Slashdot Mirror

• A government which regulates industry based on a honest belief in the need for regulation based on scientific assessments of risks or
  
• a government that considers regulation an opportunity for a shakedown of businesses.

• A government which regulates industry based on a honest belief in the need for regulation based on scientific assessments of risks or
  
• a government that considers regulation an opportunity for a shakedown of businesses.

One can be an employee and a lobbyist. :-)

1 TV/Movies/Music $222,791
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $117,450

In 2002, he helped to sponsor a bill that would have given music and movie companies the right to disrupt peer-to-peer networks and even hack into the computers of suspected file-swappers...
He has been a big supporter of broadcast flags and was also behind legislation that directed the FBI to produce a special FBI warning, complete with seal that could be sent to suspected copyright violators...
But his total take from entertainment companies has actually decreased in recent years. In the 2002 cycle, he was the number two recipient of entertainment industry contributions. In 2006, he fell to eighth, though he was still the number one recipient in the House (apparently, donating to Senators is now the way to get things done).

Oh, we've got a few reasons for this. (last one's a ~100K PDF)

It is even more political than you think. The blog is off of the minority portion of the senate committee web site. This is Sen. James Inhofe's stuff. Take a look at his campaign contributers: http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allsector.asp?C ID=N00005582, Oil, Gas and Coal have him in their pocket.

He wrote the campaign for Exxon promoting their work in preserving Tigers and Exxon is believed to be the money behind both him and Senator Inhofe.

http://opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N 00005582&cycle=2004
Top contributor: Oil and Gas $304,156

Biden is from Delaware where most large corporations are headquartered. Feinstein is from California, Lindsey Grahama and Lamar are well known freakamazoid. Check out who donates to these clowns and see if this isn't exactly what you'd expect!

Biden is from Delaware where most large corporations are headquartered. Feinstein is from California, Lindsey Grahama and Lamar are well known freakamazoid. Check out who donates to these clowns and see if this isn't exactly what you'd expect!

Write them and your own rep and let them know how you feel- I mean are you shocked? Biden is from Delaware where most large corporations are headquartered, Feinstein is from California, Lindsey Grahama and Lamar are well known freakamazoid. Check out who donates to these clowns and see if this isn't exactly what you'd expect!

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp? cid=N00009975&cycle=2002

Of course they represent those who donate to them and unless you write their offices and your own they'll get away with this sort of crap!

Dianne Feinstein has a long history of being in the pockets of media industry, Time Warner and Disney in particular.
Joe Biden, as well, gets a great deal of money from the media instustry, its in his top 10.

The motivating force behind Graham and Alexander is less obvious to me.
I'm not optimistic that their reasons were any more noble than Feinstein and Biden, however.

-Sean

Dianne Feinstein has a long history of being in the pockets of media industry, Time Warner and Disney in particular.
Joe Biden, as well, gets a great deal of money from the media instustry, its in his top 10.

The motivating force behind Graham and Alexander is less obvious to me.
I'm not optimistic that their reasons were any more noble than Feinstein and Biden, however.

-Sean

Dianne Feinstein has a long history of being in the pockets of media industry, Time Warner and Disney in particular.
Joe Biden, as well, gets a great deal of money from the media instustry, its in his top 10.

The motivating force behind Graham and Alexander is less obvious to me.
I'm not optimistic that their reasons were any more noble than Feinstein and Biden, however.

-Sean

Dianne Feinstein has a long history of being in the pockets of media industry, Time Warner and Disney in particular.
Joe Biden, as well, gets a great deal of money from the media instustry, its in his top 10.

The motivating force behind Graham and Alexander is less obvious to me.
I'm not optimistic that their reasons were any more noble than Feinstein and Biden, however.

-Sean

Dianne Feinstein has a long history of being in the pockets of media industry, Time Warner and Disney in particular.
Joe Biden, as well, gets a great deal of money from the media instustry, its in his top 10.

The motivating force behind Graham and Alexander is less obvious to me.
I'm not optimistic that their reasons were any more noble than Feinstein and Biden, however.

-Sean

Top Recipients: TV/Movies/Music - Feinstein received > $200,000 from the television, movies, and music industry. That type of money BUYS influence.

Throw into the mix all the money the drug companies have given to politicians to help maintain the status quo and you begin to see how difficult it is to make changes.

You think that's bad? Check out this industry. Their totals make
contributions from PHARMA look like fucking chump change. $93 million in 2006 compared to $15 million. $183 million in 2004 compared to $18 million.
Hell, look at the top ten list PHARMA is #10 in 2006 and #16 in 2004.

