Copyright For Sale: What the Sony Docs Say About MPAA Buying Political Influence

An anonymous reader writes: The linkage between political funding and the major copyright lobby groups is not a new issue as for years there have been stories about how groups like the MPAA and RIAA fund politicians that advance their interests. Michael Geist digs into the Sony document leak to see how the MPAA coordinates widespread buying of politicians with political funding campaigns led by former Senator Christopher Dodd to federal and state politicians. The campaigns include efforts to circumvent donation limits by encouraging executives to spend thousands on influential politicians, leading to meetings with Barack Obama, the head of the USTR and world leaders.

Comments

We can learn from this

[RoknrolZombie]

Seems to me like this is a pretty solid way to identify most of what's wrong with our political structure so that we can fix it.

Unfortunately it will probably just be used as a "how to" manual.

Re:We can learn from this

[gstoddart]

Yup, essentially the politicians have set it up so they can be openly bribed/bought off to give corporations more consideration than the rest of us.

If this doesn't show how corrupt and broken the system is, I have no idea what will.

There's no way the politicians will change the law so they can no longer get paid ... it's simply too lucrative.

They're all crooks, and should be thrown in jail.

Re:We can learn from this

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, but... but... Assange! Look at that guy, a fugitive from the law, hosting these documents to boost his own ego! Forget the corruption, look at THAT guy!

Re:We can learn from this

[geogob]

People like the folks at MPAA do not need a "how to" manual. That's what they do as a business. They are like leeches which are perfectly adapted to the political ecosystem. The only hope you can have, is to have judicial system independent enough to tackle the issue.

I've read here on /. a lot of critique to the leaking of the Sony dataset and how it was further spread by Wikileak. Taken aside the peculiar personalities linked to Wikileaks and problems one might have with them, THIS is exactly why it is good to have this information out in the world. I can only hope judicial instances will pick up this dataset and start their own investigations, for the little it may help.

It will only help a little, because those leeches are also expert in finding loopholes through regulations. Remember, this is what they do... which is quite ironic for anti-piracy lobbyists. Some countries/regions are fast in finding and closing loopholes, but not in the reign of the MPAA and especially not when it is linked to political corruption / financing of political parties and/or figures.

Re:We can learn from this

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we not say Sony (or other corporations) did it, but actually name those individuals orchestrating these bribes and those cutting the checks?

Re:We can learn from this

[nine-times]

But is the problem that we can't identify what's wrong, or is the problem that we're powerless to do anything about it?

My understanding is that you could find plenty of people with enough expertise to lay out exactly what the problem is, but the problem is essentially, "There are a bunch of legal loopholes that effectively make bribery legal, thereby handing control of our government over to those who can pay the most."

You might ask, "Well if we know what the problem is, we can fix it! Why not close the loopholes?" The fundamental problem there is that the people in position to close the loopholes are the ones receiving the bribes, and they want the bribes to keep coming. The only thing that could get them to change the law would be if their corporate overlords, i.e. those providing the bribes, bribed them to make it illegal. The problem with that is that the corporate overlords also want the bribes to remain legal, so that they can influence public officials.

Finally, you might say, "Well why not just vote those bribe-takers out of office?" The problem there is that the bribes are used to buy elections. Without that money, you can't run ads, you can't get on TV, and you can't even participate in the public debate.

It's just a catch-22 situation. The only solution would be for voters to somehow elect someone who they've never heard of, who basically can't campaign, and just hope that that new elected official is both honest and effective. And then that has to happen in a couple hundred other elections at roughly the same time.

Re:We can learn from this

[Tablizer]

They're all crooks, and should be thrown in jail.

They are just playing by the rules of the system, as is. Not sure you can fault them for that. We are mostly a plutocracy. If you don't want the players to play by the rules, then end the damned plutocracy.

Unfortunately, they've used their well-honed corporate marketing skills to dupe most of the population into thinking the fat cat plutocrats are blessed by God to be fat cat plutocrats. Thus, the sheep population won't vote to fix it. I'm not suggesting at all we make a 180-degree U-turn the other way, but Karl Marx did warn about this slippery slope: the rich are getting richer, and thus have more money to buy laws that keep allowing them to get yet richer to buy even more laws...

Slippery slope claims are usually considered a fallacy in debates, but for the past 35 years we've been "sloping" that way. Slippery slopes are generally considered a fallacy if they haven't actually happened yet, but they are no longer a fallacy if they're actually happening or have happened.

