Re: Microsoft Increased Lobbying in '98

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Case Roole on 12/28/98 6:02 PM ---

>I'd say that being a monopoly isn't relevant in this matter of campaign
>contributions. What really matters is that Microsoft might have made a
>settlement with the South Carolina Republican party consisting of paying
>them money for dropping the lawsuit against Microsoft.

The Washingtonians might have something to add to this, but what I think 
many people outside of this country find so perplexing about American 
politics is that the quid pro quos are rarely this blatant or obvious. 
For one thing, the political parties tend to be quite weak at the local, 
and often even at the state levels of government. 

It's difficult to imagine that the South Carolina AG's phone rang one day 
and a voice at the other end told him to drop the case because Microsoft 
made a contribution to the party. But you can expect that this office was 
lobbied and pressured by a variety of business groups, all of whom use 
the power of the contribution to obtain direct access to public 
officials. It may be an insidious system in its own way, but it rarely 
qualifies as bribery.

>When explaining why South Carolina dropped the case, Mr. Condon chose not
>to refer to the case as filed, but rather to rehash Microsoft's press 
>releases on the AOL/Netscape merger. This should make the matter suspect.

I suspect a lack of backbone. This will change when these same business 
interest begin to use their access to public officials to demand that 
something be done about Microsoft.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net