

Obama Administration Cozied Up With Hollywood, Emails Show - Suraj-Sun
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozied-up-to-big-content-e-mails-show.ars

======
joelhaus
What are the odds that this story gets picked up by the major media
organizations?

It is just this type of undue influence that has seemed to emerge as the main
issue for the Occupy Wall Street protests. It truly is a sad state of affairs
when the government subjugates the interests of its own voting citizens to the
special monied interests that lobby Washington. Few stories so clearly show
how politicians value money over wise policy... the Citizens United case has
only exacerbated this problem.

[Added:] The title is not descriptive enough. Should probably mention how _IP
legisglation_ was influenced.

~~~
anamax
Citizens United involved some folks who made a movie about Hillary Clinton.

Feel free to explain why their movie should be treated differently from one
made by Mirimax.

Feel free to explain why either one should be treated differently than
favorable (or unfavorable) coverage by ABC News or the New York Times.

~~~
joelhaus
I'm not sure they should be treated differently, but that only hits on some of
the edge cases of trying to legislate down the impact of money. I don't claim
to have a solution, but I think it's useful to try and define the problem
before you get legislation run amok.

To reiterate, the broader issue is one of money having more influence over
policy than the interests of voters, and this story is a good illustration of
that. I think a good place to start would probably be to raise the standards
of transparency.

~~~
anamax
> I'm not sure they should be treated differently

If you're complaining about Citizens United, you're saying that they should be
treated differently.

> I don't claim to have a solution, but I think it's useful to try and define
> the problem before you get legislation run amok.

Citizens United wasn't legislation - it was a case that overturned part of a
law that said that some money is different than other money.

> the broader issue is one of money having more influence over policy than the
> interests of voters,

maybe, but that's not the argument that you're actually raising.

That's why I asked about the NYT and Miramax. Why should they be treated
differently than me or me and a group of friends?

~~~
joelhaus
We seem to be talking past each-other, but I'll take the bait. If I understand
correctly, you seem to be saying that corporations should be afforded all of
the same rights as individual citizens. While certain rights (e.g. freedom
from unjust seizure, trial rights, etc.) are important, on the whole, I
disagree. Maybe that's where we differ, but I'm not sure if this is the point
you are getting around to making.

To make my position more clear, I do not believe that corporations should be
afforded all of the same rights as citizens. History has shown this to be
true: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)>. In order
for capitalism to succeed and our economy to prosper, we need a proper
regulatory environment that can protect the interests of individual citizens
against organized groups of individuals (e.g. corporations). It is not enough
to leave corporations to self-regulate because too often, our interests
dramatically diverge. And again, this isn't an easy task, but I believe that
it is one worthy of effort.

N.B. _I'm not all that interested in defending this point any further, but
would be happy to hear you make an argument for it, as I haven't heard many
great defenses of the "corporation as citizen" argument._

Regarding the Citizens United ruling; here's what the Wikipedia article has to
say on this case:

    
    
      The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking
      down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that
      prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and
      not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting
      "electioneering communications." An "electioneering
      communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a
      broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that
      mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general
      election or thirty days of a primary.
    

From where I sit, this ruling removes barriers from corporations making
political contributions (I'm not as concerned as you are with the medium that
the electioneering communications are distributed in). This means that they
are now better able to lobby for legislation that benefits them to the
detriment of their young/upstart competitors (as someone posting on a board
related to startups, I'm surprised that this doesn't concern you too). Again,
this story was a good illustration of legislation benefiting the
entrenched/monied interests over the interests of individual citizens. While
it would be nice if the world were perfect, it isn't and we must deal with the
realities presented to us.

~~~
anamax
> If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that corporations should be
> afforded all of the same rights as individual citizens.

Not really.

Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are
aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense.

How can me plus someone else have fewer free speech rights than either of us
by ourselves?

However, even if you insist on treating corporations differently than
"individual citizens", that doesn't justify treating the NYT differently than
my little corporation.

> means that they are now better able to lobby for legislation that benefits
> them to the detriment of their young/upstart competitors (as someone posting
> on a board related to startups, I'm surprised that this doesn't concern you
> too).

I reject that approach because it can't work.

Large corps will never be signficantly constrained. However, small corps can
be. It's unclear why you think that tilting the playing field like that is a
good thing.

Note that the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors. Of course,
that's a futile hope so long as "reformers" think that they can get the right
result by tweaking the rules. I keep hoping that they'll catch on.

And then there's the small problem that the real damage is done not by for-
profit corps, but by "interest groups", such as AARP.

I'm not saying that AARP shouldn't be allowed to rant to its members and tell
congress "what its members think", but .....

~~~
joelhaus
>Since corporations, like families, partnerships, and groups of friends, are
aggregations of people, I don't think that your distinction makes sense.

They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits.
That's enough of a difference for, but different strokes...

Here's another discussion of the legal rationale if you're interested:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood>

>I reject that approach because it can't work.

Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act. If it's not clear to you why it's
necessary after that, then I give up.

>the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors

Who decides what is a favor and what isn't? Is the recruitment of more troops
for the Iraq war a handout to the high school kids with no college
aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a private militia? While
seemingly extreme, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Overall, this comes
across as a very overly simplistic view of reality.

~~~
anamax
> They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits.

That "responsiblity" doesn't work the way your argument requires - see the NYT
for an example.

Moreover, it isn't relevant. My free speech rights don't depend on whether I'm
trying to maximize profits, so why is my corporation any different?

Either you think that corps are not aggregations of people or you think that
aggregated people have less rights than the members of the aggregation. Which
is it and why?

> >I reject that approach because it can't work.

> Huh? Read about the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

Yes, do. You'll find that it didn't provide the promised benefits. In fact,
it's pretty much been a disaster.

Yes, it broke up standard oil. However, look at the consequences.

> If it's not clear to you why it's necessary after that, then I give up.

You're confusing the existence of a problem with whether a solution works.

> >the real solution is to keep govt passing ot favors

> Who decides what is a favor and what isn't?

The existence of some gray areas does not imply that every area is gray.

In reality, there's pretty widespread agreement on what constitutes handouts
and it's silly to suggest otherwise.

> Is the recruitment of more troops for the Iraq war a handout to the high
> school kids with no college aspirations? Why can't they just put a bid for a
> private militia? While seemingly extreme,

It's not "extreme" - it has nothing to do with your supposed point. The
private militia will hire the kid, so both are the same on the "handout"
basis.

------
elspoono
This isn't even news.

