×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Petition To Investigate Dodd For Bribery

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the follow-the-money dept.

Democrats 596

Walkingshark writes "Chris Dodd's recent statements complaining that congressmen who receive donations from the RIAA and MPAA should toe the line has spawned a firestorm of anger on the internet. Among the bits of fallout: a petition on the White Houses "We the People" site to investigate him, the RIAA, and the MPAA for bribery! This petition gained more than 5000 signatures in 24 hours and is still growing. When the petition reaches 25,000 signatures the White House is obligated to respond to it in an official capacity."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

596 comments

Good fucking luck (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784513)

[comment goes here]

I'm Chris Dodd (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784565)

And I DEMAND that once bought, you STAY bought!

By the way, the law is for you "little people".

Re:I'm Chris Dodd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784599)

I am never voting again for you, Jeremiah Cornelius.

First signature (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784515)

First signature bitches

Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784533)

Of course nothing will happen. Since when do crooks convict themselves ?

Re:Its easier to believe in Santa Claus... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784643)

Dodd isn't going to suffer legal consequences, but if enough stink is made he'll be a less effective mouthpiece. That's a worthwhile goal.

Lobbying vs Bribery (5, Interesting)

Warlord88 (1065794) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784541)

Seriously, what's the difference between lobbying and bribery?

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (5, Funny)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784559)

Seriously, what's the difference between lobbying and bribery?

Bribery is honest, lobbying is dishonest.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784725)

Lobbying has some legitimate uses.

Let's Congress wants to open up part of a national forest for logging, oil drilling, or whatever because Congressman Joe Schmoe or his buddy happens to own a logging company. The Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups can lobby against it and point out the conflict of interest to other Congressmen.

Or we can lobby against corporate interests ourselves - grass roots lobbying - like with the SOPA and PIPA stuff.

OR we can lobby for something, like single payer health insurance. Because they millionaires on Capital Hill with their Congressional perks would never think of such a thing.

Or lobby for more national parks.

Or lobby for reduction in taxes.

Or ......

Because just having the Congress people left to their own devices would lead us down an even worse path that we are on now.

But what I think we should outlaw is corporate lobbying. A corporation should have no political voice at all.Neither should government employees lobbying to make their jobs easier - like law enforcement lobbying for our Civil Liberties to be taken away because they're too lazy to do their job or because they want more power: the wars on terror and drugs and child porn excuses have eroded our liberties too much. And keep in mind "law and order" conservatives, those will be used as an excuse to take our guns away so don't go for the lie of "if you do nothing wrong; you have nothing to worry about" bullshit.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (2, Insightful)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784835)

I know I'm replying to an AC but I would like to think that corporate lobbying was allowed because sometimes, a corporation made up of specialists in a field would know better how things in their expertise work as opposed to politicians (e.g. technology, education, environment, etc.). I am not a lawyer nor someone versed in law history so I'm not familiar with corporate lobbying's history but I would like to think that there was something good about it (as opposed to a shallow reason like the thinkofthechildren or LOSINGJOBS qualifier) when it came to exist.

If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".

Yeah, I'm an AC - so what. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785095)

a corporation made up of specialists in a field would know better how things in their expertise work as opposed to politicians (e.g. technology, education, environment, etc.).

The experts really think that an issue is important, then they can lobby as individuals for that issue - whatever it may be.

If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".

Yes there is a line.

Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.

By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.

Just one to blow me out of the water and I'll kiss goatse on the ass.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785097)

You would like to think that? Well, go right ahead and think it. That won't make it true, but it might make you feel better.

CLUE: The corporates don't send their specialists to explain the real facts of life to congress critters. Instead, they send PR/HR/marketdroids with deep pockets. The specialists are kept at their desks, or in the shop, or out in the field, where facts are actually useful.

I invite you to read Allen Greenspan's recent remarks about banking legislation. Words to the effect, "We thought the banks could make decisions that were best for them - how wrong we were!"

