10 ms·

MPAA Publicly Threatens to Stop Writing Checks

514 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

mmaunder 15y ago
Perhaps those of use who truly care about intellectual freedom should be writing checks too. I have no problem buying politicians for the right reasons. It appears to be the way business is done in the United States. Anyone interested in starting a lobbying organization that supports real patent reform and a free Internet?
- sagarun 15y ago
  You could donate to eff :-)
  - tocomment 15y ago
    Where were they during this sopa stuff though? They should have gone all out on that.
    - maaku 15y ago
      More to the point, where were they between SOPA/PIPA and the last big internet bill? I only hear things from the EFF when someone is out to destroy our freedoms. Why aren't they using the same process to buy internet-friendly legislation? It would be nice to have a roadblock in front of the the next SOPA.
    - rgraham 15y ago
      They had a twilio integrated page that allowed anyone in the US to call their representatives from the page. 300,000 people directed there during the blackout from Mozilla alone did exactly that. I don't have complete numbers, but they were far from silent.
    - noisebleed 15y ago
      The EFF make it their job to look for issues like this. They were the first place I heard about SOPA and PIPA, and I doubt I'm the only one. I certainly wasn't spending time monitoring congress and reading proposed legislation, and even if I was I'm not sufficiently versed in US law to know what the bills might imply. Obviously it's difficult to measure, but I would be surprised if the EFF weren't critically instrumental in the earliest stages of awareness about the implications of these bills, which led to people taking action. How would you propose they could have made a more significant contribution?
    - CamperBob 15y ago
      You were downvoted, but as a longtime EFF member I have much the same question. I pay them to get out in front of issues like SOPA/PIPA, and I was disappointed to see that it didn't happen. I don't believe I saw a single instance of press coverage, either online or off, where the EFF's name was prominently associated with the anti-SOPA resistance effort.
      - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
        Given the press is controlled by the same people pushing SOPA, do you really find that surprising? IMO, that (being able to control the distribution/slant of a story to the masses) is what is so dangerous about the entertainment oligarchy.
- pi18n 15y ago
  I have a problem buying politicians for the right reasons. We are already paying them handsomely to act in the country's best interests. I'd rather start an organization that supports real governing than pass more money to these goofballs.
  - eternalban 15y ago
    I searched for "office" in this thread and nothing showed up. Why is the far more effective option of running for office never considered in our circles? We could certainly use a new political party, and we most definitely could use public representatives who actually "represent" us. Running for office, of course, will not address the critical short-term, but do consider that the intersect between Technology and Governance will become even more critical in the upcoming years. To sum: we shouldn't complain about public servants being servants of moneyed interests, if none of us danes to ever even think of serving our nation as public servants. Run for office.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      Running for office doesn't really work if you can't get your message out because the media and political parties refuse to declare anyone but the incumbent "electable." I've worked on a political campaign before, and also know people who are delegates for their respective parties, and the inertia incumbents have is extremely difficult to counteract. One problem is that people with lots of money can afford to pay others to work full time in their interests, while those of us actually doing stuff with our time can't afford to spend eight hours a day in caucuses, party delegate meetings, city halls, legislators' offices, etc. trying to fight for an issue and/or get elected.
    - pi18n 15y ago
      A good point indeed.
    - mindcrime 15y ago
      Why is the far more effective option of running for office never considered in our circles? We could certainly use a new political party, and we most definitely could use public representatives who actually "represent" us. Running for office is a good thing, but I'm not sure it's "the far more effective option." For most people, running for office - unless they are already rich, well known, and/or politically connected - isn't going to accomplish much. Not that I'm saying not to run for office. Hell, I did it myself (Libertarian Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor of NC in 2008), but I'm just being realistic in saying that running for office is no silver bullet. All of "us" could run until we're blue in the face and probably none of us would get elected. OTOH, getting elected isn't the only goal. For example, I did appear in a statewide, televised debate, which gave me a small platform to promote the principles and ideals I believe in, and presumably some number of people were exposed to those ideas (and to the LP) who had not been before. In my own case, I got right about 125,000 votes, which was good for about 3%. So somebody was paying attention, but still a minority by far. It wasn't a waste of time to run, but I never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected and most of the people here probably have about the same chance. So for us to effect change by running for office is going to be a slow, difficult, painstaking process. Now to be fair, I ran as a 3rd party candidate which hurt my chances a lot, but it would have been dishonest to do otherwise. And I'm guessing that out of the crowd of HN people who would hypothetically run, a lot of us would also be 3rd party or independent candidates.
- cottonseed 15y ago
  I regularly donate to the ACLU. I'm not sure if/how they were involved with SOPA/PIPA, but, besides doing good work on many important fronts, they originated the suit in which part of the Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional.
SeanDav 15y ago
Wow, the only time this guy takes his foot out of his mouth, is to shoot himself in said foot. Actually let us hope he makes a few more comments like this one so that even more people can see what the MPAA are really about.
