
MPAA Publicly Threatens to Stop Writing Checks - nextparadigms
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
======
redthrowaway
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.

~~~
thotpoizn
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>

~~~
younata
Except that, in the US, bribing congress(wo)men is legal.

------
ivankirigin
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?

~~~
pacemkr
Nicely summarized and a valid question.

From what I gather, direct campaign contributions and the way corporations are
funneling money into elections are not connected. Corporations are NOT making
direct contributions to campaigns. They are making indirect and anonymous
contributions to superpacs.

We don't need to "make contributions illegal." Nor do we _need_ publicly
financed campaigns. That would be very hard to get.

We can start by having superpacs disclose their donors. Or by setting a limit
on individual, and by extension corporate, contribution to said superpacs.

The loophole is that you can't make a large contribution directly to a
campaign, yet you can make a contribution of any size, anonymously, indirectly
to the corresponding superpac. This is why money = voice.

In answer to your question: "Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political
commercial and pay for its broadcast?" They should be allowed to make a
political statement by contributing to a superpac that runs the commercial,
but the contribution should not be unlimited nor anonymous. In effect, they'll
need other companies in the pool to get enough money for that commercial.
_Now_ we can say corporations are people, problem solved.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I think you are making the implicit assumption that some people should not
have a greater voice than others. Is that correct?

If so, do you favor removing Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck's bully pulpit? If
not, why not?

~~~
pacemkr
The implicit assumption is that you shouldn't have the legislator's ear
because you have a fat check in hand. Chance are that the check will win over
a petition.

If we are to have freedom of speech, then Beck should be able to have his
show. That's the easy part.

Beck converts money into public opinion. Arguably, SuperPACs do the same.
Hence the Citizens United decision. In practice, SuperPAC donors just tell the
legislator why the check was written, or in which case it will be. Nothing
wrong with the premise (free speech), plenty wrong with the outcome (money =
voice, or rather money = ear?)

Now that I ran this circle, I can see how publicly financed campaigns might be
the only answer. Thank you for asking a difficult question to answer. I'll
definitely think about this more.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_In practice, SuperPAC donors just tell the legislator why the check was
written, or in which case it will be._

If it were not a check, but merely using influence, would things be better?
I.e., if Krugman were to offer to endorse Romney only on the condition that
Romney expands Obama/Romneycare, would that be acceptable?

Or how about if some rich person stated he would buy a newspaper and use the
newspaper to push Romney?

------
Eeko
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>

~~~
Eeko
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>

------
Bud
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.

~~~
freejack
Or possibly, 30 years in the senate may be where he fine-tuned his arrogance.

------
abraxasz
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

~~~
ambler0
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.

~~~
anamax
> In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded
> elections.

And what are you going to do about newspapers that promote candidates?

How about movies that promote a candidate or party?

Can I make a sign and put it in my front yard with my money? How about if my
neighbor and I decide to put up a bigger sign across the border between our
lawns?

Yes, I know, to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. However,
breaking eggs doesn't mean that there's going to be an omelet.

~~~
Peaker
How about disallowing political ads on TV and newspapers for a few months
before election, except for publicly funded ones in secured slots for that
purpose?

~~~
skymt
And what about political TV programming and editorials? Should those be
censored as well?

~~~
Peaker
In Israel, where I live, some forms of political speech in political TV
programming and editorials is disallowed in the pre-election time period.

~~~
learc83
That would require a constitutional amendment:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press..."

------
cjoh
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.

~~~
yellowbkpk
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
Now change "does something I really don't like" to "stops executing policies I
dictate" and you're getting somewhere..

------
Nrsolis
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
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
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
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.

------
mmaunder
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?

~~~
pi18n
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
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
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.

------
CharlieA
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?

~~~
ludflu
because to prosecute, you would need to prove a quid pro quo in a particular
instance.

------
SeanDav
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
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.

------
rbanffy
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-
hollywo...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-
lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2012-money-over-anti/)

~~~
atakan_gurkan
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
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.

------
Shenglong
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
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/>

~~~
maurits
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.

------
RealGeek
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
The MPAA is not the intended audience. We know they don't care, they only care
about their wallets.

------
MrJagil
Does anyone have a link to the actual video?

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

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

~~~
Arubis
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?

~~~
Drbble
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.

------
Aloisius
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/>.

There are some local rootstriker groups starting up in SF and what not trying
to come up with a sane solution.

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

------
mathattack
And this is the same Dodd who supposedly reformed WallSteet

------
middayc
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
No, it's called "We used to think this was preposterous but the Supreme Court
told us it's not."

------
twelvechairs
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
I don't think it's going to help public perception of the MPAA, though...

------
yuhong
I hope Google finally starts writing bigger checks in response.

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

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

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

------
funkah
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.

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

------
gavanwoolery
"Corrupt Politician" is an oxymoron.

~~~
JonnieCache
You mean a tautology.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Argh - I am an idiot - I meant to say the opposite. You are right, tautology
what I was looking for.

