SOPA creator received half a million dollars from the TV/Film/Music lobby

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/12/18/1836249/sopa-creator-in-tvfilmmusic-industrys-pocket

by gasull • 15 years ago

300 64 15 years ago

politics.slashdot.org

untog2• 15 years ago

What is missing every time things like this are brought up: how much do others receive? Yes, the creator of SOPA has received over half a million dollars, but how does that compare to the average?

I'm sure that it is above average, but it still needs to be clarified.

gasull• 15 years ago

Why should they receive any money from lobbies? How's that good for our country and our democracy?

thekevan8• 15 years ago

It is freedom of speech. If they could not donate to politicians and support their cause, neither could you. If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed.

dextorious3• 15 years ago

The point is he should not have received anything, PERIOD.

Another point is exhausting pedantic analysis is not political --sometimes your gut instinct tells you more of what's going on. I mean, at some point we ought to be ENRAGED of such things, not discuss trivial details about them.

pyre• 15 years ago

Look at the comment elsewhere about how even those who are opposing the bill have similar distributions of donations. It would seem to be more likely that (in general) the majority of the lobbying groups (pouring money into Washington) are in favor of SOPA.

That said, regulatory capture is the real demon (moreso than campaign contributions).

untog2• 15 years ago

Another point is exhausting pedantic analysis is not political --sometimes your gut instinct tells you more of what's going on.

Sarah Palin, is that you?

rorrr2• 15 years ago

And that's how this country is sold for peanuts.

The political system is really brilliant from the point of view of the rich. You only have to buy 100 senators and 435 representatives (actually, only 67% of them) to decide what 307 million people do, how their tax money is spent, etc.

maqr• 15 years ago

I can't decide if I'm more offended that it's so corrupt or that the price is so cheap.

maxxxxx2• 15 years ago

I also think the real problem is that they are so cheap. Whatever I read about lobbying the ROI is huge. Obviously having politicians make it more expensive to bribe will have some serious problems too... I think the best would be to make all payments anonymous. If you like what a politician does you support him but he should never know who donated to him.

ldar157• 15 years ago

This is why, even though he is a nutjob on reproductive-rights, I have to support Ron Paul. All these issues should be decided by the states, not the feds.

srl• 15 years ago

> All these issues should be decided by the states, not the feds.

Rather OT, but I have a major problem with this line. The population of the U.S. around the writing of the constitution was ~3 million; if it was a state today, it would be one of the smaller ones. In many cases, states are not in any better a position to decide these issues than the federal government. (And with things like SOPA, per-state regulation would naturally be disastrous.) I think at this point, very few things can be well decided at the state level; thus, either the national gov't is needed to keep states from stepping on each others' toes (tax law and internet taxes), or the national gov't is needed to keep states from stepping on the rights of citizens of that state - which they are just as capable of doing as the national gov't was when the idea of state sovereignty was taken for granted.

tl;dr: states are as capable of screwing things up as the national gov't, and tend to be less transparent about it.

rorrr2• 15 years ago

Kucinich and Gravel are sane versions of Ron Paul.

tzs• 15 years ago

This is rather misleading. First, it sums over his entire career. Second, it doesn't mention the large amount he's received from industries that oppose things like SOPA. Third, it doesn't mention that the TV/movie/music industry has donated large amount to those who are currently opposing SOPA.

thekevan8• 15 years ago

Great points. It also implies that this was a cause that was important to him because of the money he received, but does not address the possibility that he was a target of these donations because the donors saw him as someone who agreed with them.

beedogs2• 15 years ago

"Third, it doesn't mention that the TV/movie/music industry has donated large amount to those who are currently opposing SOPA."

This is what's known as hedging.

ldar157• 15 years ago

Or "attempted bribery" that didn't work. o_O

If I get pulled over 10 times by 10 different cops, and I offer each one $100 to let me off, and only one of them takes the bribe - the other 9 don't negate the fact that one guy took the bribe.

"No your honor, I just like giving money to police officers whenever I meet them. See, its just random chance that this one guy let me off. Clearly it was on the merits of the situation, not because my money influenced him."

Cops don't make the laws of course. Otherwise you'd be allowed to bribe cops.

Natsu• 15 years ago

I didn't bother reading the Slashdot article because I expect that it really is misleading, but in response to your second & third points, I examined the link someone else first posted to HN:

http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/con...

Lamar Smith (R TX-21) Support: $277,350 Oppose: $41,000

I see some other Judiciary Committee members up near the top with similar very high support/oppose ratios and I think it's been fairly supportive of the bill overall. Then I looked up some of the more notable opponents: Pelosi & Issa. They have 2-1 and 10-1 ratios (support/oppose) in spite of being opponents.

