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."

Dem-Repub Breakdown

[natedubbya]

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.

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

[Original Replica]

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:You're joking, right?

[palewook]

article is from ppl that accepted the money, anyone that canceled the check didnt make the list.

Re:You're joking, right?

[suv4x4]

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?

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?

Things in politics are simplified: if you're suspect in immoral or illegal activity, you should step down. There more than enough people, who are as good or better than you, to take your place. No one is irreplaceable.

If people who hate RIAA dearly (for whatever reason) voted for someone who accepted even $1 from RIAA, they have the right to know, and correct their voting decisions.

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

[Jarjarthejedi]

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:Why these fifty?

[palewook]

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]

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

[sYkSh0n3]

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

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[Sunburnt]

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:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[beyondkaoru]

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.

aside from the 'colluding with others', that's how it is. large organizations/companies/whatever get their members and/or employees to donate, and give their people bonuses for cooperating. so, 4k each from a thousand employees can make a big difference. the corporation itself donates too, but it's relatively insignificant as demonstrated here. i don't know personally if the riaa member companies (sony etc, you know, the real evil folk, riaa is just a front for us to get angry at) use this tactic, but i wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Re: Does it matter?

[sumdumass]

I seem to remember Bush appointing himself the winner of the Florida. Or least Jeb appointing George.

I think you need to search your memory some more. OF hell, why not just look it up and stop trusting your faulty intellect.

s for destroying the principles the nation was founded on, are you talking about Habeus Corpus, or the system of Checks and Balances, or Human Rights, or the Geneva Convention?

Hmm.. I don't think he was talking about habeas corpus at all, the consitution specifically permits it and the current application only effect a minute few people. Your ability to protest and claim anyone could be effected is proof that only a small amount of people are effected by it.

And the checks and balances were first destroyed by Truman. But to that extent, they haven't been destroyed today either. This is just more of your faulty memory surfacing.

As for human rights and the Geneva Convention, This is really a matter of opinion. Human rights seem to include a lot more today they they ever have in the past. And every argument about the Geneva Convention seems to miss the point that the US hasn't signed on to the current version yet all the arguments made about it cite the provisions only in the current version. It is almost as if some group of people knew idiots would just believe and not check. however, if you wish to list the new arguments I haven't heard, feel free. Just make sure they are using parts of the Geneva Convention we have actually signed on to and are bound by. I think I would have heard about them by now but it is possible some have escaped me. Of course whatever the violation is would be suspect when being introduced this late in the game.

I think you have been fooled. I'm not saying bush is teh bomb or anything like it. But you pocked some of the most wacked things to criticize him for. Of course there always could be the possibility your doing it on purpose.