6 ms·

TikTok ban bill in US faces changes after ByteDance spent $100M on lobbying

63 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

synetic 3y ago
I wish the U.S. would just formally legalize politicians taking bribes. Our path toward becoming Ferenginar won’t be complete until we do so.
- spicymaki 3y ago
  The US Supreme Court already has: https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/ https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...
  - nimih 3y ago
    FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate[1] is probably the better (or at least more egregious) example these days. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEC_v._Ted_Cruz_for_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEC_v._Ted_Cruz_for_Senate
    - routerl 3y ago
      A case opening the door to, e.g. a candidate takes out a bank loan at x%, then offers a loan to his own campaign at 2x%. The candidate is then legally allowed to solicit campaign donations after the election is already over, to cover the loan + interest. It's certainly better than any savings account or investment.
- dvh 3y ago
  Rule of acquisition #98: Every man has his price
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  They essentially have, via the Supreme Court. McDonnell v. United States, Kelly v. United States and FEC v. Ted Cruz have all confirmed that it is more-or-less impossible to actually prosecute politicians for corruption, so bribery is de facto legal even though there are technically anti-bribery statutes on the books.
- cheriot 3y ago
  Just make them wear patches like NASCAR drivers so I can keep track
  - synetic 3y ago
    That’s a good one. Indeed they should. Then we can proceed to the next step and just have only corporations be allowed to vote.
- bostik 3y ago
  It seems like you already are there. The main thing missing is a maintained and up-to-date price list.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I would argue it is already legal. Politicians being able to trade stock on private information, supreme court justices getting lavish vacations and book deals, citizens united allowing unlimited cash to be spent getting people to positions of power. Here's a dissent from citizens united: > He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." We're already there. There is no doubt in my mind our laws are bought and sold.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Or at least let us sell our votes, so the people who milk official authority for cash have to profit-share.
BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
ah, now i understand why lawmakers were so set on banning it initially
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  good business strategy its too bad all that money has to only go to campaigns instead of just their personal pockets we should legalize that just on the nature that it would be taxed, instead of going to a tax exempt 501(c)4 I think the people could get behind that, “currently our legal bribes are tax exempt, and we’re fixing that revenue loophole in the name of tax fairness”
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    Oh they get their share from what is insider trading in all but name (0). There was an effort to curb it, but obviously that failed (1). (0) https://unusualwhales.com/politics/ https://unusualwhales.com/politics/ (1) https://campaignlegal.org/update/stock-act-failed-effort-stop-insider-trading-congress https://campaignlegal.org/update/stock-act-failed-effort-sto...
hbn 3y ago
Ah, that's nothing a little lobbying can't fix!
cardosof 3y ago
Creating a problem and selling the solution, a classical politician's move.
Leary 3y ago
Proponents of the Restrict Act, such as Mark Warner, would say it was because of lobbying. However, this overlooks the fact that there was bipartisan criticisms of the bill from the likes of AOC, Rand Paul, and Tucker Carlson before the lobbying. The scope of the bill was overly broad since it gave the Commerce Department too much authority to ban any app with foreign ties.
- fortuna86 3y ago
  [dead]
- zer8k 3y ago
  It is somewhat unusual given that chevron deference is regularly abused by the EPA and ATF. We also didn't seem to mind allowing the CDC to temporarily be able to declare moratoriums. This isn't a commentary on the EPA, ATF, or CDC. It's just funny that this one case was simply a bridge too far for politicians and pundits that are more than happy to permit non-legislative organizations to create legislation at will.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Those things require action in hours or days not months. An app ban doesn't need to happen on that kind of timescale. If it is that important legislation can be passed on the several months timescale that takes. Our Constitution doesn't really support anything like this under the legislative so the executive is where it all lives. In theory a different government layout could allow a different setup but that isn't what we have. You get "decided by the 535 membera of Congress in two votes and Presidential confirmation" or you get an executive branch being deferred power.
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
Title correction "... after ByteDance spent $100 Million on bribery" In America, lobbying is the legal way to pay off politicians. You see, politics is for sale, and it's usually quite cheap. ByteDance overpaid.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  You mean the Chinese government. There is no meaningful separation between Chinese corporations and the Chinese government.
zer8k 3y ago