Throw into the mix all the money the drug companies have given to politicians to help maintain the status quo and you begin to see how difficult it is to make changes.

You think that's bad? Check out this industry. Their totals make
contributions from PHARMA look like fucking chump change. $93 million in 2006 compared to $15 million. $183 million in 2004 compared to $18 million.
Hell, look at the top ten list PHARMA is #10 in 2006 and #16 in 2004.

I'm amazed it's so cheap to buy off and control the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products business.
Only ~15 MUSD a year to buy off the whole political establishment.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?In d=H04&cycle=2006

That's an extremely effective investment.
What if they were just as effective when developing new products ...

You assume the United States is the only one with a stupid government.

And you are too ready to call people "stupid" instead of thinking.

Politicians, broadly speaking, are not stupid. The rewards which flow to a successful politician - money and power - are huge. There is therefore a lot of competition. Stupid people have no chance.

Politicians say stupid things pretty often. That's not because they believe what they're saying; it's because saying those things will get them more votes.

Politicians often pass legislation which harms the people they represent. But the majority of voters don't follow complex issues, so that doesn't affect re-electability. In most cases, the legislation is in response to some special interest. The purpose of passing it is usually to get more campaign donations. It is relatively cheap for large corporations to buy the legislation they want in this way (here's an example).

Our pols are not stupid, just unethical. But our political system seems to favor unscrupulous people.

Unfortunately it's pretty difficult to argue for patent reform right now. Because of technology and drugs, life expectancy has never been higher. If any changes are going to be made, congress will have to make those changes. And the drug companies are likely to argue the reason there have ever been so many life-saving drugs is because the patent system works. And congress is not likely to 'fix' something it doesn't perceive as majorly 'broken'.

Throw into the mix all the money the drug companies have given to politicians to help maintain the status quo and you begin to see how difficult it is to make changes.

thats a billionare donating only 1.5 million every 5 years for charity

I think you misspelled politician. Sony lobbied politicians to the tune of 1.235 million dollars last year (2005). Politicians and judges aren't going to protect you. There is no justice in a totally corrupt system like America's system of "democracy."

Here is your answer:

http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B0 8

(that site rocks!)

Why would the Bush administration care who wins and who loses?

It's not necessarily the Bush Administration, but on average more wireless companies give money to Republicans than Democrats. See this page on OpenSecrets. AT&T (Cingular) and Verizon both gave more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Companies lobbying the government subvert democracy. That works when the taxpayers aren't paying attention but the country seems to be getting irritable about all the corruption at this point. I'm thinking news story about any law being made should mention how much money the sponsoring Congessmen get from the industry lobbies the bill helps out. Then you could say something like "Ted Stevens tried to attach a rider to the budget bill to the budget proposal again. Sen. Stevens has received $372,140 from oil and gas companies over the course of his career (According to opensecrets.org.)" I think there'd be far fewer shennanigans if news stories took that tone. I think it'd be better still if lobbying and riders were outlawed outright but then Congress wouldn't be able to get their piggy fingers on any of that pie. And Congress does like their pie...

That's odd. I wonder why they haven't gotten a subpoena?

I simply cannot believe how long this has gone on. What a staggering waste of time and resources. This is probably as good an example as any of why the West is probably going to fall. While China is ramping up production and making huge economic strides, we here in the US are arguing over lines of code as our manufacturing base continues to crumble. Changing over to a "service economy?" Please.

How many hours have been wasted on this type of crap? What useful item has been produced out of this or any of the other spurious "copyright" or "intellectual property" cases?

Trial lawyers giving money to politician lawyers, who make laws so trial lawyers can argue cases against rival trial lawyers in front of judge lawyers. So, what's the common denominator and who benefits? Follow the money.

This is why tort reform as it pertains to Intellectual Property needs to be addressed.

Here's why it will never happen: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp. If money buys influence--and it absolutely does--then what group has the most influence? That doesn't even account for the fact that most Congressmen and Congresswomen are lawyers themselves.

Mod parent up. There's a definite correlation here of money for laws. Here's the long term trend.

Orrin Hatch got this piece of crap introduced and passed and has also taken almost $400K From the entertainment lobby.

America, best government money can buy®

I wrote an op-ed piece about this the other day:

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then PLEASE do no

Was anyone else disappointed by the election results in Texas district 10 (http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.asp?ID=T X10&cycle=2006&special=N)? I really thought the Libertarians had a shot at that one...

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.

Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Wan to know who supports them? Want to see their voting record?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.

Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Want to read an incumbent's voting record in simple language? Want to know how interest groups rate the candidates?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (

They've made a $1.6B bet that they can make youtube work. Their net cap is probably quite a bit bigger than every major record company and movie studio combined, and they appear to have plenty of cash in the bank.

It's an election year. Why the hell aren't they trying to buy off Congress and the Senate? 435 Congresscritters and 100 Senators, a $100K campaign contribution to each (or in the case of R/MPAA leadership, to their opponent) would only cost $53.5 million dollars. This would dwarf campaign contributions from Hollywood in this campaign cycle. (those who would like to come up with something closer than a guessestimate are invited to take a look at OpenSecrets... Congresscritters, even high ranking ones, come amazingly cheap) While in theory, this buys access, in practice... politicians listen to people who come in bearing large checks.

After that, they could for practical purposes, rewrite copyright law to suit themselves. While their interest don't exactly parallel ours, they'd be in a position to create more technology-friendly laws than anything Hollywood is likely to pay Congress to do to us. Just what could Hollywood do about this? Outbid them? They very probably can't, though some of the studios in weaker financial positions might go bankrupt trying. Or alternately, google can give them offers they can't refuse: "You want your sites to disappear from the Web? Keep pushing."

Note: Net Neutrality would cost a lot more, they'd have to outbid the incumbent RBOCs and cable companies.

Right, because they profit either way it goes. Predictable in light of this: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp

Only a fool would think that the $$ doesn't buy them some serious influence. Think about the absurdity of it: lawyers giving lawyers money to win elections, so that the government will make it easy to drum up more business. Democracy will always be in jeopardy because money decides elections.

OK, here is my problem with Google telling me how accurate the statements of politicians are:

Political donations given by Google CEO Eric Schmidt from 2003-2006 to Democratic party members and fund-raising organizations: $37,700.
Political donations given by Google CEO Eric Schmidt from 2003-2006 to Republican party members and fund-raising organizations: $0
[ source ]

Political donations given by Google Empolyees from 2005-2006 to Democratic party members, fund-raising organizations, and PACs: $196,223
Political donations given by Google Empolyees from 2005-2006 to bipartisan PACs: $12,500
Political donations given by Google Empolyees from 2005-2006 to Republican party members, fund-raising organizations, and PACs: $4,000
[ source ]

OK, here is my problem with Google telling me how accurate the statements of politicians are:

Political donations given by Google CEO Eric Schmidt from 2003-2006 to Democratic party members and fund-raising organizations: $37,700.
Political donations given by Google CEO Eric Schmidt from 2003-2006 to Republican party members and fund-raising organizations: $0
[ source ]

Political donations given by Google Empolyees from 2005-2006 to Democratic party members, fund-raising organizations, and PACs: $196,223
Political donations given by Google Empolyees from 2005-2006 to bipartisan PACs: $12,500
Political donations given by Google Empolyees from 2005-2006 to Republican party members, fund-raising organizations, and PACs: $4,000
[ source ]

It would be neat if you could link each piece of spending with the name of the Congressman whose wording introduced that particular clause of the spending bill, and then somehow correlate that data back to OpenSecrets.org and then find out how much "profit" was made by each entity (tax revenue routed to a given company/industry minus lobbying dollars spent by that company/industry).

Whose lobbying dollars are the most profitable? I know mine sure aren't.

Look up your favorite Democrats at OpenSecrets and find out about how much of their campaign money comes from the Hollywood content cartel. . . and you won't need to wonder just where bullshit like the DMCA comes from. Hint: In Hillary Clinton's career campaign contribution profile of individual donors, Disney (as in The Path to 9/11) is #15.

If the government can spy on private citizens, why not big business?

If the Republicans are looking for a legacy for the 21st Century, I think they found it.

Is it any suprise that HP tends to donate more money to Republicans then Democrats?

1. "Oil" companies are really "energy fuel" companies. They will sell you whatever fuel you want to buy. The debate on global warming is irrelevant to them. In fact, if you switch to more expensive fuels, like hydrogen induction for your car and nuclear for your electricity, their profit margins might actually go up.

BS. The debate is not irrelevant. The lower your costs, the more profit you can make, and switching to non-carbon fuels requires a large investment that will eat up profits in the short-term. In the modern investing environment, protecting short-term shareholder interests is all that matters. Oil companies stand a lot to gain from sticking to technologies and infrastructure that they've already invested in.

I'll have to take the second items bit-by-bit:

2. One of the most powerful, corrupt, and politically active corporations in all of America is the Archer Daniels Midland corportation.

Agreed. ADM is a cancer on the US economy that has helped drive small, family farms out of business.

First of all, it takes a shitload of corn (pardon the pun) to make, and growing corn is extremely hard on the land.

