Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Democrats United States Politics Your Rights Online

White House Petition To Investigate Dodd For Bribery 596

Walkingshark writes "Chris Dodd's recent statements complaining that congressmen who receive donations from the RIAA and MPAA should toe the line has spawned a firestorm of anger on the internet. Among the bits of fallout: a petition on the White Houses "We the People" site to investigate him, the RIAA, and the MPAA for bribery! This petition gained more than 5000 signatures in 24 hours and is still growing. When the petition reaches 25,000 signatures the White House is obligated to respond to it in an official capacity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Petition To Investigate Dodd For Bribery

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @05:27PM (#38784583)

    The petition to take the petitions seriously (AKA the "calling shenanigans on "representation" petition) gained the required number of signatures already and was subsequently completely ignored.


  • by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @05:27PM (#38784593)

    There's a fine line. It's usually OK to make a sizable donation to a candidate and give them a wink, wink nudge, nudge about what you want. It's not OK to pay for them to take specific positions and vote in specific ways.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @05:32PM (#38784645) Journal

    In theory, when a politician is bribed, he is paid to hold a particular opinion. When he is lobbied, he is paid (indirectly) for someone to be allowed to present their case. In practice, when you have two sides to an argument and one is paying to make its case and the other is not, then the politician does not hear from the other side and so ends up holding whatever opinion the lobbyist presents.

    Lobbying wouldn't be such a problem if politicians were less lazy. If they heard from lobbyists and then did some real research on the topic, then lobbying would just do what it was meant to: bring issues to the attention of elected representatives.

  • Chris Dodd (Score:3, Informative)

    by scottbomb ( 1290580 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @05:41PM (#38784761) Journal

    The same Chris Dodd who, along with Barney Frank (you remember him, his lover ran a gay brothel out of his house a few years back), are the very crooks behind the housing crisis that started this whole recession.

    At least these two won't be able to do actual damage in Congress anymore.

  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Sunday January 22, 2012 @05:42PM (#38784771) Homepage
    Yeah, many of the petitions that have reached 25,000 have gotten a response that amounts to "no comment". It's too bad the media doesn't pick up on these petitions.
  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @06:09PM (#38785069) Journal

    Do you even know what the work means?

    So, you're saying that if you and a bunch of people who think like you decided to pool some resources and hire somebody to go to DC and make sure that the staffers working for congressional reps and senators were up to speed on some complex topic that most people don't understand (the better to hope that any voting they do that might impact this thing you care about is based on actual information, and not what someone else told them) ... that's dishonest?

    That's what lobbying pretends to be. What lobbying really IS, at least in the case of the RIAA and MPAA, is that the lobbyists write legislation, which they then hand over to said staffers along with a check and promise for future campaign help if the congresspeople pass that legislation.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @06:11PM (#38785095)

    a corporation made up of specialists in a field would know better how things in their expertise work as opposed to politicians (e.g. technology, education, environment, etc.).

    The experts really think that an issue is important, then they can lobby as individuals for that issue - whatever it may be.

    If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".

    Yes there is a line.

    Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.

    By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.

    Just one to blow me out of the water and I'll kiss goatse on the ass.

  • by NoisySplatter ( 847631 ) <noisysplatter@gmai l . c om> on Sunday January 22, 2012 @06:12PM (#38785101)

    I ran into this a while back, clear your cookies and it should fix the issue.

  • Re:Losers (Score:5, Informative)

    by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @06:22PM (#38785169)

    Really, there are a lot of petitions on there I would think everyone on Slashdot would support. Consider these:

    Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood []

    Reduce the term of copyrights to a maximum of 56 years []

    End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet []

    You can register and sign all of them in about two minutes. There's absolutely no excuse not to, except apathy. Signing a petition may not change anything, but not signing it is guaranteed not to.

  • by decora ( 1710862 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @06:44PM (#38785407) Journal

    a true 'audit' would be combing through every piece of legislation the congressman voted for, and determining whether or not the $500,000 worth of campaign donations that helped him and his party over the past 5 years were from people who benefited from line items in the bills he sponsored or passed.

    and in case you didnt notice, congressman have sweet jobs - massive salaries, free health care, pensions, and, on top of that, after they get through, they get jobs as ---- lobbyists, making untold fortunes using their contacts in washington to keep the gravy train going.

    these objections people are raising here about the legitimate uses of lobbying are like someone arguing about the legitimate uses of dynamite in a banking environment.

  • by EdIII ( 1114411 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:06PM (#38786275)

    Posting here because this at the top so far. []

    That is the direct link to sign the petition at the White House website. Still needs 14,000 signatures to go.

    Slashdot that petition please :)

  • by countertrolling ( 1585477 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:09PM (#38786797) Journal

    No need to be so optimistic.. Old world mass media still owns the pipe... If you don't believe me, just look at the types [] that are still winning elections. I mean, how is this possible? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer)

  • by EdIII ( 1114411 ) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:31PM (#38786985)

    Why not?

    With the Patriot Act, SOPA, domestic UAVs for surveillance, TSA monitoring web activity for dissent, etc. what do you really have to lose?

    It's not like you need to give them a full address or social. A name, zip code, and working email address. All of which could be faked and entered via proxy.

    Don't let a little proxy work stop you from signing some of these petitions, of which, one of them is also to stop ACTA.

    Ohhh, and the White House already has access to the IRS. The IRS has access to my bank, VISA, MC, etc. So whatever they want to find out about me, they certainly have the ability to do so already.

  • by martas ( 1439879 ) on Monday January 23, 2012 @10:11AM (#38790871)
    Nobody will probably ever read this comment, but I just need to get this out there. The idea you had is certainly interesting, and has probably been had by many people, but I don't think it can ever really have a significant impact, and this is why []. If only a few of the richest people/corporations throw their money behind something, you would need an impossibly large portion of the population to oppose it to have any hope of balancing out the numbers. This is why I think the notion of allowing any kind of financial contribution in politics, beyond a tiny amount per individual that a significant portion of the population should be able to afford (e.g. $100), is deeply flawed in a mathematical sense.

    There may be rare exceptions to this -- your idea might be effective if for example there is no corporate interest on certain topic, and the few thousand $ you raise happens to catch someone's attention enough to make it worth for them to bother spending any amount of time on it, but I think you'll agree that this is pretty rare. Another instance would be if there really is immense popular support for one side of an issue that can actually counterbalance the corporate opposition, but at those levels of popular support I think it really isn't a matter of money anymore, i.e. any reasonable politician would be more worried about public perception at that point than about campaign funding or whatnot.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford