Slashdot Mirror

This one is easy. A quick look at John Conyers' political contributions shows the movie/music industry is the second largest political contributor to his campaign. Check out this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00004029 Who loves the MPAA/RIAA nowadays? Only the sellouts.

I won't bother with your anecdotes; the whole matter of "harassment" is so ambiguous as to obviate any rational analysis.

Yes, yelling "fire!" in a theater to cause a stampede is a prosecutable crime. If I believed this legislation was based on the same thoughtful and just legal firmament as that age-old example I'd have no issue with it.

However, I know better. I know this is simply nanny-state politicians making bank with their hair-brained soccer mom constituents AND the legal industry simultaneously (lawyers love ambiguous laws.) This is a no-brainer because it secures votes and funding for zero budget line items.

How do I know all this? Follow the money. Note the topmost "industry" on that list. Click the link to see who gets the bulk of that cash by a 4-to-1 margin. I don't have to name names because you can read.

Why hello, "Colin Smith (2679)"...

So.... Why are there only two candidates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not an American. Just would like to know why politics there is binary. On/Off, Good/Bad, Black/White.
Seems amazingly simplistic to me.

As it happens, I am an American, but what I would like to know is why you injected this rather simplistic question immediately following a rather interesting link about AT&T's campaign contributions. You appear to have done a very good job of derailing an interesting discussion about the details of the way American politics are conducted. (I would also like to know how it got rated "+5 Insightful", and why so many people took the bait and started discussing this irrelevant, off-topic issue... ).

By the way, how much is a four digit slash id worth on the open market these days?

Well...let's look at all of AT&T's top recipients. [opensecrets.org] Hmm....notice any other presidiential candiates on the top 3?

Thanks for the link, anonymous, this is an interesting one.

So, here we have

Senate McCain, John $138,605
Senate Obama, Barack $87,406
Senate Clinton, Hillary $83,292

AT&T has kicked around $300,000 to the three major candidates, and the breakdown is:

• 45% McCain
• 28% Obama
• 27% Clinton

A few thing to ponder:

• It appears that AT&T figured that McCain was their best value, but they must know he isn't really going to win the election (unless they know something we don't...). Do they do this just to stay on the good side of Republicans in general?
• Despite Obama's rep for working with small contributors, he's not above sticking a hand out to AT&T. (I sincerely hope Obama surprises me and doesn't disappoint me as I'm expecting).
• It always amazes me how small an amount of money it takes to buy a politician. A hundred thousand or so, and you've got yourself a president? But then, this isn't the total lifetime cost of ownership.
• Why exactly do we allow corporations to donate to political campaigns? Legally they're required to be money-grubbing bastards. They can't do this for any reason except some expected quid pro quo. Either the politicians are bought, and the polity is screwed, or they're not bought, and the investors are screwed.

Sorry to deflate your bubble, but despite receiving lots of little donations, the majority of Obama's money (and Clinton's and McCain's and pretty much every other corporate politician) comes from large donations. Only $10 million of his contributions are between $250 and $500. That's a small fraction of the $246 million he has raised.

True, donations over a certain size are tracked, but it is also true that many of these enormous donations are bundled together by heavy hitters who do seek influence. It would be naive in the extreme to think that Obama is somehow different in this respect. Politics is a pay-to-play system, and the only way the public will have a say is to organize independently of the corporate parties and hold the government accountable—regardless of which paid-off candidate wins.

The larger point is that all three major candidates have taken in over half a billion dollars, and while Obama may tout his plethora of tiny donations, it still only amounts to a fraction of the total he has received. Campaign finance is nothing more than open, legal bribery. There is a reason why corporations and the wealthy have far more influence in the government than workers, and why corporate interests trump public interests.

Setting aside the vast sums of money spent on campaigns and lobbyists, there's the fact that elected officials (who don't rock the boat) can look forward to lucrative jobs when they leave office—on the boards of top corporations, law and lobbying firms. Simply casting a ballot for a politician does not equal change. Change requires struggle—and as long as people are content to sit at home and do nothing (but vote on occasion and send in the occasional $100 check) the public will continue to lose out.

