Slashdot Mirror
Congress Members Who Took RIAA Cash
palewook writes "The Consumerist posted a story containing the contact information of 50 United States Representatives & Senators who accepted RIAA money during their last election campaign. Seems like a good time to let a few people know how you feel about RIAA shills."
In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Lobbyin is the weakest part of US democracy. I am really not a US basher (a colleague says I am a disguised CIA operative), but I don't understand what place lobbying has in a democracy. I don't care how transparent it is, it's still a bribe.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Obama, you were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy DRM, not join them! Bring balance to the internet, not leave it in darkness!
The biggest contribution on the list is $9000; most are $2000 or less. If you knew about the public opinion on the RIAA, why would you take money from them? It seems like the negative publicity f having taken money would outweigh whatever you could do with the money.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
First of all, this is who the RIAA donated to, not who "accepted" their money. I would say nearly all politicians will except money from anyone, except entities who are clearly negative to the mainstream (and the RIAA is NOT "clearly negative" to the mainstream).
One of the ways the RIAA operates is by donating money to politicians who then enact favorable legislation on their behalf. Don't let the optimist in you believe that this doesn't work. It does.
Second of all, these amounts are ridiculously small. Does anyone seriously thinking $1,000-$9,000 is going to buy major legislation? That won't pay for their gold letter opener on their desk. Sheesh, if that's all it takes to pass legislation, I'll pay a couple thou to get MY pet legislation passed.
In short, what's the story here?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
By my count in the article, that's 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Of the presidential candidates, the two Democrats Barack and Hillary are on there.
The real shock to me is that it's only fifty.
The bribe is about the same for Democrat or Republican and just happens to be about the same as a RIAA "settlement offer."
Cheap sellout bastards indeed!
Only further proves Ron Paul's quote (to paraphrase) when he said to watch out when Republicans and Democrats worked happily together, because the taxpayers and citizens are screwed.
as email. I remember reading somewhere that email was consider to easy and therefore not a reliable guage of public opinion. Personally I think they just afraid of getting caught yanking on their tubes.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
... we prefer to call it "pre-voting". And don't think that who ever those 50 senators are running against in the next elections aren't going to get some "donations" as well. By the time the candidates get to the actual ballots, all of your "democratic" influence is just for show. I'll vote for the guy with a good informative website and not a single TV commercial or trip to my home state.
We are all just people.
but might be a good strategy as this'll keep "RIAA is the victim here" in the back tens of politicians minds so when time comes for a vote this might sway them to side with any legislation that is backed by the record companies.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Rebuild the Capitol so that the front door leads directly to the Congress chamber. No lobby, no lobbying.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN, not for the Republicrats nor the Democans. They have sold this country to the highest bidders, while the Libertarian party will hold true to the constitution and not take anything from the MAFIAA.
Did you see how much it costs to buy a congress critter! Nearly nothing. You could raise that much before noon.
WTF, these people are selling their souls for peanuts. What we need is an "open" lobbying fund.
Seems like a good time to let a few people know how you feel about RIAA shills.
I'm outraged by this!
I'll go and take the money away from them!
And TV will come with me and make a frickin' documentation of it... so you can all watch me doin' it!
Is it just me who is shocked, shocked by how little it takes to buy a Congressman these days? I mean, in days gone by it would have been hundreds of thousands, a job for the kid to allow him to work through college, a few first class tickets to somewhere nice...
Now its like $1000-9000. I mean I could buy a Congressman for that amount of money. If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...
Either the RIAA is stingy or Congressmen are desperate for extra cash.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Lobbying = Freedom of Assembly + Freedom of Speech
This might seem like inexpensive representation. $2000 to influence a vote. From the elected official's position it works like one of those diagrams cuts of beef. Slice of RIAA, slice of Big Oil slice of Greenpeace, etc. Selling your position piecemeal is quite lucrative.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Lotsa posts on this thread are focusing on how small the dollar amounts are etc.. I just want to know why it was these fifty politicians who recieved the cash.
Oh wait. The article doesn't say that these are the only fifty who accepted RIAA money, just that these are fifty who did. There is not enough info presented to determine anything.
Now, if they had posted voting records for fifty pols who took cash and fifty that didn't this would be a decent article. As it is, though, this is just filler.
Regards.
I would like there to be a list published of the people that bought RIAA CDs, thereby providing funding to these crooks.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I guess she's not getting enough from the offshorers at Tata Consultancy Services.