Re:We can learn from this

[Jason Levine]

And if they aren't outright bought out, then they are offered cushy jobs post-retirement, often lobbying the very people they used to work with. The revolving door goes round and round.

Re:We can learn from this

[poetmatt]

Considering they used their money to make this into the system, I see absolutely no reason to simply say "it's okay, they're using the rules they created".

That's 100% wrong and dishonest.

Re:We can learn from this

[gstoddart]

They are just playing by the rules of the system, as is. Not sure you can fault them for that.

Oh, horseshit.

Corporations bought and fucking paid for those rules. That doesn't make them good.

It means the politicians have been corrupt long enough that idiots think that a broken and corrupt system is just "the rules of the system".

Eat the rich, and shoot the politicians if this is the fucking status quo.

Re:We can learn from this

[Jason Levine]

Finally, you might say, "Well why not just vote those bribe-takers out of office?" The problem there is that the bribes are used to buy elections. Without that money, you can't run ads, you can't get on TV, and you can't even participate in the public debate.

Not only that, but those in power can change the district lines to make sure they remain in power. Congressional re-election rates are over 80 percent. You have to go back to 1980 for the lowest rate and that was 55% in the Senate. So even at the worst, a Congressman had a better-than-a-coin-flip chance of staying in office. In some elections, you would have better luck betting on 4 numbers on a Roulette wheel than you would betting against a random incumbent.

Re:We can learn from this

[pastafazou]

Good luck fixing it...all those that are in the game, don't want the game to change, and will do everything they can to prevent someone who wants to change it from getting in. Read this to see how far they'll go: District Attorney, Judge, and Police force persecuting political foes. Fascism is alive and well.

Re:We can learn from this

[hey!]

And what's more trying to restrict the flow of money has the perverse but economically predictable effect of making influence cheap to buy. The typical congressman spends five hours a day in fundraising related activities, and two hours a day doing constituent services. That alone should tell you who they really work for.

If you banned political contributions outright, then congressmen would just spend *more* time trying to drum up support for people to spend on their behalf. There's really only one way to eliminate the corrupting influence of money in politics: public financing. I don't particularly like that option, but it's the only one that is guaranteed to work, the only way to restore the status quo ante, before the rise of mass media campaigning, where elections were entirely a matter between the politicians running and the voters.

Re:We can learn from this

[GerardAtJob]

ahahah

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO
Use the State of the Union to call for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.
You're right. Let's continue this conversation.
In this year's State of the Union address, President chose to prioritize an economic agenda to create jobs and invest in infrastructure, clean energy, and education. He also called for a National Commission to address the long lines and other chronic problems at the polls every election.

But that doesn't mean fighting the influence of money in politics isn't important. In fact, President Obama agrees with you.

That's a point he made clear last fall, saying: "Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change."

Now, it's going to take more than a response to this petition or a paragraph in a future State of the Union to get this done. Our founders quite consciously made amending the U.S. Constitution a difficult piece of business.

That's where you come in. If this is a fight that motivates you, you need to work for it. Keep making your voice heard and encourage others to take a stand against limitless corporate spending in our elections. And speak out in favor of changes that will reduce the influence of special interests.

There's a reason that this President has worked to make his administration the most open and accountable in history. He's trying to lead by example, and change Washington from the ground up.

That's why he banned lobbyists or lobbying organizations from giving gifts to appointees in the executive branch. That's why he directed agencies to stop appointing lobbyists to federal boards and commissions. That's why lobbyists aren't allowed to work in the Administration on matters or agencies they had lobbied in the preceding two years. And that's why appointees aren't allowed to lobby the Administration once they leave.

It's why our visitor logs, daily public schedules, staff salaries, and ethics waivers are all posted on the White House website. And it's why we've created a program like We the People -- to allow citizens like you to write to us directly and build support to compel our response.

If we want to get this done, we all have plenty of work to do in the months and years ahead. So let's keep at it.

Re:We can learn from this

[rs79]

It's more than just them, look up the word "ICANN".

Re:We can learn from this

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always said we should make our politicians wear their sponsors' logos on their suits, just like the nascar drivers.

