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."

7 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. $2500 is the average by dattaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

  2. For a few dollars more.. by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:For a few dollars more.. by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either the RIAA is stingy or Congressmen are desperate for extra cash.

      Might I posit "both"?

      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...

      Really, considering the amount of influence donations/lobbyists have, why don't more people organize around the issues that are important to them, raise money, and buy their own congressmen? At this point, we really should.

  3. Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money by HighOrbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. "Do you now, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  5. Funny you say that.... by erareno · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...Because the McCain-Feingold Law (aka BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act) LIMITS the amount of money an individual doner can give to a candidate (legally, at least). Individuals are allowed to give $2k before a primary and then $2k more after the primary. Corporations get something like a $5k limit.

    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....

  6. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Congress by stomv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?