Obama is a case in point. One of his top contributors is Exelon, one of the US's largest nuclear power corporations. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, Obama successfully watered down legislation that would hold nuclear power plant operators accountable to local governments in the case of leaks or other accidents. Quid pro quo, pure and simple. Look at the $4 million he's raked in from the health care industry and you begin to understand why he opposes single-payer healthcare, an issue supported by over 60% of Americans. Obama's no different from other politicians—he just talks a better game.

I don't blame people for getting excited about Obama. After living through seven years of Bush some genuine change is long overdue. However, if you read the fine print, you'll see that Obama isn't offering much to be hopeful about—and it's going to take a mass movement of people to hold his feet to the fire and win real progress. And no, a campaign is not a movement. After the election is over he is free to ignore this "movement." The time to make demands and exact promises is now, before your vote has been cast. Simply settling for the least the two parties are willing to offer is not a recipe for progress.

The larger point is that all three major candidates have taken in over half a billion dollars, and while Obama may tout his plethora of tiny donations, it still only amounts to a fraction of the total he has received. Campaign finance is nothing more than open, legal bribery. There is a reason why corporations and the wealthy have far more influence in the government than workers, and why corporate interests trump public interests.

Setting aside the vast sums of money spent on campaigns and lobbyists, there's the fact that elected officials (who don't rock the boat) can look forward to lucrative jobs when they leave office—on the boards of top corporations, law and lobbying firms. Simply casting a ballot for a politician does not equal change. Change requires struggle—and as long as people are content to sit at home and do nothing (but vote on occasion and send in the occasional $100 check) the public will continue to lose out.

Obama is a case in point. One of his top contributors is Exelon, one of the US's largest nuclear power corporations. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, Obama successfully watered down legislation that would hold nuclear power plant operators accountable to local governments in the case of leaks or other accidents. Quid pro quo, pure and simple. Look at the $4 million he's raked in from the health care industry and you begin to understand why he opposes single-payer healthcare, an issue supported by over 60% of Americans. Obama's no different from other politicians—he just talks a better game.

I don't blame people for getting excited about Obama. After living through seven years of Bush some genuine change is long overdue. However, if you read the fine print, you'll see that Obama isn't offering much to be hopeful about—and it's going to take a mass movement of people to hold his feet to the fire and win real progress. And no, a campaign is not a movement. After the election is over he is free to ignore this "movement." The time to make demands and exact promises is now, before your vote has been cast. Simply settling for the least the two parties are willing to offer is not a recipe for progress.

Well, I think what the parent should have said was check his campaign contributors,

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

AT&T is his 5th highest contributor at $157,487

Univision Communications is also in for $75,700

There are also a number of LLP of which I have no idea whether they are related to communications companies.

Admittedly this is legal and is this the well known case of U.S. politics being, to a large degree although not completely by any means, controlled by corporations. I could argue either way that this is good or bad. My opinion is bad just because of I don't think creating a society based on the short term profit of companies is a good idea, but go figure.

Mike

I suspect the original poster is trying to imply an illegal link between the candidate and industry. I can't comment if one exists. But what I recommend is you go to Center for Responsive Politics which will tell you where the source of campaign contributions of all presidential candidates.

The Web site aggregates company donations by industrial sector. Thus to see which candidate gets the most money from "Telephone Utilities" you can try clicking on this link: Telephone Utility Totals to Candidates As you can see Sen. McCain has received $345,945 from said utilities while Sen. Obama has received $203,546.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

N.B. I should note that the last election fund-raising report was due on 20-May-2008 and that was for donations received in April, so the information on this Web site is usually two months old.

I suspect the original poster is trying to imply an illegal link between the candidate and industry. I can't comment if one exists. But what I recommend is you go to Center for Responsive Politics which will tell you where the source of campaign contributions of all presidential candidates.

