Slashdot Mirror
White House Petition To Investigate Dodd For Bribery
Walkingshark writes "Chris Dodd's recent statements complaining that congressmen who receive donations from the RIAA and MPAA should toe the line has spawned a firestorm of anger on the internet. Among the bits of fallout: a petition on the White Houses "We the People" site to investigate him, the RIAA, and the MPAA for bribery! This petition gained more than 5000 signatures in 24 hours and is still growing. When the petition reaches 25,000 signatures the White House is obligated to respond to it in an official capacity."
[comment goes here]
Of course nothing will happen. Since when do crooks convict themselves ?
Seriously, what's the difference between lobbying and bribery?
That would result in pretty much every lobbyist and politician in America being investigated for giving or taking bribes. We will not see this happen, just like we never saw electronic voting machines being properly audited.
Palm trees and 8
And I DEMAND that once bought, you STAY bought!
By the way, the law is for you "little people".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The petition to take the petitions seriously (AKA the "calling shenanigans on "representation" petition) gained the required number of signatures already and was subsequently completely ignored.
Link: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#%21/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
When the petition reaches 25,000 signatures the White House is obligated to respond to it in an official capacity.
Will this response be of a similar nature to how the UK government response to its equivalent petition site? i.e. the official response is to make it clear they are officially ignoring the petition?
Carlin - The Real Owners Of America
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying  lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."
"But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.
"You know what they want? Obedient workers  people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
"This country is finished."
I mean that.
Sincerely,
Signature # 7,023
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
As I post this comment, every comment posted in this thread before mine was an apathetic "signing the petition will do nothing". It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.
Signing the petition might indeed do nothing. But posting a comment here saying so is absolutely guaranteed to do nothing. The corrupt politicos like Dodd absolutely count on people insisting on doing nothing. Just as bribery is the oxygen for their corruption, cynical apathy is the 78% nitrogen that makes the air they breathe.
Sign the petition, and at least have done something to strangle these parasites. Even if that's just being a small part of forcing the president to defend or deny them. It's better than nothing - certainly better than a loudly committed nothing.
--
make install -not war
The last time I saw a response to one of these petitions, it was one for the elimination of the TSA. The response was written by the head of the TSA. Not to say you shouldn't push the button anyway. If the Obama administration is going to ask for our input and then blatantly disregard it, we may as well have them on record as doing so.
Former US House candidate, TN-5
Every single conversation, in person or over media (phone, email, etc) that any elected official has with anyone should be recorded and archived in the Library of Congress. And noted in a public schedule, except meetings a subcommittee in the House or Senate votes can be hidden. Any investigation should be able to subpoena any recording. With no expiration or statue of limitations.
That kind of evidence generation would protect the honest conversations from the corrupt ones, and steadily improve the ratio.
--
make install -not war
The less government involvement there is in business, the less business will want/need to be involved in government.
Simple logic, really.
For some reason, there are many who only complain about the corporate side of this without realizing the cause - which is the government's involvement in the first place (or the government's ability to be involved).
Limited government is a good thing. You don't get to require unending government involvement without paying the price of corruption. Never has happened in history, never will.
The irony of Larry Lessig voting for big government while decrying corruption is delicious - decrying the effects while supporting the cause is just craziness.
I read his (Dodd's) comment to mean, essentially, "Don't expect to keep getting campaign support from people that don't think you're supporting their interests."
How is this any different than a thousand donors to, say, Obama's last campaign saying, "We don't think you still care about [topic x] the way you did in 2008 when we supported you with cash, and if we still feel that way, we may not support your campaign next time around."
Saying that - because you don't like a politician's posture/policy on a topiuc - you won't give a campaign donation next time doesn't mean that when you did support their campaign in the past, you were bribing them. If that were true, then every dollar donated by every person or organization is always bribery. Which is ridiculous.
I dislke Dodd. He's an ass. But he's perfectly within his (and his employers') rights to say the same thing we can all say: "Mr. Politician: you're not committed to what I think is important, and so I'm probably not going to help your campaign fund next time."
Anger "on the internet" about him being that straightforward is just the usual anger at the fact that a trade association made of up people who run studios and labels puts a priority on protecting their members' works. Shocking, I say! But thousands of people calling it "bribery" is just an adolescent display of ignorance or a disingenuous display of pandering rhetoric aimed at uninformed people.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The same Chris Dodd who, along with Barney Frank (you remember him, his lover ran a gay brothel out of his house a few years back), are the very crooks behind the housing crisis that started this whole recession.
At least these two won't be able to do actual damage in Congress anymore.