Corn is the single worst crop you can use for ethanol. Switchgrass and sugarcane are much, much better. In the realm of biodiesel, energy returns on land investment are much greater, and algal biodiesel gives utterly outrageous BTUs/acre.

Secondly, while CO2 emissions are lower with ethanol, other gases, many of which are far more dangerous to humans, are emitted at much higher levels.

Going to E100 or B100 increases NOx but decreases formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. PM is usually reduced, and sulfates are eliminated. The mild NOx increase is problematic but small. However, due to a lack of sulfur, NOx control technologies (better catalytic converters) can be used that are unavailable in standard petrofuel engines that can completely negate and reverse this trend.

Thirdly, the energy consumed just to fertilize, harvest, ship, process and distill this miracle fuel is enormous.

The energy consumed just to drill, extract, ship, process and crack crude oil is enormous. What's your point.

Also, try using feedstocks other than corn. It makes a huge difference.

Lucky for ADM, they fucking *own* the government.

Unfortunately, this fact, and the disproportionately powerful sugarcane lobby are the major reasons why corn is used as an ethanol feedstock instead of something more efficient.

Before fretting about how much Exxon may have given to some tiny PAC dressed up in white lab coats, look into how much money ADM has given to Vice President Al Gore over the years.

ADM does not show up in the list of top donors for either the 1996 or 2000 elections for Al Gore. In 2000, Bush received $2,636,625 from agribusiness while Gore received $309,575. ADM has given more to Republicans or equivalent in every election since 1992 except for 1994 for a total 57% Rep. vs. 43% Dem.

It's not people like Gore that ADM gives money to but Congressmen from farm states that received the bulk of their largesse. People like Gore don't believe in biofuels because farm lobbies bribe them; they believe very honestly that global warming is a threat. (Have you ever seen "An Inconvenient Truth?" His passion for the matter is evident.) It is, however, companies like ADM that keep us on inefficient products that do more to hurt ethanol than even the oil companies do.

More than you wanted to know about Archer Daniels Midland

Donor Profile for Archer Daniels Midland

We must never forget the purpose of copyright laws. They are there to promote the useful arts. Ask yourself: how is suing youtube accomplishing this?

The idea that no one will create anything if youtube users are allowed to use it in their homemade videos is absurd. But don't blame Universal. Blame congress for favoring promotion over profits and allowing the recording industry to make massive campaign contributions in what would *appear* to be an exchange for legislation.

The entertainment gives our elected officials about $30 million/year to make sure they can bring lawsuits like this one.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/

Hmm, looks like an increase to me.

If a government is limited to its most basic and absolute functions, it won't have the power to over-reach its place in society. Big business likes big government because big government has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of big business.

Anyone out there who really thinks that this legislation is designed to protect children from being victims of porn, is delusional, naive, and misguided. It is simply an excuse to begin legislating and regulating a sector that has previously not been subject to regulation. Why would they want to do this? Because big media wants it that way.

Look at the sponsors of this, and then goto http://www.opensecrets.org/ and find out who is contributing to them. That might help understand the money trail a bit.

The libertarians are right on about keeping a small limited government for this very reason.

That's a great idea! All of that info (home address and all) is public record! Also include their campaign contributions--all info on that site is taken from FEC filings, which are also pubic record!

"A report from the cable industry's research arm suggests that Cable-television operators require another round of multibillion-dollar network upgrades to keep up with rivals in the fast-growing high-speed Internet hookup business.

Do you hear that?

It's the sound of tens of thousands of dollars in new bribes starting the march to Congress to make sure that our taxes pay for these upgrades while the cablecos continue to act as if they own the infrastructure.

Why just tens of thousands? Congress is notoriously cheap the best government money can buy at the best prices too!

Oh dear God, not Orrin Hatch again! Seriously, this idiot was the man who introduced the DMCA and look how wonderful that piece of legislation was.

As usual, follow the money....
Orrin Hatch received $126,918 from the entertainment industry in this last cycle. Not to be outdone, Leahy received $251,970

By my calculations that means that congressmen can be bought for less than $400K. My, my, my what an insanely great ROI.

America, the best government money can buy®

Oh dear God, not Orrin Hatch again! Seriously, this idiot was the man who introduced the DMCA and look how wonderful that piece of legislation was.

As usual, follow the money....
Orrin Hatch received $126,918 from the entertainment industry in this last cycle. Not to be outdone, Leahy received $251,970

By my calculations that means that congressmen can be bought for less than $400K. My, my, my what an insanely great ROI.

America, the best government money can buy®