Who's Still Backing SOPA/PIPA... And Why?

from the not-dead-yet... dept

With all the talk about SOPA/PIPA it's worth noting that neither bill is really dead yet, and either one could come back at any time -- though you'd hope that Senator Leahy and Rep. Smith realize that they'd be crazy to just bring the bills back without being more open about the process. In the meantime, though, there's been lots of talk about all of the elected officials who dropped off as sponsors -- and they should be rightly commended. But what about the rest? Who is still sponsoring these bills, even though they're widely recognized as being toxic... and what are they thinking? Here's the list of the remaining SOPA sponsors, according to Govtrack:
  • Rep. Lamar Smith
  • Mark Amodei
  • Joe Baca
  • John Barrow
  • Karen Bass
  • Howard Berman
  • Marsha Blackburn
  • Mary Bono Mack
  • Steven Chabot
  • Judy Chu
  • John Conyers
  • Jim Cooper
  • Ted Deutch
  • Elton Gallegly
  • Robert Goodlatte
  • Peter King
  • John Larson
  • Thomas Marino
  • Alan Nunnelee
  • William Owens
  • Adam Schiff
  • Brad Sherman
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  • Melvin Watt
The seven who withdrew were Tim Griffin, Dennis Ross, Lee Terry, John Carter, Steve Scalise, Ben Ray Lujan, Tim Holden and Ben Quayle. Marsha Blackburn seemed to indicate she was dropping the bill, but is still officially listed. It could be a time thing, but it's been a while since she made her comments.

Over on the PIPA side, the remaining co-sponsors are
  • Pat Leahy
  • Lamar Alexander
  • Jeff Bingaman
  • Richard Blumenthal
  • Barbara Boxer
  • Sherrod Brown
  • Benjamin Cardin
  • Robert Casey
  • Thad Cochran
  • Chris Coons
  • Bob Corker
  • Richard Durbin
  • Michael Enzi
  • Dianne Feinstein
  • Al Franken
  • Kirsten Gillibrand
  • Lindsey Graham
  • Charles Grassley
  • Kay Hagan
  • John Isakson
  • Tim Johnson
  • Amy Klobuchar
  • Herbert Kohl
  • Mary Landrieu
  • Joseph Lieberman
  • John McCain
  • Robert Menendez
  • Bill Nelson
  • Charles Schumer
  • Jeanne Shaheen
  • Tom Udall
  • Sheldon Whitehouse
Those who saw the light and removed themselves were Jerry Moran (who dropped the bill way back in June of last year, realizing early on what a bad bill it was), Orrin Hatch, Roy Blunt, Marco Rubio, John Boozman, Kelly Ayotte, Michael Bennett, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter and James Risch.

The question then, is why others still have their names listed on these bills? Do they have a reason for it? I know that few of them -- like Senator Franken -- still keep trying to defend the bills, despite the fact that the public has spoken loud and clear that they do not support these bills. But for the rest? Why remain a sponsor of such toxic concepts?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 2:57pm

    Isn't it obvious?

    The reason is money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:02pm

    Honest Politicians!

    Once they're bought, they stay bought!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 5:36pm

      Re: Honest Politicians!

      Exactly !
      They are bought for life.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Endtimer (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

      Re: Honest Politicians!

      And they say there are no honest politicians. At least they're loyal to the people who bought them off.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josef Anvil (profile), Feb 8th, 2012 @ 12:57am

      Re: Honest Politicians!

      One thing I noticed is that, quite a few of the senators that are supporting PIPA are the ones that have no fear of losing their jobs. They have been in office for a long time and have little to no opposition for re-election.

      So yes, they can stay bought with no fear of backlash.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:04pm

    Any bill that contains piracy enforcement is a bad bill according to Mike Masnick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:07pm

      Re:

      Any bill that contains INEFFECTUAL piracy enforcement is a bad bill according to Mike Masnick.

