Slashdot Mirror


Two SOPA Writers Become Entertainment Lobbyists

schwit1 writes "According to Politico, 'A pair of senior Hill aides at the center of a brewing battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley are packing their bags for K Street, where they’ll work for two of the entertainment lobby shops trying to influence their former colleagues in Congress on the very same issue. Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.' Techdirt adds, 'Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt.'"

45 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. This should be illegal by laffer1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's way to easy to "encourage" someone to write bills in your favor as a company. And politicians wonder why so many people don't even bother to vote anymore.

    1. Re:This should be illegal by nicholas22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This crap is precisely the reason me and my peers don't vote.

    2. Re:This should be illegal by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      idea: funding for pork projects get limited the more people do NOT show up to the polls.

      lets make 'not showing up' an actual vote. a vote to DE-FUND things.

      right now, I voice my dissatisfaction by not voting for the fraudsters (ie, all of them). but it would be nice if I could pull back things I think are wrong without giving the bad guy (note: both guys are bad guys, no matter what or where the issue is) more power I'd do it.

      I want to be able to vote AGAINST things. how about that for an idea?

      will never happen. our system is gamed against us. better luck in the next life. maybe. (then again, I've heard st. peter will be your new 'walking boss')

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:This should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Voting doesn't change whether or not idiots get into office. It just lets people pick the most popular idiot to put into office.

    4. Re:This should be illegal by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      This crap is precisely the reason me and my peers don't vote.

      And that would be exactly the reason you have no right to a negative opinion.

      Vote for one of your friends - get all all your friends together and vote for them also. Maybe you'll get enough together and win.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:This should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We might, if we thought it would make any significant difference. But it won't. Things have gone too far. The only way out now is through.

    6. Re:This should be illegal by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      You should vote against them, if possible. For alternative parties, or for none of the above, or some other way to make it count that you voted, but didnt liked any of the candidates. If enough people vote, but not for them (or better yet, for none of them) the political system should notice how bad things are.

      Of course, if enough people vote for them anyway, even after this and other leaks (wont be surprised if those 2 get reelected if run for congress again), then accept it, your country really like to be governed by corrupt politicians, enjoy the ride, but don't try to run because what corrupt politicians approves in US reaches you wherever you move.

    7. Re:This should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I used to think this way.

      Made the trip from apathy to habitual voter. Read up on everything, kept abreast of the latest developments, supported "my" candidates and voted in line with my desired outcomes.

      Now I'm back to not giving a fuck about voting. I've seen what it's worth and I'm tired of being a rube. It's principled apathy, not laziness. I'll keep giving to the EFF and I'll support the Pirate Party when they sail into town but until then there are better things to do with my time.

    8. Re:This should be illegal by joelpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And that would be exactly the reason you have no right to a negative opinion.

      I think non-voters most certainly have a "right" to a negative opinion, whether or not they choose to "voice" that opinion via voting. They simply view voting as a nearly useless (inaudible) way to voice their opinion; or perhaps that increasing the "percent abstained" figure is a more valuable way to express their opinion -- the "vote of no-confidence".

      Personally, I would wager that posting my opinion in the Slashdot comments is likely to have at least as much, if not more, of an impact than visiting the voting booth ever will.

      "If you don't order chicken or beef from the menu, you don't have a right to discuss the morality of animal consumption." But I'm a vegetarian!

    9. Re:This should be illegal by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Maybe you'll get enough together and win." - and that would be exactly the reason we're not getting anywhere. If I had 100k friends, that would still be only a tiny fraction of the number of votes needed for federal office of any kind. Do you have even a tenth as many friends? However thanks to Citizen United, in addition to purchasing people who spend 100% of their time talking to politicians to influence legislation, a wealthy corporation can spend millions on campaigns to get the people they want into office. Corps can spend money getting voter suppression laws on the books. But go on thinking voting matters, and telling people who have a legitimate complaint about the way our system works their voice does not matter because they don't dance kabuki with the rest of us. More and more citizens are ignoring opinions like yours, and looking for ways outside of voting to influence or shake up a broken system.

