8 ms·

Music lobby

300 points by gasull 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
untog 15y ago
What is missing every time things like this are brought up: how much do others receive? Yes, the creator of SOPA has received over half a million dollars, but how does that compare to the average? I'm sure that it is above average, but it still needs to be clarified.
- gasull 15y ago
  Why should they receive any money from lobbies? How's that good for our country and our democracy?
  - thekevan 15y ago
    It is freedom of speech. If they could not donate to politicians and support their cause, neither could you. If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed.
    - beedogs 15y ago
      > If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. If we banned lobbying, took away all donations, and mandated all candidates use public funds to campaign, this would not be a problem. (Except to the very most annoying of Libertarians.)
      - newman314 15y ago
        I've seen this suggestion made elsewhere and agree. One of the concerns raised was relative tv time being that things would be skewed towards the incumbent. To this I would propose exposure (tv, radio) inversely proportional to how the candidate does in polling, primaries etc. that is the weakest candidate get the most time... Presumably, the positions of the incumbent are already well known.
        ianstormtaylor 15y ago
        Why would we want this artificial evening of the race? If someone is polling at 2% why should he receive a huge portion of advertising time? Doesn't make any sense.
      - thekevan 15y ago
        "...took away all donations..." I do think it is a great idea in theory, but again it violates the First Amendment to take away my ability to support a candidate.
        ktrgardiner 15y ago
        Surely there are better ways to support a candidate than money. If you want to donate something to a candidate, donate hours of your time toward their campaign. If you have easily stated reasons for supporting a candidate, you will be more likely to get more supporters for said candidate with your word of mouth than with your money.
    - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
      "Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed." Because they bribed them to redefine their bribing as speech, which any independent thinking individual clearly knows is not the case. _Nine_ percent approval rating.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      With the current state of affairs, only the richest can afford to not sell their soul. The fact is, once you accept a "donation" you are in somebody's pocket.
- dextorious 15y ago
  The point is he should not have received anything, PERIOD. Another point is exhausting pedantic analysis is not political --sometimes your gut instinct tells you more of what's going on. I mean, at some point we ought to be ENRAGED of such things, not discuss trivial details about them.
  - pyre 15y ago
    Look at the comment elsewhere about how even those who are opposing the bill have similar distributions of donations. It would seem to be more likely that (in general) the majority of the lobbying groups (pouring money into Washington) are in favor of SOPA. That said, regulatory capture is the real demon (moreso than campaign contributions).
  - untog 15y ago
    Another point is exhausting pedantic analysis is not political --sometimes your gut instinct tells you more of what's going on. Sarah Palin, is that you?
    - dextorious 15y ago
      Over-analyser that never gets anything done, is that you?
rorrr 15y ago
And that's how this country is sold for peanuts. The political system is really brilliant from the point of view of the rich. You only have to buy 100 senators and 435 representatives (actually, only 67% of them) to decide what 307 million people do, how their tax money is spent, etc.
- maqr 15y ago
  I can't decide if I'm more offended that it's so corrupt or that the price is so cheap.
  - maxxxxx 15y ago
    I also think the real problem is that they are so cheap. Whatever I read about lobbying the ROI is huge. Obviously having politicians make it more expensive to bribe will have some serious problems too... I think the best would be to make all payments anonymous. If you like what a politician does you support him but he should never know who donated to him.
    - timtadh 15y ago
      That won't work at all. There is no way to anonymize the donations. You can always just tell the rep. "That donation you received on such and such a date for such and such an amount was me."
      - snprbob86 15y ago
        This was discussed on an interview with a Harvard ethics professor on The Daily Show recently: (Part 1 of 2) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--1 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... (Part 2 of 2) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--2 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... Discussion of anonymity is in part 2 at 5m35s. tl;dw: A) Require that all donations are anonymous B) Hold donations for a minimum delay C) Distribute donations randomly over a period of time D) Allow donators to revoke their donations secretly during the distribution delay Apparently, this was tried with judges in Florida and no one donated anything. It worked _too_ well.
tzs 15y ago
This is rather misleading. First, it sums over his entire career. Second, it doesn't mention the large amount he's received from industries that oppose things like SOPA. Third, it doesn't mention that the TV/movie/music industry has donated large amount to those who are currently opposing SOPA.
- thekevan 15y ago
  Great points. It also implies that this was a cause that was important to him because of the money he received, but does not address the possibility that he was a target of these donations because the donors saw him as someone who agreed with them.
- beedogs 15y ago
  "Third, it doesn't mention that the TV/movie/music industry has donated large amount to those who are currently opposing SOPA." This is what's known as hedging.
  - ldar15 15y ago
    Or "attempted bribery" that didn't work. o_O If I get pulled over 10 times by 10 different cops, and I offer each one $100 to let me off, and only one of them takes the bribe - the other 9 don't negate the fact that one guy took the bribe. "No your honor, I just like giving money to police officers whenever I meet them. See, its just random chance that this one guy let me off. Clearly it was on the merits of the situation, not because my money influenced him." Cops don't make the laws of course. Otherwise you'd be allowed to bribe cops.
- Natsu 15y ago
