Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress Gets Their Own Piece of YouTube to Host Videos

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the rules-lawyering dept.

YouTube has promised a commercial-free zone in the near future to help Congress deal with the problem of hosting campaign videos that were technically breaking the rule of not redirecting constituents to a commercial site. "Within a month, the one and only responder, YouTube, should have its commercial-free zone up and running, Capuano said. Republicans on the commission still fret that with only one such site, the House could be seen as picking winners and losers on the Web. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), another commission member, said the panel's Republicans want to keep the new rules fluid enough to use any future Web site that comes forward with a better plan. 'Technology moves fast. Congress moves slow,' he said."

84 comments

  1. Better solution... by Asm-Coder · · Score: 0, Troll

    How about this... candidates no longer receive money from tax dollars for their campaigns, and there are no longer any other restrictions on the campaigns...

    The tax money is not intended for campaigns, but if I want to donate a million dollars to my favorite candidate, (and it's my money) I should be able to do so.

    1. Re:Better solution... by Adradis · · Score: 1

      So, RIAA and friends hand over 2-3 million dollars to their favorite Congress-Critter. Now he happily obeys his new corporate overlords.

    2. Re:Better solution... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      It might assuage your anger somewhat to know that very few candidates running for national public office in the United States take the public or so called "hard-money" anymore because of the restrictions attached to accepting such funding. One simply cannot buy the necessary advertising on the national television networks and websites at the going rates these days with the meager tax-payer funded "hard-money". That is why every serious candidate opts-out of public funding and takes "soft-money" from private political donors and groups because you just about cannot be a serious candidate at the national level without opting-out.

    3. Re:Better solution... by Asm-Coder · · Score: 0, Troll

      And those of us who don't like his polices will donate in favor of the other guy.

      This idea isn't fleshed out at all, and I'm not qualified to do so. It may be that companies should be restricted from contributing as well. It's just my opinion that they will find a way around it, (sending everyone home with a bonus if they donate to candidate X) so it's just easier to make the whole system transparent, and let people like you and me to point out when there seems to be something funny going on.

    4. Re:Better solution... by aengblom · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Hard" and "soft" money has nothing to do with opting out of public funding. In fact, the record amounts of money raised in the primaries HAS been "hard" money -- or money raised under the ~$2,000 per person limit to candidates.

      Soft money refers to ulimited donations to interest groups that, because of free speech laws, are able to run ads and perform other activities to support particular ideas and parties (which may just happen to align perfectly with one candidate).

      The reason the candidates aren't accepting public funding is that while it gives candidates a bonus per dollar raised, it also limits how much they can spend. The amounts a major national figure can raise today is actually larger than the most they can collect under public funding plus the government subsidy.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    5. Re:Better solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those of us who don't like his polices will donate in favor of the other guy.
      Which would work, but they're handing the money to all of their favorite congress critters.
    6. Re:Better solution... by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      You are quite correct, I had two separate but often associated concepts intertwined. Thank you for clarifying.

    7. Re:Better solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no issue with buying power in government, and the poor being unrepresented as if they don't matter. Get out.

    8. Re:Better solution... by Monsuco · · Score: 1, Troll

      So, RIAA and friends hand over 2-3 million dollars to their favorite Congress-Critter. Now he happily obeys his new corporate overlords. Then the EFF, DefectiveByDesign, etc. donate to his opponent. This is called "pluralism" and the American founding fathers predicted it. They believed that special interest groups would do just what they are doing, trying to promote their special interest. They knew it was impossible for the government to control these groups or check their power so the solution was to allow for so many groups to form that they would end up checking each other. That's "hyperpluralism".

      Also vote buying is a bit of a myth. People don't try to pay a congressman's campaign enough to convince the candidate (if he is elected) to vote their way, they support the candidate that already would vote their way. Think about it, if you are with Smith and Wesson and you want to ensure no new assault weapons ban comes into place, will you donate to the member of Mothers Against Gun Violence or to the card carrying NRA member?