    10. Re:This should be illegal by grahamsaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So not showing up to vote should de-fund things. Ok. What things? Should funding be cut across the board? Should it be cut in the districts where people don't show up to vote? I don't think there's any workable way to implement what you're proposing.

      --
      Facts have a liberal bias.
    11. Re:This should be illegal by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't vote against somebody. If you could, we'd never have republicans or democrats in office because everybody hates those sons of bitches. Our flawed system only allows you to vote FOR someone.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:This should be illegal by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I had 100k friends, that would still be only a tiny fraction of the number of votes needed for federal office of any kind.

      Actually, if you look at the 2010 election results, 100K votes is just about the number you'd need to win a seat in the House of Representatives. Of course, this requires that all of the friends in question are in the same congressional district.

    13. Re:This should be illegal by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      That works great at the local level. My father decided one year that he did not want to allow his city representative to run unopposed, so he campaigned against her and ended up winning. He has remained the local representative since, and he does a pretty good job communicating with his constituents and voting what he believes is in everyone's interests.

      However, at the national level, this breaks down. It now takes millions of dollars to run for national office (nearing one billion for the President's seat). That makes it difficult if not impossible for someone to run who isn't either in one of the two major parties or independently wealthy. Even ignoring that, there is a significant portion of our voting public that automatically vote for the guy with the correct letter next to their name. Normally rational and intelligent people fall to this quite frequently. Without having a D or R next to your name, you have no shot, but to get that D or R next to your name means to sell out to corporate interests.

      It would take some big event to prompt a protest group like OWS starting up, pull in an order of magnitude or more people, and form another political party. I think you realize (as I do) how likely that is anytime soon.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    14. Re:This should be illegal by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      This is an all too common moronic point of view.

      If you don't like it run for office yourself herp derp derp

      Really? That's your fucking solution? The problem is structural, not individual. Assassinate every member of congress today, and, no matter who replaces them, we'll have the exact same problems tomorrow.

      It doesn't matter WHO is elected. We know, from actual, factual research, that situation dictates human behavior more than almost any other factor. Put new people into the same situation, and you'll get the same behavior. Voting for new people will fix nothing. Getting new people to run for office will fix nothing. Only replacing the entire system will have any effect.

    15. Re:This should be illegal by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For all those that think not voting is like boycotting all politicians - it isn't. If you don't vote everyone else's vote counts for a little bit more. The more people that don't vote out of protest, the closer the system comes to an aristocracy.

      The correct way to protest is to make a 'no vote'. This is where you tick all the boxes, or none of them, or you write a message voicing your dissatisfaction on the ballot, or smear faeces or stick chewing gum on the ballot, or you vote for a joke candidate. True this may be difficult in the US where many places don't use paper ballots, and there are often no joke candidates (or at least none that are more of a joke than all the rest.) You should be advocating for an abstain box on electronic voting machines. Not voting is using your voice to agree with the people that do vote.

    16. Re:This should be illegal by daspriest · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is always a space to write in a candidate. no confidence written in enough times may get someones attention

    17. Re:This should be illegal by daspriest · · Score: 2

      Then vote "no confidence" for all the candidates running. There is always a write in space for all positions on a ballot.

    18. Re:This should be illegal by Moryath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would agree to a requirement that no candidate be allowed to take office unless they had garnered a vote count equal to (50% + 1) of the registered, eligible voters for that election.

      If only 49% of the people voted in the election, obviously 51% of them wanted "None Of The Above."

    19. Re:This should be illegal by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      we are rubes. you got it right.

      nice appearance. got to keep those up, but the system is broken enough that voting is the last thing that will affect change.

      so many of us thought obama was about change. did we learn yet?

      maybe he had good plans; but the system is just not working.

      its 'cute' that some people still think voting in a screwed up system is going to make things better. I wish I could drink that koolaid but I'm too old and bitter and seen the same lie each 4 year period that passes. its old and nothing has changed.

      your vote does not count. the Occupy guys know this. why don't you?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    20. Re:This should be illegal by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      so many of us thought obama was about change

      Some of us managed to figure out that lie when he was still in Congress.

