before drawing conclusions.
As for the Delay thing, it is a charity. While I don’t doubt that giving money to it gets brownie points with DeLay, it is a bit different than, say, donating to his legal defense fund as Verizon has.
Maybe it’s just me, but just sounds like MicroSoft decided to lean the way they think the wind is blowing this time. Were I a gay employee of theirs in Washington state, I’d be royally pissed.
Oh well, MicroSoft is big enough and has enough money that I’m sure nothing anyone can do will hurt them anyway.
Not to take anything away from this charity or the charitable natures (*ahem*) of the world’s largest corporations but you can’t draw any conclusions about what social causes corporations support (if any) by which political leaders or candidates (and their causes) that they support.
The reality of American politics, the legislative process, and how business is done in the United States requires corporations to obtain as much support for their positions as possible in order to get the votes they need in the Congress to pass legislation favorable to their business. Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, Communist or whatever is irrelevant as long as the person votes for their legislation. Any analysis of the political contributions related to corporations always reveals that they “support” every party.
Note that “obtaining support” is translated as “giving money” and it’s also important to remember that corporations are legally obligated to have as their overriding concern to turn a profit. (See 1919 Michigan State Supreme Court case Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company decision, which stated, “A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stakeholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end.”)
I have a political science professor who is fond of saying that in most countries when people give money to political leaders they are thrown in jail for bribery and corruption. In the United States when people give money to political candidates they are called “Respected Campaign Donors”.