Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats
from the avoid-corruption dept
Late last week, we wrote about the ridiculous situation in which MPAA boss Chris Dodd publicly threatened elected officials who take Hollywood money, but who don’t pass the laws that the MPAA wants. Of course, most people assume that everyone expects a quid pro quo, but actually stating it out loud and on television is really remarkable, and has resulted in calls for an investigation into Dodd. I’d argue that the focus should really be on the politicians. In fact, the folks over at Free Press are now calling on those in Congress to return campaign donations from Hollywood to show that Congress is not for sale:
“The MPAA is so brazen in its efforts to buy legislation with campaign cash that its leader, himself a former senator, sees nothing wrong with threatening legislators on national TV. We think it’s time that Congress showed that its votes are no longer for sale. The first thing Congress must do is give back the MPAA’s tainted campaign cash or give it to charity. Congress must make it clear to the world that it won’t be bullied into supporting censorship.”
Of course, it’s unlikely that anyone in Congress will actually do this, but it certainly would make a pretty loud and clear statement.
Filed Under: campaign finance, chris dodd, congress, corruption, donations, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa
Comments on “Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats”
LOL
Yea right. What is going on? First you had some newspaper publisher publically talking about offing the president and now big entertainment is asking for its money back? In public? Am I on the right planet?
Re: LOL
Dodd wasn’t asking for his money back, he was asking for his money’s worth.
Re: LOL
Apparently you fail at reading comprehension.
It is Free Press asking for congress to give the money back, not the entertainment industry.
Re: LOL
If this works, maybe we can ask them to resign next time?
Re: LOL
yeah, what politician would give back money…..its like asking a used car salesman to be honest…
This does put Congress in a somewhat difficult position, so that can only be good for the populace. On one hand, if they do as they have been requested to, it brings them respect from the people and proves even more clearly the truth of Hollywood’s corruption whilst angering Hollywood even further and possibly leading them into further irrational, desperate acts which could undermine their stability more than their current actions already have. If Congress ignores this request, it only proves the depth of their own corruption clearly enough that even the average citizen can see it and makes their ties to Hollywood transparent for all to see.
Re: Re:
I’m going to lean towards Congress being more worried about angering Hollywood more the the general public. Despite the protests, the public has yet to show any teeth in actually removing people from Congress.
And even if they do show some bite, so long as Democrats and Republican keep getting replaced by other Democrats and Republican, the basic status quo is still maintained. Not until Congress or the White House start being replaced by independents or independent parties I doubt they are going to be too concerned with what the public thinks.
Re: Re: Re:
Here’s the thing: Until November, there is no way TO “show teeth” with regard to removing Congressmen/Senators. Recall elections are not possible at the national level, so until we CAN vote them out, we can’t, well, vote them out.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some states do have recall rules available.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
which states? I could do a website in a couple hours that allows people to print out petition forms and return envelopes.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I know Wisconsin does: I think VA, NV and CA do, the rest I’m pretty sure don’t.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
New Jersey
Nevada
North Dakota
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections-campaigns/recall-of-state-officials.aspx
Re: Re: Re:
Independents & independent parties are unlikely to behave any differently. The problem isn’t the parties as such. It’s the corruption, which is systemic and unaffiliated with any given party (or lack of it).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you look at the pirate party in the EU and the Tea party in the US, you see they are sticking to their guns. If we could find politicians that would do the same things on issues we care about, we wouldn’t need to find independents.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Your problem is the instant 20% lead both parties get on an independent. That is the first huddle. Also most PAC’s and organizations that are seen as a potential source of funding, generally will not even meet with an Independent until they can show poll results of them being ahead or very very close.. And the polls cost about 10K for a House seat (small district) and up to 500K for a medium state.
I dislike “party” politics but the system is so tilted toward them at this point breaking in a 3rd or independent party is difficult at best.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sorry to chime in here as anonymous, but the tea party movement seems to be being co-opted by the republican establishment does it not?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You are looking at the wrong thing, the Tea Party showed the way in America of how to get people you want in power.
What they didn’t had was a law prepared for those they voted in, that is the problem with them right now, they don’t have a clear vision of what they want yet.
Now if you take their example and do it yourself surely one can create their own root movement, the thing is people need to start thinking in terms of laws and not “directions”, they need to get into the dirty stuff and start reading the laws they have and use those as templates for the laws they want and then voting people in to pass those laws, repealed the ones the people don’t like reform something, but people need to agree on a plan since the idiots in congress apparently can’t hold off their addiction to campaign money is up to the public to take them out and do something about the laws themselves instead of asking politicians to do it for us.
I really think the donate the money to charity option is the best. Hollywood obviously did not need the money so they shouldn’t get it back.
Re: Investment
I could’ve sworn I heard somewhere that money put into lobbying usually nets return of about 22000% on the “investment”.
Re: Re: Investment
Just in tax breaks!
Re: Re: Investment
Yeah, I remember hearing that. I wish I knew of a way to get 22000% returns on investments. I would be a very rich man now instead of having to go to work each day to make just enough money to eat and pay off student loans.
Re: Re: Re: Investment
You do know how to get that return.
Invest heavily in congress critters.
Re: Re: Investment
Now this is a scary though, they spent 90+ million on pushing SOPA forward. 22000% return on that is a big number.
Re: Re: Investment
I could’ve sworn I heard somewhere that money put into lobbying usually nets return of about 22000% on the “investment”.
Mike covered that in December. Jack Abramoff thinks that number is too low.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111224/01031317187/jack-abramoff-explains-return-investment-lobbying-22000-is-surprisingly-low.shtml
Re: Re: Re: Investment
Whatever the number is, people have certainly figured out that they can vote themselves money.
