7 ms·

White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

74 points by chunky1994 15y ago

jasonkolb 15y ago
And people wonder why I'm cynical about politics. If Dodd was investigated for this it would lead to an investigation of 99% of elected representatives--including, presumably, the ones doing the investigating (I assume a congressional investigation would be required). This is the way politics works in our country, we just like to pretend it has more integrity. This might happen if we ever get campaign finance reform and term limits, right after hell freezes over.
- a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
  If Dodd was investigated for this, the MPAA bribery faucet would be turned off.
- Craiggybear 15y ago
  Yeah it'll never happen. Too many people with too much to lose. There will be no investigation.
maerek 15y ago
Hate to say it, but that WH petition site is just bread and circuses. Has any petition there led to an actionable response from the WH? Curious.
- crikli 15y ago
  Depends on how you're defining "actionable." I signed a petition against the White House's plan to put airport usage fees in place for general aviation, effectively charging pilots to talk to air traffic control. This is a Really Bad Idea (I'm happy to delineiate why in future comments if there is interest but for now I'll play the "I'm a pilot, trust me" card). The response was just a politely verbose version of "f*ck you, we're going to do it anyway." So I joined the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association PAC and started contributing money that I'm sure will be used to bribe the right people. Sad that it came to that, but the White House has decided that they have a good idea, logic be damned, so they're bulling ahead.
  - srl 15y ago
    > I signed a petition against the White House's plan to put airport usage fees in place for general aviation, effectively charging pilots to talk to air traffic control. This is a Really Bad Idea (I'm happy to delineiate why in future comments if there is interest but for now I'll play the "I'm a pilot, trust me" card). Well, I'm interested. The obvious guess that comes to mind is that pilots are now incentivized to avoid communication with ATC, consequentially reducing ATC's effectiveness. Is there something more subtle going on? More interesting question is why the WH thought it was a good idea. Who was lobbying for it? I was under the impression that whatever union or union-like organization is built around ATC folks is pretty adamant about promoting safety stuff, and would never tolerate something like this.
    - crikli 15y ago
      > Is there something more subtle going on? Yup. Before I get to what that is, here's the real problem: you have to contact ATC to file an instrument flight plan. If you're flying visually, interaction with ATC is limited to communications with the airport's tower, maybe with one of the major ATC centers if you're departing an airport with designated approach/departure frequencies (i.e. a Class B or C airport). Visual flight (VFR) into instrument meteorological condition (IMC) accidents are fatal somewhere between 75% [1] and 90% [2] of the time. For the reason over the last two decades barriers to instrument training have been steadily decreased: used to be you had to have 200 hours in the book before you could get an instrument rating. That was decreased to 125 in 1986 and in 1997 the flight time requirement was dropped altogether [3]. The reason for this is that flying instrument flight plans have a lower accident rate [3] than pilots flying VFR. Furthermore, pilots on a VFR flight plan who run into IMC and are instrument rated can contact ATC and file a pop-up IFR flight plan, interacting with ATC to establish vectors around convective areas (thunderstorms) and into an instrument approach. Accident rates increase when barriers to instrument flight are erected. A good example of this is when the Commemorative Air Force barred pilots from filing IFR flight plans. They reversed this policy after irreplaceable historical artifacts were lost due to pilots trying to dodge under weather to make an airshow or get home. Now, to the examination of the WH's communication on the matter and to your question of whether something more subtle is going on: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-need-aviation-user-fees https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-need... The example in the letter of the "large commercial aircraft" vs a "corporate jet" is invalid: the administration is conflating the excise taxes that a FAR Part 135 commercial operation pays per passenger vs the fuel taxes per gallon that a FAR Part 121 corporate flight pays. The "something more subtle going on" is revealed in the language of the letter. This is going to lead into my sharing a political perspective, which I know is verboten on HN but is not avoidable in the context of this little digression. They exempt piston flight, military, emergency, etc. And they single out a corporate jet as an example of a flight not paying its "fair share" for use of ATC resources. It's a not-terribly-subtle attack