Corporations never do anything "for the greater good". Today, they don't even do things for their own good. The zombies only have eyes for quarterly profit statements, totally unaware that those statements are full of lies.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (2)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784739)

lobbying is dishonest

Do you even know what the work means?

So, you're saying that if you and a bunch of people who think like you decided to pool some resources and hire somebody to go to DC and make sure that the staffers working for congressional reps and senators were up to speed on some complex topic that most people don't understand (the better to hope that any voting they do that might impact this thing you care about is based on actual information, and not what someone else told them) ... that's dishonest? How, exactly? Be specific.

If you write an informative, persuasive letter to your congressman, are you being dishonest? No? OK then, are you being dishonest if you say the exact same thing in person? Why?

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (2)

headkase (533448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784915)

Um, because in practice it's never a you, but rather: always a corporate mouthpiece? That's just the general practice however - there's a minute percentage that bucks the trend.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (5, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785069)

Do you even know what the work means?

So, you're saying that if you and a bunch of people who think like you decided to pool some resources and hire somebody to go to DC and make sure that the staffers working for congressional reps and senators were up to speed on some complex topic that most people don't understand (the better to hope that any voting they do that might impact this thing you care about is based on actual information, and not what someone else told them) ... that's dishonest?

That's what lobbying pretends to be. What lobbying really IS, at least in the case of the RIAA and MPAA, is that the lobbyists write legislation, which they then hand over to said staffers along with a check and promise for future campaign help if the congresspeople pass that legislation.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784593)

There's a fine line. It's usually OK to make a sizable donation to a candidate and give them a wink, wink nudge, nudge about what you want. It's not OK to pay for them to take specific positions and vote in specific ways.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784645)

In theory, when a politician is bribed, he is paid to hold a particular opinion. When he is lobbied, he is paid (indirectly) for someone to be allowed to present their case. In practice, when you have two sides to an argument and one is paying to make its case and the other is not, then the politician does not hear from the other side and so ends up holding whatever opinion the lobbyist presents.

Lobbying wouldn't be such a problem if politicians were less lazy. If they heard from lobbyists and then did some real research on the topic, then lobbying would just do what it was meant to: bring issues to the attention of elected representatives.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784793)

he is paid (indirectly)

How is he indirectly paid? How does the cash get in his pocket? Or are you talking about campaign donations, which the politician can't touch because every single dollar is audited to death? Please be specific about how a lobbyst puts money in a politician's pocket.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (4, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784999)

I could spend $1 on my own campaign, or you could spend $1 for me. If you spend it, you have $1 less and I have $1 more. It's true you didn't pay me $1 directly, but the net effect is pretty similar.

It doesn't always work exactly like that, but hopefully you get the general idea - well, unless you're really, really fantastically stupid (which I imagine you'll demonstrate very clearly in a response).

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (1)

Garybaldy (1233166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785043)

There is also the little thing called. i'll pay for a banquet with good entertainment and you get to keep all the proceeds from ticket sales or as is more commonly called the "plate cost".

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785011)

Campaign funds can't be used for personal use. well, except for paying the salary of family members, unnecessary travel, huge parties, and donating the remainder to charities headed by the politician.

But super PAC money, which just about every candidate is directing donations to now, can be used for just about anything once the election is over.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785009)

And Dodd is saying their bribery, erm, I mean campaign contributions takes precedence over anyone else.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (5, Funny)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784671)

Lobbying is you giving money to someone who is already in line with your thinking and you want to help.

Bribery is giving someone money to do what you tell them to.

Very clear difference. I mean it is piratically ketchup and catsup clear. Basically that is what happened here. Dodd stating "we gave you money, you better listen!" may have crossed that very fine line. Otherwise, he could have just been supporting people he agreed with.

Re:Lobbying vs Bribery (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785055)

Lobbying may or may not include raising funds for the candidate. Just because you lobby a member of the government doesn't mean you're bribing them.