      FTFY

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      I'm curious. Do you think that Wikipedia broke its all-important neutrality just on the word of Mike Masnick? SOPA clearly wasn't just any anti-piracy bill.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:18pm

        Re: Re:

        Google gave half a million dollars to wikipedia in November.

        That might have something to do with it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And half a million people gave Wikipedia a dollar in November, what's your point?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:58pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, by your logic, if an organization gives another organization (for example, a senator) some money then that is the definitive reason for their support?

          Which way do you want it, organizations for and against only do it because of money from influencers or those for and against may have valid reasons for their opinions?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Are you guys still trying to make out like Google is the prime source of opposition?? Good, keep thinking that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          A Guy (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, please direct any retribution for your failed policies to Google. The rest of us 14 million-ish people who called in to oppose the bill will be happy with that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 7:39pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Google gave half a million dollars to wikipedia in November."

          Except that Wikipedia isn't written by any one person - ANYONE can and do edit, voluntarily. I've seen some hot debates with text changing frequently. I think if someone used an iron fist to squash editors about a company there would be revolt. It's been bad enough with just the concept of letting corporate PR departments allowed to make changes.

          Or is my head in the sand?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 5:13pm

      Re:

      Any bill that violates the constitution is a bad bill.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Pseudonym, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 5:23pm

      Re:

      Anyone who opposes red flag laws is clearly anti-road safety.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:09pm

    I unsubscribed from Franken's email list after his post-SOPA email defending PIPA. Apparently my bold and fiery protest action had little affect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Prashanth (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

    Lamar

    Isn't it interesting that both Lamars in Congress support these bills quite vocally?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    blaktron (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:16pm

    Mike, you know this meets the textbook definitions of 'cyber-bullying' I've seen bandied about in your insane country... better watch yourself ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alex V, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:19pm

    Why don't you put the person's party next to their name?

    That's standard when dealing with voting/support for a particular bill, so neglecting to specify party affiliation is actually pretty negligent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 11:09pm

      Re: Why don't you put the person's party next to their name?

      That's standard when dealing with voting/support for a particular bill, so neglecting to specify party affiliation is actually pretty negligent.

      It has always been our policy that we do not name parties unless it's directly relevant to the story. Naming parties plays into the "us vs. them" storylines of the major media. This issue is not a partisan issue. Naming the party adds nothing.

      In fact, I'd argue that focusing on the parties would be much more negligent than not naming them, because then people just focus on which party people belong to rather than their individual positions.

      This has nothing to do with party politics.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    David, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:20pm

    Cardin

    According to Senator Cardin, he's remaining a co-sponsor of PIPA so that he can continue to have a say in the bill's development, but he opposes it in its current form, specifically any DNS provisions. Take that for what it is worth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 7:46pm

      Re: Cardin

      "...but he opposes it in its current form, specifically any DNS provisions. Take that for what it is worth."

      And how does that make sense to "support" a bill that you don't support in it's current form? Why not get on OPEN's bill instead ... (one guess).

      I bet all of those in congress still on that list are issuing the same sentiment in their responses. Some poor PR marketing firm has been working overtime to come up with that spin.

      It might be interesting to send them all the same letter and see how many say the same things in the same way.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Endtimer (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:21pm

        Re: Re: Cardin

        He didn't say he supports the bill, he says he sponsors it, there's a big difference. Namely, the ability make changes to it before it's brought before the Senate/House. It's still a flimsy arguement, but not as silly as you make it sound.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Cardin

          "Namely, the ability make changes to it before it's brought before the Senate/House."

          I didn't know that. Thank you.

          Another question is; how likely is it for a bill to reach the floor for a vote when it has few sponsors, or does that even matter?