on corporate aviation. I could defend the validity of corporate aviation, but I won't at this juncture: the problem is that their attack is poorly targeted and will have considerable collateral damage. For example, there are hundreds of small air-taxi operations that operate out of FBOs around the country, like the one from Addison, LA to Shreveport, LA that does four flights a day every day of the month. That's an additional $200 a flight x 4 x 30 for an additional $24,000 that the operation is going to have to come up with. Given the thin margins these operations run on, these user fees place the jobs of the pilots, mechanics, and FBO personnel at risk. Furthermore the WH is pretending that Air Traffic Control is the only thing that the FAA funds in order to justify their claim that it isn't fair that a Southwest 737 pays more taxes than Apple's Gulfstream V. But the taxes that the FAA collects go toward airport maintenance grants, maintenance of the aging VOR-VORTAC system. Generally, support of the air transportation grid. The ATC is just one significant facet, but not the only facet. As to your question about the ATC unions, they don't have a voice as the WH can (and likely will) assert these user fees via Executive Order. [1] http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/05-18.pdf http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/... [2] http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/vfrimc.html http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/vfrimc.html [3] http://www.shashek.com/Flight_Logs/Docs/iPilot_Articles/Should_You_Add_On_Instrument_Rating.shtml http://www.shashek.com/Flight_Logs/Docs/iPilot_Articles/Shou...
CWuestefeld 15y ago
I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest, and (b) I'm looking at a larger picture than lobbying over a single issue. But in the end, I've not been able to prove to myself that those differences are sufficiently objective and measurable to be able to sustain the complaint against Dodd.
- joshuahedlund 15y ago
  There's a difference between saying "You did stuff I didn't like so I won't give you money" and "You didn't do stuff for my industry that I was explicitly expecting ONLY because of my earlier contributions so I'm not going to continue to give you money"
- sequoia 15y ago
  What's the difference between you and the MPAA? Well, how many 1m dollar bills do you have in your back pocket? ;) Yes, I am saying there is a fundamental difference between an entity giving $100 to a campaign and e.g. $5m (if you add in the RIAA). To ignore that would be like... like saying it would be fair to pit you against Boeing in an airplane building contest. (Kind of a weak simile, sorry.) The point is the field is not level and, most importantly, they are not supposed to offer quid pro quo.
- kbutler 15y ago
  The difference is the "quid pro quo" - I give you something if you give me something. It's perfectly fine ethically and legally to provide financial support to candidates who support causes you believe in. The problem is when there is an express or implied exchange of official acts for the contribution, as when one says, "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," That is an exchange of contributions for official acts. That is unethical and illegal.
anamax 15y ago
While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates make promises like "if elected, I'll work to repeal DADT" and organizations do fundraisers for candidates based on said promises. How is this any different?
- kmfrk 15y ago
  There's nothing illegal about it. That's why it's annoying as hell that people waste time on pointless crusades instead of focusing on real solutions.
  - thebrokencube 15y ago
    I think most of us realize that the petitions are pointless (though then again, it takes like 3 seconds to sign it so enough people do it), but how would you suggest we fix this problem? Because although this is legal, pretty much everyone can sense that there's something fishy about it and needs to be changed.
    - kmfrk 15y ago
      Petitions are fine (but mostly useless), but c'mon, framing lobbying as illegal bribery? Fishy is not the same as illegal, which is the image that people are trying to paint. Since there's nothing illegal about it, nothing is going to come of it. I was thinking about how campaign finance works in how candidates tend to get paid during in elections less so than afterwards, but while people - in Texas in particular - get a lot of cronyist returns on their investments, maybe there is something to be said for in-office donations. Votes and campaign contributions are sunk cost, so you can't threaten with pulling them back, but you might donate to your politicians, once they do something you support, like how some politicians have been staunch opponents of SOPA/PIPA since the start and lead the charge against them. Rather than just writing them a letter or giving their assistants a phone call, maybe consider donating some money? The old incentive structure in politics is old to the degree of obsolescence, so maybe microdonations can serve to alter that or at least erode it over time? Think of all the people who've praise Senator Wyden, but haven't donated to him. Maybe that's something that should be considered. If I could vote, I'd try to do what I could to bring SOPA/PIPA into the next election as a reminder of what they supported an do my best to explain it in plain terms to people, but I'm basically outside the American system, but let's a least not do something ridiculous that will have no effect aside from making one side in politics look like clueless teenagers.
