MPAA-Dodd Investigation Petition Reaches Goal 270
An anonymous reader writes "The petition on 'We the People' website petitioning the administration to investigate Chris Dodd for corruption has reached the required 25,000 votes in two days: now the government has to officially respond to the petition. The petition ... stemmed from Chris Dodd's statement that tried to portray campaign donations as quid-pro-quos for SOPA/PIPA votes."
respond? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:respond? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:respond? (Score:5, Interesting)
See, this is where Anonymous could actually make itself useful. Maybe dig up some incriminating emails and leak them.
Re:respond? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What's required is a motivated and capable individual (or two). Getting at someone's email isn't the same chore as a ddos with loic.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a good idea, but there are folks out there with the requisite skills and complementary ideologies.
Put up or shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
You are as Anonymous as anyone else. If you think Anonymous should do something, then do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:respond? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
All they have to do is turn it around. Like this:
"It is not illegal to withdraw support for a senator/representative because they have not supported your chosen policy. It is expected that controversial decisions would upset some campaign contributors. Mr. Dodd is free to remind his peers of this fact."
And all that is perfectly true if its the outcome of the investigation. I would accept that as a perfectly valid outcome of an otherwise above board looking investigation. The issue statements like the one Dodd made are a little careless for someone in his specific position. They could imply a defined quid pro quo relationship exists or existed and that would be improper.
I don't think there is anything wrong with an interest group widthdrawing support from a politician or politicians they don't feel repr
Re: (Score:3)
and the petition is reasonably asking for Dodd to be investigated, not jumping to the conclusion Dodd should be tared and feathered.
I think we need to start a new petition.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be interesting to see how the crooks in DC cover their own butts and cover for one of their own who has gone on to become an example of what membership in the American "House of Lords" can accomplish for you.
Re:respond? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out it's probably the only benefit of inheriting your seat--No campaign costs means less opportunities for bribery (assuming other avenues remain equally illegal and policed).
will respond but completely dodge (Score:4, Insightful)
Their response will be similar to all the other responses to petitions they don't like-- completely dodge any of the points and cut/paste a wikipedia like entry. See their response to eliminating the TSA for violating people's civil rights and being useless-- nothing more than Pistole cut/pasting the TSA's official mission statement.
This one will probably be more of a campaign like statement that they care about the people and protect their rights completely dodging the statements in the petition.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And there will be giggling at the little people thinking that the WH joke website will be taken into consideration. Until you vote libertarian you'll be continuing the slide into slavery.
Re:respond? (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant, reduce government, reduce corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
because the Libertarians are incorruptible, right?
Nope. They are as corruptible as anyone.
But first, they will shrink government, so the corruption matters less and is on a smaller scale.
The greater the power the greater the temptation to corrupt or abuse it. That is why the ONLY successful way to fight corruption is to reduce the scale of temptation. When more power is in states hands it is easier to monitor for corruption, after all how easily can the voters in a state really keep an eye on what someone is doing all the way over in DC?
Re:Irrelevant, reduce government, reduce corruptio (Score:4, Interesting)
Corruption comes from two sources; power and being unaccountable.
If you have to few people in government you have corrupt folks because they are able to act with impunity and nobody can do anything about even when everyone does they guilty as sin itself.
You also get corruption when government gets to big; nobody is ever accountable, no not even in our world where everything is recorded and logged. Once you get a government as big as ours its almost always the case that crimes even consistent and repeated ones go unnoticed lost in the noise, crimes can't be addressed because there is always a bigger fish to investigate, and nothing can be made to stick because there is so many others for the perp to point the finger at and say oh "well...I...but for...."
The solution is not no government (Somalia is staw man) nor is the solution more government, solution is SMALL TIERED government. You want to have a handful of people closely accountable to electorate so we all no their names, each fairly direct, clear, and knowable responsibilities.