It's pretty insightful at how pretty pointless they are.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-online-petitions-that-prove-democracy-broken/
I'm reminded of Blagavitch. The man so corrupt he didn't think it was against the law to sell a senatorial seat.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Don't be offended that Dodd is telling the politicians that took money from his employers to favor their interests and vote to the advantage of their benefactors.
Be offended that:
Our politicians take money from corporate interests that can NEVER be to the advantage of the nation or the people.
Our politicians, having the power to ingratiate themselves to the corporations, also have the power to benefit from their positions by making investments based on the confidential and advance information they receive as a result of their work in Congress.
It is legal that our Congress can take advantage of this information to make investments based on that information.
It is illegal for us, even corporate officials, to make similar investments based on this information. Entirely illegal.
So far as I have read in this discussion, no one has noted Chris Dodd's political party afilliation, which would not be the case, in my opinion, if his afilliation were different.
Dodd's complaint that Congress took the money and isn't delivering speaks volumes. It is time to require complete and immediate disclosure of contributions. It is time to require membes of Congress be subject to insider trading laws just as corporate officials and private investors are. It is time to re-enact Glass-Steagell. It is time to abandon current campaign finance laws as ineffective. It is time to throw them all out. Every one.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I have a valid ID for the website, but whe attempted to sign in to sign the petition, it wouldn't allow it, even after turning off all my blocking add-ons for the site, and restting my password several times. I've left a feedback via their site form. Hopefully, that still works.
How many people don't think that money in politics is a bad thing? I believe the answer is 541.
435 members of the House of Representatives.
100 members of the Senate.
5 judges on the Supreme Court
1 President of the United States.
Toe the line?
Surely you mean tow!
something strange is afoot...
a corporation made up of specialists in a field would know better how things in their expertise work as opposed to politicians (e.g. technology, education, environment, etc.).
The experts really think that an issue is important, then they can lobby as individuals for that issue - whatever it may be.
If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".
Yes there is a line.
Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.
By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.
Just one to blow me out of the water and I'll kiss goatse on the ass.
US law on campaign contributions is very favorable to contributors, but there is a line beyond which a campaign contribution becomes bribery. Dodd probably just crossed it. The relevant Supreme Court decision reads "[A]ccepting a campaign contribution does not equal taking a bribe unless the payment is made in exchange for an explicit promise to perform or not perform an official act." It's one of those laws that requires proving criminal intent. Dodd's statement on national television probably provides that proof.
by acknowledging that big time donors are paying for legislation, rather than pretending they get nothing for their investment.
Now people want Dodd investigated. For what? For being candid for once about what *everyone* in *both* parties does?
Fine, but don't stop with Dodd, or the message becomes clear: pretend nobody does it, and be treated like you don't do it. Or tell the truth, and be treated like you're the *only one* doing it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What makes this particularly interesting is that Chris Dodd is a former US Senator. Shortly before he left the senate, he vowed not to lobby congress, a vow that now appears questionable. Within a few months of leaving the senate, he was hired as the head of MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), causing some controversy in the process.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project
People waking up is much more important than any petition. For the first time people are openly reacting against corruption.
Read radical news here
a true 'audit' would be combing through every piece of legislation the congressman voted for, and determining whether or not the $500,000 worth of campaign donations that helped him and his party over the past 5 years were from people who benefited from line items in the bills he sponsored or passed.
and in case you didnt notice, congressman have sweet jobs - massive salaries, free health care, pensions, and, on top of that, after they get through, they get jobs as ---- lobbyists, making untold fortunes using their contacts in washington to keep the gravy train going.
these objections people are raising here about the legitimate uses of lobbying are like someone arguing about the legitimate uses of dynamite in a banking environment.
Obama lobbied on a platform of cleaning up and changing the way the government operates, and what do we have to show for it? We have to sign a petition to have the government take a look at possible bribery.
"On the brink" by hank paulson
"the sellout" by charles gasparino
"the big short" by michael lewis
"econned" by yves smith
"confidence game" by christine s richard
"house of cards" by william a cohan
"and then the roof caved in" by david faber
"the trillion dollar meltdown" by charles morris
"diary of a very bad year" by anonymous hedge fund manager + keith gessen
"lost trust" by lang gibson
"a colossal failure of common sense" by lawrence mcdonald + patrick robinson
"all the devils are here" by joe nocera and bethany mclean
-----
read all that, then you will not embarass yourself with your ignorance.
dodd was on the fucking senate banking committee through the whole recession. he was part of the machine that pumped more and more money into fannie and freddie, and refused to look at the banks when they started acting like private versions of fannie and freddie, and he was asleep at the wheel through the whole subprime thing, the CLO thing, the CDO thing, the hedge funds inside of banks, etc etc etc. it was his job to regulate the banking system. the banking system collapsed. we all payed for it. trillions of dollars. we still pay for it.
and you and the moron apologists for these ass clowns have the nerve to lecture us about how they had nothing to do with the recession.
