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.
Democrats: 30-16 in favor
Republicans: 51-2 in favor (1 not voting)
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.
This shift is a very positive development, it means the bill is becoming impossible to pass in a Republican House (and where GOP Rep. Lamar Smith has discredited himself by leading fellow Republicans into the SOPA morass).
The RIAA types are even more welcome in the Republican Party traditionally, due in part to Nashville as you mentioned, and in part due to the significant influence of first Sonny Bono and now his widow Mary in Congress.
If this is a regression to the mean, when was the mean ever in effect? In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan maintained strong ties with Hollywood (even with people like Lew Wasserman who were active in the Democratic Party) and promoted their interests; in the 1990s, the GOP led the charge for the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. Arguably there was strong hostility in the 1950s-70s, when Joseph McCarthy thought Hollywood was full of Communists, and Nixon complained about it being controlled by Jewish Democrats, but that was a while ago, and for reasons (paranoia about Jews and Communists) that hopefully aren't going to recur.
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?
I would like to verify this. Got a source?
To me this illustrates the problem with lobbying.
[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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Money can always find a way to affect power in a democracy. For this reason it's better to make the process straightforward and aboveboard than opaque and indirect.
Stop buying movies/music, PCs and Apple computers, there is a fine list of SOPA proponents. For all of them there is an alternative, buy operating support from RedHat or Canonical instead of Microsoft, donate money to independent studios and watch their movies.
Your money is doing this. Your money. You decide what to do with it. Each dollar is a vote.
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.
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 :)).
I wish there were more fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans.
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)
Another example of how things could be better if Northern and Southern California split into two states.
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.
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...