      How can we tell if votes are bought? Simple. A few studies looked at congressman who had made a promise to retire. After getting into office for that last term if their votes were truely being bought you would expect them to suddenly vote differently as they have no incentive to listen to their donors, since they can't run again anyway. But last term congressmen overwhelmingly tend to vote how they always have, which means their votes are not bought.

      --
      The Gospel according to lolcat
    9. Re:Better solution... by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1
      Agreed, but only if every cent a campaign spends is from named sources and any fraud results in the removal of the candidate.

      (Not, of course, that it is anywhere near above board currently.)

    10. Re:Better solution... by hardburn · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. In a two-party system, it's easy enough to split that amount evenly, effectively buying both candidates.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    11. Re:Better solution... by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect that at all. If anything, I'd expect more votes bought from last term congress people. They have retirement to think about. No more cushy congress salary, so better get the most out of it while they can. And if they get caught, they were finished anyway.

      --
      Maybe not
    12. Re:Better solution... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      You might like to know that we tried that... It didn't work. A single wealthy individual could finance an entire campaign, and have a politician totally indebted to them. Wasn't very much fun for everybody else.

      The system we have today where anybody can give any amount they want up to a limit of $2400 works great. Just look at Obama's fundraising totals.

    13. Re:Better solution... by strabes · · Score: 1

      Who are you to tell me what I can do with my money? Regulating campaign finance is not an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    14. Re:Better solution... by strabes · · Score: 1

      You may expect more votes bought, but the facts beg to differ.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    15. Re:Better solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not regulating what you can do with your money. They are regulating what money a congressperson can accept and from who.

    16. Re:Better solution... by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Please explain how this "ownership" works. Why, exactly, can't the Congressman simply vote exactly as he pleases and pick up 2-3 million dollars from someone else the next time around, or retire?

  2. Where do I opt out? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    YouTube will have a channel dedicated to campaign videos. The videos will not link to "commercial" sites after being played.

    How is this newsworthy?

    A dedicated channel for lies, and shitty political commentary by youtube users? Where do I opt out?

    1. Re:Where do I opt out? by russlar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A dedicated channel for lies, and shitty political commentary by youtube users? Where do I opt out? There already is a dedicated channel for lies; it's called Fox News.
      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
    2. Re:Where do I opt out? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good question.
      Remembering that this site is USA centric, I would contend the voting is important enough that it goes here. Especially considering the need to get younger voters involved.

      You can, of course, choose not get any politic information with a quick change to your preferences.

      To answer you specific question in your title, RTFFAQ document.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Where do I opt out? by djradon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be such a nay-sayer. This could be pretty radical.

      Does anyone know of another country that's done something like this?

    4. Re:Where do I opt out? by bockelboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Estonia. A lot of the congressional meetings are held online, bills are not printed out, the president signs bills with the click of a mouse. Citizens even vote on the internet.

    5. Re:Where do I opt out? by megaditto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, I was wondering how the goatse guy got to become the vice-speaker of their Parliament.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    6. Re:Where do I opt out? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      The population of Estonia is 1.3 million.

      Maybe if we could talk the federal government into delegating power back to the states and creating smaller individual units of power, this might work.

    7. Re:Where do I opt out? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...the president signs bills with the click of a mouse.

      Sorry, but someone already has a patent on the "Buy It Now" feature.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Where do I opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? You didn't even answer the GP's question, much less - apparently - understand that it wasn't supposed to be taken at face value in the first place.

      He's asking, tongue-in-cheek, how he can opt out of these political ads on Youtube, not how he can disable political stories on Slashdot.

      And of course, in doing so, what he's REALLY doing is making a wry comment about the whole idea of Youtube doing this in the first place. But apparently, that was lost on you.

  3. No Shit, Sherlock by russlar · · Score: 1

    "Technology moves fast, Congress moves slow." Thank you, Captain Obvious!
    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:No Shit, Sherlock by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since congress has realized this, it only mean technology is slowing down.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:No Shit, Sherlock by dwater · · Score: 1

      Yeah, obviously he meant 'slowLY'.

