Beta
×

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!

Congress Members Who Took RIAA Cash

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the et-tu-barack-et-hillary dept.

Music 287

palewook writes "The Consumerist posted a story containing the contact information of 50 United States Representatives & Senators who accepted RIAA money during their last election campaign. Seems like a good time to let a few people know how you feel about RIAA shills."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does it matter? (3, Insightful)

initialE (758110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364481)

In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /.

Re: Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364527)

In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on /.
Next?

HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364789)

I guess she's not getting enough from the offshorers at Tata Consultancy Services [tata.com] .

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364803)

Yeah, and it's funny as hell that she's become such a boogeywoman to right-wingers. She's more conservative than a lot of Republicans.

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (-1, Troll)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364827)

Isn't it? I can barely hold in the belly laugh when I hear right-wing friends and acquaintances refer to that "far-left socialist Clinton."

Re:HILLARY "OFFSHORE" CLINTOON TOOK RIAA MONEY (0, Flamebait)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365057)

She's more conservative than a lot of Republicans.

I can barely hold in the belly laugh when I hear right-wing friends and acquaintances refer to that "far-left socialist Clinton."
The crack must really be good where you guys are at. Hillary "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," Clinton is more than the champion of nanny government, she's a Marxist. Her actions now are just posturing to hide her agenda.

Re: Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364839)

There will be a next election in the US. And one after that. Totalitarian/Fascist governments only take power because the good people stand around and do nothing. If Americans are sheepish enough to standby and allow Bush or any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.

Re: Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365071)

...any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.
Yes, you have just described Hugo Chavez and Venezuela.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364533)

Concur. What fascinates me is the capacity of humans to look at this sort of thing and appear shocked.

Cash (2, Insightful)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364635)

Did you see how much it costs to buy a congress critter! Nearly nothing. You could raise that much before noon.

WTF, these people are selling their souls for peanuts. What we need is an "open" lobbying fund.

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364691)

Wow. How very defeatist. "Oh corruption is rife, so let's give up and resign ourselves to being fucked over for the rest of our lives". Good attitude.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Poltras (680608) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364871)

The best you can still do is bend over and enjoy it. You know you're going to get it anyway...

Obligatory quote: don't hate the players, hate the game.

sage man strikes again (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364491)

shit on my face, i am a nigger, fat fag, fuck a four year old korean girl with a soldering iron. you now have an erection!

fristposto

Re:sage man strikes again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364525)

/reaches out and slits the bigots throat

Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (5, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364523)

Lobbyin is the weakest part of US democracy. I am really not a US basher (a colleague says I am a disguised CIA operative), but I don't understand what place lobbying has in a democracy. I don't care how transparent it is, it's still a bribe.

To get rid of lobbying (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364591)

Rebuild the Capitol so that the front door leads directly to the Congress chamber. No lobby, no lobbying.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (5, Informative)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364619)

It's more that it's just very difficult to stop, without severely interfereing with the ability of common people to support their prefered candidate. ie: "If I can say good things about this candidate I like, why can't I put a favorable ad in the paper or on TV for him?"

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (5, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364665)

It's more that it's just very difficult to stop, without severely interfereing with the ability of common people to support their prefered candidate.

It's really that hard to draw a line between individual and corporate sponsorship?

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364741)

Can the CEO of a major corp give a donation? Can said CEO work repayment into their annual bonus with ease? It's pretty easy to circumvent any obvious laws prohibiting corporate sponsorship, and then it become that much harder to see who is giving $$$ to who.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (2, Insightful)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364773)

Set a monetary limit (including the value of any indirect bribes given to them) per person. Make it a felony to try to bribe politicians above this limit or for colluding with others to influence them.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (2, Insightful)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364831)

Should it be made a felony to bribe a politician AT ALL perhaps?

Include value of time spent volunteering (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364835)

Damn 'activists' should get a real job.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

Lunar_Lamp (976812) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364843)

If you feel that way, get lobbying for the laws to be passed...