Yet again proving Citizens United was likely the worst piece of legislation written since the PATRIOT act and 1994 crime bill.
- wingspar 3y ago
  How does the Citizens United Supreme Court decision relate to lobbying? As I recall, it related to non-candidate related/controlled campaign ads/expenditures. Lobbying for/against laws long preceded Citizens United.
  - zer8k 3y ago
    It enabled corporations and other entities to freely dump almost unlimited money into politics. The capital a mega-corporation like Google, or ByteDance, trounces what citizens can do by an order of magnitude. These entities were always allowed to donate, but in a very limited way. That limitation was ruled unconstitutional. The decision created a political class openly controlled by corporations. The lobbying you and I could do (or even 1,000,000 of us) will never amount to what ByteDance could do consistently over time.
    - boeingUH60 3y ago
      Yeah, but lobbying was always allowed before Citizens United.
  - bostik 3y ago
    Because it effectively uncapped the amount of money corporations can pour into lobbying. Looking from the outside, I'd say that CU codified a quintessentially American approach to governance: one dollar, one vote.
- nickff 3y ago
  >" Yet again proving Citizens United was likely the worst piece of legislation written since the PATRIOT act and 1994 crime bill. " What do you mean? Where is this coming from? CU wasn't mentioned in the article. Also, CU wasn't "legislation", it's a supreme court ruling (which is 'law').
dehrmann 3y ago
It's really, really dangerous that this is seriously being considered. Yes, it's Chinese-controlled. Yes, China ~bans US social media in China. But this is a giant, unchecked lever for the government to suppress free speech. And it's being delegated to the executive branch. All it takes is a president with radical views and an ineffective congress and you have a much more powerful censorship apparatus.
- ryanwaggoner 3y ago
  Is this anything more than a slippery slope argument? Should the government have no power to regulate media entities owned by hostile foreign governments? Should Congress be allowed to take actions to stop Russia from spreading misinformation designed to destabilize the US?
  - Leary 3y ago
    Congress can write whatever law they want, as long as it doesn't violate the First Amendment.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      That's not true; all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government belong to the states, and congress doesn't have the right to override that.
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    Zero power is a good start
  - halJordan 3y ago
    Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not a rhetorical fallacy. Defeating the Nazis is nothing more than a slippery slope. We have to stop the Russians in Ukraine or else they'll get greedier and more belligerent is just a slippery slope. Your argument is a slippery slope you decided to slide down. You're saying, if we do this one thing we'll end up with no power to regulate.
  - 3y ago
ryanwaggoner 3y ago
I’m open to the idea that we should ban TikTok, but I’d like to see a source that they spent $100mm on lobbying, beyond an off-hand comment by a senator: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/03/31/tiktok-bytedance-spent-millions-on-lobbying-congress.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/03/31/tiktok-bytedance-spent-m...
karaterobot 3y ago
Unfortunately, this article doesn't talk about what the proposed amendments to the bill actually are. This Reuters article is incomplete, but it's pretty much the only article on the topic. Every other site on Google News has just reused it. So, I have no idea what actually happened (and I wonder if anyone else in this thread knows more).
BitwiseFool 3y ago
How exactly does $100 Million dollars get spent on lobbying? The article doesn't say, and I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not this sum is accurate, and where the money actually went.
- ihattendorf 3y ago
  That's a lot of steak dinners.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 3y ago
Here [1] is the 'TikTok bill.' It's actually called the RESTRICT act and does not mention TikTok once. It's core driver is an extremely broad coming down essentially to: "enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person." A "covered transaction" includes anything any "foreign adversary" might have any form of "interest" in, as well as: "The term covered transaction [also] includes any other transaction, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act". The phrasing "designed OR intended" emphasizes that something that CAN be used to circumvent this bill is no different than something that is INTENDED to circumvent the bill. That single line opens up a way for the government to conceivably ban VPNs, Tor, and perhaps even encryption itself. And penalties for violation include million dollar fines and 20 years in prison. And what would be the most predictable mitigation measure to dynamically and actively respond to any sort of new "threat", on a national and digital level? I realize it sounds hyperbolic, but in my opinion this bill's intent is to establish the foundation upon which the 'Great Firewall of America' can be built. It even includes protections against people trying to bypass it. [1] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
spywaregorilla 3y ago
It's worth looking at the 2024 Taiwan election as an example of what's going on. China has a vested interest in influencing the election. And you can see it trying to control the truth narrative on TikTok.
trilbyglens 3y ago
[flagged]