Re:We can learn from this

[SrLnclt]

Indeed... I believe the count is 4 our of the last 8 Illinois Governors (dating back to the '60's) ended up in federal prison. I'm amazed they found anyone to run for the office last year - it's like a 50/50 chance if you are elected that you will end up incarcerated. And that's just counting the ones doing stuff openly enough to get caught...

Re:We can learn from this

[MitchDev]

Too bad both parties are equally corrupt and bribe-taking scum.

Re:We can learn from this

[lorinc]

Why is it broken? These rules are the consequence of human behavior at a global scale. As long as the global human behavior is to increase the maximum individual achievable wealth, instead of increasing some sort of minimum collective value, I bet you will see these kind of rules emerging. Which means they are not broken, but rather a good solution to the problem.

I was born in East-Germany, where people did a pacific revolution to free themselves from a dictatorship. That's what your history book says. The truth is, people wanted to have the opportunity to get rich which is not possible in a socialist country. Some of them did eventually, but the vast majority is now poorer than they were before, having a high unemployment rate, mini-jobs with low income, etc. Are people happier by now? Frankly, I'm not sure. But as soon as basic needs are fulfilled (home, food, day activity), people tend to be very sad if they don't see any opportunity of growth. So maybe they are indeed happier by now, even if basic needs are less achieved.

You have to accept that we are a competitive species, not a collaborative one. We may do things together, but only in the perspective of self-fulfillment. It's as if individual growth is hard-coded in our genes. Maybe not you, certainly not me, but in average, yes.

Re:We can learn from this

[Spy Handler]

I was born in East-Germany, where people did a pacific revolution to free themselves from a dictatorship.

Small vocabulary lesson: although in theory the word pacific and peaceful mean the same thing, in reality English speakers would not use the word pacific in that way. Because if you say pacific, people think you're talking about the big ocean. So you'd wanna say peaceful revolution or bloodless revolution. Hope this helped ;)

Re:We can learn from this

[Fire_Wraith]

Money isn't speech. It's a fallacy to think that it is.

Money is a surrogate for production and economic value associated with that production. It is used to represent that value, in lieu of bartering the goods themselves directly. It is not speech, nor is the spending of it on something 'speech.' Buying an ad is not 'speech' any more than buying a megaphone so you can shout over the rest of the people around you is 'speech.'

And that's the problem. Money isn't used to express someone's opinion, it's used to drown out the opinions of others. We need to stop enshrining protections for that in law.

Re:We can learn from this

[CrimsonAvenger]

And that's the problem. Money isn't used to express someone's opinion, it's used to drown out the opinions of others. We need to stop enshrining protections for that in law.

Yeah, that's what I said - repeal the First Amendment.

How else are you going to prevent me from talking about MY favorite candidate? How about David Muir? How are you going to prevent, say, President Obama from mentioning a candidate he likes in a speech?

Any of those things raises name recognition of a candidate, and thus his chances of being elected. Preventing any of those things requires the First Amendment to vanish.

For that matter, a pol can just pass a big important bill in Congress to get his name in the news. But his challenger doesn't have that option, so you increase the incumbency advantage while removing the First Amendment.

Re:We can learn from this

[CrimsonAvenger]

Under my proposal you'd still be free to do anything with your money that you now do. You can give money to your favorite politician, although that would trigger a matching grant.

Does a challenger get a matching grant every time a politician gets his name on a new law? If Dianne Sawyer (yeah, I know she's history, but she used to be an anchor for one of the big three) mentions a politician in a news story, do any and all of his opponents get handed some money?

How about if I put together a really bad ad for my opponent, do I get a matching grant to put together good ads for myself then? If not, why not?

How do you decide who to give matching funds to? Major political Parties only, anyone who announces a campaign, what? Can I announce my campaign, then collect a check every time the incumbent makes a speech? That would be a pretty cool way to make a living, don't you think?

If you really want to reduce the influence of money in politics, the thing to do is reduce the power of political office. If a politician controls trillions of dollars every year, there's a vast incentive to get a piece of that by bribing him. And there's no way to remove that incentive other than to remove the power that makes the bribe the best way of getting something done.

Re:We can learn from this

[jd2112]

Indeed... I believe the count is 4 our of the last 8 Illinois Governors (dating back to the '60's) ended up in federal prison. I'm amazed they found anyone to run for the office last year - it's like a 50/50 chance if you are elected that you will end up incarcerated. And that's just counting the ones doing stuff openly enough to get caught...

