Congress Members Who Took RIAA Cash

palewook writes "The Consumerist posted a story containing the contact information of 50 United States Representatives & Senators who accepted RIAA money during their last election campaign. Seems like a good time to let a few people know how you feel about RIAA shills."

Does it matter?

[initialE (758110)]

In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /.

Re: Does it matter?

[Black Parrot (19622)]

In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /.

Next?

Re: Does it matter?

[OmegaBlac (752432)]

There will be a next election in the US. And one after that. Totalitarian/Fascist governments only take power because the good people stand around and do nothing. If Americans are sheepish enough to standby and allow Bush or any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.

Re: Does it matter?

[pallmall1 (882819)]

...any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.

Yes, you have just described Hugo Chavez and Venezuela.

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[gfxguy (98788)]

I don't think $2000 is enough to really "buy" anything.

Most of the people listed got $1000, and they probably don't even know the RIAA donated to them.

Re:

[bhirsch (785803)]

In other words, anyone who does something you don't like is a conservative?

Clinton is big on socialism -- that does not mean she (or any other Democrat/Socialist) won't take corporate political contributions. After all, that is how corporations survive socialist governments.

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[Tatarize (682683)]

Yeah, I can't support her because she's too right wing. So being lampooned as a left is downright amusing.

Though to be fair, oddly enough most everybody democrat today is to the right of the bulk of the American people on the Iraq War and several other issues.

Re:

[Black Parrot (19622)]

Her actions now are just posturing to hide her agenda.

The more conservative she votes, the more liberal she is?

You're a great example of the irrational paranoia I was talking about.

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[Sunburnt (890890)]

Hillary "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,"

The "things" to which she was referring were the Bush tax cuts as applied to the top-bracket earners in the audience she was addressing.

Clinton is more than the champion of nanny government, she's a Marxist.

Really? I had no idea she called for a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, because if not, charges of "Marxism" are just more of the ignorant slurring with loaded words that defines American politics.

Her actions now are just posturing to hide her agenda.

And this is based on what, exactly?

Hillary sucks, but calling her a "Marxist" is no more true than if I were to call her a "Fascist" based on her support of the PATRIOT Act.

Re:

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

Concur. What fascinates me is the capacity of humans to look at this sort of thing and appear shocked.

Cash

[simpl3x (238301)]

Did you see how much it costs to buy a congress critter! Nearly nothing. You could raise that much before noon.

WTF, these people are selling their souls for peanuts. What we need is an "open" lobbying fund.

Re:Does it matter?

[LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407)]

Wow. How very defeatist. "Oh corruption is rife, so let's give up and resign ourselves to being fucked over for the rest of our lives". Good attitude.

Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[blind biker (1066130)]

Lobbyin is the weakest part of US democracy. I am really not a US basher (a colleague says I am a disguised CIA operative), but I don't understand what place lobbying has in a democracy. I don't care how transparent it is, it's still a bribe.

To get rid of lobbying

[by Anonymous Coward]

Rebuild the Capitol so that the front door leads directly to the Congress chamber. No lobby, no lobbying.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Original Replica (908688)]

It's more that it's just very difficult to stop, without severely interfereing with the ability of common people to support their prefered candidate. ie: "If I can say good things about this candidate I like, why can't I put a favorable ad in the paper or on TV for him?"

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Sunburnt (890890)]

It's more that it's just very difficult to stop, without severely interfereing with the ability of common people to support their prefered candidate.

It's really that hard to draw a line between individual and corporate sponsorship?

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Jarjarthejedi (996957)]

Yes, because there are ways to cheat. If you let any individual sponsor something, then any company can as well as they can simply use one or more of their workers as an individual for the purposes of sponsoring. Ban any corporate sponsorship and they'll just find a way around it (Okay Bill, we're going to give you a 2,000,000 bonus and you're going to donate 1,900,000 to X fund to sponsor X thing or Y bad thing will happen to you etc.)