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  Dodd's just doing his job. Now, that job is one that most of the populace would consider 'corrupt', but that's another story. What's amazing is how explicit he is in that statement with regards to how the system works. I fully agree with the hope that he continues to do this. I honestly can't believe that this battle is devolving this quickly.
redthrowaway 15y ago
The minute they stop writing checks is the minute they stop having power. They may back republicans, but I doubt it. So Hollywood's finally figuring out their representatives can't be trusted to act in their interests? Shame, that. Must be tough. They have my sympathy. No, really, I mean it. Can't imagine what they're going through.
- vishaldpatel 15y ago
  Covertly or publicly - anyone who wants to buy politicians tends to do it across the political spectrum.
- thotpoizn 15y ago
  Does this constitute a confession on Dodd's part? Seems like some law enforcement types would, I dunno, investigate that sort of thing... http://wh.gov/KiE http://wh.gov/KiE
  - younata 15y ago
    Except that, in the US, bribing congress(wo)men is legal.
- stfu 15y ago
  "Hollywood" has traditionally favored Democratic candidates. If this stays a "hot" issue it is going to turn into a political battle one way or another. Still, this seems to me a far better situation than some under the table deals. I am still thankful to Reddit, Jimbo, even Google who forced through their blackouts traditional media to report about it and therefore not allowing to push it off as some "resistance by stealing pirates from the internets".
  - felipemnoa 15y ago
    Traditional media is still probably shocked about realizing that their blackouts are no longer that effective. Just Google and Wikipedia combined have a huge reach. The ironic part is that several from the traditional media were calling the activism of Google and Wikipedia an abuse of power.
CharlieA 15y ago
I don't understand how he (or anyone) can get away with saying things like this--it's practically a straight up admission that they're buying votes. How is this not corruption?
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  Hmm, first we would need to bribe the lawmakers to legislate away their ability to be bribed. It feels like there is some NP hardness here.
- lutorm 15y ago
  Because it's just speech...
- ludflu 15y ago
  because to prosecute, you would need to prove a quid pro quo in a particular instance.
Bud 15y ago
Extraordinarily blatant. I'm amazed that 30 years (thirty years!) in the Senate didn't teach Dodd to be more subtle in the uses of power than this. I mean, this guy ran for President. This is the best you can do, Dodd? My cat would be a better lobbyist.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  Being in the senate taught him that senators take bribes for industry favors and everyone gets away with it. According to his controversy section on wikipedia, he received bribes from countrywide, fannie mae, freddie mac, AIG, while being chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Apparently he was also caught funneling a ton of AIG money through his wife in an offshore holding company. As Greenwald points out in his latest hit piece, Dodd also denounced the revolving door and said he would never be a lobbyist.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  When the people don't care too much about what goes on at the top, or when the people at the top notice how easy it is to sway public opinion on certain policies one way or the other, they start caring less and less about stuff like that.
- freejack 15y ago
  Or possibly, 30 years in the senate may be where he fine-tuned his arrogance.
MrJagil 15y ago
Does anyone have a link to the actual video?
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  I'm looking for it myself. I wouldn't be surprised if Dodd himself requested the video pulled from the network.
twelvechairs 15y ago
Is it wrong that he is saying this on the record? I dont agree with the lobbying system either, but dont shoot someone just for being transparent about the way the system works.
- pyre 15y ago
  I don't think it's going to help public perception of the MPAA, though...
Eeko 15y ago
Bribery: "Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery
- dan85 15y ago
  $500 = bribery $5000000 = lobby
- Eeko 15y ago
  Extortion: "Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
kidmenot 15y ago
Someone finally took the time to say publicly how things work... what's all the fuss about?
Shenglong 15y ago
It's actually really sad, that it took a a joint effort on some of the web's largest companies to shove it in the faces of ordinary people, what could happen if such destructive legislation would pass. It goes to show how apathetic the general population is, how representative democracy really hinges on funding from corrupt corporations, and how the entire government structure of the United States needs reworking. It might be the people who vote, but right now, every politician knows that money buys more votes (campaigning, etc) than doing the right thing.
- jberryman 15y ago
  I think you're being overly-pessimistic on several fronts: 1) I don't think the public was apathetic on this issue, just unaware. And that's YOUR fault (okay our fault), not the fault of the media or corporate interests. 2) the blackouts were an appeal to the voters, making them aware of the issue and urging them to call their congress-critters; in the end it was effective communication uniting people that killed these bills: democracy won over corporate money. 3) A longer response to "the entire government structure of the United States needs reworking": this is simply false. The system we have is the result of the incentives in place. For all the obvious, bipartisan agreement that corporate money is corrupting politics, there hasn't been a movement formed to unite people behind reform, probably because people don't realize that changing the system and changing the incentives are easy, not hard. You change the incentives and politicians will come around overnight. And it doesn't have to start with a constitutional amendment; there are creative finance reform ideas that can be implemented immediately that would have huge effect: http://republic.lessig.org/ http://republic.lessig.org/
  - maurits 15y ago