      The main piece of evidence was this: he was in Congress.

    21. Re:This should be illegal by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      They are not idiots. They are narcicisstic sociopaths, mostly very intelligent.

      All you folks who sit there thinking these members of the political class are somehow your intellectual inferiors are just the butt of many jokes for those in power.

    22. Re:This should be illegal by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      The problem, naturally, is that you'll then have one candidate that got 28% of the vote, another that got 24%, and the remaining 47% stayed home. So then who do you send to Washington?

    23. Re:This should be illegal by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, you're full of crap. It's true, one vote doesn't matter. Especially when your only choice is between a politician who increases spending to buy pork and one that increases borrowing to buy pork.

      But going to party meetings or working for a campaign? That's how things change. It's how the candidates that actually end up on the ballot get determined, and it's how those candidates determine their positions. Go to one of these places, offer to "help" and then while you're there, argue with them. Make them either see it your way or prove you wrong. If you can get them to be candid and admit their position is chosen based on funding or to play on public ignorance rather than based on reason, be their conscience. Be there to show them that you, as a representative of the human race, disapprove of what they're doing, care about it, and want them to change. Sometimes they will. Not all the time, but sometimes.

      Or you can sit at home and bitch about everything on the internet. That's probably just as good.

    24. Re:This should be illegal by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      a wealthy corporation can spend millions on campaigns to get the people they want into office.

      Why is it that people are so incapable of thinking strategically?

      Step 1: Get your name on the ballot for the state legislature. This doesn't require a lot of money.
      Step 2: Run a serious campaign. Make your opponent fear losing his seat. Then go to him and let him know that you'll drop out of the race if he gets a bill through the state legislature for public financing of statewide elections, including your state's federal congressional seats.
      Step 3: Repeat Step 2 until either the public finance law is passed by your opponent, or until you beat him and can make sure it gets passed from your new seat in the state legislature.
      Step 4: Run for federal office using the state's public finance program and tell the corporations to die in a fire.

    25. Re:This should be illegal by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      Only replacing the entire system will have any effect.

      Your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. You don't have to replace the entire system, you only have to repair the structural flaws that create the incentives that currently exist. The flaw isn't in the idea of democracy, it's in the way we finance elections. The answer is public financing.

      Naturally, that will never pass at the federal level because it doesn't serve the interests of the people who are already there. So do it at the state level. Get a bill in every state legislature that funds candidates for that state's federal offices with state money. Then you can get a bunch of new legislators with the backing of state money who aren't Washington insiders but can beat the incumbents (or at least get them to clean up their act). That serves as the thin end of the wedge: You get enough new blood in Congress that isn't beholden to special interests and you can make the further structural changes necessary to fix things properly.

      I mean what's the alternative, violent revolution? Be serious.

    26. Re:This should be illegal by mustPushCart · · Score: 2

      Or you can show up and null vote, at least here in India.

      http://www.pathikshah.com/blog/how-to-register-a-null-vote-rule-49-o/

    27. Re:This should be illegal by tsa · · Score: 2

      We here in Holland can do that too. In that way you can excersise your right to vote AND give the message that you think none of the parties is good enough to get your vote. That is way better than not showing up, because not showing up gives the message that you are too laze or don't give a damn. And in my opinion, if you don't show up you are not entitled to complain. You had your chance to change things but you chose not to, so then you'll just have to face the consequences.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    28. Re:This should be illegal by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sound like one of those Linux nerd in the 1990s who shouted that if you complain about there being no driver for a certain piece of hardware you can easily write it yourself. Think before you say something like this. Not everybody is a politician at heart and/or has the time and money and energy to do what you suggest.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  2. Has anyone yet mentioned... by Etz+Haim · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...that "sopa" means "trash" in Swedish? :)

  3. How Conveeeeeeenient.... by sconeu · · Score: 2

    And politicians wonder why they get less respect than the IRS.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:How Conveeeeeeenient.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And politicians wonder why they get less respect than the IRS.

      How would they know? People kiss up to them. When you write to them you address them as "Honorable" *snicker*.

