Congress Gets Their Own Piece of YouTube to Host Videos

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."

Comments

Better solution...

[Asm-Coder]

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.

Re:Better solution...

[Asm-Coder]

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.

Re:Better solution...

[Monsuco]

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.

Republicans always concerned about fair play

[carcosa30]

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.

Re:Part of Obama's plan

[megaditto]

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.