No, Illinois has just implemented the term limits that everyone wants: 2 terms: 1 in office, 1 in prison.

Re:We can learn from this

[DrJimbo]

Great post! But I take exception to this statement especially in the current context where people think it is wrong that we have the best government money can buy:

You have to accept that we are a competitive species, not a collaborative one. We may do things together, but only in the perspective of self-fulfillment. It's as if individual growth is hard-coded in our genes. Maybe not you, certainly not me, but in average, yes.

I agree that in general we all want to improve our lot in life. I disagree that it is built into our genes for us to screw over our fellow humans in the process. It has been documented in books such as Mutual Aid: a factor of Evolution that cooperation within a species is a much more effective (and prevalent) strategy than competition within a species.

In addition, even if some mild forms of competition within a species are beneficial, I totally reject the carte-blanche you offer to even the most sadistic and psychopathic behavior in the name of "my genes made me do it".

If your assumption that we are for the most part all psychopaths is true then we as a species are completely and totally fucked. The overwhelming evidence is the vast majority of humans are not psychopaths. The problem is that almost literally by hook and by crook we have developed a system where psychopaths tend to rise to positions of leadership in corporations and they have used their power to almost totally subvert the government to their antisocial whims.

If you look up the definition of "psychopath":

a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.

you will see that what you described is psychopathic behavior. While this aberration may have a genetic component, that doesn't make it right; it doesn't mean it is widespread; and it certainly doesn't mean we should develop a system that puts psychopaths in positions of great power.

Any law is for sale

[Opportunist]

Politicians are dependent on campaign contributions. And as long as they are, they will be little more than corporate whores.

I think it's time to get a crowdfunding scheme going. Maybe we can at least buy one congressman who's working for "the people".

Re:So they petition to protect their hard work

[gstoddart]

Is it a democracy when the outcomes are bought by corporate interests by giving money to greedy politicians to influence the outcomes?

I think not.

This is just a corrupt system masquerading as something else.

This is how banana republics operate, but that seems to be where we're going.

Those skeletons don't like daylight

[jandrese]

I guess we know why Wikileaks is under the smear campaign now. These sort of leaks are bound to make some people uncomfortable, although I doubt they will do much in the grand scheme of things. The people who care already suspected, and the people who don't care still don't care. Having some hard evidence to throw in the face of the naysayers helps, but is not likely to change much since they were mostly shills. Not many regular people believe that big corporations are not complicit with political corruption. They just don't know what they can do to fix it, other than hoping that other people elect better politicians (not theirs though, because they love their Congressman).

Re:Those skeletons don't like daylight

[Virtucon]

The problem is American Revolution 2.0 will be viewed as a terrorist attack in today's political and cultural environment. It would be better if state governments took the lead to reign in the political issues at the Federal level. I'm not saying that States don't have their own corruption problems but their leverage would be more substantial than that of the general population rather than a bunch of crackpots flying gyrocopters onto the capital mall.

Re:So they petition to protect their hard work

[MitchDev]

No, it's not a democracy, it's a plutocracy

Just Hire Politicians for Speeches

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why anyone gets caught in a bribery scandal these days. It's easiest just to pay a politician an absurd amount of money for a speech. Getting paid $50,000 a couple of times doesn't influence anybody?

(Hiring their relatives is always a safe alternative.)

Root Cause

[Tokolosh]

The problem is not that corporations are buying politicians for favors, or that corporations are people, or that politicians are venal.

The problem is that politicians have the power in the first place to hand out favors, to discriminate, to meddle, to obstruct or promote, subsidize or penalize. Remove these powers, and money will evaporate from the influence system and pathological deviants will no longer run for office.

Re:Root Cause

[nine-times]

How would you suggest we create a government without the power to "meddle"? Or are you an anarchist?

Re:Hypocrites

[Akaihiryuu]

It's broken but it's intentional. The people in charge want things the way they are, that's how plutocracies roll.

Re:Political System Works as Designed

[gstoddart]

And Corporations as nothing more than groups of individual citizens, are or course allowed to do all of this as well.

Of course, my problem with this bullshit statement is it is a complete fucking lie.

This is not groups of individual citizens, this is the CEO and a couple of other executives pushing for what they want.

This has nothing at all to do with the collective will of groups of citizens. This is a handful of people who act as if they're nobly representing the views of groups of citizens.