    Me personally, I am not so much shocked as I do have an overwhelming feeling of deja vu. Similar stories of greed, power and also corruption are a regular occurrence (everywhere). Actually, I find a bit candid honesty refreshing. And out of the many shocked, only a couple of people seem to have the audacity to point to the root causes of this problem and talk reforming campaign financing and lobby laws, and even less talk about reforming the way the democratic process now works. You hint that changing the system via the incentives in place could be very easy. But this begs the question, why isn't this done yet? Is it not that big an issue actually? Is there a majority with a vested interest in the current system? Surely the thea party has shown that a well organized vocal group can gain influence, so a starting minority doesn't have to be a problem to further political ideas.
cjoh 15y ago
The minute Barack Obama does something I really don't like, the minute I stop donating to his campaign. There, I said it! That statement is neither proof that I am a corrupt insider, nor is it sufficient evidence that I have control over Barack Obama.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- yellowbkpk 15y ago
  If you modified your statement to "The minute Barack Obama does something I really don't like, the minute I stop donating tens of millions of dollars to his campaign." the outcome might be different.
  - rickmb 15y ago
    Now change "does something I really don't like" to "stops executing policies I dictate" and you're getting somewhere..
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  This is a good argument. +1, but I still have reservations. There is a bit of a difference, though. When you supported Obama, I assume it was to elect someone that you believed would do a good job as Chief Executive, overall. It wasn't in order to pass one piece of self-serving legislation. The fact that you weren't acting purely in your own interest, and that the interest was broader than one single issue, makes it somewhat different. But different enough to overcome your objection? I'm not sure.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Many people make their voting/donation choices based on a single self-serving issue. Is it wrong for sexually active people who don't want children to vote/donate based on abortion, or for gays to vote/donate based solely on gay marriage?
- chc 15y ago
shareme 15y ago
Yeah, and there is no drugs in any Hollywood studios, right?
RealGeek 15y ago
Does anyone from MPAA ever read what Internet industry, bloggers or customers have to say? Do they read any articles like these or it is just falling on deaf ears?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  The MPAA is not the intended audience. We know they don't care, they only care about their wallets.
beedogs 15y ago
I am ashamed Chris Dodd was once my senator. :(
- Arubis 15y ago
  That, and: he was the guy who seemed _more_ sane than Lieberman. Seriously, I actually liked Dodd. He was a friendly, sanely leftist Senator. Where did the MPAA bit even come from? What worries me is the unpredictability here. Haven't researched this (downvotes incoming, I suppose) but Connecticut has few ties to Hollywood...how can we know which Senators will leap from a reasonable voting record to outright offensive actions within months?
  - bzbarsky 15y ago
    > Where did the MPAA bit even come from? Most of the congresspeople the MPAA buys are "sanely leftist", for whatever reasons.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    Dodd got a taste of money when he ran for President. He instantly turned from a progressive to a cash hound. At the start of his campaign, he sponsored an email drive to oppose some anti-corruption bill (I forget which), but it was actually just a front to collect email addresses for his campaign fundraising. Way to misread your constituency under the influence of greed.
funkah 15y ago
I tend to think they will get what they want, eventually. Congress is bought and paid for, and if they keep trying to pass bills like SOPA, issue fatigue will set in at some point among common folks. Blacking out Wikipedia can only work so many times.
tarellel 15y ago
Sounds like a desperate plea for help to continue getting everything as they please
mathattack 15y ago
And this is the same Dodd who supposedly reformed WallSteet
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ivankirigin 15y ago
Lobbying is legal. Donating to campaigns of politicians you like is legal. I'm not sure why people are surprised. The answer isn't to kick these specific bums out. It is to change campaign finance laws to make contributions illegal. I'm not sure what people here would agree to that doesn't amount to censorship though. Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast?
- jinushaun 15y ago
  That is the heart of Citizens United v FEC.
  - ivankirigin 15y ago
    I don't really think Citizens United has the implications people give to it. For example, there is little to stop the MPAA from giving its head a big bonus, and then that individual making a commercial or movie to political ends. What is the difference between that commercial and something I post on youtube expressing my opinion? Money flows into politics because of the power of government. One of the only ways I see to limit that money without limiting speech is to limit the power of government.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Unless you're talking about abolishing the commerce clause and the ability of congress to make laws, good luck with that. I'd set my sights on the somewhat easier "limit the ability to bribe government".
- anamax 15y ago
  > Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast? The MPAA has been known to make Dem-friendly movies. How do you distinguish between that and a commercial? Note that Citizens United was about a movie, not a commercial.
  - necubi 15y ago
Nrsolis 15y ago
Honestly, I would LOVE to see the MPAA and RIAA stop writing checks to politicians. Many folks think that there is already way too much money in politics, particularly to those politicians who are incumbent. Consequently, if the MPAA/RIAA stop buying our politicians out from under us, maybe we'll get them to pay attention to us again. That's really where the MPAA should be spending its money anyhow: convincing individual voters that piracy is hurting their business and what the effects will be. Honestly, I do think we need some modifications to the copyright regime in this country (US). I just want the MPAA/RIAA to stop bypassing the voters and appealing to the folks we elected to represent our interests. If the MPAA/RIAA stop funding elections, that means victory for the rest of us.
