

Investigate Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after public threats to congress - Exoseq
http://wh.gov/KiE

======
zecho
While this is funny, bribery has a very specific meaning, and every politician
learned it very well during the whole Jack Abramhoff scandal.

What the MPAA, and Chris Dodd, are suggesting here is that they're less
willing to make campaign contributions (on the up-and-up, as dubious as the
up-and-up has become post-Citizen's United).

I'm quickly tiring of the hyperbole from both sides of the issue. As the days
go on, this is clearly becoming less a matter of facts at hand and more a
boiling over of old media vs. new media attitudes that have been simmering for
15 years.

I know what this conflict is like first hand. I work on the tech/web side of
an old media company. Everything becomes us vs. them, and everything appears
on the surface to have ulterior motive, when in fact it almost always first
stems from a serious lack of understanding, which breeds frustration, which
breeds paranoia, which breeds stupid bills like SOPA, with actual ulterior
motives and all.

Honestly, I'm interested what types of companies PG and YC think will "kill
Hollywood." My feeling is that killing it will necessitate a much, much more
understanding and symbiotic approach to Hollywood than many on HN are willing
to acknowledge.

~~~
electromagnetic
I think the argument here is that Chris Dodd is wilfully admitting there isn't
a boundary between "bribery" and "campaign donation" in his, or his
corporations, mind.

His tone is that his campaign donations should have got him above and beyond
treatment from those who didn't. A campaign donation lends no credence of
reciprocal action from a candidate. The whole point of backing a candidate is
that you believe that candidate supports ideals that are beneficial to you and
the public, however Dodd appears to believe that the point of backing a
candidate is to pay the most malleable candidate into office.

In Dodd's mindset he committed bribery with his campaign donations. Bribery:
"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." [emphasis mine]

Dodd believes his donation should influence the actions of his chosen
official, thus via the very specific meaning of bribery, he committed it and
publicly admitted it.

~~~
zecho
Right, but that's politics since before Ike's farewell speech and the whole
reasoning behind the Federal Elections Committee. Things are not so black and
white. A donation can be as much freedom of speech as can be bribery. What the
FEC and related Acts that define it do is to draw (I hope) clear lines in the
sand differentiating the two.

I'm well aware that people don't like it and I'm not sure why people are
suddenly surprised by Dodd's attitude toward campaign donations. Politics are
all about influence. Simply because he wished his donations affected politics
in his way doesn't make it bribery in the legal sense of the term.

If anything is surprising to me, because I'm inherently cynical about the
political process (some of my best friends work as Senate aides and analysts
and have no shame telling me how truly depraved the creation of a bill can be;
to them, PIPA was a third-tier issue destined to be lost in bureaucracy should
it have passed) it's that SOPA/PIPA have been effectively killed precisely
because many politicians aren't necessarily beholden to their donators, that
influence from an outside party made a huge difference.

So really, this shouldn't be a question about this one thing that Dodd or any
other lobbyist thinks about their money's influence (or lack thereof) on the
political process. We should be questioning the nature of money in politics in
general. Ike was right, and things have only gotten much, much more incestual
since his farewell address. But, as the saying goes, we get the rulers we
deserve, especially when big tech, despite their size and money advantage over
Hollywood, seems uninterested in playing the same games that Hollywood plays
on Capitol Hill.

------
dmauro
Does anyone else have a lot of trouble getting logged in? I don't just mean
that the form doesn't provide any feedback, but that even after logging in (I
just reset my password and successfully logged in), when I go back to a
petition page I get logged out again (yes I'm refreshing the page).

I'd much rather see a petition for a better website. :/

~~~
prophetjohn
I had the same issue and resolved it in the same way. It would allow me to log
in, but would not recognize that I was logged in (I was unable to sign the
petition and had a button requesting that I log in, even though I was)

------
dmoy
Yes there is a huge problem with American politics, but I don't know that only
going after people who PUBLICLY admit this is the right direction. It might be
a good start, but I really feel that you'd need more overarching change to
actually make a difference.

------
swombat
It's either "I have a dream" or "you're dreaming, man".

Not sure which. I am not american, but I wish I could sign this petition and
give it the slightest incremental bigger chance of actually resulting in ...
something. If that's even possible.

------
chegra84
It seems like this is getting heavy flagging. I think the rule is if it reach
10 flags before 10 comments the post is killed. So, don't just upvote,
comment.

------
rayiner
What's hilarious is that Dodd was painted as one of the "good guys" during the
2008 presidential campaign. Oh what a difference a few years makes.

~~~
kazoolist
Not how I remember it ... Dodd was intimately involved with the government's
actions that contributed to the Housing Crisis and was the top recipient of
campaign contributions from Freddie & Fannie.

All of which had the makings for a very difficult election battle in 2010,
when Dodd recognized as he opted out of running for re-election in 2010.

------
desireco42
I love this. Perfect.