      I think it should be proper to address them as "shithead": letters, public speaking, whatever. And during the congressional hearings where those people do their grandstanding and yet do nothing, folks being grilled should answer a question from a Congressman like this, "Well, shithead ....."

  4. How is this "not directly corrupt"? by DanTheManMS · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think most here would agree that lobbying in and of itself is corruption to begin with. A congressional aide becoming a lobbyist to influence his or her former colleagues? Even moreso. Yeah yeah, they have a one-year "cooling off" period in which they can't directly lobby them, but that's hardly the point. All that does is remove the issue from the public eye long enough that the corruption is forgotten by the time it can legally begin.

    The Politico article linked above notes that this [...] may not be directly corrupt

    The Politico article only states that this act is completely legal, not that it isn't directly corrupt. There's a difference between the two.

    1. Re:How is this "not directly corrupt"? by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      in the UK, the system is (in theory) better. Any constituent can see their representative on demand, provided the representative isn't busy in the House at that time, so everyone has (in theory) equal access and equal lobbying power. Cash-for-questions and similar direct bribery is off-limits and will get a member sanctioned, banned from the House or forced to quit. Well, provided it's discovered and the ethics committee hasn't been perverted.

      This is not perfect, the system has some unimaginably large holes - apparently large enough to drive 5,600 phone hacking scandals and assorted cash-for-votes scandals through, but when bribery and high-paying jobs aren't merely legal but de rigour - as is the case in the US, it's a whole different ballgame.

      Both systems should be majorly overhauled and the politicians and aides operating in such a manner should be majorly keelhauled, but if only one were to change I think the US should move more towards the UK's standards than the other way round.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:How is this "not directly corrupt"? by outsider007 · · Score: 2

      I don't think lobbying is corrupt - as long as no bribery is involved. Corrupt is something like loading up your cabinet with Goldman Sachs execs because they contributed to your campaign.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  5. Re:What a twist! by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 2

    Directed by money.

    United States of America, the best government money can buy.

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  6. Completely Legal but Highly Corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt.'"

    Incorrect. This is an inherently corrupt practice, much like when Michael Moore pointed out (in the film Sicko) that the politicians who supported the big medical corporations at the expense of health care also got executive level positions after their corrupt legislation was approved by congress.

    I will correct the quote:
    It may not be directly illegal, but to the public it is corrupt.'

  7. Re:how many more by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how many more times do you need to be shown that business' ability to regulate government is only a way to steal and sell power?

    ftfy

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  8. Occupy's One Thing by deanklear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This should be the sole focus of the Occupy movement: a law that makes it illegal to engage in any business with the private industry which you have recently helped regulate, for a period of 10 years. Additionally, make it a law that you cannot regulate an industry where you have worked in the previous ten years. (This includes voting in the chamber: it's called a conflict of interest for a reason.) Make the conviction penalty for lawmakers their immediate termination and a complete dissolution of their government pension.

    When people complain that the only way it would work is if government had to disclose all of their now-private meetings, you say, "You're damn right they would." When they say that half of Congress couldn't vote because they're lawyers, you say, "You're damn right they couldn't." That, of course, is the whole problem: we've got hundreds of millionaire lawyers pretending that they care about working class Americans. But instead, they're taking away our rights and giving them to corporations who put money in their campaign coffers.

    I don't want any more secret meetings between the companies picking my pocket and the government I pay to employ. No more Vegas style parties on the taxpayer dime. No more loopholes for outrageously wealthy corporations shipping our livelihoods overseas so they can rake in profits while we bail them out. Openly perform your duties as a public servant, or get the hell out of our government.

    1. Re:Occupy's One Thing by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This should be the sole focus of the Occupy movement: a law that makes it illegal to engage in any business with the private industry which you have recently helped regulate, for a period of 10 years.

      Two problems with that idea:

      1. 1) They would simply be hired by 'independent' think tanks, then be contracted from there by the lobbyists to provide 'expert advice'. Abstract as desired until it's legal again.
      2. 2) Experience and expertise are absolutely necessary when legislation and regulation are being drafted. Outlawing that would be worse than letting the corporations write their own legislation. Seriously.