  I didn't bother reading the Slashdot article because I expect that it really is misleading, but in response to your second & third points, I examined the link someone else first posted to HN: http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/contributions-by-vote?sort=asc&order=%24+From+Interest+Groups%3Cbr+%2F%3EThat+Support http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/con... Lamar Smith (R TX-21) Support: $277,350 Oppose: $41,000 I see some other Judiciary Committee members up near the top with similar very high support/oppose ratios and I think it's been fairly supportive of the bill overall. Then I looked up some of the more notable opponents: Pelosi & Issa. They have 2-1 and 10-1 ratios (support/oppose) in spite of being opponents. I think looking at the list of industries that are SOPA supporters is more interesting. Exactly why do some of those industries want to support SOPA? Here the oddballs industries on the list: auto repair, animal feed & health products, confectionery processors & manufacturers, optical services (glasses & contact lenses), & tobacco & tobacco products. Why are they on there? My best guess is that lobbyists are involved somehow.
CodeSoft 15y ago
I am a programmer.I make a blogs for programming language http://allprogramminglanguageblogs.blogspot.com/ http://allprogramminglanguageblogs.blogspot.com/ this is my blogsite.
waffle_ss 15y ago
This is the same representative who's former chief of staff / parliamentarian, Allison Halataei, got hired by a lobbying firm to get SOPA passed after helping write it.[1] If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason. [1] http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/10/226238/two-sopa-writers-become-entertainment-lobbyists?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2FslashdotYourRightsOnline+%28Slashdot%3A+Your+Rights+Online%29 http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/10/226238/two-sopa-write...
- thekevan 15y ago
  "get tried for treason" The First Amendment would disagree with you.
  - waffle_ss 15y ago
    I think there's a fine line between free speech and buying votes, the latter of which in my (probably hyperbolic) opinion should be treasonous.
    - njharman 15y ago
      It's very coarse and clear as far as I'm concerned. Speech != money. Talk/write/etc all you want. Even spend money on spreading your "voice". But, giving people money or "in kind" is clearly bribery and not speech.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    He said "If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason." So the First Amendment would not be a problem there. It's hardly a prerequisite of a revolution to keep the same constitution as the old regime or to interpret it in the same way --quite the opposite.
  - ldar15 15y ago
    You are mistaken. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment. Try offering a police officer some cash next time you get a speeding ticket. Or setting up a nice deal to put kids in jail [1]. Of course, this only applies to me, you, county judges, etc. Not senators. Not SCOTUS Justices. Not the people who have the most to gain from such corruption. Not the people who actually decide such laws. Fancy. [1] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges_1_detention-judges-number-of-juvenile-offenders?_s=PM:CRIME http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corr...
_delirium 15y ago
Though I usually eat these sorts of stories up, this particular one seems like pretty thin evidence. It seems that he received about $50k/year from these industries, which as far as campaign contributions go, is not really a huge amount. I suspect it wouldn't by itself be enough to swing his vote if he wasn't already basically in favor; on really contentious issues when the campaign contributions start to become a real factor, they're measured in millions per year, not $50k--- for example, Chuck Schumer received $1.7 million from financial companies in 2009, according to a quick search (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/big-finance-donations-congress http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/big-finance-donation...).
thekevan 15y ago
This angers me. It angers me because people don't realize that most often, a politician gets donations from organizations that already know he agrees with their goals. I worked for a politician from a Western State. He got tons of money from mining, gaming and defense contractors. He openly stated that without those three industries, his home state would barely exist. Those three employed a vast majority of his constituents and would thus would always have him in their corner. Interestingly, he had a hard time raising money when running against an opponent who also agreed with the above points.
- waffle_ss 15y ago
  The problem I have isn't with the idea of organizations making donations, but rather when those donations create a "direct line" from the lobbyist group to the politician, bypassing the constituents. Representatives are there to represent contituents because the USA is too big for direct democracy. If industry x really has such a profound impact on a community then it's in the self-interest of voters to reflect that at the voting booth by voting for the politician that will help said industry, and by extension, their community. A private organization greasing the hand of a politician in order to ram a piece of legislation through, against the wishes of said politician's constituents is beyond contempt. From all the evidence I've seen, the only ones who like SOPA are the entertainment industry, and last time I checked they weren't elected to any governmental position.
  - thekevan 15y ago
    "A private organization greasing the hand of a politician in order to ram a piece of legislation through, against the wishes of said politician's constituents..." I would like you to prove to me this has ever happened. I am not saying it ever happened, as I am sure it has. Show me one time it did. "If industry x really has such a profound impact on a community then it's in the self-interest of voters to reflect that at the voting booth by voting for the politician that will help said industry, and by extension, their community." In my experience, that is why 90% (my guestimation) of donations--by both individuals and organizations--happen.
  - nl 15y ago
gee_totes 15y ago
I like how the first slashdot comment is about the article itself, then the next open comment I see is something about abortion... Go slashdot
ldar15 15y ago
This is a shake down. If Facebook, Google, reddit, etc have something to gain from this, then they need to step and replace the money our poor senators will lose. This is how america works. You want legal "protection", you pays your "taxes". http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sopa-the-chart-that-may-have-internet-firms-worried/2011/11/16/gIQAQfGQSN_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sopa-the-c...
Shenglong 15y ago
So, why is insider trading illegal again?
ck2 15y ago
Remember how Obama promised to remove lobbyists and not take their money? It almost as bad as Guantanamo still being open (except some innocent people there without trial for half a decade). When lawmakers make their own laws, they are certainly going to guarantee they can always take money and get big benefits (and skip the TSA lines at airports, etc. etc.)
gizzlon 15y ago
The Eric S. Raymond link posted at the end is worth a read as well (although it's kind of off topic): http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4009 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4009 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3367674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3367674

