Congress Members Who Took RIAA Cash 287
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
You're a great example of the irrational paranoia I was talking about.
Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the people listed got $1000, and they probably don't even know the RIAA donated to them.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Cash (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF, these people are selling their souls for peanuts. What we need is an "open" lobbying fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem isn't so much that politicians get bought, it's that they don't stay bought.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (Score:5, Insightful)
To get rid of lobbying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really that hard to draw a line between individual and corporate sponsorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Include value of time spent volunteering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if laws were easy to circumvent, you could still make it harder to coordinate without someone involving lots of people, shifting money around in suspicious ways, and increasing the risk of getting "caught" doing something you obviously know is wrong.
If, instead of companies being able to contribute a big lump of money, they had to get 100 employees to make little donations, they still might be able to do that. But it's be harder to set that up, it'd be harder to coordinate, and it'd be harder to get a
Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (Score:5, Informative)
I hate lobbying as much as the next guy (who is on
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Say we get rid of this destructive legal fiction that identifies corporations as persons, and set their max contribution to zero.
While I'm at it, I'd really like a pony.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, that would be "money laundering". Given how much of a hassle it is now just to open a checking account, I'd say that prohibitions on money laundering could be enforced, putting the DHS to use for good instead of evil.
Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
See? It makes perfect sense
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Yes. And?... (Score:2)
So, where would you draw the line? Where does liberty of expression end and lobbying start?
Suppose there's a law stating that no one can donate more than $1000 to any candidate. How would that stop me from selling marketing services to some candidate at a $100 thousand loss for my company? When the other candidate comes, "sorry, we do not offer that service anymore, here, check our catalog for
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine a conviction for conspiracy to conceal election fraud would stop you for a few years, depending on the skills of your lawyer and the zeal of the prosecutor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Benefits vs. Costs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it isn't generally noticed that an impending destruction of certain civil liberties by an anti-democratic, overpowered lobbying corporate interest is at hand, does not mean that we should sit on our thumbs. Grass-roots movements don't start with the masses; they go to them. Have we forgotten how "power to the people" works already?
Re: (Score:2)
From the GP: "A friend of mine, who used to drive cab and has nothing to do with computers (except ripping borrowed music and movies)"
So, by the standards you've expressed for honesty, no.
Re:Benefits vs. Costs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Thin
Re: (Score:2)
That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Unfortunately, that is often the way things *do* work, but it should not be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Where was that survey that showed that the RIAA was considered by people to be the worst corporation in the US? I think they exceeded the distaste shown for Enron and their Ilk.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're right in the sense that total amount of campaign contributions received by all of Congress is a drop in the bucket, compared to the amount of money the movie and music industries rake in. And that amount is a pi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which just goes to show that porn stars are pretty much mainstream entertainment, hypocritical public exhortations to morality aside.
Dem-Repub Breakdown (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Cheap sellout bastards indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA just got their positive/negative signs confused or something.
it's at least likely, I mean come on, they're morons.
Re: The solution is simple then (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No! Vote for the Popular People's Anarcho-Syndacalist party! They're the only really pure group of politicians!
Nah, just kidding. They're all shits, just a bunch of grubby salesmen pushing ridiculous dreams on the uncritical masses. Oh, and a foundation of democracy and all that.
Vote Used Rubber not Turd Sandwich or Giant Douch (Score:2)
Re: The solution is simple then (Score:2)
I'm not going to just vote for a particular party -any- time. There are horrible candidates from any party. If you vote for your party, you're doing yourself and your country a gigantic disservice. What happens when your libertarian president turns out to be either extremist or extremely moderate or even perhaps mildly some other party?
Also, when any third party starts actually winning elections it's going to start attracting the same hypocritical scum the other parties do.
Look at the hypocrisy and corruption among the religious right's leadership. Is that because the rank and file want that kind of leadership? No, it's because there's money and power to be had, and plenty of people willing to pretend a little righteousness to get in on the whores and cocaine. To say nothing of those who might have been innocent before encountering the r
Bipartisanship in DC! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It's not bribery... (Score:2)
For a few dollars more.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re:For a few dollars more.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Or... (Score:2)
Or, you could do a quick google search to see just how much Microsoft contributes across the political board. It's in the millions.
Funny you say that.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
What is Lobbying? (Score:2)
Lobbying = Freedom of Assembly + Freedom of Speech
This might seem like inexpensive representation. $2000 to influence a vote. From the elected official's position it works like one of those diagrams cuts of beef [gutenberg.org]. Slice of RIAA, slice of Big Oil slice of Greenpeace, etc. Selling your position piecemeal is quite lucrative.
Why these fifty? (Score:2)
Oh wait. The article doesn't say that these are the only fifty who accepted RIAA money, just that these are fifty who did. There is not enough info presented to determine anything.
Now, if they had posted voting records for fifty pols who took cash and fifty that didn't this would be a decent article. As it is, though, this is just filler.
Regards.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
List of Consumers ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on? (Score:2)
"Do you now, (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty evenlt split (Score:2)
21-28
$54,000-$67,465 $121.465 total. Not a large amount of money. Especially to each individual. Wonder what they actually got for that.
Not a huge impact. (Score:3, Insightful)
It never seizes to amaze me... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
RIAA shills, can we call them ...? (Score:2)
Can we just call the Reps and Senators RIAA employees?
We have no representation with taxation in the US and EU.
Patrick Leahy (Score:2)
He's not.
Makes my *next* letter more urgent to write. Maybe he's merely misguided, and really does think "it's all about the artists."
Only 50? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: The real shock ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)