- epscylonb 15y ago
  They aren't going to stop writing checks, they are going to write checks to different politicians (or people trying to get elected). While the electorate are apathetic, moneyed interests will get their way.
  - Nrsolis 15y ago
    In principle, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that people should be allowed to use their resources to get their message out. I do feel that's limiting speech. What I disagree with is the conveyance of funds to front groups that obscure WHO is doing the speaking. There is a distinct flavor to the PACs && SuperPACs that connecting the message to the author would allow the public to gauge WHY they are taking a particular position. Given the government's/industry's attempts to limit the anonymity of individuals, I find the corporate attempts to enhance and leverage that anonymity troubling. I don't think we'll get the money out, but I do think we need transparency in the process for all or for none.
    - russell 15y ago
      I agree with your call for transparency. In California statewide self funded candidates, millionaires like Whitman or Huffington, tend to fail. The same is true of blatant corporate initiatives.
gavanwoolery 15y ago
"Corrupt Politician" is an oxymoron.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  You mean a tautology.
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    Argh - I am an idiot - I meant to say the opposite. You are right, tautology what I was looking for.
middayc 15y ago
When writing checks with ROI expectations to politicians happens in (for example) eastern europe it's called corruption and hopefully penalized (and I agree with it). when it happens in "developed" democracies it's called "that's how the gov. works"?
- steve-howard 15y ago
  No, it's called "We used to think this was preposterous but the Supreme Court told us it's not."
abraxasz 15y ago
First, I'd like to say that what follows is in no way an attempt to justify what Dodd said, or find excuses for him. I believe what he said was chocking. However, it does raise questions about lobbies in general. I'm not american, so when I arrived here, I was surprised by how widespread the phenomenon was, and I've been trying to understand the reasons behind it. From what I read, lobbies basically give money to politicians for their campaigns is that right? My first question is: why do they need that money? I mean, where I'm from (France), politicians don't spend a tenth of what their american counterparts spend for there campaign. So how did the US arrive to a point where so much money is needed to win an election? My only guess is that they noticed that the probability of being elected was proportional to their media visibility. Meaning that some people vote for the guy they see the most on tv. And when I say "some people", I mean a lot of people. So my second question is: "Is our voting behavior not responsible for the phenomenon of lobbying"? Again, this is an external point of view. Please do tell me if I'm missing something. Edit: grammar
- Decathect 15y ago
  It's an arms race. The ideal position is a. spend as little as possible and b. outspend your opponent. This inevitably results in spiraling escalation that harms both parties. The obvious solution that the US has avoided and France has embraced(1) is enforceable limits on spending. Like many applications of the prisoner's dilemma, the existence of external authority limiting the freedom of participants actually results in a better outcome for everyone involved. 1. This is the entirety of what I know about French campaign finance as of five minutes ago: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
- ambler0 15y ago
  Well, a more cynical explanation might be that this money barrier constitutes a filter for keeping politicians who aren't bought out of the process. That is, it's a quite intentional state of affairs. Politicians who try to run honest campaigns are shut out of the process. I don't know if anyone remembers 2000, but Nader wasn't even allowed in to watch the debates, let alone participate. In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections.
yuhong 15y ago
I hope Google finally starts writing bigger checks in response.
daniel-cussen 15y ago
SV will have to multitask. Kick ass and lobby at the same time.
rbanffy 15y ago
I am absolutely shocked by the thick layer of spin that goes around a couple seconds of actual edited footage: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2012-money-over-anti/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywo...
- djeikyb 15y ago
  Fox's website sucks. Here's a relevant clip from their video: http://youtu.be/4LH3aao799Y http://youtu.be/4LH3aao799Y
- atakan_gurkan 15y ago
  I watched the footage you linked to. The quote in the OP is longer, so there must be another video. However, from the footage I watched, it does not look like a spin at all. Nothing is taken out of context. The guy is basically saying that they are unhappy with the current actions of the administration and they will stop giving money. Where is the spin?
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    They imply the only campaign at risk of losing funding is Obama's. I seriously doubt these people put all their eggs in the same basket, specially when there are so many other baskets for sale. And while they mention Fox supported SOPA, they fail to mention Fox is also a member of the MPAA and that Chris Dodd also represents their own interests.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. How can they completely ignore the fact that he publicly states how heavily they lobby, and yet all Fox takes away is "See, Obama takes in way too much in donations from Hollywood."
fleitz 15y ago
This sounds like influence peddling I think a prosecutor needs to look into this.
shampoo 15y ago
Rather then purchase content from Hollywood, where else could one place their entertainment dollars to help squeeze Hollywood ? Games ?
Aloisius 15y ago
Money in politics is a huge problem. I'm not one to actively campaign, but I do recommend people check out Larry Lessig's Rootstrikers - http://rootstrikers.org/ http://rootstrikers.org/. There are some local rootstriker groups starting up in SF and what not trying to come up with a sane solution.