Shouldn't they be giving the money they raise to the artists?
Perhaps we should come up with a way to make this work in our favour.... instead of complaining... just raise money online and use the funds to bribe/donate to US Politcal representatives.
Damn 'activists' should get a real job.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Lobbying, in itself, is not the problem. Lobbying in its pure form is nothing more than persuasion or advocacy. In fact, I would argue that lobbying is beneficial in a technically complex and diverse society where various groups need to have knowledgeable people pressing their case to lawmakers who could never be expert on the details themselves. Lobbying is important in a pluralistic democracy.
The problem is that the lobbyists can "bundle" donations in order to give fat checks to lawmakers. Bundling is a technique of pooling money from several donors to get around limits on individual donors.
Only one form of campaign finance reform will ever really work. All others will ALWAYS fail. The one that will work is to enact the following - Allow only registered voters who are eligible to vote for a candidate/issue may donate to that candidate/issue. Only registered voters in a district have any business influencing elections in that district. People from California, New York, or anywhere else have *NO* legitimate reason to donate to a candidate or referendum issue in Nebraska, but I would be willing to bet Nebraska Senators and Congressmen raise most of their cash from out-of-state interests. So there is the problem, and I've given the solution.
Of course nobody who is vested in the current system will ever go along with that proposal. It doesn't matter whether its the politicians or business groups, labor unions, or 'advocacy' groups like on both the left or right like the ACLU, AARP, or NRA. They all believe they have an interest in the current system.
or have you ever, given money to the RIAA?"
Is there some inalienable right to free music? If you think the market is overpriced, go hear a local band or pick up your own noisemaker and have some fun with it. Maybe if the RIAA executives hear a bunch of Slashdotters' singing they'll come down on their prices.
In a country whose long-term drift toward fascism has accelerated into a rush, there are far more important issues that we should be raising hell about.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Much as I despise many of the companies that donate money to politician's campaign funds, there's really nothing to see here. Any corporation over a certain size is likely to give money to both the incumbent and the top challenger in each senate race, and the politicians are going to take the money and only give it back if there's a particularly large public outcry over some particular donor (like if the donor is a felon looking for a pardon, or something along those lines.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Now, give me the info for all the others who didn't take it....because if people stopped pirating, the RIAA wouldn't exist. So, start charging people with federal copyright law claims, and maybe people won't be stupid.
If voting could change the system it would be against the law.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Most of those people are incumbents, and the one that got the most money doesn't even chair a committee remotely related to RIAA.
Also, those 'opponents' aren't very likely to get much money, considering the rate of re-election these days. (90% incumbency rate in house, something like 75% in senate). That means that 90% of the time, a house memeber can win an election in his district again if he's the current guy in the seat. This also means that this money isn't likely to swway them one way or the other. (That's what whips are for).
So, where would you draw the line? Where does liberty of expression end and lobbying start?
Suppose there's a law stating that no one can donate more than $1000 to any candidate. How would that stop me from selling marketing services to some candidate at a $100 thousand loss for my company? When the other candidate comes, "sorry, we do not offer that service anymore, here, check our catalog for our new price list".
Or, you could do a quick google search to see just how much Microsoft contributes across the political board. It's in the millions.
I will make sure to vote republican this next election.
At least the republicans are not in the hands of big business media conglomerates.
http://saveie6.com/
Of course, where there's a will, there's a way.....
The NRA, for instance, gets around this by getting almost every single one of it's memebers to donate money to candidates in trouble. These donations quickly add up, and are quite influential to candidates. I suspect that this is likely what will happen soon with RIAA. They'll get artists and labels that are mad to donate to candidates.
I just hope that that day will never come....
DEM-REP
21-28
$54,000-$67,465 $121.465 total. Not a large amount of money. Especially to each individual. Wonder what they actually got for that.
Is anyone here REALLY surprised by this? This is business as usual on Capitol Hill. What is new? What would be new is to see a major Congress person who has taken no money from any company for any reason. Now that would revolutionary for sure.
What does $2000 buy you? Like 0.75 seconds of TV ad time? IMO, this is being blown way out of proportion.
Or the Bill of Rights does it say that *corporations*, unions, or any other organization has a right to make donations to politicians? Introduce legislation to ban them all.
Individuals, that's different, but some countries have managed to put limits on personal donations as well (e.g., in Canada it is a maximum $1100 per person per candidate per year) and they still have freedom of speech and other guarantees of freedom written into their constitutions. So, what's the big problem in the U.S.?
