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.
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.
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.
Well said. A friend of mine, who used to drive cab and has nothing to do with computers (except ripping borrowed music and movies, checking his emails and watching porn), when mentioned about RIAA had no idea what it means. He said "Sorry dude, I am not into news and all that kinda things."
It was only when I told him that it's possible he may get in trouble with them for downloading movies and mp3s off the net, he was a bit interested, but only a bit.
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.
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...
What does $2000 buy you? Like 0.75 seconds of TV ad time? IMO, this is being blown way out of proportion.
...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
I'm not sure I agree with the post you replied to because it becomes a complex issue, but you are already represented by your two senators and your representative. That's your maximum representative entitlement in the federal government. How would you feel if you strongly supported a candidate for your representation and a bunch of people in the next state over funded another candidate who won using that money to vote for their interests instead of yours?
In other words, anyone who does something you don't like is a conservative?
Clinton is big on socialism -- that does not mean she (or any other Democrat/Socialist) won't take corporate political contributions. After all, that is how corporations survive socialist governments.
Yeah, I can't support her because she's too right wing. So being lampooned as a left is downright amusing.
Though to be fair, oddly enough most everybody democrat today is to the right of the bulk of the American people on the Iraq War and several other issues.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I don't think $2000 is enough to really "buy" anything.
Most of the people listed got $1000, and they probably don't even know the RIAA donated to them.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
"Lobbying, in itself, is not the problem."
I agree with you up to that point.
Speaking as a non-American, I observe that the problem is not lobbying. The problem is you have a system where any kind of immoral or oppressive law can be be imposed, for a period of infinite duration, by a small group of people (Congress) who bear no responsibility for the crap they bury their country in. And by definition, every single law that is added to the books takes away your liberty in some way. Everything that's actually bad was already a crime 200 years ago.
No, the slim possibility of not being re-elected is not an example of a Congressman "bearing responsibility" when it comes to laws that take away your freedom.
Your Constitution was designed to prevent this problem, but no one pays it any attention (except Dr. Ron Paul), so it's worthless.
Naturally, having this enormous power, and no corresponding responsibility, in the hands of a small group of people attracts the very worst people, and the very worst laws. Lobbying isn't the problem. The fact that your system seems expressly built to invite corruption and abuse is. Compare the freedom a typical American 150 years ago had compared to today. In most respects, viewed on a large scale, the decline of the US has proceeded at an extraordinarily fast rate. If fascist and socialist legislators keep passing hundreds of stupid laws every year and spending trillions of your great-grandchildren's money, where do you think the country will be in 50 years?
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
So, we can't even think about the individual anymore. Because society is more important than people... maybe high society is more important to her. She also believes in several communist objectives, such as a high income tax, and that children should be raised by the government and not their parents. You might as well say "it takes a commune" instead of "it takes a village".
What Hillary Clinton doesn't realize is that we already live in a country that has embraced many communist ideals, but she thinks we need to push even further. Well, pushed to the breaking point is more likely the outcome when she is appointed president under our corrupted system. Hillary sucks, but calling her a "Marxist" is no more true than if I were to call her a "Fascist" based on her support of the PATRIOT Act. She is both.