The Web site aggregates company donations by industrial sector. Thus to see which candidate gets the most money from "Telephone Utilities" you can try clicking on this link: Telephone Utility Totals to Candidates As you can see Sen. McCain has received $345,945 from said utilities while Sen. Obama has received $203,546.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

N.B. I should note that the last election fund-raising report was due on 20-May-2008 and that was for donations received in April, so the information on this Web site is usually two months old.

Does that about sum it up?

Not quite. You forgot to add the vast sums of money to the equation.

Obama: $4,022,006 (TV/Movies/Music) + $3,060,630 (Computers/Internet) = $7,082,636

McCain: $636,046 (TV/Movies/Music) + $629,315 (Computers/Internet) = $1,265,361

Gee, I wonder who's going to be listening harder to what the RIAA, telcos and other technology sector players have to say...

Does that about sum it up?

Not quite. You forgot to add the vast sums of money to the equation.

Obama: $4,022,006 (TV/Movies/Music) + $3,060,630 (Computers/Internet) = $7,082,636

McCain: $636,046 (TV/Movies/Music) + $629,315 (Computers/Internet) = $1,265,361

Gee, I wonder who's going to be listening harder to what the RIAA, telcos and other technology sector players have to say...

Obama is *not* in favor of ending the war in Iraq. In the debates he refused to pledge to have all troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. Read the fine print. His "withdrawal" plan would redeploy troops around the Middle East so they could be sent back in to Iraq at any time. He would leave the world's largest embassy in Baghdad and the dozen or so military bases the US has constructed there. He would leave 100,000 lawless and unaccountable mercenaries operating in Iraq. Seriously, read his manifesto for a kinder, gentler empire which he published in Foreign Affairs. It should sicken any genuine progressive or antiwar person.

The vast majority of money Obama has taken in is from corporate sources. He may have received lots of tiny donations, but they represent a small fraction of the overall money he has received. He has raked in more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in the race. In addition, he routinely lies about not taking money from lobbyists, which is a demonstrably false statement. In fact, both he and Clinton have taken in far more money from corporations than McCain has--which shows where corporate America is placing their bets.

Take off the rose-colored glasses. He's not a different kind of politician, he's only better at playing the game.

Obama currently receives over 4x the amount of money from the computer industry compared to John McCain: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B12

Well, he's a Republican or Democrat, and he's breathing.

But you want real evidence? Here's plenty. $3 million from the entertainment industry, although that's dwarfed with the $16 million from the law industry.

Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.

Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600

When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php

See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.

Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.

Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600

When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php

See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.

Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.

Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600

When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php

See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.

Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.

Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600

When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php

See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.

Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.

Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600

When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php

See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.

Just in case anyone thinks he's just joking:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition

Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition

Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition

Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition

Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry

Hey, monopoly scum happens to be the number 1 supporter of my congressman Fred Upton, former chair of the house subcommittee on telecommunications. You're not suggesting that influenced political decisions in any ways are you? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Music, Movie, and TV companies paid Joseph Biden $178,358 (plus $193,310 from lobbyists) 2003-2008. But that is just a coincidence.

Oh look, there it is:

13 TV/Movies/Music $178,358

What a surprise!

I am sure that Sen Biden's idea has nothing to do with the fact that he has taken $178,358 from the TV/Movies/Music lobby in this last cycle. The ROI on paying off a politician is insane. Just look at Orrin Hatch and the DMCA.

Which companies are those? Time Warner? Time warner doesn't constitute "companies" - last I checked it's only one.

If you meant Time Warner (via Warner Music), it's worth noting that they gave almost half again as much money to Clinton as they did to Obama.

Thanks for the link, I've really found it interesting. I think the MOST interesting part is when you break down where the donations are coming from. *Individuals* at Warner Music gave $500 to Democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/affiliates.asp?ID=D000000094&Cycle=2008&Type=P Most of the biggest donations to Democrats seem to be from cable/movie content subsidiaries (the WB, HBO, Castle Rock Entertainment, New Line Cinema). A healthy dose of fear of "family values" censorship, anyone?

Other subsidiaries don't donate with such disparities. Especially interesting is how content DELIVERY subsidiaries (AOL LLC, Time Warner Cable) donate a lot but are pretty split between Democrats and Republicans.

