Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

politics.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#11

Post by Duff »

anamax wrote: post #7

While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates…

Chris Dodd is a crooked politician, and legislators of ilk are an malevolent force that is damaging american democracy.

After publicly proclaiming that he would not be working as a lobbyist, he became the MPAA's lobbyist for $1.5M. As you can see from the history of SOPA/PIPA, his influence peddling was nearly successful in ramming this legislation through with little or no substantive debate.

Before that, he was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. While Chairman, he refinanced his homes in Washington, DC and Connecticut with below market rates reserved for "friends" of the Countrywide Mortgage CEO. Note that Countrywide was one of the biggest issuers of fraudulent sub-prime mortgages. He asserted that he had no idea that he was receiving special treatment.

Before that, he bought a vacation house in Ireland with a Bear Sterns executive who was convicted of insider trading. He used his influence with President Clinton to help obtain a pardon for his partner. He subsequently purchased his partner's share at a significant discount.

The fact that behavior like this typifies career politicians does not make the behavior ok. This guy should retire and be thankful that he doesn't live in an era where his actions would have landed him in prison.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#12

Post by nyellin »

anamax wrote: post #7

While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates…

I agree with you, despite creating Politician Market to protest the issue.

The real question is how we can increase public representation in politics and ensure that politicians are knowledgable about areas they propose legislation in.

You can't effectively remove corporations from politics without lessening the influence of individuals. Focus on what you can change instead.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#13

Post by joshuahedlund »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my acti…

There's a difference between saying "You did stuff I didn't like so I won't give you money" and "You didn't do stuff for my industry that I was explicitly expecting ONLY because of my earlier contributions so I'm not going to continue to give you money"

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#14

Post by sequoia »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my acti…

What's the difference between you and the MPAA? Well, how many 1m dollar bills do you have in your back pocket? ;)

Yes, I am saying there is a fundamental difference between an entity giving $100 to a campaign and e.g. $5m (if you add in the RIAA). To ignore that would be like... like saying it would be fair to pit you against Boeing in an airplane building contest. (Kind of a weak simile, sorry.) The point is the field is not level and, most importantly, they are not supposed to offer quid pro quo.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#15

Post by knowtheory »

The reaction to this frustrates me immensely, because Obama is doing the right thing.

The Obama White House is attempting to regrow the wall between political and constituent concerns and law enforcement concerns.

The Department of Justice should operate with the most minimal of political interferences (since I don't think it's possible to avoid them all together) with the goal of maintaining its independence.

That said, I absolutely do think that what Chris Dodd has been doing is not above board. I don't know who has jurisdiction or who to inquire with further, but the White House isn't the right place. I'd be interested if someone knows who in the DoJ would be the appropriate folks to contact.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#16

Post by joshuahedlund »

anamax wrote: post #7

While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates…

I note that candidates make promises like "if elected, I'll work to repeal DADT" and organizations do fundraisers for candidates based on said promises.

How is this any different?

Cause and effect.

Fundraising based on a promise goes like this: Candidate says they support this -> I want them to do this -> I give them money so they can get elected and do this. (The plan causes the money.)

MPAA lobbying goes like this. Candidate is not already promising to do this -> I want them to do this -> I give them lots of money so that they will do this. (The money causes the plan.)

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#17

Post by thebrokencube »

kmfrk wrote: post #8
anamax wrote: post #7

While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates…

There's nothing illegal about it. That's why it's annoying as hell that people waste time on pointless crusades instead of focusing on real solutions.

I think most of us realize that the petitions are pointless (though then again, it takes like 3 seconds to sign it so enough people do it), but how would you suggest we fix this problem? Because although this is legal, pretty much everyone can sense that there's something fishy about it and needs to be changed.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#18

Post by sequoia »

It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentlemen and we love to be helpful. :)"

Chris Dodd just stated more plainly what is 115% clear to all the recipients of this cash: "We are paying you to make specific legislative decisions in our favor. Stop doing that job and we stop paying." i.e. quid pro quo i.e. bribery. I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket; I'm afraid asking Barack Goldman Sachs Obama to "look into it" isn't going to work (tho I did sign the petition).

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#19

Post by pavel_lishin »

sequoia wrote: post #18

It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…

> I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket

The simple solution - in the sense that it's an obvious one, and a naive one - is to just forbid campaign contributions altogether.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#20

Post by camiller »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #19
sequoia wrote: post #18

It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…

> I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket The simple solution - in the sense that it's an obvious one, and a naive one - is to just forbid campaign contributions altogether.

Then only independently wealthy candidates or publicly funded candidates could run.
Post reply on HN