mjwalshe 15y ago
Well with my parliamentary wonk hat on they did not write their prop (the petition) within the rules that apply. It could have been written to ask "why the appropriate law enforcement body is not taking action after MR X admitted committing bribery" which satisfies the "to address a problem" criteria Though the we the people site is doing a useless job of having the rules front and centre and explaining then in plain english for non insiders.
knowtheory 15y ago
The reaction to this frustrates me immensely, because Obama is doing the right thing. The Obama White House is attempting to regrow the wall between political and constituent concerns and law enforcement concerns. The Department of Justice should operate with the most minimal of political interferences (since I don't think it's possible to avoid them all together) with the goal of maintaining its independence. That said, I absolutely do think that what Chris Dodd has been doing is not above board. I don't know who has jurisdiction or who to inquire with further, but the White House isn't the right place. I'd be interested if someone knows who in the DoJ would be the appropriate folks to contact.
- invisible 15y ago
  Then, don't you think the White House would send a letter to the DoJ pointing them to this if they really cared? They may not need to investigate it themselves, but helping the message get sternly to the right people should be appropriate.
  - knowtheory 15y ago
    That's not what they said though. They said they don't comment on petitions that are matters of law enforcement. They may very well have done that. Although, yes, one would think that it'd be in their best interest to communicate that if they had in fact done so.
- newbusox 15y ago
  I would guess that the office to contact would be the US Attorney's Office for Washington, D.C., http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html. They (and possibly others US Attorney's Offices) almost certainly have jurisdiction. For those interested, the anti-bribery statutes are at 18 U.S.C. 201 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201) and subsequent provisions within that chapter (there are also other, conceivably applicable statutes that might be charged in bribery or corruption cases). As you can see, the wording in the statutes is extremely broad so, if so inclined, it's possible to make an argument that many, many things are bribery (although, realistically, "bribery" has been significantly narrowed by the courts).
sequoia 15y ago
It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentlemen and we love to be helpful. :)" Chris Dodd just stated more plainly what is 115% clear to all the recipients of this cash: "We are paying you to make specific legislative decisions in our favor. Stop doing that job and we stop paying." i.e. quid pro quo i.e. bribery. I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket; I'm afraid asking Barack Goldman Sachs Obama to "look into it" isn't going to work (tho I did sign the petition).
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket The simple solution - in the sense that it's an obvious one, and a naive one - is to just forbid campaign contributions altogether.
  - camiller 15y ago
    Then only independently wealthy candidates or publicly funded candidates could run.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      Yup, that's why it's naive. One possible patch for this issue is to forbid spending money on elections, but again, that just opens up new cans of worms.
      - dwiel 15y ago
        As long as we have an uneven distribution of wealth, we will have an uneven distribution of power. It doesn't matter what laws you try to pass or what government you try to have. The entities who those laws threaten will fight against them.
lhnz 15y ago
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Just a simple question. Can somebody tell me how this gratifies their intellectual curiosity? It seems to be politics and is certainly not an interesting new phenomenon.
- realschool 15y ago
  As for as intellectual discourse goes, politics seems to be one standard deviation above celebrity gossip.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- raganwald 15y ago
  In all fairness, discussing political reform is in the spirit of hackery. There’s a big, complicated machine we think is malfunctioning, and we’re trying to reprogram it for better outcomes.
wcgortel 15y ago
Back when Mr. Dodd was in office, I and others referred to him as "the Senator from AIG." Though his recent comments set off a firestorm, I am more interested to see that relationship examined in full daylight.