514 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

Perhaps those of use who truly care about intellectual freedom should be writing checks too. I have no problem buying politicians for the right reasons. It appears to be the way business is done in the United States. Anyone interested in starting a lobbying organization that supports real patent reform and a free Internet?

sagarun 15y ago
You could donate to eff :-)
- tocomment 15y ago
  Where were they during this sopa stuff though? They should have gone all out on that.
  - maaku 15y ago
    More to the point, where were they between SOPA/PIPA and the last big internet bill? I only hear things from the EFF when someone is out to destroy our freedoms. Why aren't they using the same process to buy internet-friendly legislation? It would be nice to have a roadblock in front of the the next SOPA.
  - rgraham 15y ago
    They had a twilio integrated page that allowed anyone in the US to call their representatives from the page. 300,000 people directed there during the blackout from Mozilla alone did exactly that. I don't have complete numbers, but they were far from silent.
  - noisebleed 15y ago
    The EFF make it their job to look for issues like this. They were the first place I heard about SOPA and PIPA, and I doubt I'm the only one. I certainly wasn't spending time monitoring congress and reading proposed legislation, and even if I was I'm not sufficiently versed in US law to know what the bills might imply. Obviously it's difficult to measure, but I would be surprised if the EFF weren't critically instrumental in the earliest stages of awareness about the implications of these bills, which led to people taking action. How would you propose they could have made a more significant contribution?
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    You were downvoted, but as a longtime EFF member I have much the same question. I pay them to get out in front of issues like SOPA/PIPA, and I was disappointed to see that it didn't happen. I don't believe I saw a single instance of press coverage, either online or off, where the EFF's name was prominently associated with the anti-SOPA resistance effort.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      Given the press is controlled by the same people pushing SOPA, do you really find that surprising? IMO, that (being able to control the distribution/slant of a story to the masses) is what is so dangerous about the entertainment oligarchy.
pi18n 15y ago
I have a problem buying politicians for the right reasons. We are already paying them handsomely to act in the country's best interests. I'd rather start an organization that supports real governing than pass more money to these goofballs.
- eternalban 15y ago
  I searched for "office" in this thread and nothing showed up. Why is the far more effective option of running for office never considered in our circles? We could certainly use a new political party, and we most definitely could use public representatives who actually "represent" us. Running for office, of course, will not address the critical short-term, but do consider that the intersect between Technology and Governance will become even more critical in the upcoming years. To sum: we shouldn't complain about public servants being servants of moneyed interests, if none of us danes to ever even think of serving our nation as public servants. Run for office.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Running for office doesn't really work if you can't get your message out because the media and political parties refuse to declare anyone but the incumbent "electable." I've worked on a political campaign before, and also know people who are delegates for their respective parties, and the inertia incumbents have is extremely difficult to counteract. One problem is that people with lots of money can afford to pay others to work full time in their interests, while those of us actually doing stuff with our time can't afford to spend eight hours a day in caucuses, party delegate meetings, city halls, legislators' offices, etc. trying to fight for an issue and/or get elected.
  - pi18n 15y ago
    A good point indeed.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    Why is the far more effective option of running for office never considered in our circles? We could certainly use a new political party, and we most definitely could use public representatives who actually "represent" us. Running for office is a good thing, but I'm not sure it's "the far more effective option." For most people, running for office - unless they are already rich, well known, and/or politically connected - isn't going to accomplish much. Not that I'm saying not to run for office. Hell, I did it myself (Libertarian Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor of NC in 2008), but I'm just being realistic in saying that running for office is no silver bullet. All of "us" could run until we're blue in the face and probably none of us would get elected. OTOH, getting elected isn't the only goal. For example, I did appear in a statewide, televised debate, which gave me a small platform to promote the principles and ideals I believe in, and presumably some number of people were exposed to those ideas (and to the LP) who had not been before. In my own case, I got right about 125,000 votes, which was good for about 3%. So somebody was paying attention, but still a minority by far. It wasn't a waste of time to run, but I never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected and most of the people here probably have about the same chance. So for us to effect change by running for office is going to be a slow, difficult, painstaking process. Now to be fair, I ran as a 3rd party candidate which hurt my chances a lot, but it would have been dishonest to do otherwise. And I'm guessing that out of the crowd of HN people who would hypothetically run, a lot of us would also be 3rd party or independent candidates.
cottonseed 15y ago
I regularly donate to the ACLU. I'm not sure if/how they were involved with SOPA/PIPA, but, besides doing good work on many important fronts, they originated the suit in which part of the Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional.