...how in any democracy on this planet, even in the banana republics, if a politician is caught receiving money from a private or corporate entity it is a huge scandal that will inexorably lead to the demise of that politician, and in this country it is celebrated and institutionalized under the banner of "fund-raising".
What is really even more weird and always laughable is how people are always ready to defend this type of "democracy" even with their lives... tsk tsk tsk tsk *shaking head*...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
There are 100 US Senators and 435 (voting) US Congressmen. All of them vote on US legislation which has a direct and immediate impact on my life: the laws with which I must comply, the taxes for which I must contribute, and the social services for which I may be eligible.
Since all 535 of these men and women will have a substantial influence on my life, why again shouldn't I be able to influence the elections of all 535? Taking it a step further, why shouldn't I be able to support groups which are interested eliciting the same reaction I'm interested in for any or all of the 535 legislators?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Am I the only one who was more creeped out by the fact that the Amazon.com ad at the bottom used my cookies to target the ads than the list of small campaign contributions?
Well, we can't deny the corporate lobbyists freedom of speech (the Supreme Court said so). But could we make them admit it? How about making every politician wear every logo of every lobbyist they accept money from? Campaign managers can stand behind them, changing the corporate ball caps every few seconds so that every sponsor gets their exposure. The bigger the bribe, the bigger the brand. That way we'll know who owns them, and have a general idea of the price tag.
Likewise, every speech and sound bite should include the name of every "sponsor" who helped to bankroll it. "If you elect me, the RIAA - MPAA - UAW - NRA - NEA - SPCA - GM - Disney - Mobil Oil - Wal Mart - PG&E - Microsoft - Sony - McDonald's - Budweiser administration promises to..." If we're lucky, the sound bite will end before they get to the start of their campaign lies.
It's not my original idea, but I like it!
Let see..
.005% of what we are spending there on a fubar war and we have enough funding to fund polling booths for the next 100 years. If every issue was decided by majority vote here by the people, and not by some fucktard congress who cant distingish the internet from a series of tubes and a president who has the mental capacity of ground sediment we would actually have a vote with solid educated opinions behind it. How we can blow a trillion dollar surplus and not spend one dime of it in our country blwos my mind. Did the people have any say at all in that trillion dollar surplus that was spent? Absolutely not.
Writing a corrupt politician isint going to change things. And if all of the candidates for president are all corrupt, and 'we the people' cannot elect a the president (the electoral college does, the popular vote does'nt mean shit) the how the fuck can we ever change anything? If big business runs the country at their intrest and not the citizens how can we stop that?
Frankly It is going to take a new revolution. To bad so many good people died to fight for that dream that was America. Amazing. They died overseas to secure our country that will never be invaded by anybody. (yes people we have the capacity to never get invaded, you do not know 5% of what the military tells you) The only way it will change is if millions of us (yes im talking 50 million people) stand up to the government at Washington DC. Threaten taking over the White House if we must. I honestly do not think any country should have a president. Everything should be decided 'by the people' on a weekly voting basis. For those of you who say thats not feasable, to much money etc, look at iraq, and take
RIAA shills, sounds so criminal, tawdry, and perverse.
Can we just call the Reps and Senators RIAA employees?
We have no representation with taxation in the US and EU.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Given the responses I've gotten from Sen. Leahy, and some of the noises I've heard from him in Washington, I really expected him to be on this list.
He's not.
Makes my *next* letter more urgent to write. Maybe he's merely misguided, and really does think "it's all about the artists."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Your trying to say a congressman or senator can be bought for 2 grand? How many of these people actually support the RIAA by actions? I think it is far worse if it only takes 2 grand to buy them. So people should actually check this list agaist any real support for RIAA initiatives.
It's hard to believe that this list is complete at 50 office holders. Is 50 really enough to ensure success? Wouldn't they have tried to acquire closer to half of the federal office holders (536/2+1=269)? That money (269* ~$5000 = $1.4 million) is a drop in the bucket.
Did this list really backtrack all of RIAA's members and their proxies? The recorded music industry gave $3.1 million in the last presidential election cycle (2004) and $2.4 million in the off year (2006). Not every company in the recorded music industry is RIAA, but these recipients got a lot more money overall than TFA reports.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
We are the RIAA.. All your culture are belong to us
It's not about free music. It's about douchebag megacorps like the RIAA paying our government officials off to remove our rights, while claiming it's about free music, while it's really about the government propping up the corporation with laws.