          (this would conclude my civic lesson for the day :o)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Endtimer (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 10:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Cardin

            As far as I know, any bill can make it to the senate even with only one sponsor and a cosponsor. If you're asking if having more sponsors somehow helps it get to the floor faster or what have you, ask me again when it's not 1 am my time.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:29pm

    I wrote Amodei about SOPA. Here is the letter which I got back from him a little bit ago about it.
    http://i.imgur.com/VbJlq.jpg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Kevin H (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:31pm

      Re:

      please excuse the Screen Shot. The resolution should be adequate for viewing on small devices though.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JLofty, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 4:53pm

      Re:

      I got the exact same letter. Should we write him back on how he came up with $100 Billion in losses?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:46pm

      Re:

      $100 Billion annually? Are you serious??

      Millions of American jobs lost? Really??

      Where do these guys get their numbers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 7:57pm

        Re: Re:

        "Where do these guys get their numbers." Do you really have to ask? Take ONE guess.

        And to make matters worse, not a single non-industry supported study has agreed with US industry supported studies. In fact they are routinely thrown out due to errors in how they got the numbers.

        How does he explain the steady growth in entertainment spending even during a recession?

        There is no excuse to be so dumb.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Endtimer (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sure their is. If the average news reader only hears the fake $100 billion numbers then they're more likely to support PIPA/SOPA. Even if they do hear the real numbers the execs can always play the classic "We have our numbers, they have their numbers, you decide!" Trick.

          Just look at the global warming debate. 90% of the scientific comunity are in agreement that global warming is real and man made, but I still hear conservatives trying to claim the science is not in every now and again. As long as they keep cranking out their own 'studies' they can convince the odd citisen who isn't watching too closely that what they're doing is warrented.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 8th, 2012 @ 12:21am

        Re: Re:

        Where do these guys get their numbers.

        One guy pulls a random number out of the air and spreads it around for a few months. Other people quote that number repeatedly without mentioning the first guy made it up. Some other people adjust the number upwards for no rational reason. Others start quoting the new higher number. Repeat ad infinitum.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 11th, 2012 @ 10:07pm

      Re:

      The reply literally reeks of FORM LETTER.

      Other than that does he seriously think that SOPA will stop some Chinese companies from making and selling fake IGT gaming machines? If they're making money at it they'll keep doing it.

      And just what is this "intellectual property industry" be mentions in paragraph 8?

      Strikes me that any company holding so much as a single patent would be part of that and he also seems blissfully unaware that the tech industry relies on copyright for both closed and open source software a reliance that hasn't changed since the 1950s. Which would make them part of said industry too though a majority of the tech industry opposed SOPA/PIPA.

      It would be more correct for him to have referred to what's now being called "the content industry" rather than Hollywood which has a nicer ring to it and is less likely to get people wondering just what Hollywood needs protection from THIS time.

      Nice to know that some assistant actually read your letter/email enough to hit the function key on his/her computer to dash off this dandy form letter in return.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    AG Wright (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:49pm

    Business politicians

    According to R A Heinlein, this is a loose quote, the difference between a business politician and a populist is that a business politician stays bought.
    A populist, if convinced that it's for the good of the people will geek. Meaning change his vote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 3:56pm

    Herbert Kohl will be retiring and is not seeking re-election, so my guess is he's staying there to ensure his future employment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 7:59pm

      Re:

      "Kohl will be retiring and is not seeking re-election, so my guess is he's staying there to ensure his future employment."

      The same is true for McCain. I wonder how many others?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      John Thacker, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

      Isn't Kohl independently wealthy?

      Isn't he the heir to the Kohl's Department Stores and the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks? I don't think he has to worry about future employment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mickeywhite, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 4:01pm

    (Co-Sponsor of SOPA)

    Why does Marsha, (Co-Sponsor of SOPA), Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?

    BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?

    Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
    See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
    http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
    Mickey

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:04pm

      Re: (Co-Sponsor of SOPA)

      I looked up Blackburn on Open Secrets and she's an odd one, that's for sure. Hollywood-telecoms-tv, etc. are not listed as her top donors (they do donate though).

      She is up for re-election in 2012 AND running UNOPPOSED!!!