SeanDav 15y ago

Wow, the only time this guy takes his foot out of his mouth, is to shoot himself in said foot. Actually let us hope he makes a few more comments like this one so that even more people can see what the MPAA are really about.

tatsuke95 15y ago
Dodd's just doing his job. Now, that job is one that most of the populace would consider 'corrupt', but that's another story. What's amazing is how explicit he is in that statement with regards to how the system works. I fully agree with the hope that he continues to do this. I honestly can't believe that this battle is devolving this quickly.

redthrowaway 15y ago

The minute they stop writing checks is the minute they stop having power. They may back republicans, but I doubt it. So Hollywood's finally figuring out their representatives can't be trusted to act in their interests? Shame, that. Must be tough. They have my sympathy. No, really, I mean it. Can't imagine what they're going through.

vishaldpatel 15y ago
Covertly or publicly - anyone who wants to buy politicians tends to do it across the political spectrum.
thotpoizn 15y ago
Does this constitute a confession on Dodd's part? Seems like some law enforcement types would, I dunno, investigate that sort of thing... http://wh.gov/KiE http://wh.gov/KiE
- younata 15y ago
  Except that, in the US, bribing congress(wo)men is legal.
stfu 15y ago
"Hollywood" has traditionally favored Democratic candidates. If this stays a "hot" issue it is going to turn into a political battle one way or another. Still, this seems to me a far better situation than some under the table deals. I am still thankful to Reddit, Jimbo, even Google who forced through their blackouts traditional media to report about it and therefore not allowing to push it off as some "resistance by stealing pirates from the internets".
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  Traditional media is still probably shocked about realizing that their blackouts are no longer that effective. Just Google and Wikipedia combined have a huge reach. The ironic part is that several from the traditional media were calling the activism of Google and Wikipedia an abuse of power.

CharlieA 15y ago

I don't understand how he (or anyone) can get away with saying things like this--it's practically a straight up admission that they're buying votes. How is this not corruption?

lawnchair_larry 15y ago
Hmm, first we would need to bribe the lawmakers to legislate away their ability to be bribed. It feels like there is some NP hardness here.
lutorm 15y ago
Because it's just speech...
ludflu 15y ago
because to prosecute, you would need to prove a quid pro quo in a particular instance.

Bud 15y ago

Extraordinarily blatant. I'm amazed that 30 years (thirty years!) in the Senate didn't teach Dodd to be more subtle in the uses of power than this. I mean, this guy ran for President. This is the best you can do, Dodd? My cat would be a better lobbyist.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago
Being in the senate taught him that senators take bribes for industry favors and everyone gets away with it. According to his controversy section on wikipedia, he received bribes from countrywide, fannie mae, freddie mac, AIG, while being chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Apparently he was also caught funneling a ton of AIG money through his wife in an offshore holding company. As Greenwald points out in his latest hit piece, Dodd also denounced the revolving door and said he would never be a lobbyist.
nextparadigms 15y ago
When the people don't care too much about what goes on at the top, or when the people at the top notice how easy it is to sway public opinion on certain policies one way or the other, they start caring less and less about stuff like that.
freejack 15y ago
Or possibly, 30 years in the senate may be where he fine-tuned his arrogance.

MrJagil 15y ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual video?

firefoxman1 15y ago
I'm looking for it myself. I wouldn't be surprised if Dodd himself requested the video pulled from the network.

twelvechairs 15y ago

Is it wrong that he is saying this on the record? I dont agree with the lobbying system either, but dont shoot someone just for being transparent about the way the system works.

pyre 15y ago
I don't think it's going to help public perception of the MPAA, though...

Eeko 15y ago

Bribery: "Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery

dan85 15y ago
$500 = bribery $5000000 = lobby
Eeko 15y ago
Extortion: "Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

kidmenot 15y ago

Someone finally took the time to say publicly how things work... what's all the fuss about?

Shenglong 15y ago

It's actually really sad, that it took a a joint effort on some of the web's largest companies to shove it in the faces of ordinary people, what could happen if such destructive legislation would pass. It goes to show how apathetic the general population is, how representative democracy really hinges on funding from corrupt corporations, and how the entire government structure of the United States needs reworking. It might be the people who vote, but right now, every politician knows that money buys more votes (campaigning, etc) than doing the right thing.

jberryman 15y ago
I think you're being overly-pessimistic on several fronts: 1) I don't think the public was apathetic on this issue, just unaware. And that's YOUR fault (okay our fault), not the fault of the media or corporate interests. 2) the blackouts were an appeal to the voters, making them aware of the issue and urging them to call their congress-critters; in the end it was effective communication uniting people that killed these bills: democracy won over corporate money. 3) A longer response to "the entire government structure of the United States needs reworking": this is simply false. The system we have is the result of the incentives in place. For all the obvious, bipartisan agreement that corporate money is corrupting politics, there hasn't been a movement formed to unite people behind reform, probably because people don't realize that changing the system and changing the incentives are easy, not hard. You change the incentives and politicians will come around overnight. And it doesn't have to start with a constitutional amendment; there are creative finance reform ideas that can be implemented immediately that would have huge effect: http://republic.lessig.org/ http://republic.lessig.org/
- maurits 15y ago
  Me personally, I am not so much shocked as I do have an overwhelming feeling of deja vu. Similar stories of greed, power and also corruption are a regular occurrence (everywhere). Actually, I find a bit candid honesty refreshing. And out of the many shocked, only a couple of people seem to have the audacity to point to the root causes of this problem and talk reforming campaign financing and lobby laws, and even less talk about reforming the way the democratic process now works. You hint that changing the system via the incentives in place could be very easy. But this begs the question, why isn't this done yet? Is it not that big an issue actually? Is there a majority with a vested interest in the current system? Surely the thea party has shown that a well organized vocal group can gain influence, so a starting minority doesn't have to be a problem to further political ideas.