And you use the term fascism and claiming there are more important things to be worried about, which just goes to show you like to bandy around terms that you are ignorant of. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would be extremely alarmed by this. Why?
"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
Take their oney, drink their liquer, and fuck their women, and then vote against them, you have no business in the Senate.
That used to be the speach new senetors got.
The point is not that they got money, it's how they vote. Focus on the money, and you loose sight of the the real issue. How did they vote?
I can tell you that I would take RIAA money. I would also vote against stronger copyright. In fact, I would work towards a reasonable copyright.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here is a similar break down of MPAA contributions- contributions-to-congressional-candidates-in-2006- elections/
http://www.fonz.net/blog/archives/2007/06/02/mpaa
Can firefox give you a blow job? 'nuff said.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just make it so you can make political donations only if you're able to vote for the guy. After all, the elected representatives are supposed to represent the voters, not campaign contributors who may be foreigners, non-voting corporations, felons (they aren't allowed to vote), etc. For local elections, it would also eliminate problems of getting support from outside your constituency.
I suspect they'll pay a bit more attention to the email I sent this time. Very carefully worded, but many sharp edges.
Pass the word to everyone you know: Diane Feinstein is bought and paid for by the RIAA.
It's not because of her stance on "wealth redistribution." It's because of her stance on personal freedom.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
None from my state!
...but is it art?
Sorry but it's true. Income tax made it possible for a personage to be a "Career Politician". Rather than people giving their time - seperate from making a living - to serving - politics is now run ( both parties ) on people whose sole purpose for being is to KEEP THEIR JOB. You keep you job in politics by getting re-elected, and for almost any useful office nowadays - you get elected based on how much money you spend. Net result : Politicians will take any money they can get their hands on - even the "ethical ones" - because to do otherwise would be like quitting their job. I read a 10-20 year old fiction book a while back ( think it was David Eddings ) - and it had a wonderful piece on how some republic government operated. People were picked at random to service public office - and when they did so, everything they owned was put into trust. If the govenment makes a profit ( tax rates are fixed ) they get some money back - otherwise they go broke ;-) ( Oh - and once elected, they are put under armed guard so they cannot run away from duty! ) Almost sounds good ;-)
And I've written to my AL "representative" ( I quote the word, since I'm a legal permanent resident, pay my taxes but can't vote! Can you say "Taxation without Representation" ??? )
Yes, the only small government candidate running, US Rep Dr. Ron Paul, is NOT on this list you will notice.
Libertas in infinitum
Shouldn't this be handled the same way any other conflict of interest is in the government? Shouldn't they just say, the RIAA gave my campaign money, therefore I abstain from voting on this issue?
The Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress scored only 21 bribees and $54,000 total, averaging just under $2600.
Minority Republicans got more, $62,900 for their 28 bribees, though they got lower on average: just under $22,500.
Why does the minority Republican contingent get so many more bribees one third more, and more total take?
--
make install -not war
The only solution I can see is to limit the spending by politicians - during campaigns or otherwise. We can regulate the politicians a lot better than we can regulate every single corporation and wealthy individual. Remember in high school when they limited the amount you could spend on your ASB presidency campaign? This made it so that money was not a factor in campaigning and anyone had a chance. Also, the $25 or so limit was all that was needed to run a decent campaign. All candidates had the same opportunity to get the attention of the voters and they were then judged on their merits (mostly popularity!).
Now let's think about how this would work for the presidential election. First of all, the limit would be much higher than most people could afford and fundraising would be needed. This is OK - it serves a purpose to allow candidates who are popular but without money to compete with those that already have money. A reasonable spending limit would be set (including travel, advertising, etc.) that is attainable through reasonable fundraising. This now makes the campaigns think a lot more strategically about how they spend their money and levels the playing field. If Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, etc have already raised more than the limit, then they can now focus their efforts on engaging voters, however they need to make sure they budget themselves until the election is closer. Candidates need to be smart and frugal about how they spend their limited funds.
In leveling the playing field, non corporate-backed candidates stand a real chance of being elected and can have their voice heard. It also gets people to realize that they aren't throwing their money away if they sponsor a lesser-known candidate with enough support to raise near or more than the spending limit. If supporters of a candidate like Ron Paul realize that they can get him to be on same spending level as the big hitters, they are more likely to donate to the campaign.