Re:Irrelevant, reduce government, reduce corruptio (Score:4, Informative)
The solution is not no government (Somalia is staw man) nor is the solution more government, solution is SMALL TIERED government. You want to have a handful of people closely accountable to electorate so we all no their names, each fairly direct, clear, and knowable responsibilities.
So exactly the libertarian stance.
Now tell us who made you believe the libertarians are not for exactly this.. was it the Republicans you love, or the Democrats you love? Either way, we know it was someone you love because you accepted a lie without question.
WRONG (Score:3)
Libertarian is no better, it just gives power to a different small group of people.
Libertarianism is not about shifting which group gets power, as in the left/right swing.
It is about fundamental reduction of the size of government, so the group is smaller to begin with. And with the focus on moving power back to states, you are not just changing the group that gets the power but distributing said power over many smaller groups - smaller local groups are easier to monitor and less prone to corruption, in pa
Re:respond? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:respond? (Score:5, Interesting)
The WH petition system isn't even based on any law. For all intents and purposes, WH could say, "Yeah...get 5 signatures and we'll 'respond'."
BHO said it best when "petitioners" wanted a response to legalizing marijuana and he pretty much said STFU and GTFO.
I would actually vote for him if he had set up the website such that once there was enough votes, he would call a lackey in congress to actually draft a bill. That would have shown he had balls. But doing so would give power back to the people and that's just bad politics.
Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. It would be fun if a popular techie-friendly website such as Slashdot or Reddit would sponsor a wager contest: write the expected BS response, and the one closest to the actual BS response from govt gets a prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I can't do any more then that.... But I'm sure others can do better.
Re: (Score:3)
The White House response:
Subject: Why We Cannot comment on Investigating Former Sen. Dodd for Criminal Activity
All criminal investigations are not announced, confirmed, nor denied to prevent contamination of the evidence, jury pool, and our campaign contribution stream. This is the final response on this matter.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for submitting your petition. Bribery is a serious offence which threatens the stability of governance, and as such we will not tolerate this behavior and will of course prosecute anyone who is caught engaging in it. However, based on our preliminary investigation, there is not enough evidence to merit a case.
Campaign contribution is a means by which one can legally support the spreading of information about one's political ideals. In and of itself, this is not bribery. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect a politician who represents himself as an advocate for a specific political party to openly support, and take action that directly supports, the stated political positions of that party.
Chris Dodd observed that some candidates deviated from their party's stated position. Further, he observed this after having made significant campaign contributions to the party in question. While his words may have been ill-chosen, the mere expression of frustration over such position-switching is not sufficient grounds for a bribery charge.
Thank you for your interest in governance, and please continue to share your concerns with us, whatever they may be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, but Dodd and his biddies are the ones who "donate" to their election funds, if they do denounce him they will still hurt their election plans but not getting any more money.
Re:Alright! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when's the revolution start?
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention much?
Re: (Score:2)
In an election year? Too dangerous to leave this entirely untouched. Hope for the best?
Even more dangerous to touch it. Look at how many people in the Obama administration have ties to Hollywood and the MPAA -- investigating Dodd opens the door to investigating all of them too. In fact, it basically means investigating most of the politicians in the US government; that is why we can expect nothing to happen here. We asked the mafia to cracked down on organized crime, and we should not be so naive as to think that they would actually accomplish anything.
Re: (Score:2)
We asked the mafia to cracked down on organized crime, and we should not be so naive as to think that they would actually accomplish anything.
The Mafia would at least take the time to eliminate the competition under the guise of a "crackdown". These guys already own the town outright and will thus do nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's no need for a petition, because the government and industry already knows what the people want [slashdot.org].
At any rate, it has already been stated previously that bribing politicians is not against the law in the United States. It's all in the open. It's a part of the capitalism that great corporations are built upon.
Socialism for the common man is antithetical to the fundamentalist protestant individualism of America. Corporate socialism however, is good for the country. The corporation represents God in a fin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HAS TO officially respond? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly.
