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."

35 of 596 comments (clear)

  1. Good fucking luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [comment goes here]

  2. Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course nothing will happen. Since when do crooks convict themselves ?

    1. Re:Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dodd isn't going to suffer legal consequences, but if enough stink is made he'll be a less effective mouthpiece. That's a worthwhile goal.

    2. Re:Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Official White House response...

      Well, we talked to Chris and he said that it was nothing like it sounded, so we are satisfied.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you tell the executive branch, "Hey a whole bunch of D-bags in Congress are being bought and paid for," I'd bet they'd be willing to at least take a look.

      Yeah, Obama will take a look to make sure he is bought and paid for by the same people. If so, he'll say he looked and everything checks out. Otherwise, he'll make a big stink about it until he receives just as much money from the same people.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    4. Re:Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Chris Dodd as bag handler collecting a whack of cream from the top has just made himself unemployed. Being a public idiot when you bought off politicians refuse to obey your orders, will get you fired every time.

      He has effectively made a bad situation much worse. Now any attempt to pass those two pieces of legislation will come of as bribery and corruption. Of one industry setting up legislation to competitively destroy another industry for commercial advantage.

      Everyone knows it was about old world mass media regaining control of what information the public gets, about shutting down every influential blog, forum and web portal not owned or controlled by mass media. Basically to shut down means by which Obama and quite a few Democrats got elected.

      All politicians have now seen which way the wind is blowing, in the battle between the internet and the idiot box, the internet is kicking the idiot box's ass and with it the ability of old world mass media to control the public mind space.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "...but if enough stink is made he'll be a less effective mouthpiece."

      Better yet, he'll become the political equivalent of tainted meat, fit for not save the rendering tub. He will be effectively removed from circulation, and that is a win, plain and simple.

      When he is reduced to scraps from the tables of the corrupt, then it is time to focus on the next corrupt politician/lobbyist. Maybe a regular petition campaign, that draws attention to specific examples of corruption, would be picked up by more media (independent, I'm guessing) and this might have some real, positive benefit/results. The White House took a stand against SOPA/PIPA--signing this petition is a way of backing them up on that decision, of standing behind the President. I suppose that the President could interpret every petition signature as a vote next election, and I am guessing he would be correct in that assumption, especially if he takes action in response to that petition.

      I'm refreshing that petition in my browser, and see people signing it at about one signature every 4-5 seconds, less time then it takes to read the petition, yet when I Google "Chris Dodd", there are only a couple of news articles that relate to the comments he made (although I am watching that change quickly. Snowball effect?), so I think it safe to say that people are not reacting to something in mainstream media, but the content of the petition itself. Yay. Perhaps those signatures will come in faster then the dollars from lobbyists.

      Email a link to a friend or family. We all have a stake in this. Maybe it will get enough signatures that the mainstream media can no longer ignore it.

  3. Lobbying vs Bribery by Warlord88 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, what's the difference between lobbying and bribery?

    1. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by FreeCoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, what's the difference between lobbying and bribery?

      Bribery is honest, lobbying is dishonest.

    2. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lobbying is you giving money to someone who is already in line with your thinking and you want to help.

      Bribery is giving someone money to do what you tell them to.

      Very clear difference. I mean it is piratically ketchup and catsup clear. Basically that is what happened here. Dodd stating "we gave you money, you better listen!" may have crossed that very fine line. Otherwise, he could have just been supporting people he agreed with.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    3. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lobbying has some legitimate uses.

      Let's Congress wants to open up part of a national forest for logging, oil drilling, or whatever because Congressman Joe Schmoe or his buddy happens to own a logging company. The Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups can lobby against it and point out the conflict of interest to other Congressmen.

      Or we can lobby against corporate interests ourselves - grass roots lobbying - like with the SOPA and PIPA stuff.

      OR we can lobby for something, like single payer health insurance. Because they millionaires on Capital Hill with their Congressional perks would never think of such a thing.

      Or lobby for more national parks.

      Or lobby for reduction in taxes.

      Or ......

      Because just having the Congress people left to their own devices would lead us down an even worse path that we are on now.

      But what I think we should outlaw is corporate lobbying. A corporation should have no political voice at all.Neither should government employees lobbying to make their jobs easier - like law enforcement lobbying for our Civil Liberties to be taken away because they're too lazy to do their job or because they want more power: the wars on terror and drugs and child porn excuses have eroded our liberties too much. And keep in mind "law and order" conservatives, those will be used as an excuse to take our guns away so don't go for the lie of "if you do nothing wrong; you have nothing to worry about" bullshit.

    4. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you even know what the work means?

      So, you're saying that if you and a bunch of people who think like you decided to pool some resources and hire somebody to go to DC and make sure that the staffers working for congressional reps and senators were up to speed on some complex topic that most people don't understand (the better to hope that any voting they do that might impact this thing you care about is based on actual information, and not what someone else told them) ... that's dishonest?

      That's what lobbying pretends to be. What lobbying really IS, at least in the case of the RIAA and MPAA, is that the lobbyists write legislation, which they then hand over to said staffers along with a check and promise for future campaign help if the congresspeople pass that legislation.