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364805)

I concur with JzNat, and would add the necessity of making the limit really small, something in the order of $250, with an annual review to adjust for inflation in terms of media advertising costs.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364907)

Even if laws were easy to circumvent, you could still make it harder to coordinate without someone involving lots of people, shifting money around in suspicious ways, and increasing the risk of getting "caught" doing something you obviously know is wrong.

If, instead of companies being able to contribute a big lump of money, they had to get 100 employees to make little donations, they still might be able to do that. But it's be harder to set that up, it'd be harder to coordinate, and it'd be harder to get away with.

Even to get the CEO to contribute the money himself, I bet he's less likely to do it when it comes out of his own pocket. These greedy fuckers-- if you gave them the "bonus" to pay lobbyists and donate to senators, they'd probably pocket most of that "bonus" anyway.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (5, Informative)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364899)

Yes, because there are ways to cheat. If you let any individual sponsor something, then any company can as well as they can simply use one or more of their workers as an individual for the purposes of sponsoring. Ban any corporate sponsorship and they'll just find a way around it (Okay Bill, we're going to give you a 2,000,000 bonus and you're going to donate 1,900,000 to X fund to sponsor X thing or Y bad thing will happen to you etc.)

I hate lobbying as much as the next guy (who is on /. and hates lobbying :P) but don't try to make it seem like a small problem, so long as you allow ANY sponsorship (which isn't always a bad thing, especially individual sponsorship) there will be corporate lobbying, no matter how many laws you put up to try and stop it. Every law has a loop-hole and these companies have armies of lawyers experienced at finding loopholes. Say you make the max contribution for a company 10,000 or something, they'll just create a whole bunch of sub-corps and have each donate 10,000 to get back to their original contribution. That's just a single example, everything you do to stop it will have a loophole by nature of needing to allow unaffiliated individuals the chance to help.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1, Funny)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364945)

Say you make the max contribution for a company 10,000 or something

Say we get rid of this destructive legal fiction that identifies corporations as persons, and set their max contribution to zero.

While I'm at it, I'd really like a pony.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365091)

Ban any corporate sponsorship and they'll just find a way around it (Okay Bill, we're going to give you a 2,000,000 bonus and you're going to donate 1,900,000 to X fund to sponsor X thing or Y bad thing will happen to you etc.)

In that case, that would be "money laundering". Given how much of a hassle it is now just to open a checking account, I'd say that prohibitions on money laundering could be enforced, putting the DHS to use for good instead of evil.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

sYkSh0n3 (722238) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364919)

I was thinking about this the other day. And if you did stop corporate sponsorship, what's to prevent say a CEO from giving a "personal" sponsorship for favors for their corporation?

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (3, Informative)

sYkSh0n3 (722238) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364939)

wow, in the 37 seconds it took me to type that, 15 /.'ers managed to say the same thing better AND answer my question

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364975)

Set the individual contribution limit so low as to make any one individual contribution a non-influence. Something in the range of a couple of hundred bucks should do the trick. Now, if only we could get the courts to stop confusing money with speech...

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364699)

It's more that it's just very difficult to stop, without severely interfereing with the ability of common people to support their prefered candidate. ie: "If I can say good things about this candidate I like, why can't I put a favorable ad in the paper or on TV for him?"


Because not all common people can afford an ad in the paper or on TV? And most common people don't want/can't work more for that goal, yet their vote counts as much as someone who has the power to advertise.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364853)

Whilst I agree with your point, the US attitude seems to be like saying that you won't bother to criminalize murder, because you'll never eliminate it. Surely the point is that you should be taking as many stringent steps as possible to make lobbying/bribery very difficult? Adopt a 'The Less, The Better' attitude.

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364667)

See, the thing is it's actually very difficult to get congresscritters to actually do their work and *read* the bills they are signing or striking. So we have a whole type of highly overpriced lawyers whose sole job is to do that work for them, and then explain it to the critters in plain English, while skewing the results towards whatever company paid them the most.