There is no "HAS TO" when the government is involved.
And a one word response of "DENIED" is all you are likely to get, or the Washington equivalent, of a vague promise of having it looked into, followed by a chuckle-fest in the back room over brandy on the rocks.
The whole thing sort of reminds me of one of the typical flame fests here on Slashdot or Usenet. Lots of smelly wet wool. But nobody notices that you "won the internet".
Re:HAS TO officially respond? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be silly. There is no "HAS TO" when the government is involved. And a one word response of "DENIED" is all you are likely to get, or the Washington equivalent, of a vague promise of having it looked into, followed by a chuckle-fest in the back room over brandy on the rocks.
The whole thing sort of reminds me of one of the typical flame fests here on Slashdot or Usenet. Lots of smelly wet wool. But nobody notices that you "won the internet".
WTF is wrong with you!?! I can't believe that you could say such a thing!!!
Everyone knows that you *never* serve brandy on the rocks. Geez!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:HAS TO officially respond? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? The Pepsi I mix it with tastes flat otherwise.
[ducks]
Re: (Score:2)
There HAS TO be a response. "DENIED" and "we find no probable cause to investigate" ARE responses, just not helpful ones.
In a perfect world... (Score:5, Funny)
Gov'ment: We've investigated ourselves thoroughly, and we're guilty (sad-face)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
But asking this administration to investigate one of its own is pointless, and asking them to investigate their largest campaign contributors is simply ridiculous. The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Re:In a perfect world... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Right, so:
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
Is false.
There's one party with minor differences paraded out for the masses to choose from. Understanding this is key to understanding Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Right, so:
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
Is false.
Actually, no, its not false.
Just because corruption occurs in both/all parties, does not mean that the party currently in power will not appoint Special Prosecutors / Independent Counsels.
The scope of the mandate to these prosecutors is strictly limited to specific actions by specific individuals or specific matters [wikipedia.org], and anything they accidentally discover about the actions of people outside their mandate is never brought to light.
Re: (Score:2)
25,000 sig petitions have alredy been ignored (Score:5, Insightful)
The petition titled "Actually take these petitions seriously instead of just using them as an excuse to pretend you are listening" reached 25,000 by the required date and currently has 33,000 signatures. It has received no response despite being almost 3 months old.
(Link: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN)
"We the people" is a propaganda tool to be exploited when convenient, and nothing more.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the purpose is collecting data on who cares about what, where to allow for targeting marketing.
Re: Black SUV following (Score:2)
So if you wave at it, do you get arrested for being a terrorist?
I miss the Clinton years. The web was new, the economy was doing well by the end, and I wasn't terrified of my own government!
Re:25,000 sig petitions have alredy been ignored (Score:5, Funny)
You didn't really think they'd take the take these petitions seriously petition seriously, did you? Of course not. They're waiting for the inevitable take this take this petition seriously petition seriously petition. Then they'll reply. Maybe. And when they do, they'll take this take this take this petition seriously petition seriously petition seriously.
Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they reply with a third level of meta.
$this (Score:2)
Same problem with our UK e-petitions. I signed a few and just got a bunch of propaganda emailed to me.
Just gotta hope it backfires on them like the cahiers de doleances [wikipedia.org]. Vive la revolution.
It's about building a database to ask for donation (Score:2)
Did you notice how they want your real-life information for these petitions?
This isn't about giving people a voice in government. It's about collecting people's information so they can be solicited for campaign contributions.
When you go into a store and they ask you for your info and one of the items is "email address", do you give the real email address? Of course not, because you know you're going to get all kinds of spam from those people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wish they had responded to its funnier predecessor (no link because it has expired and is no longer visible on the website):
We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.
