Oregon Senator Seeks To Block COICA

jfruhlinger writes "The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year."

Comments

Oregon voters...

[Stregano]

Thank you for a wise decision

Re:Oregon voters...

[adversus]

Welcome ;) In reality this also has to do with our large IT industry here in Oregon, which is expanding as we speak. He doesn't want something as stupid as this draconian law to impede that.

Re:Oregon voters...

[Amouth]

it takes 41 of 100 senators to make it work.

if 3/5 th's bring it to an end via Cloture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

so one senator can threaten it.. he needs 40 others behind him to ensure it.

Re:Oregon voters...

[phantomcircuit]

Or they could just wait out the filibuster. I heard a lot about Republicans threatening to filibuster, but they never actually had too because the Democrats apparently don't believe in their own policies enough to spend a night on the senate floor.

Re:Oregon voters...

[Shining Celebi]

it takes 41 of 100 senators to make it work.

It takes one Senator to make a hold work. It takes 41 Senators (in theory) to make a filibuster work. In practice, a single Senator merely has to declare he intends to filibuster a bill in the Senate and the bill is filibustered. The Senate does not actually carry out actual filibusters anymore, where people get up and talk for hours, and the Republican party has voted in virtual lockstep in the past decade or so, ensuring they always have the votes if it comes down to it (Democrats tend to be in constant disarray, cf. Joe Lieberman.)

Graph out the number of filibusters per Congress. They remain low for centuries, and then they suddenly skyrocket in the past decade, with pretty much every year shattering the previous record. The 111th Congress broke the record not even a year in. We've even seen the filibustering of bills everyone agrees on just to delay the introduction of other bills- for example, Republicans filibustered a defense spending bill just to delay debate on the health reform bill. The tactic of minority parties in the modern Senate is simply to delay and stop everything.

That's what I mean by the rules are insane.

Re:Oregon voters...

[Dhalka226]

Are the rules the same as they've always been, or have they changed?

A little bit of both. Fillibusters have always existed in this country; they're something we brought over from England with us, along with things like sovereign immunity. However, as others have said, they used to be actual filibusters: You stopped the work of the Senate by exploting the rule that you held the floor as long as you held the floor (kept speaking, kept standing, etc), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style. Somewhere along the way--and I really don't know where--it became you simply saying "I'd like this bill to require 60 votes instead of 50 please!" and going back home to see how it turns out. It's both the same and different.

But I think the real change is the invention of career politicians and the cementing of political parties. Political parties have pretty much always existed, but more and more they have become enshrined by law. Third parties have difficulty getting into debates or onto ballots and are decried as a "wasted vote," which wasn't always the case. The party in power is in charge of drawing district lines, leading to things like gerrymandering. Most states in the union perpetuate closed primaries, encouraging the polarization of their candidates to appeal to the extreme fringes of their own party and not the moderate climate of the nation as a whole. The nation's political makeup is essentially determined, year after year, by a handful of in-play districts across the nation; almost everybody else is safe, as evidenced by a re-election rate historically of about 90% (true even in the Democrats' "sweeping win" in 2008; I haven't looked at the 2010 Republican results that closely yet. I suspect it will be close be slightly under.) Each party determines its own leadership, right down to the committee assignments -- meaning that even if by some miracle an independent did win, or he turned independent during a term, which is what we see far more often, he still needs to choose which party he wants to caucus with and whether he is one of the most powerful men in the Senate or one of the most impotent depends on one of the two big parties anyway, which you can be sure leads to quite a bit of deal-making behind closed doors.

"Politician" is now a job description rather than a public service. These people are no longer ordinary citizens, still working their fields or selling their wares. Their entire job is politics, the vast majority of their working time spent trying to get re-elected, a little with their staff and with their party scheming on how best to screw the other side, and a handful of time actually voting or conferencing or debating--you know, getting things done.

In that sense, things have changed. But the problem is not that it has become unworkable--the problem is actually that it has become too workable. Republicans consistently walk in lock-step. Democrats usually walk in lock-step. The outcome of bills are usually known well before the votes are taken, and most of it is known before the whip even goes around asking people how they intend to vote. Congress--the Senate in particular--was never meant to work quickly, but with a two-party system and a divided nation we can typically count on any disputed bill already having somewhere around 40-45% votes for and 40-45% votes against, leaving the outcome pending not only a small number of people, but in reality whether or not that small number of people are going to continue walking in lock-step with their party. Nobody has to spend time convincing others to vote for them (unless by that we mean coercing others to vote for them either by threats or by promises to vote their way on something else or include some money for such-and-such), nobody has to spend time convincing others that he's right, and bills succeed more by the combination of which party is in power and which party supports it than actual merit.

I

Re:He's a Democrat

[noidentity]

"Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile."

...targeted at the disgusting perversions made to copyright and patent law since they were created. But such an event is purely imaginary, just like the property the laws supposedly create.

It's awesome

[geekoid]

when the the person you sent emails to about an issue does what you want.

Re:He's a Democrat

[rsborg]

Why do they hate our Freedom?

Oh yeah -they're the government

-I'm just sayin'

You know, it's the rich and corporate elite who hate our freedoms. It's they who are pouring billions into campaign coffers to buy and bribe our so-called-democratically-elected government representatives.

Government will always exist, the question is, who does your congresscritter work for? I always reward good behavior despite party.

Re:Once he gets what he wants

[Elbart]

You misspelled democracy.

Awww.

[peacefinder]

Now, Ron. Don't go making me wish I'd voted for you.

Oh, wait... Actually yes, please do!

The one great thing about the Senate

[Compaqt]

is that any Senator can block any bill anytime for no reason at all.

The Senate depends on unanimous consent to get much of its work done, and a single senator can throw a monkey wrench into the works by withdrawing consent.

There's definitely one senator out there who'll be man enough to block the bill, either a leftie or a hardcore righty.

Re:I held my nose and voted for Wyden...

[Earthquake Retrofit]

..even though he fought against health care and, coincidentally, counts health insurance companies among his biggest campaign contributors...

Well, if you mean he fought against the watered down pablum the senate passed, but he was on the record in favor of a single-payer system.