See? It makes perfect sense :-P

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (1)

TravisW (594642) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364795)

Do you really mean the lobbying itself, and not, say, the contributions of corporate sponsors and interest groups that form the other half of this potential conflict of interest?

Were it not for lobbying, congressmen might have a harder time discovering and learning about some issues. How would they, besides the Congressional Research Service, letters from the home district, and -- once they know enough about an issue that they know whom to ask -- calling in expert testimony?

Re:Really hard to make a good case for lobbying. (2, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364819)

The problem with lobbying is that if you ban it, things just move underground and become unaccounted for. This way at least you know who's in bed with whom. If you think legislators from Europe (say, or really anywhere in the world) don't have special interests, you're dreaming.

Its not the lobbying (advocacy), its the money (5, Interesting)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364845)

Lobbying, in itself, is not the problem. Lobbying in its pure form is nothing more than persuasion or advocacy. In fact, I would argue that lobbying is beneficial in a technically complex and diverse society where various groups need to have knowledgeable people pressing their case to lawmakers who could never be expert on the details themselves. Lobbying is important in a pluralistic democracy.

The problem is that the lobbyists can "bundle" donations in order to give fat checks to lawmakers. Bundling is a technique of pooling money from several donors to get around limits on individual donors.

Only one form of campaign finance reform will ever really work. All others will ALWAYS fail. The one that will work is to enact the following - Allow only registered voters who are eligible to vote for a candidate/issue may donate to that candidate/issue. Only registered voters in a district have any business influencing elections in that district. People from California, New York, or anywhere else have *NO* legitimate reason to donate to a candidate or referendum issue in Nebraska, but I would be willing to bet Nebraska Senators and Congressmen raise most of their cash from out-of-state interests. So there is the problem, and I've given the solution.

Of course nobody who is vested in the current system will ever go along with that proposal. It doesn't matter whether its the politicians or business groups, labor unions, or 'advocacy' groups like on both the left or right like the ACLU, AARP, or NRA. They all believe they have an interest in the current system.

Yes. And?... (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364949)

I don't understand what place lobbying has in a democracy. I don't care how transparent it is, it's still a bribe.


So, where would you draw the line? Where does liberty of expression end and lobbying start?


Suppose there's a law stating that no one can donate more than $1000 to any candidate. How would that stop me from selling marketing services to some candidate at a $100 thousand loss for my company? When the other candidate comes, "sorry, we do not offer that service anymore, here, check our catalog for our new price list".

Re:Yes. And?... (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365015)

Suppose there's a law stating that no one can donate more than $1000 to any candidate. How would that stop me from selling marketing services to some candidate at a $100 thousand loss for my company? When the other candidate comes, "sorry, we do not offer that service anymore, here, check our catalog for our new price list".

I'd imagine a conviction for conspiracy to conceal election fraud would stop you for a few years, depending on the skills of your lawyer and the zeal of the prosecutor.

Re:Yes. And?... (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365089)

Suppose you formulate the law slightly smarter, like making any donation with a value of more than $1000 illegal?

Obligatory Star Wars quote. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364531)

Obama, you were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy DRM, not join them! Bring balance to the internet, not leave it in darkness!

Benefits vs. Costs (2, Interesting)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364535)

The biggest contribution on the list is $9000; most are $2000 or less. If you knew about the public opinion on the RIAA, why would you take money from them? It seems like the negative publicity f having taken money would outweigh whatever you could do with the money.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (1)

Rydia (556444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364559)

Nerds on the internet is not "public opinion." I'm sorry, they act terribly, but just because a group of people think something, especially as insular a group as the one that frequents slashdot, does not mean there is any sort of public support for it.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364621)

Well said. A friend of mine, who used to drive cab and has nothing to do with computers (except ripping borrowed music and movies, checking his emails and watching porn), when mentioned about RIAA had no idea what it means. He said "Sorry dude, I am not into news and all that kinda things."