I hate lobbying as much as the next guy (who is on /. and hates lobbying :P) but don't try to make it seem like a small problem, so long as you allow ANY sponsorship (which isn't always a bad thing, especially individual sponsorship) there will be corporate lobbying, no matter how many laws you put up to try and stop it. Every law has a loop-hole and these companies have armies of lawyers experienced at finding loopholes. Say you make the max contribution for a company 10,000 or something, they'll just create a whole bunch of sub-corps and have each donate 10,000 to get back to their original contribution. That's just a single example, everything you do to stop it will have a loophole by nature of needing to allow unaffiliated individuals the chance to help.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Coward Anonymous (110649)]

Actually, it's very simple to thwart lobbying and corporate money. You need three basic rules:
1. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money.
2. Your contribution per election is limited to $X where X is on the order of a few thousand to perhaps tens of thousands of $
3. One's monetary contribution right is protected equivalently to the right to vote (i.e. just as it is illegal to buy a vote or to force a vote, it is illegal to buy a contribution, to force a contribution, etc.). I think the only debatable exception to the contribution=vote equivalency is if the contribution should be anonymous or not. In any case, if your army of lawyers can find a loophole in this, well they can force votes outright for less money.

It's simple and airtight. Now you just need to find an elected body that isn't corrupt to make this law...

Re:

[Coward Anonymous (110649)]

Who determines if you can vote? Obviously someone is determining that already.
I think the risk of the CEO facing a felony and a stiff prison term would dissuade most CEOs who have the capability to do it from doing it. In addition, representatives who knowingly accept such money are to be penalized criminally.
The Supreme Court "said". That doesn't make it necessarily logical, workable or even permanent. If anything, the supreme court has often been on the wrong side of issues (slavery comes to mind) and has

Re:

[jZnat (793348)]

Set a monetary limit (including the value of any indirect bribes given to them) per person. Make it a felony to try to bribe politicians above this limit or for colluding with others to influence them.

Re:

[sYkSh0n3 (722238)]

wow, in the 37 seconds it took me to type that, 15 /.'ers managed to say the same thing better AND answer my question

Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money

[HighOrbit (631451)]

Lobbying, in itself, is not the problem. Lobbying in its pure form is nothing more than persuasion or advocacy. In fact, I would argue that lobbying is beneficial in a technically complex and diverse society where various groups need to have knowledgeable people pressing their case to lawmakers who could never be expert on the details themselves. Lobbying is important in a pluralistic democracy.

The problem is that the lobbyists can "bundle" donations in order to give fat checks to lawmakers. Bundling is a technique of pooling money from several donors to get around limits on individual donors.

Only one form of campaign finance reform will ever really work. All others will ALWAYS fail. The one that will work is to enact the following - Allow only registered voters who are eligible to vote for a candidate/issue may donate to that candidate/issue. Only registered voters in a district have any business influencing elections in that district. People from California, New York, or anywhere else have *NO* legitimate reason to donate to a candidate or referendum issue in Nebraska, but I would be willing to bet Nebraska Senators and Congressmen raise most of their cash from out-of-state interests. So there is the problem, and I've given the solution.

Of course nobody who is vested in the current system will ever go along with that proposal. It doesn't matter whether its the politicians or business groups, labor unions, or 'advocacy' groups like on both the left or right like the ACLU, AARP, or NRA. They all believe they have an interest in the current system.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Congress

[stomv (80392)]

There are 100 US Senators and 435 (voting) US Congressmen. All of them vote on US legislation which has a direct and immediate impact on my life: the laws with which I must comply, the taxes for which I must contribute, and the social services for which I may be eligible.

Since all 535 of these men and women will have a substantial influence on my life, why again shouldn't I be able to influence the elections of all 535? Taking it a step further, why shouldn't I be able to support groups which are interested eliciting the same reaction I'm interested in for any or all of the 535 legislators?

Re:Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Congress

[aldheorte (162967)]

I'm not sure I agree with the post you replied to because it becomes a complex issue, but you are already represented by your two senators and your representative. That's your maximum representative entitlement in the federal government. How would you feel if you strongly supported a candidate for your representation and a bunch of people in the next state over funded another candidate who won using that money to vote for their interests instead of yours?

Re:Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money

[Rocketship Underpant (804162)]

"Lobbying, in itself, is not the problem."

I agree with you up to that point.

Speaking as a non-American, I observe that the problem is not lobbying. The problem is you have a system where any kind of immoral or oppressive law can be be imposed, for a period of infinite duration, by a small group of people (Congress) who bear no responsibility for the crap they bury their country in. And by definition, every single law that is added to the books takes away your liberty in some way. Everything that's actually bad was already a crime 200 years ago.

No, the slim possibility of not being re-elected is not an example of a Congressman "bearing responsibility" when it comes to laws that take away your freedom.

Your Constitution was designed to prevent this problem, but no one pays it any attention (except Dr. Ron Paul), so it's worthless.