cjoh 15y ago

The minute Barack Obama does something I really don't like, the minute I stop donating to his campaign. There, I said it! That statement is neither proof that I am a corrupt insider, nor is it sufficient evidence that I have control over Barack Obama.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
yellowbkpk 15y ago
If you modified your statement to "The minute Barack Obama does something I really don't like, the minute I stop donating tens of millions of dollars to his campaign." the outcome might be different.
- rickmb 15y ago
  Now change "does something I really don't like" to "stops executing policies I dictate" and you're getting somewhere..
CWuestefeld 15y ago
This is a good argument. +1, but I still have reservations. There is a bit of a difference, though. When you supported Obama, I assume it was to elect someone that you believed would do a good job as Chief Executive, overall. It wasn't in order to pass one piece of self-serving legislation. The fact that you weren't acting purely in your own interest, and that the interest was broader than one single issue, makes it somewhat different. But different enough to overcome your objection? I'm not sure.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Many people make their voting/donation choices based on a single self-serving issue. Is it wrong for sexually active people who don't want children to vote/donate based on abortion, or for gays to vote/donate based solely on gay marriage?
chc 15y ago

shareme 15y ago

Yeah, and there is no drugs in any Hollywood studios, right?

RealGeek 15y ago

Does anyone from MPAA ever read what Internet industry, bloggers or customers have to say? Do they read any articles like these or it is just falling on deaf ears?

burgerbrain 15y ago
The MPAA is not the intended audience. We know they don't care, they only care about their wallets.

beedogs 15y ago

I am ashamed Chris Dodd was once my senator. :(

Arubis 15y ago
That, and: he was the guy who seemed _more_ sane than Lieberman. Seriously, I actually liked Dodd. He was a friendly, sanely leftist Senator. Where did the MPAA bit even come from? What worries me is the unpredictability here. Haven't researched this (downvotes incoming, I suppose) but Connecticut has few ties to Hollywood...how can we know which Senators will leap from a reasonable voting record to outright offensive actions within months?
- bzbarsky 15y ago
  > Where did the MPAA bit even come from? Most of the congresspeople the MPAA buys are "sanely leftist", for whatever reasons.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Dodd got a taste of money when he ran for President. He instantly turned from a progressive to a cash hound. At the start of his campaign, he sponsored an email drive to oppose some anti-corruption bill (I forget which), but it was actually just a front to collect email addresses for his campaign fundraising. Way to misread your constituency under the influence of greed.

funkah 15y ago

I tend to think they will get what they want, eventually. Congress is bought and paid for, and if they keep trying to pass bills like SOPA, issue fatigue will set in at some point among common folks. Blacking out Wikipedia can only work so many times.

tarellel 15y ago

Sounds like a desperate plea for help to continue getting everything as they please

mathattack 15y ago

And this is the same Dodd who supposedly reformed WallSteet

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ivankirigin 15y ago

Lobbying is legal. Donating to campaigns of politicians you like is legal. I'm not sure why people are surprised. The answer isn't to kick these specific bums out. It is to change campaign finance laws to make contributions illegal. I'm not sure what people here would agree to that doesn't amount to censorship though. Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast?

jinushaun 15y ago
That is the heart of Citizens United v FEC.
- ivankirigin 15y ago
  I don't really think Citizens United has the implications people give to it. For example, there is little to stop the MPAA from giving its head a big bonus, and then that individual making a commercial or movie to political ends. What is the difference between that commercial and something I post on youtube expressing my opinion? Money flows into politics because of the power of government. One of the only ways I see to limit that money without limiting speech is to limit the power of government.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Unless you're talking about abolishing the commerce clause and the ability of congress to make laws, good luck with that. I'd set my sights on the somewhat easier "limit the ability to bribe government".
anamax 15y ago
> Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast? The MPAA has been known to make Dem-friendly movies. How do you distinguish between that and a commercial? Note that Citizens United was about a movie, not a commercial.
- necubi 15y ago

Nrsolis 15y ago

Honestly, I would LOVE to see the MPAA and RIAA stop writing checks to politicians. Many folks think that there is already way too much money in politics, particularly to those politicians who are incumbent. Consequently, if the MPAA/RIAA stop buying our politicians out from under us, maybe we'll get them to pay attention to us again. That's really where the MPAA should be spending its money anyhow: convincing individual voters that piracy is hurting their business and what the effects will be. Honestly, I do think we need some modifications to the copyright regime in this country (US). I just want the MPAA/RIAA to stop bypassing the voters and appealing to the folks we elected to represent our interests. If the MPAA/RIAA stop funding elections, that means victory for the rest of us.