When you write a letter to your congressman, that's lobbying.

Yeah right (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784547)

That would result in pretty much every lobbyist and politician in America being investigated for giving or taking bribes. We will not see this happen, just like we never saw electronic voting machines being properly audited.

Re:Yeah right (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784613)

Investigating Dodd is a good place to start. Even just getting Obama to refuse to investigate Dodd is a start. You're insisting on never starting.

Re:Yeah right (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784733)

At best, all the petition will do is prove what everyone should already know: Democrats and Republicans are the servants of big businesses and not the American public. Lobbying / bribery is so commonplace in American government that I doubt we could find a politician with any influence who would not be implicated in any hypothetical investigation.

We need to start voting for different people -- people who are not connected with big business, people who will work for the benefit of their constituents. Would you ask a mafia boss to crack down on organized crime?

Re:Yeah right (1)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784833)

At best, all the petition will do is prove what everyone should already know: Democrats and Republicans are the servants of big businesses and not the American public.

What, 100% one thing and 0% the other? That's what I call small-minded thinking.

Anyways, what do you propose? Doing nothing because we cannot win? On what side are you?

Re:Yeah right (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784937)

Anyways, what do you propose?

How about voting third party? How about not continuing to vote for politicians that are not working for your benefit? The choice has never been restricted to Democrats and Republicans, and for the past 30 years both parties have been the "pro-corporations" party -- yet we continue to vote for them, as if they are going to follow the will of the people once in office.

So here is an idea for you: stop asking the criminals to crack down on crime, and start working on bringing in a fresh set of politicians.

Re:Yeah right (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785047)

What worked for us was taking the ability to nominate away from the parties and putting it in the hands of the voters to decide which candidates end up in the November elections. We also took the ability to draw the districting lines away from the legislature in the early '80s making it hard for one party or the other to gerrymander.

So far it's a bit soon to see how it really works, but it looks like we'll be having more moderate candidates elected in districts where there was effectively only one choice in the November election.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784913)

Except the different people are usually worse; especially the Libertarians and Greens. I worked real hard to get the Green's last candidate, Cynthia McKinney, out of Congress, I do not want to is is the fucking lunatic is President.

And the Libertarians AKA Teaparty are now the defacto-extreme right wing of the Republican Party, and no I can't tell the difference between the two.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784943)

Most of the time, they're smart enough to publicly state a quid pro quo.

abc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784549)

nothing will come of it

They had a decent response to SOPA.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784557)

So might as well.

They've got my signature

They've already ignored one qualified petition (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784583)

The petition to take the petitions seriously (AKA the "calling shenanigans on "representation" petition) gained the required number of signatures already and was subsequently completely ignored.

Link: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#%21/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

Re:They've already ignored one qualified petition (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784863)

Yep, this is exactly the way petitions in the UK worked when they were interested years ago, and still largely work today.

They were sold as a way of using the internet to help get people involved in democracy.

But what they really were was a way of using the internet to allow politicians to pretend they give a fuck about democracy.

Things like the Digital Economy Act were some of the most voted against, but just got pretty much entirely ignored, now the new government has revamped the petitions barely a couple of thousand people have voted, despite I think hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions having voted on a petition about that the first time around.

The petitions are just another way of pretending politicians care about the general populace, whilst doing quite the fucking opposite. The Whitehouse has obviously learnt from our successive governments what a useful tool they are for distracting people from the real situation.

What for will the response take? (5, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784585)

When the petition reaches 25,000 signatures the White House is obligated to respond to it in an official capacity.

Will this response be of a similar nature to how the UK government response to its equivalent petition site? i.e. the official response is to make it clear they are officially ignoring the petition?

Re:What for will the response take? (4, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784771)

Yeah, many of the petitions that have reached 25,000 have gotten a response that amounts to "no comment". It's too bad the media doesn't pick up on these petitions.

