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]

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

Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[blind biker]

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.

Re: Does it matter?

[Black Parrot]

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

Next?

You're joking, right?

[Reality Master 101]

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?

Bipartisanship in DC!

[Aeron65432]

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.

Re:You're joking, right?

[Loconut1389]

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:Benefits vs. Costs

[dcavanaugh]

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:Benefits vs. Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. A friend of mine, who used to drive cab and has nothing to do with computers (except ripping borrowed music and movies, checking his emails and watching porn), when mentioned about RIAA had no idea what it means. He said "Sorry dude, I am not into news and all that kinda things."

It was only when I told him that it's possible he may get in trouble with them for downloading movies and mp3s off the net, he was a bit interested, but only a bit.

Cash

[simpl3x]

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:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Sunburnt]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the thing is it's actually very difficult to get congresscritters to actually do their work and *read* the bills they are signing or striking. So we have a whole type of highly overpriced lawyers whose sole job is to do that work for them, and then explain it to the critters in plain English, while skewing the results towards whatever company paid them the most.

See? It makes perfect sense :-P

Re:Does it matter?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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.

Re:You're joking, right?

[Sunburnt]

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.

List of Consumers ?

[MarkByers]

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

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

[jZnat]

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:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[bheer]

The problem with lobbying is that if you ban it, things just move underground and become unaccounted for. This way at least you know who's in bed with whom. If you think legislators from Europe (say, or really anywhere in the world) don't have special interests, you're dreaming.

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

[gerrysteele]

Should it be made a felony to bribe a politician AT ALL perhaps?

Re: Does it matter?

[OmegaBlac]

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.

Not a huge impact.

[ewhenn]

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

Re: Does it matter?

[pallmall1]

...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.

It never seizes to amaze me...

[presarioD]

...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*...

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

[Planesdragon]

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:Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Congress

[aldheorte]

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:You're joking, right?

[KKlaus]

But since Iocane comes from Australia...

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

[karim7783]

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 ever happened to idealistic liberals who thought they could make the world a better place? ... I guess money made by the suffering of the defenseless makes YOUR world a better place... SHAME ON YOU!! Regards, Karim Ali --

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[bhirsch]

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]

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:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Coward Anonymous]

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:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[gfxguy]

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.

A true solution to the issue

[haut]

The only solution I can see is to limit the spending by politicians - during campaigns or otherwise. We can regulate the politicians a lot better than we can regulate every single corporation and wealthy individual. Remember in high school when they limited the amount you could spend on your ASB presidency campaign? This made it so that money was not a factor in campaigning and anyone had a chance. Also, the $25 or so limit was all that was needed to run a decent campaign. All candidates had the same opportunity to get the attention of the voters and they were then judged on their merits (mostly popularity!).

Now let's think about how this would work for the presidential election. First of all, the limit would be much higher than most people could afford and fundraising would be needed. This is OK - it serves a purpose to allow candidates who are popular but without money to compete with those that already have money. A reasonable spending limit would be set (including travel, advertising, etc.) that is attainable through reasonable fundraising. This now makes the campaigns think a lot more strategically about how they spend their money and levels the playing field. If Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, etc have already raised more than the limit, then they can now focus their efforts on engaging voters, however they need to make sure they budget themselves until the election is closer. Candidates need to be smart and frugal about how they spend their limited funds.

In leveling the playing field, non corporate-backed candidates stand a real chance of being elected and can have their voice heard. It also gets people to realize that they aren't throwing their money away if they sponsor a lesser-known candidate with enough support to raise near or more than the spending limit. If supporters of a candidate like Ron Paul realize that they can get him to be on same spending level as the big hitters, they are more likely to donate to the campaign.

For non-campaigning politicians, a yearly spending limit would also help decrease the influence of lobbyists. If senator X has enough in his/her war chest that they cannot possibly spend it on all on reelection campaigns and yearly expenses, the impact to them of new money from a lobbyist is greatly reduced. It doesn't stop the influence of lobbyists, but does reduce it for the politicians with the most money. It also lets them spend less time fundraising and more time working!

While I think this idea would transform US politics in the best interest of the people, it would probably never fly because none of the people currently in power or poised to be in power would benefit from it. It would empower the lower classes too much and force candidates to rely on their credentials and actions, not slick media campaigns. Not to mention that advertisers, who control the media (as the major source of funding), wouldn't stand for this plan and could use their power to sway public opinion against it.

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

[Rocketship Underpant]

"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:Does it matter?

[trippeh]

I'm a proud player-hater. The game is only messed up because players made it that way.

Yes, it's an obvious point. I don't care. Change has to start somewhere, :suz

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sometimes loaded words have real substance. She is not a believer in individual liberty. She has made it very clear that she believes that individual rights must be subsumed to the greater good... meaning whatever she thinks the greater good to be.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

So, we can't even think about the individual anymore. Because society is more important than people... maybe high society is more important to her. She also believes in several communist objectives, such as a high income tax, and that children should be raised by the government and not their parents. You might as well say "it takes a commune" instead of "it takes a village".

What Hillary Clinton doesn't realize is that we already live in a country that has embraced many communist ideals, but she thinks we need to push even further. Well, pushed to the breaking point is more likely the outcome when she is appointed president under our corrupted system.

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.

She is both.

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

[Coward Anonymous]

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 changed its stance as public opinion changed. In any case, to circumvent the SCOTUS you could make this constituitional. Keep in mind, I don't care how the idea is put in place (i.e. an amendment is a remote possibility), I'm only discussing the details of its mechanics. If the idea is discussed, hashed out and becomes popular enough (which I do doubt), then the SCOTUS isn't really an issue.
Limiting the amount of cash per voter is important because that is exactly what ensures that graft doesn't sneak in through the back door (i.e. company gives X, X gives candidate).
If you want to volunteer, that's fine (again, I would add volunteers have to be voters) - there is no inherent disparity between volunteers as there can be with money so there is nothing to regulate. Remember, you are not trying to regulate how much money/support a candidate gets. You are trying to regulate how much a voter (and non-voters in the current system) can influence the system.

It is possible that your idea of public contribution roles serving as shame sheets is good enough but I think it could allow too much room for creative accounting and interpretation.