For non-campaigning politicians, a yearly spending limit would also help decrease the influence of lobbyists. If senator X has enough in his/her war chest that they cannot possibly spend it on all on reelection campaigns and yearly expenses, the impact to them of new money from a lobbyist is greatly reduced. It doesn't stop the influence of lobbyists, but does reduce it for the politicians with the most money. It also lets them spend less time fundraising and more time working!
While I think this idea would transform US politics in the best interest of the people, it would probably never fly because none of the people currently in power or poised to be in power would benefit from it. It would empower the lower classes too much and force candidates to rely on their credentials and actions, not slick media campaigns. Not to mention that advertisers, who control the media (as the major source of funding), wouldn't stand for this plan and could use their power to sway public opinion against it.
It's not the $2000 each in legal contributions that these folks got from the RIAA that buys votes. The minuscule legal contributions are not the problem. It's the additional few million that is laundered through the parties, other candidates, other donors and the PACs that buys influence. That, and the under the table "perks" that lawmakers get. I'm sure many of the people who got gobs of RIAA money aren't on this list.
Support SETI@home
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
...and perseverance, you could make a PAC (political action committee) to get your own congressman elected (a competitor of one of the 50).
My father (now retired) was a doctor who gathered a large number of other doctors to fund a congressman and see do a study on starting their own hospital. Despite hating politics he proved quite effective and even after a successful initial study and having the whole project stolen by lawyer sharks they even came back and asked him to take it over again (which he refused). It seems an emininently doable and practical thing for a bunch of organized geeks to make their goal. Basically in this system it seems money talks, and only people who can get other people fired up *and organized* (and donating money to the project) will get ahead. But they can have a major effect not limited to their own state even. I think he had 3000 doctors in 3 states at one point. In the end of course it wasn't fun anymore I guess, but if you can stomach it, and you want it enough *anybody* can do this.
...I'm trying to think of a way to drag this little thread back on topic.
Anyway, that's an argument against compulsory voting right there. Even if you were FORCED to vote, you still wouldn't necessarily make a vote useful. A friend of mine spends up to an hour in the polling booth every year, drawing incredibly detailed and lovingly rendered pictures of donkeys.
[NB] And hey, if you're going to make a bold statement like the above two posts, you may as well do it under your own name, so we can give credit where it's due. See you in the polling booths, Coward 1 and Coward 2.
THUD~*
If it's the monetary donations which are causing the senators etc. to vote in stupid laws which you don't like, why don't you & aimilar minded americans organise your own lobby group. Hire a rep or two, gather donations & lobby back, but harder & with more money?
Just my 0.2c
Attention moderators, this is the most insightful post of the bunch.
How can that be you ask? American mass-media has abandoned whatever pretense of functioning as a check against political activity. So, most stories function as press releases or advertising. Some advertising stories are used to influence public opinion. Parent identifies the story as what it is, filler used to influence public opinion. Sadly, most posts that follow miss this entirely and wander off into the names listed. That is the intent of stories like this. Create controversy about specific individuals while the RIAA in this instance gets back to _actual_ lobbying the rest of Washington D.C.
Furthermore, jumping into a discussions about lobbying is much like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. The current state of affairs is the consequence of simultaneously _not_ participating in government by voting, being informed on issues and organizing a response to your representatives and the privatization of government functions.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
President Grant was living in a hotel in Washington (1600 under some sort of renovations) - and he found that there were always folks in the hotel lobby, hoping to talk with him, buy him a drink or a cigar, etc. So he started calling them lobby-ists - and the name stuck.
And the politicians want US citizens to be morally good. This is disheartening.
What if we made it illegal to exploit flaws in anti-bribe laws? It'd be fitting. :^)
(Of course, like anything else that might work, it'll never really happen.)
This is not a signature.
There are statistics. They can tell you very valid information about groups of people without needing to ask all of them. A few thousand randomly selected people will do it. I personally don't know anybody who supports the war (even the staunch conservatives I know are opposed), nor would "people I know" be a qualified sample to make such a statement. Last poll found that, a majority of Republicans were against the war, honestly 51% of Republicans.
I didn't rip the number out of my ass, I took it from Gallop. The majority of people are to the left of the Democrats on the war. At least with this latest, lets keep funding this crap action taken the Dems in congress took. Independents oppose the war more than the Republicans and Democrats. For a group, that typically falls in the center that's pretty telling.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.