300 points by gasull 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

untog 15y ago

What is missing every time things like this are brought up: how much do others receive? Yes, the creator of SOPA has received over half a million dollars, but how does that compare to the average? I'm sure that it is above average, but it still needs to be clarified.

gasull 15y ago
Why should they receive any money from lobbies? How's that good for our country and our democracy?
- thekevan 15y ago
  It is freedom of speech. If they could not donate to politicians and support their cause, neither could you. If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed.
  - beedogs 15y ago
    > If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. If we banned lobbying, took away all donations, and mandated all candidates use public funds to campaign, this would not be a problem. (Except to the very most annoying of Libertarians.)
    - newman314 15y ago
      I've seen this suggestion made elsewhere and agree. One of the concerns raised was relative tv time being that things would be skewed towards the incumbent. To this I would propose exposure (tv, radio) inversely proportional to how the candidate does in polling, primaries etc. that is the weakest candidate get the most time... Presumably, the positions of the incumbent are already well known.
      - ianstormtaylor 15y ago
        Why would we want this artificial evening of the race? If someone is polling at 2% why should he receive a huge portion of advertising time? Doesn't make any sense.
    - thekevan 15y ago
      "...took away all donations..." I do think it is a great idea in theory, but again it violates the First Amendment to take away my ability to support a candidate.
      - ktrgardiner 15y ago
        Surely there are better ways to support a candidate than money. If you want to donate something to a candidate, donate hours of your time toward their campaign. If you have easily stated reasons for supporting a candidate, you will be more likely to get more supporters for said candidate with your word of mouth than with your money.
  - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
    "Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed." Because they bribed them to redefine their bribing as speech, which any independent thinking individual clearly knows is not the case. _Nine_ percent approval rating.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    With the current state of affairs, only the richest can afford to not sell their soul. The fact is, once you accept a "donation" you are in somebody's pocket.
dextorious 15y ago
The point is he should not have received anything, PERIOD. Another point is exhausting pedantic analysis is not political --sometimes your gut instinct tells you more of what's going on. I mean, at some point we ought to be ENRAGED of such things, not discuss trivial details about them.
- pyre 15y ago
  Look at the comment elsewhere about how even those who are opposing the bill have similar distributions of donations. It would seem to be more likely that (in general) the majority of the lobbying groups (pouring money into Washington) are in favor of SOPA. That said, regulatory capture is the real demon (moreso than campaign contributions).
- untog 15y ago
  Another point is exhausting pedantic analysis is not political --sometimes your gut instinct tells you more of what's going on. Sarah Palin, is that you?
  - dextorious 15y ago
    Over-analyser that never gets anything done, is that you?