It was only when I told him that it's possible he may get in trouble with them for downloading movies and mp3s off the net, he was a bit interested, but only a bit.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (1)

ronadams (987516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364841)

Was he any more interested when you mentioned he could get a life sentence [yahoo.com] for piracy, or even "attempting" [com.com] it [theinquirer.net] ?

Just because it isn't generally noticed that an impending destruction of certain civil liberties by an anti-democratic, overpowered lobbying corporate interest is at hand, does not mean that we should sit on our thumbs. Grass-roots movements don't start with the masses; they go to them. Have we forgotten how "power to the people" works already?

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364973)

maybe he was an honest man that pays for music that he likes, and thus isnt a leech or pirate, in which case whby should he care? its only all the thieving scumbags on slashdot tha feel the world owes them a living getting all hot under the collar because some companies who lose milliones to copyright infringement might actually want the LAW enforced properly.
Dress it up all you like, if its for sale, and you like it, you buy it. everything else is theft.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364995)

maybe he was an honest man that pays for music

From the GP: "A friend of mine, who used to drive cab and has nothing to do with computers (except ripping borrowed music and movies)"

So, by the standards you've expressed for honesty, no.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (3, Insightful)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364611)

The biggest contribution on the list is $9000; most are $2000 or less. If you knew about the public opinion on the RIAA, why would you take money from them? It seems like the negative publicity f having taken money would outweigh whatever you could do with the money.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. We, the voters, have done a poor job of holding these people accountable for much of anything. RIAA is just one of many special interest groups whose low 4-figure contributions make up the funding of a campaign. I suspect if someone looked at the non-cash perks being tossed around by lobbyists, the results would be interesting.

Re:Benefits vs. Costs (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364707)

So... make sure they know that. Call them up and complain.

You're joking, right? (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364541)

First of all, this is who the RIAA donated to, not who "accepted" their money. I would say nearly all politicians will except money from anyone, except entities who are clearly negative to the mainstream (and the RIAA is NOT "clearly negative" to the mainstream).

One of the ways the RIAA operates is by donating money to politicians who then enact favorable legislation on their behalf. Don't let the optimist in you believe that this doesn't work. It does.

Second of all, these amounts are ridiculously small. Does anyone seriously thinking $1,000-$9,000 is going to buy major legislation? That won't pay for their gold letter opener on their desk. Sheesh, if that's all it takes to pass legislation, I'll pay a couple thou to get MY pet legislation passed.

In short, what's the story here?

Re:You're joking, right? (3, Insightful)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364593)

That gives me an interesting thought- what if the RIAA gives that money to the ones that -don't- support their cause in the hopes that you won't vote for them next time.

Re:You're joking, right? (1)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364761)

The only people that would care about such a thing would be people who frequent /., digg, arstechnica, and the other tech/geek sites. Face it, the majority of the US population does not really know who the RIAA let alone whether they are "evil" or whatever. The rest of the US population voters do not care for these type of issues as they do not truly no what it is that they have lost to the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/TCG.

Re:You're joking, right? (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364609)

except entities who are clearly negative to the mainstream

You know, I kinda remember there was a Colbert segment on Mary Carey getting into the Republican Party on $5000

Re:You're joking, right? (2, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364693)

except entities who are clearly negative to the mainstream

You know, I kinda remember there was a Colbert segment on Mary Carey getting into the Republican Party on $5000.

Which just goes to show that porn stars are pretty much mainstream entertainment, hypocritical public exhortations to morality aside.

Re:You're joking, right? (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364723)

I'll pay a couple thou to get MY pet legislation passed.
Please don't. I tried this before but in hindsight I realise that letting my goldfish determine how the country was run was really just putting them under too much stress and pressure for their tiny brains and hearts to deal with.

Re:You're joking, right? (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364753)

I tried this before but in hindsight I realise that letting my goldfish determine how the country was run was really just putting them under too much stress and pressure for their tiny brains and hearts to deal with.
That's why I've felt so bad for the Republican Congress since 1994. At least they've been honest with us. P.J. O'Rourke (approximately): "Republicans are the party that tells you how government never works, and then they get elected and prove it."

