Slashdot Mirror

Excellent piece. BTW: Republicans = Democrats = Sold out. And I mean it, here is proof: http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/ - http://opensecrets.org/

I'd suggest american friends to change from a Duocracy system to a real democracy. As much is proven that a duopoly is not effective in favouring the consumer, why whould a duocracy do any better in the political field?

Thanx I had help finding those sites in Google! Maybe they don't get the attenction they deserve maybe I am not really good at searching. There is also this one http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/

750$ per infringment is ridicolous by any standard except when you consider the amount of money that has been spent to "lobby" this law. So please mod the parent as "informative" as this is the real issue behind the question.

Enrico

Strange, that you think the Democrats would support it.

Here you have a bill that would create an exception in the laws that would allow common people (i.e. internet users) to post whatever political opinion they want on the internet while receiving payments for creating said content.

The Republican party has long triumphed free speech with respect to political positions, where "free speech" is synonymous with money spent to advertise their platforms. The current campaign finance laws "restrict free speech" by restricting the amount of money (and where, and when) a political party can spend on their campaigns.

The Democratic party, which has long proclaimed themselves a "party of the little man" and "enemy of the corporations" have a very hard time raising money from said corporations. So, it is in their best interest to restrict the amounts of spending by their competators, to make it "fair".

Adding this exception would allow their chief competator (Republicans) to use their (larger) campaign funds in a media that is fast outstripping traditional forms of media (TV / newspapers) among voting audiences, increasingly so among younger voters (who statistically are more Democrat). So, is it really that strange that the Democrats would oppose it?

"Yes, yes, GPS in rental cars and speeding tickets and pay-by-the-mile and yadda yadda yadda. How is that restricting "rights", exactly? The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?"

Well, yeah. People ought to be able to disobey unjust laws. Call me crazy here, but I think at some level people should retain the ability to tell the government to fuck off should the government decide to start getting too in-your-face.

Gov. Goon #1: Hey! Lets make a law that says that everyone has to think what we tell them, and that not doing so is unpatriotic!
Gov. Goon #2: That would be awsome. But how would we enforce it?
Gov. Goon #1: Well all that computer automated enforcement stuff we came up with back in the late 2000's should help.
Gov. Goon #2: Brilliant!

I can imagine your response: "What? Laws shouldn't be perfectly enforceable? Poppycock! The AUTHORITIES should be able to enforce compliance on everyone because breaking the law is wrong! If they couldn't then everyone would go around breaking the law...!"

Well.
What if it came to the point that breaking the law wasn't wrong? What if there was an unjust law? What if there was a big company that had it's own intrests rather than those of the consumer at heart, and it started lobbying the government with lots of money and the government listened to the money rather than the people's will? I know, I know - it sounds like some sort of twisted fantasy. But it could happen!

I agree on the distinction with the wealth. It really is hard to measure for both. I suppose if Kerry got divorced he probably wouldn't be worth jack wheras Bush's fortune is family. Like I said - I like Kerry - and I have no problem with the rich.

As for Hollywood - I'd reallly like to see a statistic.

Time Warner - Richard Parsons (Time Warner CEO) is definitely a Republican (and friendly with Powell) but Barry Meyer (head of WB Studios) and Robert Shaye and Michael Lynne (co-heads of New Line) actually gave to Kerry, Dean and Gephart

Disney - Eisner seems to give to both but mainly Republican

Universal - Ron Meyer is definitely a Democrat.

Fox - Murdoch is pretty obviously Republican but the head of Fox Studios (Angela Shapiro) is a Democrat.

As for Music:

Warner Music - Edgar Bronfman has given a lot to Friends of Hillary. I am pretty sure that makes him a Democrat.

Universal Music - Douglas Morris is a Democrat.

Sony/BMG - Rolf Schmidt-Holtz and Michael Smellie are either not American or didn't contribute to anybody. Andy Lack, who I am pretty sure is American, didn't contribute either.

Those are all hard facts based on their contributions in 2004. And I would hardly discount the value of the celebrities themselves. Bon Jovi raised $1 MM for Kerry last month.

*That site has a ton of other useful information but a lot of it is locked up.

If you want to see why I think pharma was pivotal in this move, check out the auction site.