October 23, 1998

Dear Business Week:

In your one-page article, "It's Revenge of the Nerds on Capital Hill," (Business Week, November 2, 1998, pg. 45) the first paragraph reads, "While most of Corporate America waded through the legislative swamp of the 105th Congress and emerged empty-handed, Silicon Valley staggered under its bundle of victories. In the closing days of the session, tech won more visas for skilled foreign workers, a ban on new Internet taxes, and curbs on the class actions that have been the bane of many startups."

You go on, "But Silicon Valley has other attractions for politicians-such as thousands of millionaires and a sprinkling of billionaires who can shower megabucks in campaign cash."

Are you suggesting that politicians and therefore their vote on certain issues and policies can be bought?

More from your article, "During the 18-month period that ended on June 30, the CRP estimates, the industry ponied up $5 million in donations to candidates and the two parties." "Already, tech companies are among the top 50 donors of unrestricted cash to the parties. As of June 30, Microsoft Corp. was No. 44 on the GOP's soft-money list, at $264,316. It gave Democrats just $95,000. The Dems have bragging rights to Oracle Corp., their No. 25 thanks to donations of $220,463, vs. $20,000 to Republicans."

If you are suggesting that politicians can be bought, I suggest the politicians rethink the amounts of the donations. It's bad enough that votes can be bought, but to be bought for such small amounts makes the politicians not only look unethical, but cheap and stupid to boot.

In the same issue of Business Week, you state that Microsoft has $18 billion in cash alone. I'm sure the GOP could get more for their votes than $264,316 and that the Democrats could get more than $95,000 with just a little horse-trading.

At the very least the politicians should start reading Business Week so they can learn a little bit about the cash flows of American corporations and executives.

Sincerely,