74 points by chunky1994 15y ago

And people wonder why I'm cynical about politics. If Dodd was investigated for this it would lead to an investigation of 99% of elected representatives--including, presumably, the ones doing the investigating (I assume a congressional investigation would be required). This is the way politics works in our country, we just like to pretend it has more integrity. This might happen if we ever get campaign finance reform and term limits, right after hell freezes over.

a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
If Dodd was investigated for this, the MPAA bribery faucet would be turned off.
Craiggybear 15y ago
Yeah it'll never happen. Too many people with too much to lose. There will be no investigation.

maerek 15y ago

Hate to say it, but that WH petition site is just bread and circuses. Has any petition there led to an actionable response from the WH? Curious.

crikli 15y ago
Depends on how you're defining "actionable." I signed a petition against the White House's plan to put airport usage fees in place for general aviation, effectively charging pilots to talk to air traffic control. This is a Really Bad Idea (I'm happy to delineiate why in future comments if there is interest but for now I'll play the "I'm a pilot, trust me" card). The response was just a politely verbose version of "f*ck you, we're going to do it anyway." So I joined the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association PAC and started contributing money that I'm sure will be used to bribe the right people. Sad that it came to that, but the White House has decided that they have a good idea, logic be damned, so they're bulling ahead.
- srl 15y ago
  > I signed a petition against the White House's plan to put airport usage fees in place for general aviation, effectively charging pilots to talk to air traffic control. This is a Really Bad Idea (I'm happy to delineiate why in future comments if there is interest but for now I'll play the "I'm a pilot, trust me" card). Well, I'm interested. The obvious guess that comes to mind is that pilots are now incentivized to avoid communication with ATC, consequentially reducing ATC's effectiveness. Is there something more subtle going on? More interesting question is why the WH thought it was a good idea. Who was lobbying for it? I was under the impression that whatever union or union-like organization is built around ATC folks is pretty adamant about promoting safety stuff, and would never tolerate something like this.
  - crikli 15y ago
    > Is there something more subtle going on? Yup. Before I get to what that is, here's the real problem: you have to contact ATC to file an instrument flight plan. If you're flying visually, interaction with ATC is limited to communications with the airport's tower, maybe with one of the major ATC centers if you're departing an airport with designated approach/departure frequencies (i.e. a Class B or C airport). Visual flight (VFR) into instrument meteorological condition (IMC) accidents are fatal somewhere between 75% [1] and 90% [2] of the time. For the reason over the last two decades barriers to instrument training have been steadily decreased: used to be you had to have 200 hours in the book before you could get an instrument rating. That was decreased to 125 in 1986 and in 1997 the flight time requirement was dropped altogether [3]. The reason for this is that flying instrument flight plans have a lower accident rate [3] than pilots flying VFR. Furthermore, pilots on a VFR flight plan who run into IMC and are instrument rated can contact ATC and file a pop-up IFR flight plan, interacting with ATC to establish vectors around convective areas (thunderstorms) and into an instrument approach. Accident rates increase when barriers to instrument flight are erected. A good example of this is when the Commemorative Air Force barred pilots from filing IFR flight plans. They reversed this policy after irreplaceable historical artifacts were lost due to pilots trying to dodge under weather to make an airshow or get home. Now, to the examination of the WH's communication on the matter and to your question of whether something more subtle is going on: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-need-aviation-user-fees https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-need... The example in the letter of the "large commercial aircraft" vs a "corporate jet" is invalid: the administration is conflating the excise taxes that a FAR Part 135 commercial operation pays per passenger vs the fuel taxes per gallon that a FAR Part 121 corporate flight pays. The "something more subtle going on" is revealed in the language of the letter. This is going to lead into my sharing a political perspective, which I know is verboten on HN but is not avoidable in the context of this little digression. They exempt piston flight, military, emergency, etc. And they single out a corporate jet as an example of a flight not paying its "fair share" for use of ATC resources. It's a not-terribly-subtle attack on corporate aviation. I could defend the validity of corporate aviation, but I won't at this juncture: the problem is that their attack is poorly targeted and will have considerable collateral damage. For example, there are hundreds of small air-taxi operations that operate out of FBOs around the country, like the one from Addison, LA to Shreveport, LA that does four flights a day every day of the month. That's an additional $200 a flight x 4 x 30 for an additional $24,000 that the operation is going to have to come up with. Given the thin margins these operations run on, these user fees place the jobs of the pilots, mechanics, and FBO personnel at risk. Furthermore the WH is pretending that Air Traffic Control is the only thing that the FAA funds in order to justify their claim that it isn't fair that a Southwest 737 pays more taxes than Apple's Gulfstream V. But the taxes that the FAA collects go toward airport maintenance grants, maintenance of the aging VOR-VORTAC system. Generally, support of the air transportation grid. The ATC is just one significant facet, but not the only facet. As to your question about the ATC unions, they don't have a voice as the WH can (and likely will) assert these user fees via Executive Order. [1] http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/05-18.pdf http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/... [2] http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/vfrimc.html http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/vfrimc.html [3] http://www.shashek.com/Flight_Logs/Docs/iPilot_Articles/Should_You_Add_On_Instrument_Rating.shtml http://www.shashek.com/Flight_Logs/Docs/iPilot_Articles/Shou...