Re:What for will the response take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784861)

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

Re:What for will the response take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784885)

25,000 more terrorists will disappear.

Re:What for will the response take? (2)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784981)

I can't help but thing of when there were demands for removing the prohibition of cannabis brought up on the site. The official response [norml.org] wasn't anything of honestly leveling with the people so much as basically telling everyone that they didn't care what we think and everyone should just piss off, with a heaping helping of vacuous crap. I highly doubt this will be any different. Sure they'll respond, but odds are it will be with some hollow & meaningless response, and in the end no action will be taken.

Re:What for will the response take? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785027)

I'm calling it now: the response will be "the White House is not permitted to comment on individual cases (See: "Why We Can't Comment on Bradley Manning", "Why We Can't Comment on this Petition about the Church of Scientology", etc.

Best-case, we get something saying "the case has been referred to the Justice Department and the Attorney General, and the White House is pushing for an indictment".

Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784595)

Carlin - The Real Owners Of America

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying  lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

"But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

"You know what they want? Obedient workers  people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."

"This country is finished."

Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (1)

archer, the (887288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784791)

This just reminded me: I never saw any news coverage of SOPA/PIPA and the Blackout. NPR had quite a bit on it though. Did anyone see any mention of it by the for-profit news outlets?

Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784839)

Don't know about the states, but it was prominent here in Canda (I gave one of the interviews on the news).

Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784891)

I saw CNN make a mention of Wikipedia and Google. Then make a Disclaimer that they and their parent corporation support SOPA. All told about 30 seconds of coverage. But then again I wasn't watching all day, just for about an hour.

Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (3, Interesting)

Discopete (316823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785007)

CNN had an article, as did my local News website. AlJazeera.com had a bit on it.
BBC.com has an article entitled "Congress Halts Anti-Piracy bills" that discusses it.
USAToday.com has a short article about it. It seems that most news agencies are bundling it as a blurb in articles about the bills being pulled.

Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785123)

This just reminded me: I never saw any news coverage of SOPA/PIPA and the Blackout. NPR had quite a bit on it though. Did anyone see any mention of it by the for-profit news outlets?

ABC (Disney) covered it. I guess it was too big to try to sweep under the rug by ignoring it.

Re:Carlin - The Real Owners Of America (5, Interesting)

deanklear (2529024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784997)

Carlin was mostly right.

The question is, are you going to sit there and take it, or are you going to educate yourself and fight back? I'm afraid Carlin fell for an old trick: a tiny minority of powerful people telling the vast majority that they don't have any power. The term that has been coined for this is "antipolitics." Yes it is pervasive, and the message contained in the media and the whole platform of right wing anti-government and left-wing anarchist philosophies.

The truth is that we have (compared with the rest of the world) relatively free and fair elections, relatively uncorrupted government, and the capability to change our government however we want to if we are willing to sacrifice some time and money to make the change happen. The truth is that most Americans have the government they deserve. We have achieved the technical definition of democracy, but we are letting new forms of aristocracy corrupt it.

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
--Plato

Losers (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784603)

As I post this comment, every comment posted in this thread before mine was an apathetic "signing the petition will do nothing". It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.

Signing the petition might indeed do nothing. But posting a comment here saying so is absolutely guaranteed to do nothing. The corrupt politicos like Dodd absolutely count on people insisting on doing nothing. Just as bribery is the oxygen for their corruption, cynical apathy is the 78% nitrogen that makes the air they breathe.

Sign the petition [whitehouse.gov], and at least have done something to strangle these parasites. Even if that's just being a small part of forcing the president to defend or deny them. It's better than nothing - certainly better than a loudly committed nothing.

Re:Losers (3, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784727)

I couldn't help but notice that too. It was more than a little disheartening. You would think this would be a place to mobilize rather than lay down and die.

Sorry I don't have any mod points for you.