63 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

I wish the U.S. would just formally legalize politicians taking bribes. Our path toward becoming Ferenginar won’t be complete until we do so.

spicymaki 3y ago
The US Supreme Court already has: https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/ https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...
- nimih 3y ago
  FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate[1] is probably the better (or at least more egregious) example these days. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEC_v._Ted_Cruz_for_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEC_v._Ted_Cruz_for_Senate
  - routerl 3y ago
    A case opening the door to, e.g. a candidate takes out a bank loan at x%, then offers a loan to his own campaign at 2x%. The candidate is then legally allowed to solicit campaign donations after the election is already over, to cover the loan + interest. It's certainly better than any savings account or investment.
dvh 3y ago
Rule of acquisition #98: Every man has his price
Analemma_ 3y ago
They essentially have, via the Supreme Court. McDonnell v. United States, Kelly v. United States and FEC v. Ted Cruz have all confirmed that it is more-or-less impossible to actually prosecute politicians for corruption, so bribery is de facto legal even though there are technically anti-bribery statutes on the books.
cheriot 3y ago
Just make them wear patches like NASCAR drivers so I can keep track
- synetic 3y ago
  That’s a good one. Indeed they should. Then we can proceed to the next step and just have only corporations be allowed to vote.
bostik 3y ago
It seems like you already are there. The main thing missing is a maintained and up-to-date price list.
hayst4ck 3y ago
I would argue it is already legal. Politicians being able to trade stock on private information, supreme court justices getting lavish vacations and book deals, citizens united allowing unlimited cash to be spent getting people to positions of power. Here's a dissent from citizens united: > He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." We're already there. There is no doubt in my mind our laws are bought and sold.
pessimizer 3y ago
Or at least let us sell our votes, so the people who milk official authority for cash have to profit-share.

BaculumMeumEst 3y ago

ah, now i understand why lawmakers were so set on banning it initially

yieldcrv 3y ago
good business strategy its too bad all that money has to only go to campaigns instead of just their personal pockets we should legalize that just on the nature that it would be taxed, instead of going to a tax exempt 501(c)4 I think the people could get behind that, “currently our legal bribes are tax exempt, and we’re fixing that revenue loophole in the name of tax fairness”
- passwordoops 3y ago
  Oh they get their share from what is insider trading in all but name (0). There was an effort to curb it, but obviously that failed (1). (0) https://unusualwhales.com/politics/ https://unusualwhales.com/politics/ (1) https://campaignlegal.org/update/stock-act-failed-effort-stop-insider-trading-congress https://campaignlegal.org/update/stock-act-failed-effort-sto...

hbn 3y ago

Ah, that's nothing a little lobbying can't fix!

cardosof 3y ago

Creating a problem and selling the solution, a classical politician's move.

Leary 3y ago

Proponents of the Restrict Act, such as Mark Warner, would say it was because of lobbying. However, this overlooks the fact that there was bipartisan criticisms of the bill from the likes of AOC, Rand Paul, and Tucker Carlson before the lobbying. The scope of the bill was overly broad since it gave the Commerce Department too much authority to ban any app with foreign ties.

fortuna86 3y ago
[dead]
zer8k 3y ago
It is somewhat unusual given that chevron deference is regularly abused by the EPA and ATF. We also didn't seem to mind allowing the CDC to temporarily be able to declare moratoriums. This isn't a commentary on the EPA, ATF, or CDC. It's just funny that this one case was simply a bridge too far for politicians and pundits that are more than happy to permit non-legislative organizations to create legislation at will.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Those things require action in hours or days not months. An app ban doesn't need to happen on that kind of timescale. If it is that important legislation can be passed on the several months timescale that takes. Our Constitution doesn't really support anything like this under the legislative so the executive is where it all lives. In theory a different government layout could allow a different setup but that isn't what we have. You get "decided by the 535 membera of Congress in two votes and Presidential confirmation" or you get an executive branch being deferred power.

say_it_as_it_is 3y ago

Title correction "... after ByteDance spent $100 Million on bribery" In America, lobbying is the legal way to pay off politicians. You see, politics is for sale, and it's usually quite cheap. ByteDance overpaid.