CWuestefeld 15y ago

I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest, and (b) I'm looking at a larger picture than lobbying over a single issue. But in the end, I've not been able to prove to myself that those differences are sufficiently objective and measurable to be able to sustain the complaint against Dodd.

joshuahedlund 15y ago
There's a difference between saying "You did stuff I didn't like so I won't give you money" and "You didn't do stuff for my industry that I was explicitly expecting ONLY because of my earlier contributions so I'm not going to continue to give you money"
sequoia 15y ago
What's the difference between you and the MPAA? Well, how many 1m dollar bills do you have in your back pocket? ;) Yes, I am saying there is a fundamental difference between an entity giving $100 to a campaign and e.g. $5m (if you add in the RIAA). To ignore that would be like... like saying it would be fair to pit you against Boeing in an airplane building contest. (Kind of a weak simile, sorry.) The point is the field is not level and, most importantly, they are not supposed to offer quid pro quo.
kbutler 15y ago
The difference is the "quid pro quo" - I give you something if you give me something. It's perfectly fine ethically and legally to provide financial support to candidates who support causes you believe in. The problem is when there is an express or implied exchange of official acts for the contribution, as when one says, "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," That is an exchange of contributions for official acts. That is unethical and illegal.

anamax 15y ago

While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates make promises like "if elected, I'll work to repeal DADT" and organizations do fundraisers for candidates based on said promises. How is this any different?

kmfrk 15y ago
There's nothing illegal about it. That's why it's annoying as hell that people waste time on pointless crusades instead of focusing on real solutions.
- thebrokencube 15y ago
  I think most of us realize that the petitions are pointless (though then again, it takes like 3 seconds to sign it so enough people do it), but how would you suggest we fix this problem? Because although this is legal, pretty much everyone can sense that there's something fishy about it and needs to be changed.
  - kmfrk 15y ago
    Petitions are fine (but mostly useless), but c'mon, framing lobbying as illegal bribery? Fishy is not the same as illegal, which is the image that people are trying to paint. Since there's nothing illegal about it, nothing is going to come of it. I was thinking about how campaign finance works in how candidates tend to get paid during in elections less so than afterwards, but while people - in Texas in particular - get a lot of cronyist returns on their investments, maybe there is something to be said for in-office donations. Votes and campaign contributions are sunk cost, so you can't threaten with pulling them back, but you might donate to your politicians, once they do something you support, like how some politicians have been staunch opponents of SOPA/PIPA since the start and lead the charge against them. Rather than just writing them a letter or giving their assistants a phone call, maybe consider donating some money? The old incentive structure in politics is old to the degree of obsolescence, so maybe microdonations can serve to alter that or at least erode it over time? Think of all the people who've praise Senator Wyden, but haven't donated to him. Maybe that's something that should be considered. If I could vote, I'd try to do what I could to bring SOPA/PIPA into the next election as a reminder of what they supported an do my best to explain it in plain terms to people, but I'm basically outside the American system, but let's a least not do something ridiculous that will have no effect aside from making one side in politics look like clueless teenagers.

