Strauss Zelnick, chairman of Take-Two Interactive and John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts, might not be able to get together on a merger, but they seem to agree on at least one thing: Barack Obama.
Both game biz execs have contributed to Obama's presidential campaign.
In fact, in research conducted by GamePolitics of publicly available records, A-list video game industry types seem to be leaning in the Democratic direction. Of 16 donors we found, only three had given to Republican candidates. Meanwhile, 13 had donated to Democrats (although only 9 of these gave to Obama).
While our survey can't in any way be considered scientific, we looked at several dozen other prominent industry figures, but did not find any presidential campaign contributions that met our guidelines. The ground rules in use dictated that we would only consider 2007-2008 presidential contributions. In some cases, however, donors gave substantial amounts to congressional races or non-candidate-specific political action committees. Those aren't listed here.
Among the biggest names we found were Rockstar's Sam Houser (Obama), Spore designer Will Wright (McCain) and Ultima designer (and space traveler) Richard Garriott (Hillary Clinton). Here's the list:
Republican contributors:
Democratic contributors:
GP: We will update the list as additional donors are located.
UPDATE: Adding links for each donor. Just click on the name for details. Also, removed a couple of mistaken entries on the Democratic side. Specifically, we had initially listed a John Carmack, but further review indicated that it was not the game desgner.
Comments
Lord British donated towards Hilary Clinton. Like we needed yet more proof he's insane!
The best thing Lucas has done with his money for awhile now X.x
I'd like to know what the deal with that pile of Harmonix cash is O.o
Also, I'm disappointed in Will Wright =(
Will Wright has also donated at least $78,000 to the Republican National Committee this cycle (I haven't looked into the details, but my guess is that there are higher limits or no limits on these types of donations; presidential candidates are limited to maximum $2,300 from an individual for primary and general elections each). He's dropping major cash on this.
(Here's the site I'm getting this from: http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=wright&...)
Because all the "good" people are going to vote for Obama, amirite?
Not until Obama (or any other candidate for that matter) apologizes for their game bashing. McCain's been making dirty deals with Romney & Liberman (bad idea), but Obama joined in with the "turn off the video games" routine.
Until I hear a candidate announce, publicly, "Video games are protected by the Constitution and are a healthy addition to American Lifestyle!", I'm writing in my vote, probably a protest.
Seriously? The U.S. is fighting two wars, banks are failing, the national debt is soaring, we face a staggering energy crisis, and THIS is the only issue that matters to you?
Of course not, but I'm not happy with either of the two on those fronts either. There are still other candidates, independent, but they are out there. The last time I voted for someone just cause they were easy wins, the result was disasterous.
Obama hasn't quite said that, but he has discussed video games in a smart, mature, non-vote-grabbing way. Here, take a look: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/obama-talks-grand-theft-auto-at-campaign-stop/
I really don't give a fuck about videogames this election. I do give a damn about broader technology policy, healtcare, foreign policy, and economic issues.
What's this got to do with anything?
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
See the title of the website up at the top of the page there?
Quit being a wanker, this clearly has something to do with games and politics.
I know this has to do with games and politics, but our economy is in the gutter.
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
I don't vote based on the preferences of game industry leaders (or on gaming-issue anything), but it's interesting to see the trends. I'm not very good at analyzing them; you could say that it just follows the trend of the populace at large, since game companies are overwhelmingly located in urban, densely populated regions that already favor Obama, but then this isn't a random sample, either, but a collection of highly-paid professionals and executives.
I guess more revealing might be a comparison between these game types and similar leaders in other industries.
If you don't care about game politics due to our economic climate then why the fuck are you even here?
Historically, people in creative and art fields show a very distinct tendency to support Democratics more than Republicans. The Emmys were littered with "I won, now vote for Obama!" acceptance speeches.
Personally, I think that's more to do with Obama being the 'trendy' option rather than anything to do with his politics.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Well no, i think i recall that in the past that actors and so forth have mostly come out to support the democrats much more often than the republicans... artists, actors, singers and what-not tend to be liberal much more often than conservative.
I think that Obama is great person and hopefully he will change our World. Mike from buy error smart and panic away guide.
Can I throw out a colossal "durr" here? The business leaders have been giving to Obama. The Wall Streeters have been giving to Obama. Fannie and Freddie have been giving to Obama. The rich tend to be leftists, and the games industry leans left already.
"The rich tend to be leftists"? Hold on a second.
The Hollywood rich, sure, they lean left. But that's one small part of the whole. Most rich people lean right because the right favors them more; conservatism favors deregulation and free-market economics, which let them make money more freely.
It's a fact, for example, that McCain wants to give the rich significant tax breaks (even more significant than the tax breaks Bush already gave them), while Obama wants to lower taxes for everyone but the rich. (Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm)
As for Fannie and Freddie, McCain's campaign has 26 past and present Fannie and Freddie lobbyists on board, and why his chief campaign manager Rick Davis still makes money from his Fannie Mae ties to this day (as Fannie pays his company thousands a month to basically do nothing).(Source: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx)
Wall Street bankers and CEO's have been giving money to Obama. Most of the campaign money from the oil companies goes to the DNC and Obama. As for Fannie and Freddie? Obama has the second highest total of campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. He's just behind Chris Dodd.
The rich tend towards social leftism. You noticed how happy Wall Street was that the Govm't was going to save their ass? The Republicans, being, at least nominally, free marketeers, believe that businesses should be allowed to die. Or have you somehow missed the media blaming Republicans for killing that first bailout bill?