Re:Losers (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784867)

It is not about laying down and dying, it is about choosing how to spend your energy. You do not ask mafia bosses to crack down on organized crime. I have little faith that the Democrats or the Republicans would ever do anything more than put on a show of investigating bribery; it is so commonplace, and would implicate so many people that we would need to vote in a completely new set of politicians in order to fix the problem.

That is what we should be spending our energy on: getting rid of the Democrats and the Republicans, and replacing them with politicians who work for the benefit of their constituents. Asking the Obama administration to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery is like asking Billy the Kid to head a posse to catch bank robbers. The Obama administration already accepted bribes for Dodd and co.; now they have backed off a bit and Hollywood is saying that the bribes will be withheld. It will take "new blood," politicians who are untainted by a history of bribery, to end the cycle of lobbying.

Re:Losers (2)

alpinist (96637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784773)

It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.

Bingo. Heck, with Chrome autofill, it took less time to register and sign than it did to type out this reply.

Re:Losers (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784841)

As I post this comment, every comment posted in this thread before mine was an apathetic "signing the petition will do nothing". It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.

As someone who is not a US citizen or resident, I should not sign the petition. It's not my business, formally. On the other hand, I would encourage others to do so if they have standing. Even just the perception of corruption is damaging to the foundations of democracy. While a petition can't force the Executive to act in a particular way (nor should it; they should be allowed to explain if there's a good reason why to not act) if the number of votes it is attracting is trending up fast then they'll feel it necessary to act anyway: a petition acts as a barometer of the people's concern over an issue. If there are lots of angry people about, throwing a sacrificial wolf to the lambs can help a lot.

Re:Losers (1)

Discopete (316823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784903)

As someone who is not a US citizen or resident, I should not sign the petition. It's not my business, formally.

Why is it not your business? Anything that involves US copyright eventually involves everyone on this planet (Re: Megaupload). While I'm not sure that it will even allow you to sign it, you should at least make the attempt.

Re:Losers (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785083)

Megaupload had a physical presence in the US where they were allegedly violating American law. If you don't like it, don't have a presence in the US and don't commit crimes in the US either. It remains to be seen how solid the evidence is, but it's dishonest to imply that the US doesn't have jurisdiction over servers that are located in the US.

The appropriate place to lodge those grievances are with the other nations that sign onto those treaties. The US isn't the only bad guy here and in practice with produce a hell of a lot more copyright materials than pretty much anybody else.

Re:Losers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784869)

Thanks.

What you said convinced me to create an account and sign.

Re:Losers (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785041)

Signing the petition is never doing nothing. it's seldom enough unless you are prepared to do other things too, but "not enough in itself" does not mean 'futile" in any sane dictionary. Signing a petition may interest a few people who hadn't paid attention. Noticing how reluctant the press is to mention that petition when it gets 100,000 signatures may awaken a few more. After a while, people start telling the cops why they have lost all respect. The jokes about politicians start provoking shaken fists and not just laughs. People in the crowd start shouting angry insults and your own goons start looking more and more embarrassed to escort them out of the "public" meetings. The crowds get too big for the designated free speech areas. One of the goons overeacts and makes an arrest for lynching when some Occupy member gets in the way of an arrest for picketing without a permit, then more people start wanting to know why, if the Occupy people aren't saying anything, someone is willing to falsly accuse one of attempted murder just to shut him up. Nothing is wasted. All the little grains of sand that can't gain any actual movement exert the pressure that becomes the avalanche.

Re:Losers (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785049)

i dunno, it took about 4 days to get my account fully functional ... then the petition I signed was responded to by a whitewash fuck you letter

does it do any good? I would like to think so, but it probably doesn't

Re:Losers (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785059)

I intend to sign the petition, however, I went to whitehouse.gov, signed up with a valid email, and signed in. Now, the petition page will not let me click the sign button, as it is dimmed. It says I must sign in or register, but the footer on the bottom of the screen shows that I AM signed in. Coincidence? Going to go try chrome and see if I have better luck, but that is either a sign of corruption itself, or really shitty programming.