      He's probably just a simple Apple user.

      Furthermore, is that a correct use of 'fast'? He probably should have used 'quickly', but I'm not sure anymore, since I myself own and use several Apple products.

      --
      Max.
  4. Part of Obama's plan by rsborg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    View this ahem, youtube video about his "interview" at Google

    In it (can't remember where it was) he talks about going around the media going directly to the people to bypass the corrupt culture in government... and mentions he will make transparency a big part of his platform, and youtube all white house meetings.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Part of Obama's plan by psychicsword · · Score: 1

      I have to be honest here that is part of the reason why I am even thinking about voting for him. Even though I have more republican views. I also like him because of his more moderate views so it is more of a balance then many of the extremists are and in many ways he is a good fit(In my opinion).

    2. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      For those interested, his response is at the end of the video, when he responds to the last question. Around 61 min, but the video is worth watching overall.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    3. Re:Part of Obama's plan by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I do NOT want all White House meetings available to the public. They talk about some secret stuff sometimes you know. I can see maybe a few general policy meetings for public consumption, but the President *needs* a certain level of secrecy.

    4. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I do NOT want all White House meetings available to the public. They talk about some secret stuff sometimes you know. I can see maybe a few general policy meetings for public consumption, but the President *needs* a certain level of secrecy. I'm pretty sure that the aliens at Area 51 won't be YouTubed. Or maybe Obama is actually under alien mind control and after being elected will free the prisoners at Area 51, thus allowing for the end of the world!!!
    5. Re:Part of Obama's plan by megaditto · · Score: 1, Troll

      I am sure you remember the last "Candidate for Change" that ran in 2000.

      A Washington outsider, a uniter able to bridge across party lines, a new man bringing change to Washington corruption, George W. Bush accomplished all this, and so much more.

      Given how well that worked out, I too am thinking of supporting Obama.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    6. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is awesome.

    7. Re:Part of Obama's plan by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      I like how he'll take my money and buy broadband for poor people. I was just thinking the other day about how poor people don't get to see enough pornography.

      I'm glad he wants to modernize goverment services to cut costs but people who can't afford internet connections and/or don't want them can go to the library or an internet cafe. Providing internet access isn't the government's job.

      --
      Maybe not
    8. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be dense, obviously we'll never see anything classified. What we'll get are hours and hours of really really boring bureaucratic meetings, and we'll get lots and lots of it. Governments generate huge amounts of paperwork I'm sure they can easily produce thousands of hours of meetings where next to nothing goes on.

    9. Re:Part of Obama's plan by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Actually, its the opposite. There's some stuff that needs to be kept secret. The vast majority of it does not. As a public office, the policy default should be open, not private.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    10. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Funny; you don't want poor people to get it, but you yourself get it through government subsidies. Classic.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    11. Re:Part of Obama's plan by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it costs me $1000 per Mbit, I'd be first in line voting to get rid of those subsidies.

      The government buying and/or subsidizing internet for anybody is wrong.

      --
      Maybe not
    12. Re:Part of Obama's plan by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. It will be meaningless, harmless photo op content, only in video on the 'net rather than in printed media. Nothing to see, move along.

    13. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Very convenient to get rid of the subsidies *now* when *you* can afford it, after a huge subsidy from DARPA created the thing, but before the poor are wired up. Yeah "get rid of the subsidies" now that others might be getting a chance.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    14. Re:Part of Obama's plan by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're right. Obviously once you've made a mistake, the best thing to do is keep making it.

      --
      Maybe not
    15. Re:Part of Obama's plan by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Okay you're right, obviously once a mistake benefits you, you should make sure to correct it as fast as possible so that you so that you get to hog all of the benefits.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    16. Re:Part of Obama's plan by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Except it's not correcting a mistake. That mistake's already been made, and the poor are benefitting from it just as much as I am.

