8 ms·

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 w

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...
  - thekevan 15y ago
    You've misunderstood. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment and I never said they were. Donations are regarded as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes. I worked in Congress and saw a lot of good people doing a lot of good things. In my three years there I never saw any of the culture of greed and corruption that is perpetuated in so many places. It's sad.
    - ldar15 15y ago
      "Donations are regarded [by those who receive them] as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes." Yes. That pretty much nails the complaint on the head right there. "I never saw" And that would be the second.
      - jinushaun 15y ago
        And that pretty much hits the nail on the head for why the ruling for Citizens United is bad. It basically legalised bribes by confusing it with free speech.
    - danssig 15y ago
      Uh, what? You're claiming that those in congress are doing great things for us and the culture of greed and corruption is a perpetuated lie? Surely I've misread what you're saying because I can't imagine any person intelligent enough to even post online would say something so ridiculous.
- kingkilr 15y ago
  Fuck the first amendment, how about the constitutional definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
  - ldar15 15y ago
    The reasoning would be simple: The corrupt members of the government have levied a body of men to overthrow the democratic institution that we call the United States of America. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war.html http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war.... "Major" Bloomberg: "The NYPD is my Army", Homeland Security trampling on the US Constitution at every opportunity and at the order of congress, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc. Peaceable Protest made impossible by bureaucracy. Establishment of "First Amendment" zones for the press - where they can't see what's going on. Congress/Executive/SCOTUS making a tidy living from bribes^H^H^H Free Speech Expressed As Money. There are a great many "bodies of men" acting unconstitutionally in this country, so assuming that a revolution took place, I don't think this line of prosecution would have much of a problem, do you? If a revolution doesn't take place, I think its pretty safe to say that the Government will take your side on the matter.
LetsTalk 15y ago
According to 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 has received $277,350 from groups that support the bill and $41,000 from those who do not. The total contributions for all groups to all members of congress who support $49,802,962 the total for those who oppose $665,012. This stats that 98.68% of the total 504,67,974 lobbing dollars are from groups that support SOPA.
- mattjaynes 15y ago
  Wow. Does anyone know why Google/Apple/Other-super-giant-billion-dollar-companies aren't more proactive in influencing congress? With all their billions, competing with $50 million seems like it would be a pretty insignificant cost for them - especially if the cost was shared among a consortium of companies. A few million per company seems like it'd be pretty cheap to ensure greater influence in preventing malignant legislation like SOPA.
  - izaidi 15y ago
    Unfortunately it's not as easy as just pumping money into lobbying. It can take decades for special interests to build influence in Washington, and the entertainment industry has had a long head start over Google et al. Still, it seems likely that SOPA will end up being spoken about in the same breath as the MPAA's efforts to get VCRs banned in the early 80s.
    - arnoooooo 15y ago
      Also, they might not be very keen to participate in such an immoral system ?
  - schwabacher 15y ago
    Apple probably stands to benefit from SOPA if more people end up downloading music/movies from itunes. I think microsoft / amazon are in the same boat with their own downloading services.
thekevan 15y ago
"...got hired by a lobbying firm to get SOPA passed after helping write it." Because he was an expert on it by then. It's not a big deal.

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...
- thekevan 15y ago
  You've misunderstood. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment and I never said they were. Donations are regarded as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes. I worked in Congress and saw a lot of good people doing a lot of good things. In my three years there I never saw any of the culture of greed and corruption that is perpetuated in so many places. It's sad.
  - ldar15 15y ago
    "Donations are regarded [by those who receive them] as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes." Yes. That pretty much nails the complaint on the head right there. "I never saw" And that would be the second.
    - jinushaun 15y ago
      And that pretty much hits the nail on the head for why the ruling for Citizens United is bad. It basically legalised bribes by confusing it with free speech.
  - danssig 15y ago
    Uh, what? You're claiming that those in congress are doing great things for us and the culture of greed and corruption is a perpetuated lie? Surely I've misread what you're saying because I can't imagine any person intelligent enough to even post online would say something so ridiculous.
kingkilr 15y ago
Fuck the first amendment, how about the constitutional definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
- ldar15 15y ago
  The reasoning would be simple: The corrupt members of the government have levied a body of men to overthrow the democratic institution that we call the United States of America. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war.html http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war.... "Major" Bloomberg: "The NYPD is my Army", Homeland Security trampling on the US Constitution at every opportunity and at the order of congress, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc. Peaceable Protest made impossible by bureaucracy. Establishment of "First Amendment" zones for the press - where they can't see what's going on. Congress/Executive/SCOTUS making a tidy living from bribes^H^H^H Free Speech Expressed As Money. There are a great many "bodies of men" acting unconstitutionally in this country, so assuming that a revolution took place, I don't think this line of prosecution would have much of a problem, do you? If a revolution doesn't take place, I think its pretty safe to say that the Government will take your side on the matter.

LetsTalk 15y ago

According to 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 has received $277,350 from groups that support the bill and $41,000 from those who do not. The total contributions for all groups to all members of congress who support $49,802,962 the total for those who oppose $665,012. This stats that 98.68% of the total 504,67,974 lobbing dollars are from groups that support SOPA.

mattjaynes 15y ago
Wow. Does anyone know why Google/Apple/Other-super-giant-billion-dollar-companies aren't more proactive in influencing congress? With all their billions, competing with $50 million seems like it would be a pretty insignificant cost for them - especially if the cost was shared among a consortium of companies. A few million per company seems like it'd be pretty cheap to ensure greater influence in preventing malignant legislation like SOPA.
- izaidi 15y ago
  Unfortunately it's not as easy as just pumping money into lobbying. It can take decades for special interests to build influence in Washington, and the entertainment industry has had a long head start over Google et al. Still, it seems likely that SOPA will end up being spoken about in the same breath as the MPAA's efforts to get VCRs banned in the early 80s.
  - arnoooooo 15y ago
    Also, they might not be very keen to participate in such an immoral system ?
- schwabacher 15y ago
  Apple probably stands to benefit from SOPA if more people end up downloading music/movies from itunes. I think microsoft / amazon are in the same boat with their own downloading services.

thekevan 15y ago

"...got hired by a lobbying firm to get SOPA passed after helping write it." Because he was an expert on it by then. It's not a big deal.