3 ms·

Indeed. Obama and Biden have been pretty big supporters of MPAA and RIAA, which isn't really a surprise when you know he received a lot of his donations from th

Indeed. Obama and Biden have been pretty big supporters of MPAA and RIAA, which isn't really a surprise when you know he received a lot of his donations from them. US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations, otherwise it will always lead to situations like these, with the politicians, even in the highest Office, being in the pocket of the Corporations and signing new laws in their favor, regardless of what the population at large that voted for them wants.

dbattaglia 15y ago
US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations Unfortunately, with the Citizens United ruling it feels like we went the extreme other direction here. It makes me wonder if things will ever improve here (as far as our politicians go).
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  Senator Bernie Sanders brought in a bill last week to amend the constitution to invalidate Citizens United: http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-8... This is something that could actually pass if people rally around it.
  - dbattaglia 15y ago
    I saw this recently, and I really do applaud Sanders for still fighting the good fight, but a constitutional amendment has got to be one of the hardest things for our government to do. I just don't see everyone getting behind an independent liberal over an issue that most people seem to not care about anymore. <sigh> We'll see though, trying to remain hopeful.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
I agree that we have a problem today. But it's really unfortunate that when people see this, they immediately jump toward a solution that would cut to the very core of the First Amendment. It's the politicians who are really the evil ones here. It's to be expected that corporations will jockey for favor, and it's the job of the politicians to honestly weigh all sides and do what's best for the country. In that light, why would want to curtail the freedoms of the People in order to allow the politicians to keep following the same evil patterns? And that goes double, when the restrictions being contemplated can't possibly be policed. There are far more ways that a private entity can support a politician than through money or even in-kind support. For example, corporations could still easily and untraceably give favored politicians insider tips for when to buy and sell stock. As far as I can see, the only way to block the problem without shredding our 1st Amendment is by taking away from the politicians the product they're selling to private interests. That is, strip the government of power so that it doesn't have the ability to create winners and losers.
Symmetry 15y ago
I think that donations are sort of a red herring. As long as the MPAA and RIAA can afford to hire people to live in Washington DC and befriend politicians and explain in detail how SOPA will Create Jobs or whatever you'll have pretty much the same problem. Campaign donations are cheap compared to hiring lobbyists, and just serve to make sure that its the MPAA lobbyist who sees a politician instead of the cement industry's or whoever. And as long politicians have to vote on a hundred issues a year that could each reward a lifetime of careful study this'll keep happening. We all know SOPA is terrible but most people in the US have no clue. How many laws are made that we're apathetic about, but which we'd be outraged by if we knew more about the issue? I feel like we really need to either find ways of making sure our politicians have better sources of expertise on hands than the ones provided by industry, or to stop trying to make such complex laws that demand more understanding of the workings of things than our politicians have themselves.

dbattaglia 15y ago

US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations Unfortunately, with the Citizens United ruling it feels like we went the extreme other direction here. It makes me wonder if things will ever improve here (as far as our politicians go).

lukeschlather 15y ago
Senator Bernie Sanders brought in a bill last week to amend the constitution to invalidate Citizens United: http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-8... This is something that could actually pass if people rally around it.
- dbattaglia 15y ago
  I saw this recently, and I really do applaud Sanders for still fighting the good fight, but a constitutional amendment has got to be one of the hardest things for our government to do. I just don't see everyone getting behind an independent liberal over an issue that most people seem to not care about anymore. <sigh> We'll see though, trying to remain hopeful.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

I agree that we have a problem today. But it's really unfortunate that when people see this, they immediately jump toward a solution that would cut to the very core of the First Amendment. It's the politicians who are really the evil ones here. It's to be expected that corporations will jockey for favor, and it's the job of the politicians to honestly weigh all sides and do what's best for the country. In that light, why would want to curtail the freedoms of the People in order to allow the politicians to keep following the same evil patterns? And that goes double, when the restrictions being contemplated can't possibly be policed. There are far more ways that a private entity can support a politician than through money or even in-kind support. For example, corporations could still easily and untraceably give favored politicians insider tips for when to buy and sell stock. As far as I can see, the only way to block the problem without shredding our 1st Amendment is by taking away from the politicians the product they're selling to private interests. That is, strip the government of power so that it doesn't have the ability to create winners and losers.

Symmetry 15y ago

I think that donations are sort of a red herring. As long as the MPAA and RIAA can afford to hire people to live in Washington DC and befriend politicians and explain in detail how SOPA will Create Jobs or whatever you'll have pretty much the same problem. Campaign donations are cheap compared to hiring lobbyists, and just serve to make sure that its the MPAA lobbyist who sees a politician instead of the cement industry's or whoever. And as long politicians have to vote on a hundred issues a year that could each reward a lifetime of careful study this'll keep happening. We all know SOPA is terrible but most people in the US have no clue. How many laws are made that we're apathetic about, but which we'd be outraged by if we knew more about the issue? I feel like we really need to either find ways of making sure our politicians have better sources of expertise on hands than the ones provided by industry, or to stop trying to make such complex laws that demand more understanding of the workings of things than our politicians have themselves.