Workaccount2 3y ago
You mean the Chinese government. There is no meaningful separation between Chinese corporations and the Chinese government.

zer8k 3y ago

Yet again proving Citizens United was likely the worst piece of legislation written since the PATRIOT act and 1994 crime bill.

wingspar 3y ago
How does the Citizens United Supreme Court decision relate to lobbying? As I recall, it related to non-candidate related/controlled campaign ads/expenditures. Lobbying for/against laws long preceded Citizens United.
- zer8k 3y ago
  It enabled corporations and other entities to freely dump almost unlimited money into politics. The capital a mega-corporation like Google, or ByteDance, trounces what citizens can do by an order of magnitude. These entities were always allowed to donate, but in a very limited way. That limitation was ruled unconstitutional. The decision created a political class openly controlled by corporations. The lobbying you and I could do (or even 1,000,000 of us) will never amount to what ByteDance could do consistently over time.
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    Yeah, but lobbying was always allowed before Citizens United.
- bostik 3y ago
  Because it effectively uncapped the amount of money corporations can pour into lobbying. Looking from the outside, I'd say that CU codified a quintessentially American approach to governance: one dollar, one vote.
nickff 3y ago
>" Yet again proving Citizens United was likely the worst piece of legislation written since the PATRIOT act and 1994 crime bill. " What do you mean? Where is this coming from? CU wasn't mentioned in the article. Also, CU wasn't "legislation", it's a supreme court ruling (which is 'law').

dehrmann 3y ago

It's really, really dangerous that this is seriously being considered. Yes, it's Chinese-controlled. Yes, China ~bans US social media in China. But this is a giant, unchecked lever for the government to suppress free speech. And it's being delegated to the executive branch. All it takes is a president with radical views and an ineffective congress and you have a much more powerful censorship apparatus.

ryanwaggoner 3y ago
Is this anything more than a slippery slope argument? Should the government have no power to regulate media entities owned by hostile foreign governments? Should Congress be allowed to take actions to stop Russia from spreading misinformation designed to destabilize the US?
- Leary 3y ago
  Congress can write whatever law they want, as long as it doesn't violate the First Amendment.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    That's not true; all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government belong to the states, and congress doesn't have the right to override that.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  Zero power is a good start
- halJordan 3y ago
  Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not a rhetorical fallacy. Defeating the Nazis is nothing more than a slippery slope. We have to stop the Russians in Ukraine or else they'll get greedier and more belligerent is just a slippery slope. Your argument is a slippery slope you decided to slide down. You're saying, if we do this one thing we'll end up with no power to regulate.
- 3y ago

ryanwaggoner 3y ago

I’m open to the idea that we should ban TikTok, but I’d like to see a source that they spent $100mm on lobbying, beyond an off-hand comment by a senator: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/03/31/tiktok-bytedance-spent-millions-on-lobbying-congress.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/03/31/tiktok-bytedance-spent-m...

karaterobot 3y ago

Unfortunately, this article doesn't talk about what the proposed amendments to the bill actually are. This Reuters article is incomplete, but it's pretty much the only article on the topic. Every other site on Google News has just reused it. So, I have no idea what actually happened (and I wonder if anyone else in this thread knows more).

BitwiseFool 3y ago

How exactly does $100 Million dollars get spent on lobbying? The article doesn't say, and I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not this sum is accurate, and where the money actually went.

ihattendorf 3y ago
That's a lot of steak dinners.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 3y ago

Here [1] is the 'TikTok bill.' It's actually called the RESTRICT act and does not mention TikTok once. It's core driver is an extremely broad coming down essentially to: "enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person." A "covered transaction" includes anything any "foreign adversary" might have any form of "interest" in, as well as: "The term covered transaction [also] includes any other transaction, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act". The phrasing "designed OR intended" emphasizes that something that CAN be used to circumvent this bill is no different than something that is INTENDED to circumvent the bill. That single line opens up a way for the government to conceivably ban VPNs, Tor, and perhaps even encryption itself. And penalties for violation include million dollar fines and 20 years in prison. And what would be the most predictable mitigation measure to dynamically and actively respond to any sort of new "threat", on a national and digital level? I realize it sounds hyperbolic, but in my opinion this bill's intent is to establish the foundation upon which the 'Great Firewall of America' can be built. It even includes protections against people trying to bypass it. [1] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...

spywaregorilla 3y ago

It's worth looking at the 2024 Taiwan election as an example of what's going on. China has a vested interest in influencing the election. And you can see it trying to control the truth narrative on TikTok.

trilbyglens 3y ago

[flagged]