71–80 of 125 posts
This might be a stupid question, but as a European not all too familiar with US political laws I have to ask: How is it not corruption when senators and congressmens votes can be bought by companies or whole industries?
Very depressing. Almost without any exception (I admit there are a couple) every single for or against can be determined by how much money they get from the computer industry(Against) or from the Music / Movie industry (For). All of this happens across party lines...
I'm having trouble reconciling this assertion with the fact that I can open the submission, sort by "online/internet" and it seems that those in the supporters column receive substantially larger amounts of money from "online/internet" than do those opposed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Knowing what the hell you're doing is, sadly, not required. This sentiment is exactly why they can keep doing it. It reflects an implicit (and unfortunately, widely held) assumption that they're trying to get elected to help their fellow men, constituents and otherwise do good. Sadly, there is no supporting evidence for this assumption, and endless supporting evidence against it.
While I value competence and indeed vote with it in mind, it has not proven to be a prerequisite to getting elected. Understanding the problems is an important first step towards solving them, but understanding alone is, obviously, not enough to fix the problems here.
> understanding alone is, obviously, not enough to fix the problems here.
Which problem? Are you implying that elected politicians are trying to fix things for the average citizen? if so, why do you think that?
Note that Rep. Ron Paul is the only current Presidential candidate that opposes SOPA.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/internet-and-technolog...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I value competence and indeed vote with it in mind, it has not proven to be a prerequisite to getting elected. Understanding the problems is an important first step towards solving them, but understanding alone is, obviously, not enough to fix the problems here.
"competence" on its own does not exist. Congress has shown time and again that they are competent investors (it helps to not be bound by insider trading rules, and to be exposed to non-public info, and actually vote on the results of your investment). They are also competent with their money - 50% of them are millionaires. > understanding alone is, obviously, not enough to fix the problems here. Which problem? Are yo…
Note that Rep. Ron Paul is the only current Presidential candidate that opposes SOPA.
Are you sure about that? Gary Johnson's website implies that he is firmly against not only SOPA, but internet regulation of any sort. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/internet-and-technolog...
What I don't understand is why these donation amounts are so low. Do these reps really only get around $25k an industry on average? Do they use these donations personally like it's extra pay or for campaign expenses? Is there a lot more money that we don't see?
Something we don't necessarily see is what sort of after-retirement deals they have lined up that may be in the millions. I'm sure there are other sources as well. But in general, politicians are pretty cheap.
Like Chris Dodd becoming CEO of the MPAA who is reportedly being paid $1.5 million a year as his base salary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure about that? Gary Johnson's website implies that he is firmly against not only SOPA, but internet regulation of any sort. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/internet-and-technolog...
Implies? So what?