

White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd - chunky1994
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/0218206/white-house-refuses-to-comment-on-petition-to-investigate-chris-dodd

======
sequoia
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).

~~~
Osiris
_I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket_

I can think of a way to get money out of congress: remove elections.

Think of it: serving in Congress could be like Jury Duty. Everyone's in the
pool and every election cycle random people are selected from the pool and
asked to serve.

With no elections, there are no campaigns to donate to. It would be illegal
for any Congressperson to accept any gifts or money from anyone other than
their paycheck from the government and a ban on working for, directly or
indirectly, with any person or corporation that was affected by any bills in
which the Congressperson participated or voted.

Would there still be corruption and political favors? Absolutely. People would
still have a tendency to push for laws that would benefit either themselves,
family, or friends or the industry in which they worked.

The lack of up-front monetary gain would likely have a significant impact but
corruption is a problem of honesty and integrity which human nature tends to
lack and tacks personal disciple to evolve.

Until mankind becomes entirely focused on building social welfare (what's good
for all) instead of personal welfare (what's good for me), these problems will
always be here.

~~~
philwelch
> Until mankind becomes entirely focused on building social welfare (what's
> good for all) instead of personal welfare (what's good for me), these
> problems will always be here.

Until we start building social and political systems for humanity as it is
rather than humanity as we might idealistically want it to be, we're going to
have these problems -- not that I'm convinced that self-interest is really
something we want to eradicate from human psychology. Markets already have
features which effectively translate self-interest into the greater good, and
so does democracy in the sense that if everyone voted selfishly, majority rule
would benefit the majority. So let's focus on where markets and democracy
aren't working the way we'd want them to and stop wringing our hands about how
evil and selfish the human nature is.

~~~
yequalsx
If everyone voted selfishly then majority rule would benefit the majority? I
don't think so. This definitely doesn't scale in the way you seem to think it
does.

An extreme example. Suppose a country consists of three tribes. Each tribe
hates the other. Tribe A hates tribe B less than C. A & B vote to combine
their interests in liquidating C. After C is gone the majority tribe then
votes to kill off the smaller remaining tribe.

Given the grand scale of environmental destruction going on in the world I
don't think its fair to say that markets (nominally free ones) have done such
a good job of translating self-interest into the greater good.

What's good for each of us does not necessarily translate into what is good.

~~~
philwelch
Those are exactly the kind of problems I meant when I said "let's focus on
where markets and democracy aren't working the way we'd want them to". You're
grossly misrepresenting what I said: I didn't say markets and democracy
(especially the way they're currently implemented!) perfectly translate
individual self-interest into the greater good; I said they have _features_
which do.

~~~
yequalsx
I did read that last sentence of yours and tried to think about your overall
message. The part where you wrote about markets effectively translating
selfish behavior into the greater good seemed to indicate that you thought the
parts where markets aren't working are a side issue.

I don't think everyone pursuing their own self interest is at all a good thing
when done on a global scale. I think the features of markets lead people like
myself into knowingly buying products made by oppressed labor. It leads me to
buy gas from companies that pollute on a grand scale in Nigeria and Ecuador. I
think the self-interest aspect of markets is far more destructive than the
positives are positive. I gathered from what you wrote that you think the
opposite. Hence I tried to briefly explain why all of pursuing our self-
interest is a bad thing, overall.

~~~
philwelch
> I don't think everyone pursuing their own self interest is at all a good
> thing when done on a global scale.

I think that's irrelevant. Humans have whatever natural inclinations they
have. Propose solutions that work with them or shut up; misanthropically
blaming human nature isn't constructive in the slightest.

Frankly, this is the same kind of unenlightened thinking that e.g. the
Catholic Church applies to questions of public health. The Church thinks that
the solution to AIDS is for people not to fuck; enlightened thinking realizes
that people do fuck and proposes a system of preventative health care,
including condoms, that addresses that reality. It's funny to see the selfsame
leftists who condemn the Catholic Church for trying to keep condoms out of
Africa apply the same basic fallacy to economics. If we just stop people from
being self-interested....

~~~
yequalsx
Your tone is inappropriate. There is no need for me to shut up.

Step 1 of fixing a problem is to understand the nature of the problem. If one
thinks that selfishness is a good thing that leads to positive outcomes then
the same destructive path we are on will continue. Recognition that everyone
acting in their self-interest does not collectively yield good results would
be a giant step forward into solving some of the pressing problems our species
has.

~~~
philwelch
You're still not understanding my point; in fact, you've got it totally
backwards. If people's actual behavior doesn't produce good results in the
current political and economic system, change the system until it does. Don't
try and change human nature, that's just ridiculous. If people are going to be
self-interested, treat that as a requirement and build a system that gets the
most common good out of that. You'll get more that way than by wringing your
hands about individual sinfulness.

------
knowtheory
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
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
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.

------
jasonkolb
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
If Dodd was investigated for this, the MPAA bribery faucet would be turned
off.

------
anamax
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?

~~~
Duff
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
> 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.

------
CWuestefeld
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
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"

------
maerek
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
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
> 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
> 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...](https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-need-
aviation-user-fees)

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/...](http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/05-18.pdf)
[2] <http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/vfrimc.html> [3]
[http://www.shashek.com/Flight_Logs/Docs/iPilot_Articles/Shou...](http://www.shashek.com/Flight_Logs/Docs/iPilot_Articles/Should_You_Add_On_Instrument_Rating.shtml)

------
wcgortel
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.

------
lhnz
> 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
As for as intellectual discourse goes, politics seems to be one standard
deviation above celebrity gossip.

------
mjwalshe
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.