      You can't make immorality illegal, no matter how hard you try. The problem is cultural. The mantra that companies' sole priority is to increase shareholder value via any legal means necessary will inevitably lead to companies trying to affect the 'legal means' part of the equation.

      I know whereof I speak, by the way. I live in a very small country, and am fairly often asked for expert advice on matters pertaining to technology policy by players on both sides of the field. I answer any request for information to the extent that I can. If it takes a lot of my time, I charge for it. I have only one condition: I refuse to change my advice, nor to hide my opinion, nor to serve one side differently from the other.

      In one case, someone involved in litigation asked me to brief his legal team on the particulars of technology in this country. I said I would, but that he should be advised that, while I'd not repeat what was said in the meeting room, I would offer the same advice and information to anyone who asked. He didn't seem pleased with the idea, and never followed up on the request.

      As long as profit is the only criterion for success in the US, you're going to have the problem of people gaming the system and congratulating themselves when they do. That has to stop. Competition is not about playing with the rules, it's about playing by them.

      What you really need is a generation that says, 'There are some things that I simply will not do.' That won't be easy.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    2. Re:Occupy's One Thing by FiloEleven · · Score: 2

      There's a document that is associated with but not (yet) approved by the Occupy movement that looks quite promising to me. Here is a nicely formatted version of the document. It calls for a General Assembly of delegates in Philadelphia, and lists a Redress of Grievances. There are a few I take issue with and a few I'm on the fence about, but the vast majority of them I see as things that ought to be addressed, and I'm pretty libertarian.

      If they really get their shit together, they will be a force to be reckoned with and a very positive agent of change.

  9. Some thoughts by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, in some countries this would automatically spark an ethics investigation or be deemed corrupt. It may not be "corrupt" in the US, but I suspect that's more of a relative definition of corrupt than an absolute one.

    Second, the US is ranked 24th in the world on corruption. I'd therefore argue that the standards the US government holds itself to is not only nowhere near what it could be, but isn't even anywhere near as good as other nations are managing on a day-to-day basis. This isn't great for smaller nations, though you can understand that they don't have the resources to be equal and of high quality. They also don't have much influence and the impact of corruption is necessarily limited. A fair number are also very new and don't have much experience. A nation like the US is a different matter. They've plenty of resources, they've had three centuries to work out the flaws, and they've far too much power to not be responsible with it.

    The fact that New Zealand, Denmark and Finland are first and joint second respectively (none of whom are permanent members of the UN Security Council, hold nuclear weapons, dominate either the IMF or World Bank, or control vast swathes of international trade) is worthy of great respect. They don't have to be as good as they are, they just are because they by-and-large want to be. Not saying they're perfect, this is a ranking system not a measure against a fixed standard, but it is highly commendable none-the-less.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Some thoughts by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The corruption in the US is awful. If you want to buy a senator's vote, you can give him money directly (not to his campaign, that's regulated) in the form of stock options, land, any number of things. Worse, YOU CAN'T GET AN FOIA REQUEST FROM CONGRESS. That's right, it's easier to get information from the CIA than from congress.

      The cynical side of me says the reason congress always talks about campaign reform, often in a bipartisan way, is to distract people from thinking of bribery reform.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. Just an idea... by Anachragnome · · Score: 2

    Just an idea...

    Occupy The Pirate Bay.

    Someone creates a text file that embodies the disgust and derision of the masses towards SOPA (and all that it represents), then uploads this file to TPB. Everyone that feels sympathetic to the contents of the file can then download it and seed it. The idea is to get a running total of seeds as high as possible--a petition, if you will. Those numbers--seeds and peers--can then be used as an argument against SOPA (or anything like it). Perhaps a "declaration of consumer rights" as we consumers would create one...

    I'd love to see such a thing at the top of TPB listings.

    Now that I think about this, perhaps such an idea could be used to nominate actual laws and bills for consideration by governments.

  11. Re:60 minutes by jimshatt · · Score: 2

    60 Minutes: Jack Abramoff on Lobbying and Gov Corruption http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMMppBhOLXA

    Despite the title, it's only 15 minutes long. And certainly worth watching!