      So ... how'd you like to have her seat?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    LasertotheFace, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 4:20pm

    Addendum

    I recall that my Senator, John Cornyn, dropped his support during the mass exodus after censorship day, though it seems like you missed him on your list. Give him credit -- it's one of the few sane things he's ever done for my state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 4:29pm

    I apologize for the long list

    FYI any guesses on the spread?

    R - Rep. Lamar Smith
    R - Mark Amodei
    R - Marsha Blackburn
    R - Mary Bono Mack
    R - Steven Chabot
    R - Elton Gallegly
    R - Robert Goodlatte
    R - Peter King
    R - Thomas Marino
    R - Alan Nunnelee

    D - Joe Baca
    D - John Barrow
    D - Karen Bass
    D - Howard Berman
    D - Judy Chu
    D - John Conyers
    D - Jim Cooper
    D - Ted Deutch
    D - John Larson
    D - William Owens
    D - Adam Schiff
    D - Brad Sherman
    D - Debbie Wasserman Schultz
    D - Melvin Watt


    ----------------------------------
    R - Lamar Alexander
    R - John McCain
    R - John Isakson
    R - Lindsey Graham
    R - Charles Grassley
    R - Michael Enzi
    R - Thad Cochran
    R - Bob Corker

    D - Pat Leahy
    D - Jeff Bingaman
    D - Richard Blumenthal
    D - Barbara Boxer
    D - Sherrod Brown
    D - Benjamin Cardin
    D - Robert Casey
    D - Chris Coons
    D - Richard Durbin
    D - Dianne Feinstein
    D - Al Franken
    D - Kirsten Gillibrand
    D - Kay Hagan
    D - Tim Johnson
    D - Amy Klobuchar
    D - Herbert Kohl
    D - Mary Landrieu
    D - Joseph Lieberman
    D - Robert Menendez
    D - Bill Nelson
    D - Charles Schumer
    D - Jeanne Shaheen
    D - Tom Udall
    D - Sheldon Whitehouse

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Liz (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:13pm

      Re: I apologize for the long list

      Looks like the Democrats are going to lose an entire generation of potential voters.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:15pm

        Re: Re: I apologize for the long list

        More than that - their entire base although I don't know who they would vote for. Most are not in Paul's camp - although I think he has more x-democrat's for him than republican support.

        The reason he's lost his base is because democrats have been so spineless, giving up before there was even push-back on EVERYTHING - and NOW they grow a spine???

        Disgusting. This is too blatant for any high road. The GOP courted wall street and now dem's have hollywood = economy and speech.

        Democracy can't survive without either one.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Torg (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 9:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: I apologize for the long list

          Since anyone with control of the Internet would also have the economy by the balls, I'd say that Democrats are the larger threat right now.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          mcl, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 8:17am

          Re: Re: Re: I apologize for the long list

          Those who believe that Dems aren't also in bed with Wall Street need to do some research. Both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by corporations.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        monkyyy, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 9:28am

        Re: Re: I apologize for the long list

        they lost me a long time ago, it all started w/ obama been bush 2(or would it be 6?) in the things i care about,

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 11th, 2012 @ 10:31pm

        Re: Re: I apologize for the long list

        I don't know that either party will endear itself to the internet generation, if I can call it that.

        It's still a matter of who has been bought and paid for and who think they're safe come the next time they're up for election.

        I sincerely hope they're wrong about the safe part though realistically I'd say no. The electorate will still be stuck with choosing between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum on election day.

        I'd agree with Mike that this isn't as much a party thing as individuals who are behind this silliness no matter how they try to explain it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Feb 8th, 2012 @ 2:46am

      Re: I apologize for the long list

      Interestingly the SOPA support is more or less balanced. The sheer amount of Ds supporting PIPA is shocking. But I'm not surprised, you D president signed NDAA... But then again the idiot Bush signed the Patriot Act and I wonder how it survived so long being completely unconstitutional. I guess the US Constitution is worth shit nowadays.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JLofty, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 4:49pm

    the JOBS man!

