4 ms·

It is likely that she/her office felt that they did understand the issue. Most people are not tech people and her only inputs were probably executives/lobbyist

It is likely that she/her office felt that they did understand the issue. Most people are not tech people and her only inputs were probably executives/lobbyists looking to strengthen copyright. I'm all for lobbying to make sure more congresspeople know what the issues are but writing off candidates because of one issue is really silly.

jredwards 14y ago
When a legislator sponsors legislation she doesn't understand, there's a failure somewhere. Regardless of where that failure comes from, I feel comfortable saying that legislator has made a fairly grievous error. I didn't mean to imply that I'm entirely a single-issue voter, merely that I'm upset enough by that error to avoid that politician. Perhaps I'd consider differently if I thought the outcome of this election were in doubt or that my single vote was significant enough to matter. As it is, I tend to regard voting as an exercise in personal satisfaction more than an act which carries weight.
- theevocater 14y ago
  All I was trying to point out is that she probably feels that she "understands the issue". A good lobbyist can spin a great tale of woe for how our system is protecting artists or how patents will help with innovation or what not. Lobbying from tech industry folks is still in a nascent, very naive stage. It isn't entirely fair to let it slide, but I think its silly to dismiss someone who likely hasn't had an even education on a complex and somewhat novel topic. minor edit for clarity
  - jredwards 14y ago
    That may be the case, but it's still a mistake on her part if she feels that way. It's her job to understand the issues she votes on, let alone the bills she sponsors. "I didn't seek out any source of information beyond the lobbyists dumping money into my re-election campaign" is hardly a good excuse.
    - krichman 14y ago
      I could not agree with this more. Whether they support such obviously awful legislation due to malice or ignorance is irrelevant, they are still not doing their jobs correctly.

jredwards 14y ago

When a legislator sponsors legislation she doesn't understand, there's a failure somewhere. Regardless of where that failure comes from, I feel comfortable saying that legislator has made a fairly grievous error. I didn't mean to imply that I'm entirely a single-issue voter, merely that I'm upset enough by that error to avoid that politician. Perhaps I'd consider differently if I thought the outcome of this election were in doubt or that my single vote was significant enough to matter. As it is, I tend to regard voting as an exercise in personal satisfaction more than an act which carries weight.

theevocater 14y ago
All I was trying to point out is that she probably feels that she "understands the issue". A good lobbyist can spin a great tale of woe for how our system is protecting artists or how patents will help with innovation or what not. Lobbying from tech industry folks is still in a nascent, very naive stage. It isn't entirely fair to let it slide, but I think its silly to dismiss someone who likely hasn't had an even education on a complex and somewhat novel topic. minor edit for clarity
- jredwards 14y ago
  That may be the case, but it's still a mistake on her part if she feels that way. It's her job to understand the issues she votes on, let alone the bills she sponsors. "I didn't seek out any source of information beyond the lobbyists dumping money into my re-election campaign" is hardly a good excuse.
  - krichman 14y ago
    I could not agree with this more. Whether they support such obviously awful legislation due to malice or ignorance is irrelevant, they are still not doing their jobs correctly.