epscylonb 15y ago
They aren't going to stop writing checks, they are going to write checks to different politicians (or people trying to get elected). While the electorate are apathetic, moneyed interests will get their way.
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  In principle, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that people should be allowed to use their resources to get their message out. I do feel that's limiting speech. What I disagree with is the conveyance of funds to front groups that obscure WHO is doing the speaking. There is a distinct flavor to the PACs && SuperPACs that connecting the message to the author would allow the public to gauge WHY they are taking a particular position. Given the government's/industry's attempts to limit the anonymity of individuals, I find the corporate attempts to enhance and leverage that anonymity troubling. I don't think we'll get the money out, but I do think we need transparency in the process for all or for none.
  - russell 15y ago
    I agree with your call for transparency. In California statewide self funded candidates, millionaires like Whitman or Huffington, tend to fail. The same is true of blatant corporate initiatives.

gavanwoolery 15y ago

"Corrupt Politician" is an oxymoron.

JonnieCache 15y ago
You mean a tautology.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Argh - I am an idiot - I meant to say the opposite. You are right, tautology what I was looking for.

middayc 15y ago

When writing checks with ROI expectations to politicians happens in (for example) eastern europe it's called corruption and hopefully penalized (and I agree with it). when it happens in "developed" democracies it's called "that's how the gov. works"?

steve-howard 15y ago
No, it's called "We used to think this was preposterous but the Supreme Court told us it's not."

abraxasz 15y ago

First, I'd like to say that what follows is in no way an attempt to justify what Dodd said, or find excuses for him. I believe what he said was chocking. However, it does raise questions about lobbies in general. I'm not american, so when I arrived here, I was surprised by how widespread the phenomenon was, and I've been trying to understand the reasons behind it. From what I read, lobbies basically give money to politicians for their campaigns is that right? My first question is: why do they need that money? I mean, where I'm from (France), politicians don't spend a tenth of what their american counterparts spend for there campaign. So how did the US arrive to a point where so much money is needed to win an election? My only guess is that they noticed that the probability of being elected was proportional to their media visibility. Meaning that some people vote for the guy they see the most on tv. And when I say "some people", I mean a lot of people. So my second question is: "Is our voting behavior not responsible for the phenomenon of lobbying"? Again, this is an external point of view. Please do tell me if I'm missing something. Edit: grammar

Decathect 15y ago
It's an arms race. The ideal position is a. spend as little as possible and b. outspend your opponent. This inevitably results in spiraling escalation that harms both parties. The obvious solution that the US has avoided and France has embraced(1) is enforceable limits on spending. Like many applications of the prisoner's dilemma, the existence of external authority limiting the freedom of participants actually results in a better outcome for everyone involved. 1. This is the entirety of what I know about French campaign finance as of five minutes ago: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
ambler0 15y ago
Well, a more cynical explanation might be that this money barrier constitutes a filter for keeping politicians who aren't bought out of the process. That is, it's a quite intentional state of affairs. Politicians who try to run honest campaigns are shut out of the process. I don't know if anyone remembers 2000, but Nader wasn't even allowed in to watch the debates, let alone participate. In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections.

yuhong 15y ago

I hope Google finally starts writing bigger checks in response.

daniel-cussen 15y ago

SV will have to multitask. Kick ass and lobby at the same time.

rbanffy 15y ago

I am absolutely shocked by the thick layer of spin that goes around a couple seconds of actual edited footage: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2012-money-over-anti/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywo...

djeikyb 15y ago
Fox's website sucks. Here's a relevant clip from their video: http://youtu.be/4LH3aao799Y http://youtu.be/4LH3aao799Y
atakan_gurkan 15y ago
I watched the footage you linked to. The quote in the OP is longer, so there must be another video. However, from the footage I watched, it does not look like a spin at all. Nothing is taken out of context. The guy is basically saying that they are unhappy with the current actions of the administration and they will stop giving money. Where is the spin?
- rbanffy 15y ago
  They imply the only campaign at risk of losing funding is Obama's. I seriously doubt these people put all their eggs in the same basket, specially when there are so many other baskets for sale. And while they mention Fox supported SOPA, they fail to mention Fox is also a member of the MPAA and that Chris Dodd also represents their own interests.
firefoxman1 15y ago
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. How can they completely ignore the fact that he publicly states how heavily they lobby, and yet all Fox takes away is "See, Obama takes in way too much in donations from Hollywood."

fleitz 15y ago

This sounds like influence peddling I think a prosecutor needs to look into this.

shampoo 15y ago

Rather then purchase content from Hollywood, where else could one place their entertainment dollars to help squeeze Hollywood ? Games ?

Aloisius 15y ago

Money in politics is a huge problem. I'm not one to actively campaign, but I do recommend people check out Larry Lessig's Rootstrikers - http://rootstrikers.org/ http://rootstrikers.org/. There are some local rootstriker groups starting up in SF and what not trying to come up with a sane solution.