Re:You're joking, right? (2, Informative)

palewook (1101845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364793)

article is from ppl that accepted the money, anyone that canceled the check didnt make the list.

Re:You're joking, right? (1, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364801)

Second of all, these amounts are ridiculously small. Does anyone seriously thinking $1,000-$9,000 is going to buy major legislation? That won't pay for their gold letter opener on their desk. Sheesh, if that's all it takes to pass legislation, I'll pay a couple thou to get MY pet legislation passed.

In short, what's the story here?


Question is: if someone hasn't agreed to lobby about RIAA, why would RIAA pay him even $1. Because they like USA? And thus just randomly send 50 politicians some pocket change?

Things in politics are simplified: if you're suspect in immoral or illegal activity, you should step down. There more than enough people, who are as good or better than you, to take your place. No one is irreplaceable.

If people who hate RIAA dearly (for whatever reason) voted for someone who accepted even $1 from RIAA, they have the right to know, and correct their voting decisions.

Re:You're joking, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364847)

Interestingly, The Chaser (a group of Australian pranksters/activists with their own tv show - quite popular) had a skit based just on that - they donated money to various politicans and parties in the name of unpopular organisations such as the KKK. The only problem was they donated so little ($20) that it's unlikely that anyone would have checked to see who the donation was from..

Re:You're joking, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19365031)

As spokesperson for NAMBLA, we stand by the RIAA and applaud their goals. Forward thinking congresspeople should gladly accept donations and advice from such fine organizations as NAMBLA and the RIAA. NAMBLA and the RIAA, working together for a better tomorrow.

Re:You're joking, right? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365093)

(and the RIAA is NOT "clearly negative" to the mainstream)

Really? Where was that survey that showed that the RIAA was considered by people to be the worst corporation in the US? I think they exceeded the distaste shown for Enron and their Ilk.

Dem-Repub Breakdown (3, Informative)

natedubbya (645990) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364543)

By my count in the article, that's 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Of the presidential candidates, the two Democrats Barack and Hillary are on there.


The real shock ... (1)

Aaron_Pike (528044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364549)

The real shock to me is that it's only fifty.

Re: The real shock ... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364717)

The real shock to me is that it's only fifty.
And such small amounts of money.

$2500 is the average (3, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364555)

The bribe is about the same for Democrat or Republican and just happens to be about the same as a RIAA "settlement offer."

Cheap sellout bastards indeed!

The solution is simple then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364607)

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, not for the Republicrats nor the Democans. They have sold this country to the highest bidders, while the Libertarian party will hold true to the constitution and not take anything from the MAFIAA.

Re: The solution is simple then (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364641)

VOTE LIBERTARIAN
Yeah, 'cause that turned out so well the last couple of times.

not for the Republicrats nor the Democans. They have sold this country to the highest bidders, while the Libertarian party will hold true to the constitution and not take anything from the MAFIAA.
That remains to be seen.

Re:The solution is simple then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364709)

I'm not going to just vote for a particular party -any- time. There are horrible candidates from any party. If you vote for your party, you're doing yourself and your country a gigantic disservice. What happens when your libertarian president turns out to be either extremist or extremely moderate or even perhaps mildly some other party? Don't vote for the party- parties are a good place to start looking for someone who meets your ideals, but simply voting for one party every election isn't going to get you what you want.

Re: The solution is simple then (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364775)

I'm not going to just vote for a particular party -any- time. There are horrible candidates from any party. If you vote for your party, you're doing yourself and your country a gigantic disservice. What happens when your libertarian president turns out to be either extremist or extremely moderate or even perhaps mildly some other party?
Also, when any third party starts actually winning elections it's going to start attracting the same hypocritical scum the other parties do.

Look at the hypocrisy and corruption among the religious right's leadership. Is that because the rank and file want that kind of leadership? No, it's because there's money and power to be had, and plenty of people willing to pretend a little righteousness to get in on the whores and cocaine. To say nothing of those who might have been innocent before encountering the reality of "power corrupts".

