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."

34 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Does it matter? by initialE · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    1. Re: Does it matter? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /. Next?
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Does it matter? by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    3. Re: Does it matter? by OmegaBlac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re: Does it matter? by pallmall1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...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.
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  2. Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. ie: "If I can say good things about this candidate I like, why can't I put a favorable ad in the paper or on TV for him?"

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by Sunburnt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
    3. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, because there are ways to cheat. If you let any individual sponsor something, then any company can as well as they can simply use one or more of their workers as an individual for the purposes of sponsoring. Ban any corporate sponsorship and they'll just find a way around it (Okay Bill, we're going to give you a 2,000,000 bonus and you're going to donate 1,900,000 to X fund to sponsor X thing or Y bad thing will happen to you etc.)

      I hate lobbying as much as the next guy (who is on /. and hates lobbying :P) but don't try to make it seem like a small problem, so long as you allow ANY sponsorship (which isn't always a bad thing, especially individual sponsorship) there will be corporate lobbying, no matter how many laws you put up to try and stop it. Every law has a loop-hole and these companies have armies of lawyers experienced at finding loopholes. Say you make the max contribution for a company 10,000 or something, they'll just create a whole bunch of sub-corps and have each donate 10,000 to get back to their original contribution. That's just a single example, everything you do to stop it will have a loophole by nature of needing to allow unaffiliated individuals the chance to help.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    4. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      wow, in the 37 seconds it took me to type that, 15 /.'ers managed to say the same thing better AND answer my question

    5. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by karim7783 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 --

    7. Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

  3. You're joking, right? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:You're joking, right? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  4. Dem-Repub Breakdown by natedubbya · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.


  5. $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!

  6. Bipartisanship in DC! by Aeron65432 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  7. To get rid of lobbying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rebuild the Capitol so that the front door leads directly to the Congress chamber. No lobby, no lobbying.

  8. Re:Benefits vs. Costs by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. 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.

  10. List of Consumers ? by MarkByers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  11. 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.

    1. Re:Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.
  12. "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
  13. Re:Why these fifty? by palewook · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  14. 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....

  15. Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY by Sunburnt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hillary "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,"

    The "things" to which she was referring were the Bush tax cuts as applied to the top-bracket earners in the audience she was addressing.

    Clinton is more than the champion of nanny government, she's a Marxist.

    Really? I had no idea she called for a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, because if not, charges of "Marxism" are just more of the ignorant slurring with loaded words that defines American politics.

    Her actions now are just posturing to hide her agenda.

    And this is based on what, exactly?

    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.

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  16. It never seizes to amaze me... by presarioD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
  17. 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?

    1. Re:Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Congress by aldheorte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  18. Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  19. Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.