    Think of the JOBS, the jobs man!
    Amodei wrote me back said it was about saving IGT jobs. But they make slot machines, is there an Uzbeki website selling counterfeit Wheel of Fortune slots?!? Hmmm...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 5:18pm

    Yeah, I'm just going to note that seeing both my Representatives still on there (hi Franken, hi Klobuchar)... I'm looking forward to future elections, and making notes on who has, and hasn't, listened to my views.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2012 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      As long as Franken has the AG and Secretary of State on his side I don't think he cares much which way you vote.

      Just keep counting till you get the result you want...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Isaac the k (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 5:32pm

    wait... what?

    This may be the only thing senators Lieberman and McCain will EVER agree on.
    I take that as a divine omen that we should support this bill!

    Or bathe ourselves in the intestines of our human sacrifices to the Eldritch gods...
    Either way, it's a party!

    Though I think the sacrifice might lead to fewer violations of human rights...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      John Thacker, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:15pm

      Re: wait... what?

      Huh? Lieberman and McCain agree on lots of things (especially in foreign policy.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:19pm

        Re: Re: wait... what?

        and torture.

        But never mind because that entire waste of time and money was signed away before the ink dried. It was for show only.

        But they are brother's.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:13pm

    Today's episode: "Who's Still Backing SOPA/PIPA... And Why?"

    OR "who's still a SOPA/PIPA whore"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    LC (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:24pm

    Get rid of them

    Every reaming sponsor of the bills should no longer have a seat post next election. Especially Smith and Leahy. Show them the public has not forgotten what they did, and make an example of them to all future political candidates.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lee, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:29pm

    Dems out

    Some of them are lap dogs for the entertainment industry, i.e. Karen Bass. She's the one who wrote that redundant paparazzi bill a couple of years ago while in the State legislature. CA was bankrupt, about to shut down because no one could agree on a budget, but Bass thought it was a responsible use of scarce resources and time to push a redundant pap law, with protective laws already in existence, for celebrities.

    Very disappointing and surprising Boxer would co-sponsor one of these bills. Also disappointing and surprising about Franken. Not so surprising about Feinstein.

    This could end up being the needed push to create a viable 3rd party because the comment above is right - the Dems are repelling an entire generation of voters and "where else will they go" won't stand with the internet generation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:44pm

    Those who saw the light and removed themselves were Jerry Moran (who dropped the bill way back in June of last year, realizing early on what a bad bill it was)

    Those who saw the light and removed themselves were Jerry Moran (who dropped the bill way back in June of last year, realizing he had a Google server farm in his state)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:31pm

    I am so disgusted with many om this bill and Obama's quasi-support or not (depending on the moon cycle or something unrelated) since many of these people SHOULD be internet savy. Obama's campaign in 2008 gained steam due to the internet. He was nowhere without the under 35 support and vote.

    There's a good chance many won't vote. If Colbert doesn't appear on the ballot, I may write his name in. I trust a comedian before any of the other options. At least Stewert took 20 minutes out of his day and seemed to "get" what this was about.

    The fact that news has under covered or mis-represented this issue (including ACTA, TPP, or the resistance in EU) just adds insult to injury.

    I am so sick of hearing "it's complicated" prefacing any mention of these bills. I'm not in IT or computers, barely internet savy, bsarely able to set up a DVR or wireless, etc. And yet I can see the handwriting on the wall.

    I would like to know exactly what the Chinese passed in 2009 that made 49% of internet websites disappear within one year (from an older article on TechDirt) that was put in place to stem piracy and how that compares with this latest round of internet bills.