      But Barrack wants to make a *new* mistake and create a *new* program, above and beyond the existing subsidies.

      And this isn't exactly like the original DARPA funding, either. What are the chances Barrack's program will unconditionally lower internet costs for everybody? Better or worse than the chances it lowers the cost for poor people at the expense of everybody else?

      It's not a matter of correcting a mistake, it's a matter of not making a new mistake.

      --
      Maybe not
  5. Re:Why YouTube? by billy901 · · Score: 1

    I can't see why this is a troll. I was question Ann Coulter in a sarcastic way.

    --
    Please visit http://www.mederbil.com/ i7, GTX 275, 4 1TB Caviar Green in RAID 0+1 array, EVGA X58 3X SLI Board, Silver
  6. Well thats all well and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, has anyone thought of the tubes!? I think they will get a division by zero error and crash.

  7. Why youtube? by RalphSleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I can host flash video and a simple player on my £30/year web host, is there any good reason their in house tech is 'slow and cumbersome'? Flash video is not rocket science.

    --
    Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
  8. Republicans... by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Republicans on the commission still fret that with only one such site, the House could be seen as picking winners and losers on the Web.

    Every time I see popular political videos on You Tube it looks to me like Republicans are the losers on the web.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. What about Ron Paul? It's the dishonest republicans that come out looking like fools.

    2. Re:Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losers?

      McCain girls disagree!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s

    3. Re:Republicans... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      it looks to me like Republicans are the losers on the web.

      Uhhh, everybody is a loser on the web.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Republicans... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ron Paul didn't come out looking like a fool? That's news to me.b Except for Nader, he is the biggest joke of the '08 Presidential campaign, especially on the web. Even Huckabee did better.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  9. Better than that! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    The congress part does not have a reviews. Instead you can bribe^h^h^h^h lobby the congressmen.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  10. Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we call it YouSATube?

  11. Re:Why youtube? by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    Why youtube? Youtube is all the rage in today's youth, they are just trying to take advantage of that.

    If I can host flash video and a simple player on my £30/year web host, is there any good reason their in house tech is 'slow and cumbersome'? Think about how many people connect to your server. Now think how many per second connect to the youtube servers.
  12. Republicans always concerned about fair play by carcosa30 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The republicans worry and fret-- to such an extent that they lose sleep-- about fairness on the web. They are shocked-- SHOCKED! that someone in government might try to pick winners and losers.

    It's up to the phone company and Fox to do that.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  13. Next, YouTube will be OURTUBES... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    We'll all be connected up the ass with CONgresspeople. I imagine OurTubes will be immune from persecution (and PROsecution?) for testifying or implicating ourselves...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  14. Re:Why youtube? by RalphSleigh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I once embedded my video in a myspace page and watched my bandwidth disappear down a black hole. However if they can handle the web traffic, adding flash video is not as huge extra.

    --
    Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
  15. Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rule says you can't redirect constituents to a commercial site, but can you redirect them to Rick Astley's music video "Never Gonna Give You Up"?

  16. Capuano by Roxton · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've had the good fortune of being represented by Capuano in Boston. He's great, because he maintains an electronic newsletter detailing issues faced by the House and his rationale for voting. Regardless of where you're from, I recommend visiting his site and taking a look at his "e-updates" to get a sense of the political process.

    http://www.house.gov/capuano/

    Awesome, awesome congressman.

  17. YouTube by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    should get a PBS channel. With a semi-annual begathon and everything. Of course sites like vote smart, open secrets, and c-span are good enough for me. They show what the politicians do, not just what they say. And crooks and liars is always good for a few laughs.

    --
    What?
  18. Obama is anti-NASA by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1100/1

    He wants to cut the VSE budget to use the money for education.

    If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight. Some of you may think that's a good thing. If you are not one of these people, please, STOP OBAMA.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by hardburn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm also anti-NASA. However, I stopped associating being anti-NASA with being anti-space exploration years ago. The most interesting things in space over the next 10 years will probably come from private companies.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    2. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      You need both.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spaceflight is cool but when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a functional, non-disastrous government. Although he is still a politician and thus still scum, Obama seems to be by far the best hope for this outcome.