The fact that NETWORKS seem to be trying to buy out both sides is the disturbing thing here, in my opinion.

Might be worth bearing in mind that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have taken huge campaign donations from RIAA associated companies.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Might be worth bearing in mind that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have taken huge campaign donations from RIAA associated companies.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Can you cite a reference for this? Because all sources I have found so far (including one you gave) indicate that 99% of his contributions are from individuals, not corporations or special interest groups.

Obama of all people is supposed to save us from pay-for-play?

Look who's #2 on TV/Movie/Music donations list. Yeah, I'm sure it's because Obama has promised to pass the Digital Consumer Rights Act.

Get a clue Lessig, Obama has his out out just like all the rest of them.

Come on! This is only a story because Coble has an 'R' next to his name. Coble (R-NC) SITS on the subcommittee and said some stupid things. Big deal!

Berman (D-CA) is the chairman of the subcommittee. Didn't he try this. No matter. He's clean as a whistle anyway.

Follow the money - Coble's just taking care of his patrons.

Hrm, who do I see here? The RIAA, ASCAP, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the American IP Law Association, all in his top 10.

The only surprise here is how long it's taken him to get around to taking care of them...

Follow the money here,
http://www.opensecrets.org/

So 2.63 billion is the cost of buying an election?

more reliably this. The last link is from opensecrets.org, which reports that over half of all contributions to him came from businesses.

• 102 MILLION from individuals
  
• 600 thousand from businesses
  

"Sen. Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company; apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry," she said.
<snip>
Obama's spokesperson, Bill Burton, however did return fire.

"Leave it to Senator Clinton to attack Barack Obama for a bill that she actually co-sponsored and supported. Instead of playing the same Washington games that people are sick of, she should prove how fully vetted she is by finally releasing her tax returns so that voters can see where the millions of dollars she's dropped into her campaign are coming from," Burton said.

Banking provides a decent amount of money to Sessions campaign coffers, but not an overwhelming amount. See http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00003062&cycle=2008

Remember, you can't spell DMCA without the D.

Seriously, look at the money Democrats get from the MAFIAA.

Movie money contributions go 10-1 Dem.

Music industry money skews about 5 or 6 to 1 Dem.

That money's buying something.

Remember, you can't spell DMCA without the D.

Seriously, look at the money Democrats get from the MAFIAA.

Movie money contributions go 10-1 Dem.

Music industry money skews about 5 or 6 to 1 Dem.

That money's buying something.

An insightful reply demands a informative one:

http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do
http://opensecrets.org/

Please check your candidates this time.

So guess which congresscritters are taking the most from the entertainment industry.

Mods, please don't shoot the messenger.

Look who is taking all the money from the entertainment industry:

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/indus.asp?cycle=2008&CmteID=S17&Cmte=SJUD&CongNo=110&Chamber=S (Senate Judicairy Committee, which makes new criminal laws, $2,675,675 from TV/Movies/Music).

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009918&cycle=2008 PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT) (took $250K from entertainment industry, supports Induce Act, Pirate Act)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009869&cycle=2008 Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) (has taken $114K from entertainment, sponsored Induce Act, Pirate Act)

There are even pics of the Congresswhores hobnobbing to celebrate the passage of the DMCA.

BTW, the entertainment industry tends to give more to Democrats, even when the GOP is controlling Congress.

Look who is taking all the money from the entertainment industry:

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/indus.asp?cycle=2008&CmteID=S17&Cmte=SJUD&CongNo=110&Chamber=S (Senate Judicairy Committee, which makes new criminal laws, $2,675,675 from TV/Movies/Music).

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009918&cycle=2008 PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT) (took $250K from entertainment industry, supports Induce Act, Pirate Act)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009869&cycle=2008 Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) (has taken $114K from entertainment, sponsored Induce Act, Pirate Act)

There are even pics of the Congresswhores hobnobbing to celebrate the passage of the DMCA.

BTW, the entertainment industry tends to give more to Democrats, even when the GOP is controlling Congress.