Investigate Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after public threats to congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Investigate Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after public threats to congress

#11

Post by tankenmate » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 7:57 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #7

zecho wrote: post #4

While this is funny, bribery has a very specific meaning, and every politician learned it very well during the whole Jack Abramhoff scandal. What the MPAA, and Chris Dodd, are suggesting here is that they're less willing to make campaign contributions (on the up-and-up, as dubious as the up-and-up has become post-Citizen's United). I'm quickly tiring of the hyperbole from both sides of the issue. As the days go on, t…

I think the argument here is that Chris Dodd is wilfully admitting there isn't a boundary between "bribery" and "campaign donation" in his, or his corporations, mind. His tone is that his campaign donations should have got him above and beyond treatment from those who didn't. A campaign donation lends no credence of reciprocal action from a candidate. The whole point of backing a candidate is that you believe that ca…

tldr; Dodd wanted the best Senators money can buy.

Re: Investigate Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after public threats to congress

#12

Post by prophetjohn » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:02 PM UTC

dmauro wrote: post #5

Does anyone else have a lot of trouble getting logged in? I don't just mean that the form doesn't provide any feedback, but that even after logging in (I just reset my password and successfully logged in), when I go back to a petition page I get logged out again (yes I'm refreshing the page). I'd much rather see a petition for a better website. :/

I had the same issue and resolved it in the same way. It would allow me to log in, but would not recognize that I was logged in (I was unable to sign the petition and had a button requesting that I log in, even though I was)

Re: Investigate Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after public threats to congress

#13

Post by zecho » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:12 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #7

zecho wrote: post #4

While this is funny, bribery has a very specific meaning, and every politician learned it very well during the whole Jack Abramhoff scandal. What the MPAA, and Chris Dodd, are suggesting here is that they're less willing to make campaign contributions (on the up-and-up, as dubious as the up-and-up has become post-Citizen's United). I'm quickly tiring of the hyperbole from both sides of the issue. As the days go on, t…

I think the argument here is that Chris Dodd is wilfully admitting there isn't a boundary between "bribery" and "campaign donation" in his, or his corporations, mind. His tone is that his campaign donations should have got him above and beyond treatment from those who didn't. A campaign donation lends no credence of reciprocal action from a candidate. The whole point of backing a candidate is that you believe that ca…

Right, but that's politics since before Ike's farewell speech and the whole reasoning behind the Federal Elections Committee. Things are not so black and white. A donation can be as much freedom of speech as can be bribery. What the FEC and related Acts that define it do is to draw (I hope) clear lines in the sand differentiating the two.

I'm well aware that people don't like it and I'm not sure why people are suddenly surprised by Dodd's attitude toward campaign donations. Politics are all about influence. Simply because he wished his donations affected politics in his way doesn't make it bribery in the legal sense of the term.

If anything is surprising to me, because I'm inherently cynical about the political process (some of my best friends work as Senate aides and analysts and have no shame telling me how truly depraved the creation of a bill can be; to them, PIPA was a third-tier issue destined to be lost in bureaucracy should it have passed) it's that SOPA/PIPA have been effectively killed precisely because many politicians aren't necessarily beholden to their donators, that influence from an outside party made a huge difference.

So really, this shouldn't be a question about this one thing that Dodd or any other lobbyist thinks about their money's influence (or lack thereof) on the political process. We should be questioning the nature of money in politics in general. Ike was right, and things have only gotten much, much more incestual since his farewell address. But, as the saying goes, we get the rulers we deserve, especially when big tech, despite their size and money advantage over Hollywood, seems uninterested in playing the same games that Hollywood plays on Capitol Hill.