rorrr 15y ago

And that's how this country is sold for peanuts. The political system is really brilliant from the point of view of the rich. You only have to buy 100 senators and 435 representatives (actually, only 67% of them) to decide what 307 million people do, how their tax money is spent, etc.

maqr 15y ago
I can't decide if I'm more offended that it's so corrupt or that the price is so cheap.
- maxxxxx 15y ago
  I also think the real problem is that they are so cheap. Whatever I read about lobbying the ROI is huge. Obviously having politicians make it more expensive to bribe will have some serious problems too... I think the best would be to make all payments anonymous. If you like what a politician does you support him but he should never know who donated to him.
  - timtadh 15y ago
    That won't work at all. There is no way to anonymize the donations. You can always just tell the rep. "That donation you received on such and such a date for such and such an amount was me."
    - snprbob86 15y ago
      This was discussed on an interview with a Harvard ethics professor on The Daily Show recently: (Part 1 of 2) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--1 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... (Part 2 of 2) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--2 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... Discussion of anonymity is in part 2 at 5m35s. tl;dw: A) Require that all donations are anonymous B) Hold donations for a minimum delay C) Distribute donations randomly over a period of time D) Allow donators to revoke their donations secretly during the distribution delay Apparently, this was tried with judges in Florida and no one donated anything. It worked _too_ well.

tzs 15y ago

This is rather misleading. First, it sums over his entire career. Second, it doesn't mention the large amount he's received from industries that oppose things like SOPA. Third, it doesn't mention that the TV/movie/music industry has donated large amount to those who are currently opposing SOPA.

thekevan 15y ago
Great points. It also implies that this was a cause that was important to him because of the money he received, but does not address the possibility that he was a target of these donations because the donors saw him as someone who agreed with them.
beedogs 15y ago
"Third, it doesn't mention that the TV/movie/music industry has donated large amount to those who are currently opposing SOPA." This is what's known as hedging.
- ldar15 15y ago
  Or "attempted bribery" that didn't work. o_O If I get pulled over 10 times by 10 different cops, and I offer each one $100 to let me off, and only one of them takes the bribe - the other 9 don't negate the fact that one guy took the bribe. "No your honor, I just like giving money to police officers whenever I meet them. See, its just random chance that this one guy let me off. Clearly it was on the merits of the situation, not because my money influenced him." Cops don't make the laws of course. Otherwise you'd be allowed to bribe cops.
Natsu 15y ago
I didn't bother reading the Slashdot article because I expect that it really is misleading, but in response to your second & third points, I examined the link someone else first posted to HN: http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/contributions-by-vote?sort=asc&order=%24+From+Interest+Groups%3Cbr+%2F%3EThat+Support http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/con... Lamar Smith (R TX-21) Support: $277,350 Oppose: $41,000 I see some other Judiciary Committee members up near the top with similar very high support/oppose ratios and I think it's been fairly supportive of the bill overall. Then I looked up some of the more notable opponents: Pelosi & Issa. They have 2-1 and 10-1 ratios (support/oppose) in spite of being opponents. I think looking at the list of industries that are SOPA supporters is more interesting. Exactly why do some of those industries want to support SOPA? Here the oddballs industries on the list: auto repair, animal feed & health products, confectionery processors & manufacturers, optical services (glasses & contact lenses), & tobacco & tobacco products. Why are they on there? My best guess is that lobbyists are involved somehow.