I love gall (the other kind, not bile). Dodd has gall for standing up to America and admitting who he really worked for, bravo! While others shrink away and obfuscate, Chris comes forward and cuts to the chase. I suspect he never plans to run again for public office (except the presidency, of course). With his connections in Congress and the White House, there is no chance of any legal reprisal. Kudos for standing up and telling the truth about who gets their way in Washington.
Now, when is somebody going to admit that the entire two-party system is rigged? Chris, you're on a roll; here's your chance.
Actually I would argue that JUST lobbying is fine i.e. putting an argument to a politician that a law should be changed. It's when the lobbying involves large amounts of cash, fancy holidays and expensive gifts that it stops being lobbying and becomes bribery.
I actually worked for a period of time with a former deputy counsel at the Federal Election Commission - What most people don't understand is that the definition of "bribery" here implies that the recipient was doing something illegal - which representatives weren't. By the legal standards, absolutely nothing wrong occurred (the ethical part is another matter). The sad fact is that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to tell a congressman that they will "give you X amount of money" if they vote a certain way, introduce a bill, etc.
I know a decent amount about this stuff because I spent a number of months pursuing a concept that was right up this alley - it allowed average people to band together to help influence legislation by providing a way to collectively say something like "20,000 people will give you $10 dollars each if you introduce legislation to save the whales and vote yes". The idea was to balance out corporate and special interests (in an admittedly sort of perverted and crazy way. The money would actually leave donors hands and sit in a pool until some conditions were met to release it). Was serious enough about it for a while, and we actually ended up interviewing as finalists in Las Vegas for TechStars (not 100% sure why they were interested lol, but they invited us out, although we ultimately didn’t get in). I eventually decided the whole thing was probably too crazy and I needed a real job.
I worked with the lawyer to vet the whole thing and make sure we wouldn’t end up getting sued by the FEC. He had concerns, but the idea of holding money over people’s heads in exchange for votes wasn’t one of them. He didn’t even bat an eye about it. I honestly have no idea what actually counts as a “bribe” anymore after working with him. Maybe there are still ethical concerns (violating congressional ethics rules, that is, not general ethics), but legally, I’m pretty sure this isn’t even remotely a concern.
The website is still up as it was when we applied to TechStars and such if you care to look at the concept – http://oltest3.heroku.com was the testing site. The site’s name was OpenLobby (openlobby.com will just bring you to the landing site. ) Shame it didn’t work out. :)
If you want a great read on how fcked up campaign finance is, check out "Unstacking the Deck: A Reporter's Guide To Campaign Finance". A bit outdated now, but I found it hard to read without thinking that half of congress deserves to be thrown in jail.
Do you have the money to rent an appropriate space inside the Beltway? To essentially purchase the Congressperson's time? Or even their staffers time? Getting the resources in place to do an extended (more than 2-5 day) lobbying effort requires a great deal of investment in both time and cash. And lets face it, do you pay more attention to your co-worker who you see every day, a friend you go drinking with, or to the person behind you at the grocery checkout line (who you will probably never see again)? Getting serious consideration (not just a wave in the distance) in that world is an entirely different level of action that requires a full-time job with a huge expense account just to get in the door. After that, the real bidding wars for the actual votes begin.
Over at DailyKos, Wil Wheaton (CleverNickName) links to the techdirt article on this and puts in his own comments:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/21/1057058/-Chris-Dodd-threatens-politicans-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought?via=search
I just hope Chris Dodds et al doesn't decide that post constitutes "not paying any attention to me when my job is at stake.", and Wil loses out on anymore acting gigs.
Nobody will probably ever read this comment, but I just need to get this out there. The idea you had is certainly interesting, and has probably been had by many people, but I don't think it can ever really have a significant impact, and this is why. If only a few of the richest people/corporations throw their money behind something, you would need an impossibly large portion of the population to oppose it to have any hope of balancing out the numbers. This is why I think the notion of allowing any kind of financial contribution in politics, beyond a tiny amount per individual that a significant portion of the population should be able to afford (e.g. $100), is deeply flawed in a mathematical sense.
There may be rare exceptions to this -- your idea might be effective if for example there is no corporate interest on certain topic, and the few thousand $ you raise happens to catch someone's attention enough to make it worth for them to bother spending any amount of time on it, but I think you'll agree that this is pretty rare. Another instance would be if there really is immense popular support for one side of an issue that can actually counterbalance the corporate opposition, but at those levels of popular support I think it really isn't a matter of money anymore, i.e. any reasonable politician would be more worried about public perception at that point than about campaign funding or whatnot.
weinersmith