Re: Re:
“Hollywood obviously did not need the money…”
They could use it to pay the artists.
Nah, just kidding! 🙂
Why would they give the money back when they need it to win in the elections against their opponents so they can stay in office and continue to make laws that protect their constituents from pirates? I don’t think you’ve really thought this one through.
Re: Re:
And if they don’t give the money back, people will refuse to vote for them as a result of bribery.
I don’t know about you but there should be a lot more average citizens than Chris Dodds to vote.
Of course, it’s unlikely that anyone in Congress will actually do this, but it certainly would make a pretty loud and clear statement.
It would only take one and there would be a stampede to get rid of the tainted funds.
Re: Re:
You are right – see what happened after the MPs’ expenses scandal in the UK.
then Congress needs to make it known to the world that it supports the people that voted for them to get into office in the first place, not corporations.
more chance of landing a man on the Sun and him surviving!
No
That’s the thing, votes are for sale, have been for a loooong time and it’s gonna stay that way until we start putting them in prison for life for the shit. Senators and congress critters suffer no real consequences for these things.
We need to set an example. We need to string one up.
Re: No
I’d vote for that for a dollar!
RE
Now, NOW NOW is the time for a 5 million flash mob in DC, March 1 is too far away
The time is ripe, OWS, tea party, Pirates, Freetards, Unite.
Show the world what we really think of SOPA/PIPA
Re: REally...?
Yep, nothing like getting all the dissenters together in one convenient location so the FBI/CIA/Army/Police/SWAT/whatever can first push them into defined “free speech zones” (which are always out of sight of the camera crews) and later–after some illegal jail time in which nobody was charged with an actual crime–the “leaders” of the movement will just disappear into some sort of (now legal*) indefinite detention as they’ve been deemed ‘possible’ terrorists.
So long as the wolves are pretending to be shepherds, all the sheep are in danger.
BAAAH!
Re: Re: REally...?
I Predict a Riot
I predict a Riot
I Predict a Riot
I predict a Riot
And if there’s anybody else in here
That doesn’t want ot be out there
I predict a Riot.
You know for an industry “decimated” by piracy and loosing kajillions of made up dollars, they sure seem to have plenty to throw around.
Maybe they are confusing their “donations” with “piracy losses”.
Re: Re:
That’s a structural instability in our system of auctioning off laws to the highest bidder.
Maybe the studios wouldn’t be so hard up financially if they invested that money in creating content, hiring back out of work filmmakers that they are so concerned about all the time, and stuff that generally relates to what they are in business for rather than paying the MPAA to buy politicians. I bet they could hire lots of grips and best boys for what they waste on Chris Dodd!
Re: Re:
Well Dodd was supposed to be their best boy, he was going to have a tight grip on Congress to get them the laws to roll the internet back to the days of telegrams.
Re: Re: Well Dodd was supposed to be their best boy, he was going to have a tight grip ...
?Best boy? … ?grip? … are we making movie-production-crew puns, now?
I owe you nothing
I’m actually opposed to this idea, for two reasons:
1. Returning the money is tantamount to saying “your legislation enacted or your money back!” To keep the money and not vote for these bills is a much more effective way to discourage future bribery.
2. Returning the money is almost an admission that it was accepted as a bribe, with the understanding that it would buy a vote that would otherwise go the other way. I would stand my ground and say “I vote as I think best, that’s what you get when you elect me, that’s what you pay for when you support my campaigns; if they thought they were buying my vote they were wrong, and if you think so you’re wrong too, either way I will not give back the money”. (Of course, that attitude is exactly why I will never be elected to any kind of high office.)
Re: I owe you nothing
Exactly. Those calling for a return of this money have not thought this through. It sets a horrible precedent and lends legitimacy to the current corrupt system. The best outcome we can expect from congress is to take money from everyone and then vote however they please.
Re: I owe you nothing
I have to agree with this.
Re: I owe you nothing
“To keep the money and not vote for these bills is a much more effective way to discourage future bribery.”
In that case they should donate it to charity. Or maybe even the pirate party or the EFF.
Why return?
Keep the money and publicly say you can’t be bought when you vote against your contributors.
Re: Why return?
Do you know what ?bite the hand that feeds you? means?
Anyone calling on Congress to give Google’s money back? Oh right, that’s different.
Re: Re:
Why would they? Congress hasn’t decided to shelve any Google-written legislation.
Oh wait. There hasn’t *been* any Google-written legislation, my bad.
Re: Re:
I have, and still do. Bribery has no place in politics.
RE Google
they sue Google, no need for “contributions”
Besides, isn’t Google the net anyways?? (now)
Re: RE Google
The intergoogles?
WH Petition 2 Investigate Dodd/MPAA
It already has 29K+ after 5 days.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv
MPAA bribes
Sunlight Foundation has the MPAA donations broken down.
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/motion-picture-assn-of-america/90b570b10c2b4483a1af69149521324a
They already got elected, so what’s the point?
Re: Re:
The point is pressure.
There is really nothing new in this. Generally whenever large sums of money are contributed to politicians there is usually some kind of expected quid pro quo. This is true whether it is political pacs, political parties, all lobbyists or other interest groups. The Tea Party has told conservative members of Congress that if you are not “conservative” enough we will not only not support you but we will pump large amounts of money to your opponet to defeat you, and have been successful doing so. The only real question is not about where the money comes from but whether and to what exgtent members of the Government, in fact, are selling their votes to those interests and generally that is a very difficult thing to credibly ascertain
I honestly can’t think of a stronger way to get the message across. This move will really restore some of my faith in the US government.
Alas, one can only dream.