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.
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 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.
Rebuild the Capitol so that the front door leads directly to the Congress chamber. No lobby, no lobbying.
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.
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 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.
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
Lot of information to digest here, but you appear to want more info: additional info here 2006 pt1 2006 pt2 2006 cycle individual members of the pac FEC disclosure
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....
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
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.
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)
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.