
PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed - llambda
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars
======
nostromo
The most interesting part of this article is that PIPA is now effectively a
Democratic (capital D) bill with almost twice the number of co-sponsors, in
part due to the Heritage Foundation's opposition.

I wish the Democrats would give similar weight to the ACLU or similar
organizations. Maybe this is why people say organizing Democrats is like
herding cats.

~~~
philwelch
The Communications Decency Act, DMCA, and Clipper Chip were all Democratic
initiatives, too.

~~~
_delirium
The CDA vote:

    
    
      Democrats: 30-16 in favor
      Republicans: 51-2 in favor (1 not voting)
    

Neither party looks good in that vote, but one party looks like it lacked even
a significant principled minority...

The DMCA was a Republican initiative legislatively, but passed on an unopposed
voice vote and was of course signed by Clinton. Cosponsored by 7 Republicans
and 3 Democrats; drafted by the office of Howard Coble (R-NC), who also pushed
it through the committee he chaired.

If you want to assign blame by overall party control, both laws, along with
the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, were passed by a split government,
with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, and Democrats
controlling the Presidency. So I guess they're "bipartisan achievements", for
which we can thank the 1996-1998 "dream team" of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich,
and Trent Lott, who set an inspiring example in pushing through so much major
legislation rather than letting themselves be mired in partisan gridlock.

------
shaggyfrog
> Another co-sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) echoed that sentiment. He blamed
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for "pushing forward w/ a flawed
> bill that still needs much work."

What a load of dreck. You're a co-sponsor, there, Roy, not some poor, helpless
stooge. Sure, it's _all_ the _other_ guy's fault. Suddenly, it's "flawed". For
some reason. Before, it was a perfectly fine bill to censor the Internet. Did
I get that right?

~~~
joshuahedlund
Yes it's lame, but if that's what it takes for Republicans to back off, then I
guess I'll live with it. Now we just have to wait for the Democrats to realize
that the public hates the bill and they can't let the GOP score a big PR win -
in spite of the 90% of entertainment industry lobbying that goes to Democrats.

~~~
j_baker
_in spite of the 90% of entertainment industry lobbying that goes to
Democrats._

I would like to verify this. Got a source?

~~~
joshuahedlund
Yes I do: <http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=C2400>

------
artursapek
_About 35 Senators have not committed to a position, perhaps reluctant to do
so for fear of angering either deep-pocketed Hollywood campaign contributors
or their constituents back home._

To me this illustrates the problem with lobbying.

~~~
famousactress
Ironically, I read your comment and though I agree completely I tried to
consider the opposite argument.. that lobbying is effectively a natural
democratic condition since it's done with money that comes from consumers....
BUYING FUCKING MOVIES AND MUSIC.

[Edit: presumably downvotes are for cursing. Sorry, I adore naughty words...
To be clear though, the point I'm making is that I'm infuriated at the fact
that money I've spent doing exactly what the MPAA/RIAA wants me to (pay for
legal content) is being used to limit my freedom. For some reason it's a
realization I've only just arrived at, and it certainly makes me want to think
twice before feeding the beast anymore. Effectively, this legislation is the
best argument for stealing content that I've come across.]

~~~
guelo
The influence of money is not naturally democratic. If there were a ban on
corporate money in politics this would not be occurring.

~~~
artursapek
I often don't understand why there isn't

~~~
nokcha
There isn't a ban on independent expenditures by corporations because such a
ban would unconstitutionally abridge of the right of freedom of speech and of
the press. It would abridge the rights of (1) the individuals who jointly own
the corporation and (2) the individuals who may wish to hear the speech whose
dissemination is being restricted.

Corporations don't have a constitutional right to even exist, but provided
that they do exist, Congress cannot enact a content-discriminatory restriction
on speech funded by corporations.

~~~
trevelyan
The people you're arguing against are taking a utilitarian view of the
problem. You're arguing from unexamined principles. Provided that companies
exist as legal persons, shouldn't they be allowed to vote too? What about
incarceration in the event of wrongdoing (manslaughter)? Isn't the treatment
of corporations as arbitrary in these cases as in the one you refuse to make?

Clamping down on corporate political speech would hardly restrict the speech
rights of individuals. It would simply force organizations wishing to fund
political activities into funneling the money through individuals with no
legal recourse if the funds ended up used for something else. And it would
increase the cost of the activity as compared to the present since individual
recipients would be taxed for the additional income at progressive rates
depending on the amount spent.

~~~
nokcha
>Provided that companies exist as legal persons

Nothing I've said relies on the legal fiction of corporate personhood. I was
careful to speak only of the rights of natural persons.

>Clamping down on corporate political speech would hardly restrict the speech
rights of individuals.

I respectfully disagree. If corporate political speech were unprotected, then
Congress could have outlawed the SOPA protests by reddit, Google, and other
corporations. Do you not feel that this would constitute an abridgement of the
rights of the people behind reddit and Google to help inform the public about
the nature of these bills?

If a group of individuals can join together and form a corporation to publish
a book on almost any subject, but are specially prohibited from publishing a
book endorsing or opposing a candidate or bill, then it seems to me that such
a prohibition would clearly be an unlawful violation of the First Amendment,
because it discriminates against certain speech based on the content of that
speech.