    How similar are they or aren't they? Who else has put in place similar laws and what was the effect of that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Endtimer (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 8:52pm

      Re:

      Registered voters under the age of 40 have the lowest turn out across all other age demographics. In 2008, only 57% of eligible voters aged 25 to 34 voted. If you're generous, you can say they tipped the scales in his favour, but Obama would not be 'nowhere' without their votes. Just sayin'

      http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Torg (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 9:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Are there statistics on how many of each age group voted for who? If the old vote was split or a little towards McCain and the young vote leaned heavily towards Obama, then Anon would be justified in saying that the young vote got Obama into office.
        Of course, there's also the possibility that it's his ego talking.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Endtimer (profile), Feb 7th, 2012 @ 10:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The only data on that wouldn't be on their actual vote, but rather, who they said they voted for in exit pulls, which always have inaccuracies (iIrc, exit-pull Obama got something like 10% more of the vote then real Obama did, but I'm working on 8 year old memories and not nearly enough sleep, so don't quote me on that).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), Feb 8th, 2012 @ 11:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The only data on that wouldn't be on their actual vote, but rather, who they said they voted for in exit pulls,

            That's polls, not pulls.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 2:21am

    They still support it because the electorate will not vote them out of office for doing so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dave P, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 6:06am

    Elections are the answer

    From my UK viewpoint, surely the answer is to vote with one's feet? Get 'em out of office, pronto!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 11th, 2012 @ 10:43pm

      Re: Elections are the answer

      Sadly, for whatever reason, American elections rarely see the kind of carnage English and Canadian ones do when the electorate feels it's times to throw the bastards out.

      Mostly I suspect it's the difference between the Parliamentary and Congressional systems where MPs are very closely identified with the party the electorate is so pissed at when the housecleaning takes place.

      Though if this sort of thing keeps up the days of electoral carnage may not be that far off in the States when the electorate realizes that tossing the bastards out en masse every once in a while is necessary to remind them who they serve and it's not the lobbyists.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Owen, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 11:21am

    ORRIN HATCH

    Don't let this list fool you. Senator Orrin Hatch has been pushing for Internet Regulation since its inception. He authored the original COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act). He received MILLIONS over SOPA/PIPA, http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/H000338-sen-orrin-hatch
    AND he also thinks the Government should destroy computers without due process to help people "get the picture."
    http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Feb 8th, 2012 @ 3:07pm

      Re: ORRIN HATCH

      Senator Orrin Hatch has been pushing for Internet Regulation since its inception.

      Yeah, and that guy has dropped sponsorship of the bill. That seems significant.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    guy natav, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 2:27pm

    do you know what name you've left out?

    well, after reading the list - and the revised list of people still supporting the sopa act, I've noticed one name has gone amiss..

    if he were still alive, goebbels would have signed this act.
    Actually, it reads just like the same laws he did pass more than 70 years ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rob, Feb 8th, 2012 @ 9:03pm

    Add State

    It would be awesome if you would list the state that each representative represents.

    Thanks!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    scott, Feb 9th, 2012 @ 12:26am

    Congress is taking away our freedoms: Investigative reporters, look into some of these Congressmen

    every single one of them needs to be defeated when they are up for re-election. also, the ones behind the Defense Authorization Act that allows for Americans due process rights to be taken away : anyone involved in doing that needs to be out of office and perhaps they should be the ones on trial. I consider that tantamount to war crimes to suspend parts of the U.S. Constitution. The invesigative reporters need to look into what went on behind the scenes to pass this assault on our freedoms, and also investigate anything Congress is doing that is shady, illegal, unethical, or in any way underhanded and I'm sure the reporters will find enough to keep them busy for several years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Walks-In-Storms, Feb 12th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    SOPA, and law, law, law, law in the Land of the Free.

    Just what we need, another law, law "more honored in the breach than the observance" - obeyed by most of us, while the rest get filthy rich by doing what other can't afford to do. Pass a law like this that will put people in jail without fail, I'll not only obey it, I'll support it. Otherwise, do as I did long, long ago - close my businesses, leave the employment pool, and drop out.

    When enough people do that - stopped paying taxes, in other words - we'll get our country back. Not before.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This