What they're actually doing it furthering their own interests, at the expense of everybody else, and having it paid for by their shareholders.

Against Wikileaks smear campaign on Slashdot

[zedaroca]

I know these leaks didn't come out trough Wikileaks, but since they republished them we are seeing a lot of stuff that nobody was talking about, here are some examples, got from "this day in wikileaks" (bolds are mine):

The US State Department recruited Hollywood to boost “anti-Russian messaging“.
Sony pirated multiple books about hacking, while aggressively campaigning against piracy.
Emails reveal concerns in the US over the secrecy of the TPP talks.
The leaks included a draft of the international VOD and DHE agreement between SONY and Google
Sony received nearly $48 million in tax breaks in 2011 and 2012 after donating to New York Governor Cuomo.
Ben Affleck demanded PBS program “Finding Your Roots” hide his slave-owning ancestor.
Sony changed the Snowden film press release to remove “illegal spying” from the description of NSA’s activities
Sony cameras are used as a part of the guidance system for Israeli rockets bombing Gaza
Sony Chiefs met with David Cameron ahead of the Scottish referendum
Corrupt product placement practices used in Dr. Oz show

I really hope that slashdot doesn't become another place of pro-government propaganda, as that really pisses me off. The information was already out there, but their republishing obviously did us a favor (us that care about government accountability or knowing the truth anyway). We already have enough media outlets against information out there, let's keep this one useful.
I would never know the above facts if it wasn't for them, as 1. I believed the propaganda that it was mostly employee information and didn't feel comfortable downloading it and reading, and 2. it would be too much work for me to look into the e-mails.
Now that I know these stuff I feel like someone more informed than before. I hope the Slashdot community stops being against information.

By the way, since I haven't seen here a link to their press release, with the leaks, here it is.

Re:This seems appropriate

[neghvar1]

Unfortunately, the Senate has to approve both of those and when they figure out it means they can't accept bribes any more, they will kill it faster than patent reform.

Incorrect. The states can open a constitutional convention to create an amendment to ban financially influencing politicians. If 3/4 of the states approve of the amendment, then it by-passes congress and becomes part of our constitution.

The system is corrupt...

[JohnnyDoesLinux]

I used to think the Democrats were evil, and Repubs could do no wrong. Wow, They pretty much all suck now.

It reminds me of "wrassling" (WWE) where they work together to make the fight between them look real, and the "actors" don't get hurt, except we get hurt all of the time when done by Washington.

Politics makes me sad now. Voting is like going to the dump, it stinks to high heaven, but I have to do it.

I need a drink

Sony is a multinational corporation

[Required Snark]

Yes, there is a US corporation that is a part of Sony, but ultimately they only have an economic stake in the well being of the United States. When the MPAA-RIAA collude with Sony to pass legislation whose side are they on?

Has anyone looked for their lobbying efforts on 1H-B visas? If Sony is able to buy access that influences legislation, what about TATA? They surely have an economic interest in the number of 1H-B visa jobs available. Do you think they would want to get more visas, and be willing to spend money to make that happen?

Our current campaign contribution system makes it impossible to tell who is spending money to on elections. Even if Sony is not technically breaking the law, does that mean that everyone else from overseas is being equally careful in following the rules?

Could China take advantage of these loopholes? Even if the Chinese government is not, why would Chinese business interests ignore the advantages?

What's in the secret Trans Pacific Partnership treaty? The bill has been given fast track status, so the only vote that will be taken by congress is to either accept it or reject it. Just like the DMCA, there will be no time to review a very complex document. Just look how that turned out.

The lack of transparency in political funding didn't happen by magic. It was a result of a long process that including having a right wing majority on the Supreme Court. Defending the current situation by saying it's legal is another way of sidestepping the issue of corruption in the political process. When there is no accounting for money in politics, the law will obviously be for sale to the highest bidder. In the current global economy that means anybody in the world. Does that seem like a good idea?

Re: Why is Anyone Surprised?

[jmac_the_man]

The easiest way to keep corporations from buying laws is to keep governments from selling them.

Re: So they petition to protect their hard work

[nuckfuts]

Actually, it's an oligarchy.

Re:This seems appropriate

[radarskiy]

Why would state legislators be any more favorable than federal legislators? Even if the US Congress chooses state conventions for ratification it still requires state legislators to apply.