Re:Losers (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785113)

Got that bastard.. it just did not want to work with FireFox. Perhaps Mozilla.org is in bead with Dodd?

Re:Losers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785067)

Good luck getting the president, the majority of congress and senate to agree to change this, and at the same time, and not getting dropped by the next rounds of elections.

As for the response to the petition you forget it is a politician responding, so it can be a neutral response committing to nothing.

Despite that nothing will change, signing is still a good idea so people can keep a hope of something happening someday alive.

Wasn't Sure Who Was (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784607)

First I thought he was Lou Dobbs, and was just being an idiot financial advisor. The I thought he was the financial loud mouth guy who yells a lot, and then I figured out he was a corrupt former senator.

High hopes, for sure (5, Insightful)

ZOmegaZ (687142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784611)

The last time I saw a response to one of these petitions, it was one for the elimination of the TSA. The response was written by the head of the TSA. Not to say you shouldn't push the button anyway. If the Obama administration is going to ask for our input and then blatantly disregard it, we may as well have them on record as doing so.

The response I expect (1)

peter.stocking (916038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784615)

"Thank you for signing the petition "Investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after he publicly admited to bribing politicans to pass legislation." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.

The We the People Terms of Participation explain that "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." The Department of Justice is charged with investigating federal crimes and enforcing federal criminal laws. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific law enforcement matter raised in this petition."

I'm going to yell this from the hills.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784625)

RICO indictments for ALL INVOLVED, INCLUDING POLITICIANS.
RICO indictments for ALL INVOLVED, INCLUDING POLITICIANS.
RICO indictments for ALL INVOLVED, INCLUDING POLITICIANS.
RICO indictments for ALL INVOLVED, INCLUDING POLITICIANS.
RICO indictments for ALL INVOLVED, INCLUDING POLITICIANS.

Did I mention RICO indictments for ALL INVOLVED, INCLUDING POLITICIANS?!

Audit Them All (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784651)

Every single conversation, in person or over media (phone, email, etc) that any elected official has with anyone should be recorded and archived in the Library of Congress. And noted in a public schedule, except meetings a subcommittee in the House or Senate votes can be hidden. Any investigation should be able to subpoena any recording. With no expiration or statue of limitations.

That kind of evidence generation would protect the honest conversations from the corrupt ones, and steadily improve the ratio.

Simple solution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784657)

The less government involvement there is in business, the less business will want/need to be involved in government.

Simple logic, really.

For some reason, there are many who only complain about the corporate side of this without realizing the cause - which is the government's involvement in the first place (or the government's ability to be involved).

Limited government is a good thing. You don't get to require unending government involvement without paying the price of corruption. Never has happened in history, never will.

The irony of Larry Lessig voting for big government while decrying corruption is delicious - decrying the effects while supporting the cause is just craziness.

Illusion (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784673)

Politicians being bribed by industries? Is this news? That's the essence of most democracies. Anyway IMO this petition scheme is only used to create the illusion to the people that they can participate in the government and change something for the better. They even made up a term for this, its called "electronic government". Well it takes more than a few thousand signatures or facebook groups or whatever you call it, to trigger an investigation on a senator (former or not). Probably a lobby with more power and influence (aka money) than the RIAA/MPAA combined ? Now that would be a good start.

Bribery? (5, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784697)

I read his (Dodd's) comment to mean, essentially, "Don't expect to keep getting campaign support from people that don't think you're supporting their interests."

How is this any different than a thousand donors to, say, Obama's last campaign saying, "We don't think you still care about [topic x] the way you did in 2008 when we supported you with cash, and if we still feel that way, we may not support your campaign next time around."