Re:The solution is simple then (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364727)

No! Vote for the Popular People's Anarcho-Syndacalist party! They're the only really pure group of politicians!

Nah, just kidding. They're all shits, just a bunch of grubby salesmen pushing ridiculous dreams on the uncritical masses. Oh, and a foundation of democracy and all that.

Vote Used Rubber not Turd Sandwich or Giant Douch (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364867)

If voting could change the system it would be against the law.

Re:$2500 is the average (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364725)

just happens to be about the same as a RIAA "settlement offer."

You didn't think they were gonna pay them out of their own pockets, did you?

Getting the consumers you sue to pay to make stricter laws which enables you to make more money from lawsuits sounds like a solid business plan to me.

Bipartisanship in DC! (3, Insightful)

Aeron65432 (805385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364565)

I think one very important thing to note about this list is it is pretty equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Only further proves Ron Paul's quote (to paraphrase) when he said to watch out when Republicans and Democrats worked happily together, because the taxpayers and citizens are screwed.

FAx or call as well (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364571)

as email. I remember reading somewhere that email was consider to easy and therefore not a reliable guage of public opinion. Personally I think they just afraid of getting caught yanking on their tubes [slashdot.org] .

It's not bribery... (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364585)

... we prefer to call it "pre-voting". And don't think that who ever those 50 senators are running against in the next elections aren't going to get some "donations" as well. By the time the candidates get to the actual ballots, all of your "democratic" influence is just for show. I'll vote for the guy with a good informative website and not a single TV commercial or trip to my home state.

O really? (1)

erareno (1103509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364903)

Just kind of to put this information out there....

Most of those people are incumbents, and the one that got the most money doesn't even chair a committee remotely related to RIAA.

Also, those 'opponents' aren't very likely to get much money, considering the rate of re-election these days. (90% incumbency rate in house, something like 75% in senate). That means that 90% of the time, a house memeber can win an election in his district again if he's the current guy in the seat. This also means that this money isn't likely to swway them one way or the other. (That's what whips are for).

Small payment amounts (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364589)

but might be a good strategy as this'll keep "RIAA is the victim here" in the back tens of politicians minds so when time comes for a vote this might sway them to side with any legislation that is backed by the record companies.

I'll kill^H^H^H^Htalk to these people!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364675)

Seems like a good time to let a few people know how you feel about RIAA shills.

I'm outraged by this!

I'll go and take the money away from them!

And TV will come with me and make a frickin' documentation of it... so you can all watch me doin' it!

For a few dollars more.. (4, Interesting)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364681)

Is it just me who is shocked, shocked by how little it takes to buy a Congressman these days? I mean, in days gone by it would have been hundreds of thousands, a job for the kid to allow him to work through college, a few first class tickets to somewhere nice...

Now its like $1000-9000. I mean I could buy a Congressman for that amount of money. If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

Either the RIAA is stingy or Congressmen are desperate for extra cash.

Re:For a few dollars more.. (2, Funny)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364915)

If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

You must be new here.

Re:For a few dollars more.. (3, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364941)

Either the RIAA is stingy or Congressmen are desperate for extra cash.

Might I posit "both"?

Now its like $1000-9000. I mean I could buy a Congressman for that amount of money. If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

Really, considering the amount of influence donations/lobbyists have, why don't more people organize around the issues that are important to them, raise money, and buy their own congressmen? At this point, we really should.

Or... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364951)

If Slashdotters just collaborate then for $50 a head we could get Congress to ban Microsoft...

Or, you could do a quick google search to see just how much Microsoft contributes across the political board. It's in the millions.

Funny you say that.... (4, Interesting)

erareno (1103509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365003)

...Because the McCain-Feingold Law (aka BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act) LIMITS the amount of money an individual doner can give to a candidate (legally, at least). Individuals are allowed to give $2k before a primary and then $2k more after the primary. Corporations get something like a $5k limit.

Of course, where there's a will, there's a way.....