CodeSoft 15y ago

I am a programmer.I make a blogs for programming language http://allprogramminglanguageblogs.blogspot.com/ http://allprogramminglanguageblogs.blogspot.com/ this is my blogsite.

waffle_ss 15y ago

This is the same representative who's former chief of staff / parliamentarian, Allison Halataei, got hired by a lobbying firm to get SOPA passed after helping write it.[1] If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason. [1] http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/10/226238/two-sopa-writers-become-entertainment-lobbyists?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2FslashdotYourRightsOnline+%28Slashdot%3A+Your+Rights+Online%29 http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/10/226238/two-sopa-write...

thekevan 15y ago
"get tried for treason" The First Amendment would disagree with you.
- waffle_ss 15y ago
  I think there's a fine line between free speech and buying votes, the latter of which in my (probably hyperbolic) opinion should be treasonous.
  - njharman 15y ago
    It's very coarse and clear as far as I'm concerned. Speech != money. Talk/write/etc all you want. Even spend money on spreading your "voice". But, giving people money or "in kind" is clearly bribery and not speech.
- dextorious 15y ago
  He said "If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason." So the First Amendment would not be a problem there. It's hardly a prerequisite of a revolution to keep the same constitution as the old regime or to interpret it in the same way --quite the opposite.
- ldar15 15y ago
  You are mistaken. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment. Try offering a police officer some cash next time you get a speeding ticket. Or setting up a nice deal to put kids in jail [1]. Of course, this only applies to me, you, county judges, etc. Not senators. Not SCOTUS Justices. Not the people who have the most to gain from such corruption. Not the people who actually decide such laws. Fancy. [1] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges_1_detention-judges-number-of-juvenile-offenders?_s=PM:CRIME http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corr...

_delirium 15y ago

Though I usually eat these sorts of stories up, this particular one seems like pretty thin evidence. It seems that he received about $50k/year from these industries, which as far as campaign contributions go, is not really a huge amount. I suspect it wouldn't by itself be enough to swing his vote if he wasn't already basically in favor; on really contentious issues when the campaign contributions start to become a real factor, they're measured in millions per year, not $50k--- for example, Chuck Schumer received $1.7 million from financial companies in 2009, according to a quick search (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/big-finance-donations-congress http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/big-finance-donation...).

thekevan 15y ago

This angers me. It angers me because people don't realize that most often, a politician gets donations from organizations that already know he agrees with their goals. I worked for a politician from a Western State. He got tons of money from mining, gaming and defense contractors. He openly stated that without those three industries, his home state would barely exist. Those three employed a vast majority of his constituents and would thus would always have him in their corner. Interestingly, he had a hard time raising money when running against an opponent who also agreed with the above points.

waffle_ss 15y ago
The problem I have isn't with the idea of organizations making donations, but rather when those donations create a "direct line" from the lobbyist group to the politician, bypassing the constituents. Representatives are there to represent contituents because the USA is too big for direct democracy. If industry x really has such a profound impact on a community then it's in the self-interest of voters to reflect that at the voting booth by voting for the politician that will help said industry, and by extension, their community. A private organization greasing the hand of a politician in order to ram a piece of legislation through, against the wishes of said politician's constituents is beyond contempt. From all the evidence I've seen, the only ones who like SOPA are the entertainment industry, and last time I checked they weren't elected to any governmental position.
- thekevan 15y ago
  "A private organization greasing the hand of a politician in order to ram a piece of legislation through, against the wishes of said politician's constituents..." I would like you to prove to me this has ever happened. I am not saying it ever happened, as I am sure it has. Show me one time it did. "If industry x really has such a profound impact on a community then it's in the self-interest of voters to reflect that at the voting booth by voting for the politician that will help said industry, and by extension, their community." In my experience, that is why 90% (my guestimation) of donations--by both individuals and organizations--happen.
- nl 15y ago

gee_totes 15y ago

I like how the first slashdot comment is about the article itself, then the next open comment I see is something about abortion... Go slashdot

ldar15 15y ago

This is a shake down. If Facebook, Google, reddit, etc have something to gain from this, then they need to step and replace the money our poor senators will lose. This is how america works. You want legal "protection", you pays your "taxes". http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sopa-the-chart-that-may-have-internet-firms-worried/2011/11/16/gIQAQfGQSN_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sopa-the-c...

Shenglong 15y ago

So, why is insider trading illegal again?

ck2 15y ago

Remember how Obama promised to remove lobbyists and not take their money? It almost as bad as Guantanamo still being open (except some innocent people there without trial for half a decade). When lawmakers make their own laws, they are certainly going to guarantee they can always take money and get big benefits (and skip the TSA lines at airports, etc. etc.)

gizzlon 15y ago

The Eric S. Raymond link posted at the end is worth a read as well (although it's kind of off topic): http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4009 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4009 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3367674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3367674