Naturally, having this enormous power, and no corresponding responsibility, in the hands of a small group of people attracts the very worst people, and the very worst laws. Lobbying isn't the problem. The fact that your system seems expressly built to invite corruption and abuse is. Compare the freedom a typical American 150 years ago had compared to today. In most respects, viewed on a large scale, the decline of the US has proceeded at an extraordinarily fast rate. If fascist and socialist legislators keep passing hundreds of stupid laws every year and spending trillions of your great-grandchildren's money, where do you think the country will be in 50 years?

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Planesdragon (210349)]

Lobbying is the weakest part of US democracy.

No, it isn't. That honor would go to the television news cycle.

Think about it -- the ONLY qualification for a lobbyist is an ability to connect those in power with people who really care about something. You don't need to get a license, or pass a test, or (AFAIK) even be a citizen. You cross the T's, dot the I's, and in most cases report what you spend and give so "Clinton supported the RIAA!" can be screamed in the next election. And when all that's said and done, the honorable whomever still gets to do whatever the heck they want to until the next election.

And the alternative is worse -- instead of sending professional intelligent people to Washington, they could just rally folk and spam Washington, drowning out any other issue.

Re:

[karim7783 (987023)]

Well, after seeing Mr Obama's name on the list, I went and submitted the following Post under the category of "Ethics" -- I cannot believe that Senator Obama, a man who asked for the debates to be licensed under the "Creative Commons" could have the nerve to accept money from a group of extorting corporate gluttons like the RIAA who are KNOWN for pressing charges against people who have NO means to defend themselves. And the fact that Senator Obama is a Democrat, makes me truly wish that I was NOT!! What ev

Re:

[PhysicsPhil (880677)]

Lobbyin is the weakest part of US democracy. I am really not a US basher (a colleague says I am a disguised CIA operative), but I don't understand what place lobbying has in a democracy. I don't care how transparent it is, it's still a bribe.

Curiously enough, lobbying is one of the three constitutionally protected professions in the United States. The First Amendment ensures that all citizens have the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

For those who are interested, the othe

Benefits vs. Costs

[PresidentEnder (849024)]

The biggest contribution on the list is $9000; most are $2000 or less. If you knew about the public opinion on the RIAA, why would you take money from them? It seems like the negative publicity f having taken money would outweigh whatever you could do with the money.

Re:

[Rydia (556444)]

Nerds on the internet is not "public opinion." I'm sorry, they act terribly, but just because a group of people think something, especially as insular a group as the one that frequents slashdot, does not mean there is any sort of public support for it.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs

[dcavanaugh (248349)]

The biggest contribution on the list is $9000; most are $2000 or less. If you knew about the public opinion on the RIAA, why would you take money from them? It seems like the negative publicity f having taken money would outweigh whatever you could do with the money.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. We, the voters, have done a poor job of holding these people accountable for much of anything. RIAA is just one of many special interest groups whose low 4-figure contributions make up the funding of a campaign. I suspect if someone looked at the non-cash perks being tossed around by lobbyists, the results would be interesting.

Re:

[kestasjk (933987)]

Perks like truly DRM free music and an up-to-date list of RIAA IPs to put in your torrent filter. Put in their shoes could you really say no?

You're joking, right?

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

First of all, this is who the RIAA donated to, not who "accepted" their money. I would say nearly all politicians will except money from anyone, except entities who are clearly negative to the mainstream (and the RIAA is NOT "clearly negative" to the mainstream).

One of the ways the RIAA operates is by donating money to politicians who then enact favorable legislation on their behalf. Don't let the optimist in you believe that this doesn't work. It does.

Second of all, these amounts are ridiculously small. Does anyone seriously thinking $1,000-$9,000 is going to buy major legislation? That won't pay for their gold letter opener on their desk. Sheesh, if that's all it takes to pass legislation, I'll pay a couple thou to get MY pet legislation passed.

In short, what's the story here?

Re:You're joking, right?

[Loconut1389 (455297)]

That gives me an interesting thought- what if the RIAA gives that money to the ones that -don't- support their cause in the hopes that you won't vote for them next time.

Re:

[KKlaus (1012919)]

But since Iocane comes from Australia...

Re:

[Sunburnt (890890)]

except entities who are clearly negative to the mainstream

You know, I kinda remember there was a Colbert segment on Mary Carey getting into the Republican Party on $5000.

Which just goes to show that porn stars are pretty much mainstream entertainment, hypocritical public exhortations to morality aside.