The NRA, for instance, gets around this by getting almost every single one of it's memebers to donate money to candidates in trouble. These donations quickly add up, and are quite influential to candidates. I suspect that this is likely what will happen soon with RIAA. They'll get artists and labels that are mad to donate to candidates.

I just hope that that day will never come....

What is Lobbying? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364731)

Lobbying = Freedom of Assembly + Freedom of Speech

This might seem like inexpensive representation. $2000 to influence a vote. From the elected official's position it works like one of those diagrams cuts of beef [gutenberg.org] . Slice of RIAA, slice of Big Oil slice of Greenpeace, etc. Selling your position piecemeal is quite lucrative.

Why these fifty? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364735)

Lotsa posts on this thread are focusing on how small the dollar amounts are etc.. I just want to know why it was these fifty politicians who recieved the cash.

Oh wait. The article doesn't say that these are the only fifty who accepted RIAA money, just that these are fifty who did. There is not enough info presented to determine anything.

Now, if they had posted voting records for fifty pols who took cash and fifty that didn't this would be a decent article. As it is, though, this is just filler.

Regards.

Re:Why these fifty? (1)

YouTookMyStapler (1057796) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364861)

Most, if not all, politicians are corrupt. They are just corrupt to varying degrees. Some more, some less.

Being in one or the other (major) political parties, does not exempt one from corruption.

List of Consumers ? (3, Insightful)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364759)

I would like there to be a list published of the people that bought RIAA CDs, thereby providing funding to these crooks.

Hold on? (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364797)

Shouldn't they be giving the money they raise to the artists?

innovate.. don't criticise (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364807)

Perhaps we should come up with a way to make this work in our favour.... instead of complaining... just raise money online and use the funds to bribe/donate to US Politcal representatives.

"Do you now, (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364851)

or have you ever, given money to the RIAA?"

Is there some inalienable right to free music? If you think the market is overpriced, go hear a local band or pick up your own noisemaker and have some fun with it. Maybe if the RIAA executives hear a bunch of Slashdotters' singing they'll come down on their prices.

In a country whose long-term drift toward fascism has accelerated into a rush, there are far more important issues that we should be raising hell about.

This is hardly a smoking gun. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364859)

Much as I despise many of the companies that donate money to politician's campaign funds, there's really nothing to see here. Any corporation over a certain size is likely to give money to both the incumbent and the top challenger in each senate race, and the politicians are going to take the money and only give it back if there's a particularly large public outcry over some particular donor (like if the donor is a felon looking for a pardon, or something along those lines.)

-jcr

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19364865)

Now, give me the info for all the others who didn't take it....because if people stopped pirating, the RIAA wouldn't exist. So, start charging people with federal copyright law claims, and maybe people won't be stupid.

Hilary Clinton is on list (0, Flamebait)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19364997)

I will make sure to vote republican this next election.

At least the republicans are not in the hands of big business media conglomerates.

Re:Hilary Clinton is on list (1)

axia777 (1060818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365011)

No Media, but Republicans are in the hands of Big Oil. So what is worse, Oil companies or Media companies? Mmm, I wonder......

Re:Hilary Clinton is on list (1)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365059)

Actually, there are 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats on the list.

Pretty evenlt split (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365013)

DEM-REP
21-28
$54,000-$67,465 $121.465 total. Not a large amount of money. Especially to each individual. Wonder what they actually got for that.

WTF? (1)

axia777 (1060818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365023)

Is anyone here REALLY surprised by this? This is business as usual on Capitol Hill. What is new? What would be new is to see a major Congress person who has taken no money from any company for any reason. Now that would revolutionary for sure.

Not a huge impact. (2, Insightful)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19365051)

What does $2000 buy you? Like 0.75 seconds of TV ad time? IMO, this is being blown way out of proportion.

Re:Not a huge impact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19365075)

Amen, these aren't huge amounts at all.

But you should be in contact with your congress person anyway, if this scare tactic gets you to write so be it..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?