It was Republicans who tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. McCain warned that both would be heading for a crash what, 3 years ago?
What the rich want is freedom to make money any way they can -- until that freedom lets them make mistakes, at which point they turn around and ask the government to bail them out. Then, as soon as they're out of danger, they turn around again and lobby for more deregulation.
McCain warned about Fannie and Freddie one time, but his actual policy -- even as recently as the Republican National Convention -- has been all about deregulation; he even called himself a "fundamental deregulator." Hear it from the man himself, and from many of his supporters, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPJr7YWmQ
Obama is already dead. If he makes president, I guarantee he won't live a week before someone takes him out.
Good thing Hilary isn't his VP or anywhere close to the White House, he probably certainly wouldn't last a week then. Well, maybe a week, perhaps two since they wouldn't want to make it so blatant.
You're full of shit.
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
Actually, he isn;t.
As grim as a notion it is, any president who did any sort of major good for the country has been assassinated.
Obama will have double the danger since his making presidency will piss off white supremicists as well as, well, many other groups.
I remember JFK got crap because he was catholic and not christian
Uhmm, Catholics are Christians. I think you meant "not Protestant".
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
Let me put it this way:
With everyone casting stones at us, Obama's been chucking in a pebble every now and then. He may not be as vicious, but he's still not on our side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p8tLtiTW-M
Please spread the dear leaders words we must begin to reeducate all children to believe in our savior Obama and when the time comes and Reverand Wright swears him in the time for the purge of unbelievers will begin!
Gamers are college kids who vote really on the Democratic Side even though that side whats to control what you see and do and has been trying to ban video games and or heavily censor them
Censorship doesn't have a party, Neo_DrKefka. Plenty of people on both sides push for censorship. It's always "free speech, unless it offends me"; the only difference from party to party is what specifically they're offended by.
Even Palin tried to ban books in her local library back when she was mayor of Wasilla. Source: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
Not true. No books were banned. No books were attempted to be banned. You might want to fully investigate the term "Politically Correct" and see which ideologies are having a greater influence on the restriction of ideas and opinions. Hint: The words "Republican" or "conservative" are not likely to come up as the responsible parties.
--Verbinator
Palin never actually followed through, but she did directly ask the city librarian how to go about banning books ("Pastor, I am Gay" being one on her list.)
The left has political correctness, and the right has the evangelicals. One says "Don't say anything that offends minorities/the handicapped/women/etc.," and the other says "Don't say anything that offends my religion or my sense of patriotism." And both sides have their individuals who go so far to extremes that they end up spouting different flavors of the same rhetoric.
Reallly it should be more that the issue of game censorship shouldn't even be a marker here. There are far more bigger concerns right now then the issue of entertainment censorship
Well... game-oriented site, so game oriented issues...
I agree that there's bigger concerns... that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about other concerns too.
A lot of the game censorship argument is usually boiled down to protection versus further infringement of personal rights. Actually, now that I think about it, that should be a big concern as well, and this discussion is a microcosm of that bigger picture. Dismissing the issue of censorship because there are bigger concerns out there is not the answer... otherwise, you'll get Weapons of Mass Distraction all over again.
When I read Lord British, I thought I saw lord b!tch, haha. Then glanced over and say Hillary, and was thinking, yup...
As we can see, if anyone wants to ask for money, ask George Lucas and Alex Rigopulos.
I see 3 people that I want to know their reasons for donating to their people they have.
I own a business, and run another I don't own. I can tell you that Obama isn't the little savior that some people make him out to be. ALL politicians are crooks to whom the rules don't apply. Small & Medium sized businesses don't deserve to be frisked any more than they already are, regardless of how Democrats playing the "class warfare" card run. I'll vote for Obama due to my individual tastes, even though he is going to punish my company for existing and daring to be successful.
In the end, neither Obama nor McCain give a crap about you.
Adrian Carmack, a former owner of id Software, is a McCain supporter.
--Verbinator
A large group of science and engineering organizations asked Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama about their science and technology platforms. See www.sciencedebate2008.com.
The responses included no specific mention of video games, but the answers to the first question -- "What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation? -- provides insight on how each of the candidates would promote technology development.
Sen. Obama: "My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works – using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. ... My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] achievement. ... Progress in science and technology must be backed with programs ensuring that U.S. businesses have strong incentives to convert advances quickly into new business opportunities and jobs. To do this, my administration will make the R&D tax credit permanent."
Sen. McCain: "In the last decade, there has been an explosion in the ways Americans communicate with family, friends, and business partners; shop and connect with global markets; educate themselves; become more engaged politically; and consume and even create entertainment. ... [M]y commitment to innovation is a commitment to the well-established entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of America’s thinkers and tinkerers whose inventions have improved our lives and promoted prosperity. ... As President, I will ... [f]und basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology."
Top 20 Contributors to McCain
Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Goldman Sachs $220,045
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
AT&T Inc $183,663
Credit Suisse Group $175,503
PricewaterhouseCoopers $163,670
Blank Rome LLP $153,426
US Government $152,118
US Army $150,470
Wachovia Corp $147,456
Greenberg Traurig LLP $145,737
UBS AG $141,365
Bank of America $133,975
FedEx Corp $121,904
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $120,246
US Dept of Defense $118,125
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000
This post makes no sense to me
sohbet - sohbet siteleri - özlü sözler - sevgi sözleri - madencilik - sikiş