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."

Comments

Does it matter?

[initialE]

In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /.

Re: Does it matter?

[Black Parrot]

In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /. Next?

Re:Does it matter?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Wow. How very defeatist. "Oh corruption is rife, so let's give up and resign ourselves to being fucked over for the rest of our lives". Good attitude.

Re: Does it matter?

[OmegaBlac]

There will be a next election in the US. And one after that. Totalitarian/Fascist governments only take power because the good people stand around and do nothing. If Americans are sheepish enough to standby and allow Bush or any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.

Re: Does it matter?

[pallmall1]

...any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.

Yes, you have just described Hugo Chavez and Venezuela.

Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[blind biker]

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.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Sunburnt]

It's more that it's just very difficult to stop, without severely interfereing with the ability of common people to support their prefered candidate.

It's really that hard to draw a line between individual and corporate sponsorship?

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Planesdragon]

Lobbying is the weakest part of US democracy. No, it isn't. That honor would go to the television news cycle.

Think about it -- the ONLY qualification for a lobbyist is an ability to connect those in power with people who really care about something. You don't need to get a license, or pass a test, or (AFAIK) even be a citizen. You cross the T's, dot the I's, and in most cases report what you spend and give so "Clinton supported the RIAA!" can be screamed in the next election. And when all that's said and done, the honorable whomever still gets to do whatever the heck they want to until the next election.

And the alternative is worse -- instead of sending professional intelligent people to Washington, they could just rally folk and spam Washington, drowning out any other issue.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[karim7783]

Well, after seeing Mr Obama's name on the list, I went and submitted the following Post under the category of "Ethics" -- I cannot believe that Senator Obama, a man who asked for the debates to be licensed under the "Creative Commons" could have the nerve to accept money from a group of extorting corporate gluttons like the RIAA who are KNOWN for pressing charges against people who have NO means to defend themselves. And the fact that Senator Obama is a Democrat, makes me truly wish that I was NOT!! What ever happened to idealistic liberals who thought they could make the world a better place? ... I guess money made by the suffering of the defenseless makes YOUR world a better place... SHAME ON YOU!! Regards, Karim Ali --

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying.

[Coward Anonymous]

Actually, it's very simple to thwart lobbying and corporate money. You need three basic rules:
1. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money.
2. Your contribution per election is limited to $X where X is on the order of a few thousand to perhaps tens of thousands of $
3. One's monetary contribution right is protected equivalently to the right to vote (i.e. just as it is illegal to buy a vote or to force a vote, it is illegal to buy a contribution, to force a contribution, etc.). I think the only debatable exception to the contribution=vote equivalency is if the contribution should be anonymous or not. In any case, if your army of lawyers can find a loophole in this, well they can force votes outright for less money.

It's simple and airtight. Now you just need to find an elected body that isn't corrupt to make this law...

You're joking, right?

[Reality Master 101]

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?

Re:You're joking, right?

[Loconut1389]

That gives me an interesting thought- what if the RIAA gives that money to the ones that -don't- support their cause in the hopes that you won't vote for them next time.

Bipartisanship in DC!

[Aeron65432]

I think one very important thing to note about this list is it is pretty equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

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.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs

[dcavanaugh]

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. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. We, the voters, have done a poor job of holding these people accountable for much of anything. RIAA is just one of many special interest groups whose low 4-figure contributions make up the funding of a campaign. I suspect if someone looked at the non-cash perks being tossed around by lobbyists, the results would be interesting.

List of Consumers ?

[MarkByers]

I would like there to be a list published of the people that bought RIAA CDs, thereby providing funding to these crooks.

It never seizes to amaze me...

[presarioD]

...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*...

Re:Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Congress

[aldheorte]

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?

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[Tatarize]

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.

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money

[Rocketship Underpant]

"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?