~~~
trevelyan
If this is a question of principle you've surely already lost; there are
plenty of non-controversial areas in which organizations are afforded greater
or lesser rights than individuals based on their functional role in society:
non-profits and charities are expressly forbidden from political campaigning,
while the New York Times can legally publish Wikileaks in a way that Julian
Assange apparently cannot.

I'm sure a sensible law can find a way to reduce soft-money flows without
wiping out forums and newspapers. Nor is anyone saying that organizations
cannot express political viewpoints. The question is about the corrupting
influence of soft-money flows and if the situation is too complex to allow for
that, it is surely too complex for limited liability corporations to exist in
the first place.

------
saryant
I called Sen. Cornyn's San Antonio office earlier today to voice my support
for the Senator's opposition.

I'm the first to admit that he may or may not _actually_ be in opposition, but
calling and telling his office that I'm glad he's publicly stated such is
still important.

Please, do the same if your senator has made a similar statement.

~~~
brandall10
I have to imagine in the tangled web of politics there may have been many
initially 'for' it who really weren't for it in spirit - their position was
tantamount to monetary contributions and towing the line.

In the end what truly matters is that that they represent the wishes of their
constituents. I find this protest and its results a glorious thing. But we're
only getting started. Unfortunately no position changes for CA (at this moment
:)).

------
yumraj
I'm a hard core social liberal, but given all this I'm forced to really think
if Democrats, particularly Boxer and Feinstein deserve my vote [read: they
don't].

I wish there were more fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans.

~~~
olifante
Democrats have been the ones balancing the budget in the last decades.
Republicans are fiscal conservatives in name only:
[http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/why-the-
gop-...](http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/why-the-gop-are-not-
fiscal-conservatives.html)

~~~
JuiceMachine
This is why the tea party was born. Republicans that didn't truly believe in
limited government needed to be removed.

------
mdxch
Here are the senators seeking re-election this year. Asterisks indicate those
who are newly opposed to PIPA.

    
    
      Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
      Tom Carper (D-DE)
      Bill Nelson (D-FL)
      Ben Cardin (D-MD) *
      Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
      Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
      Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
      Jon Tester (D-MT)
      Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
      Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
      Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
      Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
      Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
      Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
      Joe Manchin (D-WV)
      Richard Lugar (R-IN)
      Olympia Snowe (R-ME) *
      Scott Brown (R-MA) *
      Roger Wicker (R-MS)
      Dean Heller (R-NV)
      Bob Corker (R-TN)
      Orrin Hatch (R-UT) *
      John Barrasso (R-WY)
      Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

~~~
grout
I hope Feinstein gets primaried. Her support for PIPA is sick.

~~~
usaar333
Boxer supports PIPA as well.

Another example of how things could be better if Northern and Southern
California split into two states.

------
nl
Embarrassing that more Democrats haven't come out in opposition, especially
given the amount of money they traditionally raise from Silicon Valley.

~~~
learc83
They also raise a disproportionate amount of funding from the entertainment
industry.

------
rgrieselhuber
Do they have to pay the lobbyists back? (serious question)

~~~
potatolicious
Of course not - that would be evidence of bribery. These campaign
contributions are "gifts" with "no strings attached" - but good luck getting
the money next time!

~~~
bruce511
Of course they will gt it next time. I think perhaps you misunderstand how
contributions work.

Special interest groups contribute to everyone. They don't pick and choose.
Half the people they contribute money to don't even get elected.

At the end of the day there may be questions of scale, but corporations are
perhaps the most bipartisan of entities. They understand that the party doesnt
matter as much as the person. Regardless of the election outcome they've bet
on the winner.

They also understand the tension a politician is under. So this bill gets
killed - big whoopee. There are a dozen more like it waiting to be written.
Time will tell if the populace have the staying power - corporations certainly
do, and politicians have nothing but.

This is a bill that strikes at the best disseminator of information known to
man. The only reason it has got so much attention because those that control
the Internet (Wikipedia et al.) firstly care enough about this bill, and
secondly have a way to communicate with lots of others.

This is an improvement over just big media, but only really concerns bills
that are Internet related. There have been plenty of worse bills in the past,
and there will be plenty of horrible bills to come. Until voters come to
understand that their responsibility extends to more than just making a cross
every 4 years (and many don't even do that) then we can't complain if others
are filling the void.

~~~
chii
"Until voters come to understand that their responsibility extends to more
than just making a cross every 4 years (and many don't even do that) then we
can't complain if others are filling the void."

that is the truth, and an ugly truth it is. But given the increasing
complexity of human society, and various other vested interests, its no wonder
moms and dads cannot make an informed choice over who to vote for. The problem
isn't one of 'dont give a fuck', its one of 'how do I give a fuck when I have
mouths to feed and work to go to'.

Mean while, the top 0.1% lobbies some more...