mjwalshe 15y ago

Well with my parliamentary wonk hat on they did not write their prop (the petition) within the rules that apply. It could have been written to ask "why the appropriate law enforcement body is not taking action after MR X admitted committing bribery" which satisfies the "to address a problem" criteria Though the we the people site is doing a useless job of having the rules front and centre and explaining then in plain english for non insiders.

knowtheory 15y ago

The reaction to this frustrates me immensely, because Obama is doing the right thing. The Obama White House is attempting to regrow the wall between political and constituent concerns and law enforcement concerns. The Department of Justice should operate with the most minimal of political interferences (since I don't think it's possible to avoid them all together) with the goal of maintaining its independence. That said, I absolutely do think that what Chris Dodd has been doing is not above board. I don't know who has jurisdiction or who to inquire with further, but the White House isn't the right place. I'd be interested if someone knows who in the DoJ would be the appropriate folks to contact.

invisible 15y ago
Then, don't you think the White House would send a letter to the DoJ pointing them to this if they really cared? They may not need to investigate it themselves, but helping the message get sternly to the right people should be appropriate.
- knowtheory 15y ago
  That's not what they said though. They said they don't comment on petitions that are matters of law enforcement. They may very well have done that. Although, yes, one would think that it'd be in their best interest to communicate that if they had in fact done so.
newbusox 15y ago
I would guess that the office to contact would be the US Attorney's Office for Washington, D.C., http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html. They (and possibly others US Attorney's Offices) almost certainly have jurisdiction. For those interested, the anti-bribery statutes are at 18 U.S.C. 201 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201) and subsequent provisions within that chapter (there are also other, conceivably applicable statutes that might be charged in bribery or corruption cases). As you can see, the wording in the statutes is extremely broad so, if so inclined, it's possible to make an argument that many, many things are bribery (although, realistically, "bribery" has been significantly narrowed by the courts).

sequoia 15y ago

It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentlemen and we love to be helpful. :)" Chris Dodd just stated more plainly what is 115% clear to all the recipients of this cash: "We are paying you to make specific legislative decisions in our favor. Stop doing that job and we stop paying." i.e. quid pro quo i.e. bribery. I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket; I'm afraid asking Barack Goldman Sachs Obama to "look into it" isn't going to work (tho I did sign the petition).

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket The simple solution - in the sense that it's an obvious one, and a naive one - is to just forbid campaign contributions altogether.
- camiller 15y ago
  Then only independently wealthy candidates or publicly funded candidates could run.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Yup, that's why it's naive. One possible patch for this issue is to forbid spending money on elections, but again, that just opens up new cans of worms.
    - dwiel 15y ago
      As long as we have an uneven distribution of wealth, we will have an uneven distribution of power. It doesn't matter what laws you try to pass or what government you try to have. The entities who those laws threaten will fight against them.

lhnz 15y ago

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Just a simple question. Can somebody tell me how this gratifies their intellectual curiosity? It seems to be politics and is certainly not an interesting new phenomenon.

realschool 15y ago
As for as intellectual discourse goes, politics seems to be one standard deviation above celebrity gossip.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
raganwald 15y ago
In all fairness, discussing political reform is in the spirit of hackery. There’s a big, complicated machine we think is malfunctioning, and we’re trying to reprogram it for better outcomes.

wcgortel 15y ago

Back when Mr. Dodd was in office, I and others referred to him as "the Senator from AIG." Though his recent comments set off a firestorm, I am more interested to see that relationship examined in full daylight.