Since these petitions are ignored apart from an occasional patronizing and inane political statement amounting to nothing more than a condescending pat on the head, we the signers would enjoy having the illusion of success. Since no other outcome to this process seems possible, we demand that the White House immediately assign a junior staffer to compose a tame and vapid response to this petition, and never attempt to take any meaningful action on this or any other issue. We would also like a cookie.
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I await the generic response pulled from the filing cabinet soon
Re: (Score:2)
i suppose we'll get something that looks like a freedom of information request reply that is 18 pages of black "redacted" bars.
Or someone will fly in with a cape and shout "this investigation has been halted for reasons of national security!" and fly away.
And the reponse is... (Score:5, Funny)
...the White House quietly removes the We the People petition system.
A little bit of hope.. (Score:4, Informative)
My expectations are very, very low as to the outcome of this petition. Anyone who expects anything more than a cursory "We understand your concerns but feel statements made on a news channel do not merit an investigation" has their head in the sand.. ..but still, I can't help but tap at the sand regardless.
Now I think a petition should be made about the RIAA/MPAA suing dead grandmas and 10 year old children.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, a quick google of "Fast and furious fifth amendment" should get you a good selection of the articles.
But this one seems to summarize it nicely:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/20/federal-prosecutor-cites-fifth-fast-furious-probe/ [washingtontimes.com]
Don't Stop Now (Score:3, Informative)
Keep on signing that puppy. I think they need to realize that there's a few more than "just" 25K people interested.
Here's another poll that folks might like to John Henry. [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Keep on signing that puppy. I think they need to realize that there's a few more than "just" 25K people interested.
Here's another poll that folks might like to John Henry. [whitehouse.gov]
You do mean John Hancock [wikipedia.org], right? Unless you're talking about driving a railroad spike [wikipedia.org] through it...
Re: (Score:2)
john henry DOES apply, here.
man fighting a machine.
think about it.
Wow ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the first I'm reading the link [techdirt.com] fro the last Slashdot story [slashdot.org] ...
Seriously
I didn't think any of these guys went so far as to acknowledge that they've been bought and paid for. Usually they try to couch it in nicer terms, but this pretty much says if you're gonna take the bribe, you gotta do what they tell you.
Holy crap, does that sound illegal. Not that they'd over pass laws that actually limit the money from the lobbyists ... that's too big of a chunk of their income.
And people wonder why everyone thinks politicians are corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
don't do Whippets, kids
Re: (Score:2)
It's a meme. Welcome to Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
jesus fucking christ on a cock...
Re: (Score:3)
It's a meme [knowyourmeme.com]
That's not to say that the way the AC used it was applicable, or that he isn't doing Whippets...
Dodd responds (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"whereas Senator Dodd is off in a completely different branch of government."
Specifically, the MPAA branch.
Concerns sound exaggerated (Score:4, Insightful)
I looked at his comments and I don't feel the outrage we're getting bombarded with on Slashdot. Especially over a 25K online petition. Believe me, I have a lot of problems with Dodd's cozy relationship with the financial industry (probably what's driving him out of the Senate), but this is hardly one of them.
Re:Concerns sound exaggerated (Score:5, Informative)
I have a lot of problems with Dodd's cozy relationship with the financial industry (probably what's driving him out of the Senate)
Driving him out of the Senate? He's already out of the Senate. He is now the Chairman and CEO of the MPAA [mpaa.org]. Hence, his statement is from the MPAA to his former colleagues in the Senate saying that the MPAA gave them money so they better pass the legislation the MPAA demands. Somehow, the fact that Dodd is now the head of the MPAA is often left out of the reporting (even left out of the petition). Does that make the sleaziness a little clearer?
Why would anyone expect Chris Dodd to be charged? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have no problem with lobbyists if... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) They were never allowed to physically meet lawmakers, ever.
2) All requests were limited to about 1000 words per week, in email.
3) All such requests were publically viewable via the internet as unformatted text files.
4) All lawmakers submitted their finances to lifelong review after serving with an eye to spotting cash sources from foreign bank accounts. Better still, make having foreign accounts or receiving money from foreign accounts a felony for ex-lawmakers.
