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."
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
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!
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
I guess she's not getting enough from the offshorers at Tata Consultancy Services.
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
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....
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.
Well, there's an alternate theory, where politicians already would vote that way, and the RIAA wants to give their campaigns money so that they'll stay in office and be able to continue to help them. It's not exactly great, but it's not nearly as sleazy as the bribery that otherwise would be going on.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
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)
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.
Curiously enough, lobbying is one of the three constitutionally protected professions in the United States. The First Amendment ensures that all citizens have the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
For those who are interested, the other two protected professions are ministers/priests (the right to freedom of religion), and lawyers (the right to counsel).
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 --
He received $2,000. I think it's highly likely that he never even realized the RIAA donated, as I find it improbable that someone who's raised millions and millions of dollars actually goes through who gave each donation.