Saying that - because you don't like a politician's posture/policy on a topiuc - you won't give a campaign donation next time doesn't mean that when you did support their campaign in the past, you were bribing them. If that were true, then every dollar donated by every person or organization is always bribery. Which is ridiculous.

I dislke Dodd. He's an ass. But he's perfectly within his (and his employers') rights to say the same thing we can all say: "Mr. Politician: you're not committed to what I think is important, and so I'm probably not going to help your campaign fund next time."

Anger "on the internet" about him being that straightforward is just the usual anger at the fact that a trade association made of up people who run studios and labels puts a priority on protecting their members' works. Shocking, I say! But thousands of people calling it "bribery" is just an adolescent display of ignorance or a disingenuous display of pandering rhetoric aimed at uninformed people.

Re:Bribery? (4, Insightful)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784855)

"If that were true, then every dollar donated by every person or organization is always bribery. Which is ridiculous."

I don't think it is ridiculous at all.

Re:Bribery? (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785051)

I gather from the posts here defending our system of legalized corruption that you're a member of the 9%. (The 9% who approve of the performance of the US Congress.)

First step (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784751)

First step in fixing Government is this. Get rid of the lobbyists.

Re:First step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785021)

The only problem is that it's as easy as making bits not copyable.

As a first step, I would suggest making it illegal for lobbyists draft law.

Chris Dodd (3, Informative)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784761)

The same Chris Dodd who, along with Barney Frank (you remember him, his lover ran a gay brothel out of his house a few years back), are the very crooks behind the housing crisis that started this whole recession.

At least these two won't be able to do actual damage in Congress anymore.

How Is Chris Dodd Involved In This? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784859)

I'm a little outta touch on this one. If I recall correctly, Frank said his boyfriend was running the brothel. Unless... Was Chris Dodd Barney Frank's gay lover? And I'm just going to assume that having a gay brothel run out of their house lowered property values because... of all the jizz on the sofa or something? And this eventually caused the collapse of the entire mortgage industry in the USA?

Re:Chris Dodd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784983)

Give me a break.

Glass-Steagall was repealed when Dodd and Frank were in the minority party. I'll give you that Dodd voted yes for that, but Barney Frank voted no. [house.gov]

The Dodd-Frank bill is not perfect, but it is the best attempt so far made to rectify the situation that created the crisis. Oh no, wait, I'm mistaken. If I'm to believe your side on this, it's the President's skin tone that caused the crisis. Better solve it quick with a tax cut for billionaires and make every state a right to work state.

Re:Chris Dodd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785087)

Oh you're still one of those sheeple who thinks Glass-Steagall had anything to do with it. Left-wing blogs must be all you read. Turn your brain on and pay attention fool.

Cracked just did an article on these petitions (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784783)

It's pretty insightful at how pretty pointless they are.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-online-petitions-that-prove-democracy-broken/

That's odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784797)

It won't let me sign! I'll log in god knows how many times, but the sign button doesn't work. What a strange software bug.

Same here. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785093)

Same happened to me. I created an account a couple months ago to sign a petition, but after verifying the account and signing in, the "sign this petition" button was still grayed out. Tried it again today, and it is still happening. Obviously it isn't a problem for everyone as people use the site all the time, but I haven't figured out what the problem is.

I am running Firefox on Linux, and the only plugin I have installed right now is flashblock.

Too corrupt to care (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784821)

I'm reminded of Blagavitch. The man so corrupt he didn't think it was against the law to sell a senatorial seat.

THEY rack your BALLS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784873)

Theo Calder: I'm Dr. Caulder. You've been charged with one count of murder, and found incompetent to stand trial.
Pete: She had a demon in her for a while, my neighbour Mrs Karsh.
Theo Calder: Mm-hmm.
Pete: It would come and go. Nobody saw it... except me.
Theo Calder: What did it look like, the demon?
Pete: Um... Did you ever see Alien with Sigourney Weaver?
Theo Calder: It looked like a giant insect?
Pete: No. It looked like Sigourney Weaver.