5) No ex-lawmaker was ever allowed to act as a lobbyist, ever.
Re:I'd have no problem with lobbyists if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or use the British system. Have a "Register of Members' Interests" in which they must publicly list any payment, donation or gift received, and which bars them for the remainder of their term from voting on any related issue, to avoid claims of bias.
I wouldn't Trust White House Website (Score:2)
STFU Defeatist Whiners (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh... the government will do nothing!"
"The crooks won't investigate their handlers!"
"The petition will be ignored!"
Are you the **AA 'turfing or just fashionably rebellious with your doubt of the value of the US Judicial system? If you've given up already, why are you bothering to comment?
Remember when Nixon was investigated? What about when Clinton got some booty on the side? Big investigations DO happen and they have to start somewhere. If you don't like the idea of an investigation, then say so. I'd genuinely like to hear those comments. But if all you got are "Whaaa! They've done nothing in the past, they'll do nothing again!", then you're the worst kind. You remove value from the entire discussion and give nothing in return..
If you give in to your butt-hurt and so easily declare "They so rarely do what I want... why bother?", then WE can never get anything done. You are WORSE than those who do nothing because you KNOW something is bad and take the time to discourage others from acting on the injustice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's funny is (Score:5, Interesting)
That most /.'s actually believed Obama would run an open and honest administration. Democrats are great on the talk, worse on the walk but liberals will never see it.
But the radical reactionaries who call themselves "conservatives" are so good with walking the walk, are they? Please.
The whole bunch of them are so beholden to the monied interests that it's amazing we still bother to have farcical "elections" instead of auctions.
Re:What's funny is (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole bunch of them are so beholden to the monied interests that it's amazing we still bother to have farcical "elections" instead of auctions.
Have to keep the rubes thinking they still have a voice in this country, otherwise they might put down the Doritos, turn off American Idol, peel themselves off the couch and actually start to give a shit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's cute that you talk as if the Republicans are any better.
The two parties are very similar on this point, since politics these days is dominated by sound bites and trying to get special interests to rally voters to specific causes rather then broad based support for anything. Oh, and campaigns where you promise people things that can't possibly be delivered, because voters are dumb enough to demand that, complain about it between elections, then demand more promises next election. Democrat/Republican? Do
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For I have spotted what appears to be a disk, a black flap, and a scorpion while scrutinizing this first post.
Re: (Score:2)
OH MY GOD! AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE? THEY WILL BE SHAKING IN THEIR SHOES BROTHERS!
THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN!
In the words of William Wallace:
FREEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!
(appropriately the fake one in a historically inaccurate movie...)
You know the scene, just before he had his bowels torn out and put on display?
Yeah. That's the one. Fitting metaphor
Re:ALL IS GOOD !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we signing petitions? It's primary election season. Let's make an example of one of the congressmen-for-hire.
the Tea Party came to power when Scott Brown defeated an incumbent in a primary contest. Let's get an incumbent SOPA supporter out of office because he supported SOPA.
Primary congressional elections are where the real electoral power is... and we have a tendency to ignore them. I believe that nothing less than a primary loss from a SOPA or PIPA supporter would get their attention.
The problem is they get $50,000 for their campaign fund for supporting it. The solution, obviously, is to make it cost them more than $50,000 worth of publicity for supporting it.
Lamar Smith, who introduced SOPA, is currently running uncontested for the Republican Primary in his district.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it is. Due to Citizens United, and money being free speech, all Dodd was doing was exercising his right to speak his mind. He did not offer money specifically to pass PIPA/SOPA, he said he would not make a campaign contribution if the White House opposed it.
Which, in all honesty, is the same kind of thing I say all the time. I'm not voting for someone if they do this, I'm not supporting them if that... it will likely come down to a big nothing.
So indeed, fear not. All is well, citizen.