    5. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would like to think that? Well, go right ahead and think it. That won't make it true, but it might make you feel better.

      CLUE: The corporates don't send their specialists to explain the real facts of life to congress critters. Instead, they send PR/HR/marketdroids with deep pockets. The specialists are kept at their desks, or in the shop, or out in the field, where facts are actually useful.

      I invite you to read Allen Greenspan's recent remarks about banking legislation. Words to the effect, "We thought the banks could make decisions that were best for them - how wrong we were!"

      Corporations never do anything "for the greater good". Today, they don't even do things for their own good. The zombies only have eyes for quarterly profit statements, totally unaware that those statements are full of lies.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by todrules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what has gotten people so anti-lobbyist is that they don't just do that anymore. The lobbyist organizations don't just do to DC and say, "We have some concerned citizens (businesses) about this topic." They go to DC and say, "We have some concerned business about this topic, and, by the way, the businesses I represent have a ton of money that would love to donate to your election fund if you vote the right way. We could also probably use a person like you on our Board of Directors after your terms are up, if you get this bill passed, and, oh yeah, I got a winter retreat in the Caribbean that you can use this year. No expenses paid." That's the difference, and that's what not only makes it unethical at best but illegal at worst.

    7. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lobbying = Right to Petition.

      Contributing to a campaign = Free Speech.

      Quid Pro Quo ( for contributing to a campaign ) = Bribery.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by todrules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that really pisses me off, especially when MPAA exec Michael O’Leary said that the agency “will come forward with language that will address some of the legitimate concerns." What??? I don't remember when he became an elected official. How is a lobbyist writing our legislation? This violates the very tenets that the US was founded on. So, now we have the corporations writing our laws, too.

    9. Re:Lobbying vs Bribery by LandDolphin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He should have said:

      The people running the banks most definitely did make decisions that were best for the people running the banks.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  4. I'm Chris Dodd by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."
  5. They've already ignored one qualified petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:They've already ignored one qualified petition by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, this is exactly the way petitions in the UK worked when they were interested years ago, and still largely work today.

      They were sold as a way of using the internet to help get people involved in democracy.

      But what they really were was a way of using the internet to allow politicians to pretend they give a fuck about democracy.

      Things like the Digital Economy Act were some of the most voted against, but just got pretty much entirely ignored, now the new government has revamped the petitions barely a couple of thousand people have voted, despite I think hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions having voted on a petition about that the first time around.

      The petitions are just another way of pretending politicians care about the general populace, whilst doing quite the fucking opposite. The Whitehouse has obviously learnt from our successive governments what a useful tool they are for distracting people from the real situation.

  6. What for will the response take? by asdf7890 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Carlin - The Real Owners Of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    1. Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America by deanklear · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Carlin was mostly right.

      The question is, are you going to sit there and take it, or are you going to educate yourself and fight back? I'm afraid Carlin fell for an old trick: a tiny minority of powerful people telling the vast majority that they don't have any power. The term that has been coined for this is "antipolitics." Yes it is pervasive, and the message contained in the media and the whole platform of right wing anti-government and left-wing anarchist philosophies.

      The truth is that we have (compared with the rest of the world) relatively free and fair elections, relatively uncorrupted government, and the capability to change our government however we want to if we are willing to sacrifice some time and money to make the change happen. The truth is that most Americans have the government they deserve. We have achieved the technical definition of democracy, but we are letting new forms of aristocracy corrupt it.

      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
      --Plato

  8. Thank you for bringing this to my attention by wjcofkc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean that.

    Sincerely,

    Signature # 7,023

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  9. Losers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Losers by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really, there are a lot of petitions on there I would think everyone on Slashdot would support. Consider these:

      Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood

      Reduce the term of copyrights to a maximum of 56 years

      End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet

      You can register and sign all of them in about two minutes. There's absolutely no excuse not to, except apathy. Signing a petition may not change anything, but not signing it is guaranteed not to.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  10. High hopes, for sure by ZOmegaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Yeah right by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Investigating Dodd is a good place to start. Even just getting Obama to refuse to investigate Dodd is a start. You're insisting on never starting.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. Audit Them All by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  13. Bribery? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. Yeah, I'm an AC - so what. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Yeah, I'm an AC - so what. by EdIII · · Score: 5, Informative

      Posting here because this at the top so far.

      http://wh.gov/KiE

      That is the direct link to sign the petition at the White House website. Still needs 14,000 signatures to go.

      Slashdot that petition please :)

  15. JUST lobbying is fine by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:JUST lobbying is fine by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lobbying is fine. Just make it so that all meetings between elected politicians and lobbyists/donors have to be videotaped and the videos put on the government website for the entire public to watch. This would have zero impact on legitimate lobbying. If an individual or a corporation has a good argument why a law should be changed, it will work on the public as well as it will on the politician. In fact they'd welcome this since it's free advertising for their issue.

      The lobbyists trying to do something underhanded, against the better interest of the public, though (i.e. bribery). They will be running scared from this idea.

  16. I worked with a former deputy counsel at the FEC.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.