Re:

[qbwiz (87077)]

Question is: if someone hasn't agreed to lobby about RIAA, why would RIAA pay him even $1. Because they like USA? And thus just randomly send 50 politicians some pocket change?

Well, there's an alternate theory, where politicians already would vote that way, and the RIAA wants to give their campaigns money so that they'll stay in office and be able to continue to help them. It's not exactly great, but it's not nearly as sleazy as the bribery that otherwise would be going on.

Dem-Repub Breakdown

[natedubbya (645990)]

By my count in the article, that's 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Of the presidential candidates, the two Democrats Barack and Hillary are on there.

$2500 is the average

[dattaway (3088)]

The bribe is about the same for Democrat or Republican and just happens to be about the same as a RIAA "settlement offer."

Cheap sellout bastards indeed!

Bipartisanship in DC!

[Aeron65432 (805385)]

I think one very important thing to note about this list is it is pretty equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Only further proves Ron Paul's quote (to paraphrase) when he said to watch out when Republicans and Democrats worked happily together, because the taxpayers and citizens are screwed.

For a few dollars more..

[DiamondGeezer (872237)]

Is it just me who is shocked, shocked by how little it takes to buy a Congressman these days? I mean, in days gone by it would have been hundreds of thousands, a job for the kid to allow him to work through college, a few first class tickets to somewhere nice...

Now its like $1000-9000. I mean I could buy a Congressman for that amount of money. If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

Either the RIAA is stingy or Congressmen are desperate for extra cash.

Re:

[Sunburnt (890890)]

If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

You must be new here.

Re:For a few dollars more..

[nine-times (778537)]

Either the RIAA is stingy or Congressmen are desperate for extra cash.

Might I posit "both"?

Now its like $1000-9000. I mean I could buy a Congressman for that amount of money. If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

Really, considering the amount of influence donations/lobbyists have, why don't more people organize around the issues that are important to them, raise money, and buy their own congressmen? At this point, we really should.

Funny you say that....

[erareno (1103509)]

...Because the McCain-Feingold Law (aka BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act) LIMITS the amount of money an individual doner can give to a candidate (legally, at least). Individuals are allowed to give $2k before a primary and then $2k more after the primary. Corporations get something like a $5k limit.

Of course, where there's a will, there's a way.....

The NRA, for instance, gets around this by getting almost every single one of it's memebers to donate money to candidates in trouble. These donations quickly a

List of Consumers ?

[MarkByers (770551)]

I would like there to be a list published of the people that bought RIAA CDs, thereby providing funding to these crooks.

"Do you now,

[Black Parrot (19622)]

or have you ever, given money to the RIAA?"

Is there some inalienable right to free music? If you think the market is overpriced, go hear a local band or pick up your own noisemaker and have some fun with it. Maybe if the RIAA executives hear a bunch of Slashdotters' singing they'll come down on their prices.

In a country whose long-term drift toward fascism has accelerated into a rush, there are far more important issues that we should be raising hell about.

Not a huge impact.

[ewhenn (647989)]

What does $2000 buy you? Like 0.75 seconds of TV ad time? IMO, this is being blown way out of proportion.

It never seizes to amaze me...

[presarioD (771260)]

...how in any democracy on this planet, even in the banana republics, if a politician is caught receiving money from a private or corporate entity it is a huge scandal that will inexorably lead to the demise of that politician, and in this country it is celebrated and institutionalized under the banner of "fund-raising".

What is really even more weird and always laughable is how people are always ready to defend this type of "democracy" even with their lives... tsk tsk tsk tsk *shaking head*...

Only 50?

[PMuse (320639)]

It's hard to believe that this list is complete at 50 office holders. Is 50 really enough to ensure success? Wouldn't they have tried to acquire closer to half of the federal office holders (536/2+1=269)? That money (269* ~$5000 = $1.4 million) is a drop in the bucket.

Did this list really backtrack all of RIAA's members and their proxies? The recorded music industry [opensecrets.org] gave $3.1 million in the last presidential election cycle (2004) and $2.4 million in the off year (2006). Not every company in the recorded music industry is RIAA, but these recipients got a lot more money [opensecrets.org] overall than TFA reports.

Re:

[palewook (1101845)]

Lot of information to digest here, but you appear to want more info: additional info here [opensecrets.org] 2006 pt1 [opensecrets.org] 2006 pt2 [opensecrets.org] 2006 cycle [opensecrets.org] individual members of the pac [opensecrets.org] FEC disclosure [sdrdc.com]