Congressional Candidate Over P2P & DRM

Dark Nexus writes "Wired is running an article on a woman in North Carolina who has chosen to run against Howard Coble, who has come out against P2P networks. She said that she was sick of "individual rights sacrificed for big corporate politics" and is campaigning for digital rights to be preserved. A quote from her weblog: "I have put myself in the bullseye to stand up for our rights as free thinking citizens." It's about time someone stood up and tried to run against one of Hollywood's Congressmen on Hollywood's key issues." Update: 08/23 21:10 GMT by M : We're getting enough submissions of this story that we're probably going to post it on the front page.

Comments

Re:Why is this in North Carolina?

[nelsonal]

The chairs are elected positions, which usually end up being appointed by each party, ususlly on seniority. People with an interest can usually get a committee that they wish to, with the execption if House Ways & Means, House Rules, Senate Finance, and Both Oversight there are others but they are similarly powerful committees. Those are the ones that usually decide funding for a large part of the government, so everyone wants to be on them. The newly elected congresswoman, if she were to win the election would not inherit the commitees of the outgoing congressman, since they usually have quite a bit less seniority. Also since the senate has fewer commitees, senators ususally serve on several, while house memebers only have a few committees they sit.

What sort of happened

[Spamalamadingdong]

I'm a little hazy on that myself, but Perot no doubt set up the conditions for the Contract with America and a whole lot of limited-government, more-accountability electioneering. That in turn led to the Republicans capturing the House of Representatives in 1994 (with some help from Clinton's utter cluelessness on the issues of energy policy and health care). Perot dragged the Republican party away from the Religious Right for a little while and toward a more consistent stance on limited and efficient government (rather than "limited only where it doesn't offend our preachers"); unfortunately, it has fallen back.