Isn't this legal? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784893)

I thought the surpreme court equated paying someone as free speech?

I am not trying to be a troll here but rather I am asking seriously (sadly).

Don't be offended. (2)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784929)

Don't be offended that Dodd is telling the politicians that took money from his employers to favor their interests and vote to the advantage of their benefactors.

Be offended that:

Our politicians take money from corporate interests that can NEVER be to the advantage of the nation or the people.

Our politicians, having the power to ingratiate themselves to the corporations, also have the power to benefit from their positions by making investments based on the confidential and advance information they receive as a result of their work in Congress.

It is legal that our Congress can take advantage of this information to make investments based on that information.

It is illegal for us, even corporate officials, to make similar investments based on this information. Entirely illegal.

So far as I have read in this discussion, no one has noted Chris Dodd's political party afilliation, which would not be the case, in my opinion, if his afilliation were different.

Dodd's complaint that Congress took the money and isn't delivering speaks volumes. It is time to require complete and immediate disclosure of contributions. It is time to require membes of Congress be subject to insider trading laws just as corporate officials and private investors are. It is time to re-enact Glass-Steagell. It is time to abandon current campaign finance laws as ineffective. It is time to throw them all out. Every one.

Issues with the whitehose.gov website. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38784973)

I have a valid ID for the website, but whe attempted to sign in to sign the petition, it wouldn't allow it, even after turning off all my blocking add-ons for the site, and restting my password several times. I've left a feedback via their site form. Hopefully, that still works.

Re:Issues with the whitehose.gov website. (3, Informative)

NoisySplatter (847631) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785101)

I ran into this a while back, clear your cookies and it should fix the issue.

Money doesn't buy influence? (4, Insightful)

jacobsm (661831) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784985)

How many people don't think that money in politics is a bad thing? I believe the answer is 541.

435 members of the House of Representatives.
100 members of the Senate.
5 judges on the Supreme Court
1 President of the United States.

Re:Money doesn't buy influence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785037)

Nonsense. There are many people successfully buying influence who have no objection to money in politics. Because they put it there.

Magic Disappering (D) (1, Troll)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784987)

If Dodd had been a Republican Senator for thirty years the story would have read "former Republican Senator from Connecticut Chris Dodd..."

ASLO send this to your representative! (1)

pearl298 (1585049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785063)

I also sent an email to my US Senators (McCain and Kyl - both supportes of PIPA) asking if Mr Dodd was referring to either of them!

Leave Chris Dodd Alone!! (0)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785075)

Seriously, he's just a symptom, not the cause. The only thing that prosecuting or censuring him will do is remind other elected representatives to be more clandestine in their dealings. It's like saying "it's ok to peddle your loyalty to the highest bidders, just don't be open about it."

What we should be outraged at is that we allow a system where this can and does happen. And what we need is an overhaul of the legislative process so that it *can't* happen, or at least not in enough quantity to matter.

One possibility is a system similar to the White House petitions, where proposed legislation be posted for everyone to see for 30 days before it could be voted on, and any legislation which reaches a critical threshold of public interest could only be passed by referendum. True, some legislation would fail to generate interest until after it was passed, but if repeals could be publicly submitted and subjected to the same thresholds of public interest, it would be relatively easy to abolish laws that aren't working (as it should be).

Investigate him for WHAT? (1)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785099)

What crime are they suggesting he be investigated for? Taking campaign contributions is legal. Voting however you want, including in ways that benefit your contributors, is legal. That's how our government works, and it's what all politicians do. You can object to the fact that it works that way, and you can try to change it. But as long as it remains legal, demanding an "investigation" (whatever that means) of someone for publicly admitting that's how it works is just silly.

Ghostery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38785105)

If the "Sign Petition" button is grayed out, turn off Ghostery and other tracking-protection browser plugins.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...