    4. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by dangitman · · Score: 1

      If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight.

      Wait a minute. Why would cutting VSE funding mean the end of human spaceflight?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. tough call. Spaceflight is important, but surely Education is the most important issue in America today. Our children are growing up ignorant and stupid.

    6. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight in United States.
      Fixed that for you.
    7. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The end of human spaceflight? He wants to delay VSE for five years. So we can help improve early education and make elementary school a much more level playing field, and stop a large portion of kids just starting school and already being behind in their studies. It might not be the best program to cut money from, but it's a good initiative, and there are many, many more important issues for this election than a plan on spaceflight.

      Even if this happens, it won't be the end of human spaceflight. It will, at worst case scenario, cause damage to the US space program, which is currently not most aggressive at pushing human spaceflight anyway.

    8. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Oh my God! You're right! That clarified this situation brilliantly! You're a great orator. You should run for Congress.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    9. Re:Obama is anti-NASA by aztektum · · Score: 1

      End of human spaceflight huh? No chance another program will spring up? No chance that perhaps another country will focus on it? Never ever again.. EVER EVER again will a human go into space?

      Ok. You're right. Let's elect Clinton or McCain. I'm sure NASA programs are #1 priority to them!

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  19. Re:Better solution... (ad Soros) by mkiwi · · Score: 1
    The problem with this is someone who has a lot of money can essentially "buy" a lot of votes. I know it's not exactly a popular thing to say, but there are certain very wealthy socialists who will try to buy the next presidential election. There are all kinds of people who would buy the presidential election if they could- new finance laws make this possible. If all the adds gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling when I watched them I would not have a problem with people spending tons of money on them.

    However, there are people who, despite Obama's and McCain's wishes, will run a hugely negative campaign and it's not going to be pretty. It demeans the American people, treating us like cattle. I'd rather keep the rich people to a minimum or at least make their jobs shuffling funds around more difficult.

    I have a very strong belief that no one should be able to buy their way into office, even indirectly. McCain shot himself in the leg with his campaign finance bill he helped pass. Guess he wasn't thinking far enough ahead...

  20. Leave Hillary alone! by rossz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait for that video to get released.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  21. Re:Why youtube? by rtb61 · · Score: 1
    People do not go to you tube searching for campaign videos they get to youtube via the campaigners web site. All that needs to happen is for congress to add video streaming to the library of congress so the videos can be hosted there. Side benefits, kept as a matter of public record, un-editable once put up and campaigners held legally liable for them.

    WTF is all the nonsense about trying to make Youtube of any other commercial site suitable, and should the video then go on to also be hosted by commercial video streaming sites, who cares.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  22. Whoa, talk about hyperbole by sheldon · · Score: 1

    Next, suggesting delaying the Joint Strike Fighter makes you anti-military.

    Suggesting restricting funding on school sports makes you anti-children, and anti-sports.

    It's fucked up arguments like this which result in pandering politicians promising you everything you want to hear.

    1. Re:Whoa, talk about hyperbole by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Dude, read the fucking article ok? He sees the purpose of NASA as inspiring kids to become scientists. He believes NASA has failed to do that in recent years, so he wants to cut NASA funding and redirect the funds to his own pet project which he believes will achieve that goal. If that's not anti-NASA, I don't know what is.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Whoa, talk about hyperbole by sheldon · · Score: 1

      So it's not space exploration that you care about. You are upset that he's criticized NASA.

      Whaaaaaaaa!

  23. Goo Tube rules by heroine · · Score: 1

    Of course, qualifying videos must be handheld, shaking, out of focus, and pointing in the opposite direction of the subject.

    1. Re:Goo Tube rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, qualifying videos must be handheld, shaking, out of focus, and pointing in the opposite direction of the subject. So they ALL have to feature McCain?