6 ms·

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 contribution

by 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.
  - snowwrestler 15y ago
    I would respectfully ask: what problem? The tech community got exactly the outcome it wanted, didn't it?
Duff 15y ago
Chris Dodd is a crooked politician, and legislators of ilk are an malevolent force that is damaging american democracy. After publicly proclaiming that he would not be working as a lobbyist, he became the MPAA's lobbyist for $1.5M. As you can see from the history of SOPA/PIPA, his influence peddling was nearly successful in ramming this legislation through with little or no substantive debate. Before that, he was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. While Chairman, he refinanced his homes in Washington, DC and Connecticut with below market rates reserved for "friends" of the Countrywide Mortgage CEO. Note that Countrywide was one of the biggest issuers of fraudulent sub-prime mortgages. He asserted that he had no idea that he was receiving special treatment. Before that, he bought a vacation house in Ireland with a Bear Sterns executive who was convicted of insider trading. He used his influence with President Clinton to help obtain a pardon for his partner. He subsequently purchased his partner's share at a significant discount. The fact that behavior like this typifies career politicians does not make the behavior ok. This guy should retire and be thankful that he doesn't live in an era where his actions would have landed him in prison.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Chris Dodd is a crooked politician, and legislators of ilk are an malevolent force that is damaging american democracy. > After publicly proclaiming that he would not be working as a lobbyist, he became the MPAA's lobbyist for $1.5M. As you can see from the history of SOPA/PIPA, his influence peddling was nearly successful in ramming this legislation through with little or no substantive debate. Yes, but we're discussing whether it's wrong for the MPAA to announce that they're not donating any more money because SOPA wasn't passed. The fact that Dodd was a corrupt politician is irrelevant to that discussion. BTW - Dodd is arguably violating the law by being a lobbyist within two years of leaving office. But, that's off-topic.
nyellin 15y ago
I agree with you, despite creating Politician Market to protest the issue. The real question is how we can increase public representation in politics and ensure that politicians are knowledgable about areas they propose legislation in. You can't effectively remove corporations from politics without lessening the influence of individuals. Focus on what you can change instead.
joshuahedlund 15y ago
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? Cause and effect. Fundraising based on a promise goes like this: Candidate says they support this -> I want them to do this -> I give them money so they can get elected and do this. (The plan causes the money.) MPAA lobbying goes like this. Candidate is not already promising to do this -> I want them to do this -> I give them lots of money so that they will do this. (The money causes the plan.)
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  In this case Congress killed the bills first, then Dodd said his members were unhappy and might not give any money to politicians who jumped off the SOPA ship. That seems more like your first chain than your second.

by anamax 15y ago

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.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  I would respectfully ask: what problem? The tech community got exactly the outcome it wanted, didn't it?

Duff 15y ago

Chris Dodd is a crooked politician, and legislators of ilk are an malevolent force that is damaging american democracy. After publicly proclaiming that he would not be working as a lobbyist, he became the MPAA's lobbyist for $1.5M. As you can see from the history of SOPA/PIPA, his influence peddling was nearly successful in ramming this legislation through with little or no substantive debate. Before that, he was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. While Chairman, he refinanced his homes in Washington, DC and Connecticut with below market rates reserved for "friends" of the Countrywide Mortgage CEO. Note that Countrywide was one of the biggest issuers of fraudulent sub-prime mortgages. He asserted that he had no idea that he was receiving special treatment. Before that, he bought a vacation house in Ireland with a Bear Sterns executive who was convicted of insider trading. He used his influence with President Clinton to help obtain a pardon for his partner. He subsequently purchased his partner's share at a significant discount. The fact that behavior like this typifies career politicians does not make the behavior ok. This guy should retire and be thankful that he doesn't live in an era where his actions would have landed him in prison.

anamax 15y ago
> Chris Dodd is a crooked politician, and legislators of ilk are an malevolent force that is damaging american democracy. > After publicly proclaiming that he would not be working as a lobbyist, he became the MPAA's lobbyist for $1.5M. As you can see from the history of SOPA/PIPA, his influence peddling was nearly successful in ramming this legislation through with little or no substantive debate. Yes, but we're discussing whether it's wrong for the MPAA to announce that they're not donating any more money because SOPA wasn't passed. The fact that Dodd was a corrupt politician is irrelevant to that discussion. BTW - Dodd is arguably violating the law by being a lobbyist within two years of leaving office. But, that's off-topic.

nyellin 15y ago

I agree with you, despite creating Politician Market to protest the issue. The real question is how we can increase public representation in politics and ensure that politicians are knowledgable about areas they propose legislation in. You can't effectively remove corporations from politics without lessening the influence of individuals. Focus on what you can change instead.

joshuahedlund 15y ago

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? Cause and effect. Fundraising based on a promise goes like this: Candidate says they support this -> I want them to do this -> I give them money so they can get elected and do this. (The plan causes the money.) MPAA lobbying goes like this. Candidate is not already promising to do this -> I want them to do this -> I give them lots of money so that they will do this. (The money causes the plan.)

snowwrestler 15y ago
In this case Congress killed the bills first, then Dodd said his members were unhappy and might not give any money to politicians who jumped off the SOPA ship. That seems more like your first chain than your second.