I think looking at the list of industries that are SOPA supporters is more interesting. Exactly why do some of those industries want to support SOPA? Here the oddballs industries on the list: auto repair, animal feed & health products, confectionery processors & manufacturers, optical services (glasses & contact lenses), & tobacco & tobacco products. Why are they on there? My best guess is that lobbyists are involved somehow.

meric• 15 years ago

>> auto repair, animal feed & health products, confectionery processors & manufacturers, optical services (glasses & contact lenses),

Counterfeit products, perhaps?

waffle_ss3• 15 years ago

This is the same representative who's former chief of staff / parliamentarian, Allison Halataei, got hired by a lobbying firm to get SOPA passed after helping write it.[1]

If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason.

[1] http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/10/226238/two-sopa-write...

thekevan8• 15 years ago

"get tried for treason"

The First Amendment would disagree with you.

waffle_ss3• 15 years ago

I think there's a fine line between free speech and buying votes, the latter of which in my (probably hyperbolic) opinion should be treasonous.

dextorious3• 15 years ago

He said "If this country ever undergoes a revolution in my lifetime, I sincerely hope that the lobbyists that acted at these levels of scumminess get tried for treason."

So the First Amendment would not be a problem there. It's hardly a prerequisite of a revolution to keep the same constitution as the old regime or to interpret it in the same way --quite the opposite.

ldar157• 15 years ago

You are mistaken. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment. Try offering a police officer some cash next time you get a speeding ticket. Or setting up a nice deal to put kids in jail [1].

Of course, this only applies to me, you, county judges, etc. Not senators. Not SCOTUS Justices. Not the people who have the most to gain from such corruption. Not the people who actually decide such laws. Fancy.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corr...

kingkilr• 15 years ago

Fuck the first amendment, how about the constitutional definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

LetsTalk• 15 years ago

According to

http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/con...

Lamar Smith has received $277,350 from groups that support the bill and $41,000 from those who do not.

The total contributions for all groups to all members of congress who support $49,802,962 the total for those who oppose $665,012. This stats that 98.68% of the total 504,67,974 lobbing dollars are from groups that support SOPA.

mattjaynes• 15 years ago

Wow.

Does anyone know why Google/Apple/Other-super-giant-billion-dollar-companies aren't more proactive in influencing congress?

With all their billions, competing with $50 million seems like it would be a pretty insignificant cost for them - especially if the cost was shared among a consortium of companies. A few million per company seems like it'd be pretty cheap to ensure greater influence in preventing malignant legislation like SOPA.

thekevan8• 15 years ago

"...got hired by a lobbying firm to get SOPA passed after helping write it."

Because he was an expert on it by then. It's not a big deal.

_delirium• 15 years ago

Though I usually eat these sorts of stories up, this particular one seems like pretty thin evidence. It seems that he received about $50k/year from these industries, which as far as campaign contributions go, is not really a huge amount. I suspect it wouldn't by itself be enough to swing his vote if he wasn't already basically in favor; on really contentious issues when the campaign contributions start to become a real factor, they're measured in millions per year, not $50k--- for example, Chuck Schumer received $1.7 million from financial companies in 2009, according to a quick search (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/big-finance-donation...).

thekevan8• 15 years ago

This angers me. It angers me because people don't realize that most often, a politician gets donations from organizations that already know he agrees with their goals.

I worked for a politician from a Western State. He got tons of money from mining, gaming and defense contractors. He openly stated that without those three industries, his home state would barely exist. Those three employed a vast majority of his constituents and would thus would always have him in their corner.

Interestingly, he had a hard time raising money when running against an opponent who also agreed with the above points.

waffle_ss3• 15 years ago

The problem I have isn't with the idea of organizations making donations, but rather when those donations create a "direct line" from the lobbyist group to the politician, bypassing the constituents.

Representatives are there to represent contituents because the USA is too big for direct democracy. If industry x really has such a profound impact on a community then it's in the self-interest of voters to reflect that at the voting booth by voting for the politician that will help said industry, and by extension, their community.

A private organization greasing the hand of a politician in order to ram a piece of legislation through, against the wishes of said politician's constituents is beyond contempt. From all the evidence I've seen, the only ones who like SOPA are the entertainment industry, and last time I checked they weren't elected to any governmental position.

thekevan8• 15 years ago

"A private organization greasing the hand of a politician in order to ram a piece of legislation through, against the wishes of said politician's constituents..."

I would like you to prove to me this has ever happened. I am not saying it ever happened, as I am sure it has. Show me one time it did.

"If industry x really has such a profound impact on a community then it's in the self-interest of voters to reflect that at the voting booth by voting for the politician that will help said industry, and by extension, their community."

In my experience, that is why 90% (my guestimation) of donations--by both individuals and organizations--happen.

nl2• 15 years ago

From all the evidence I've seen, the only ones who like SOPA are the entertainment industry, and last time I checked they weren't elected to any governmental position.

Look, I hate SOPA etc etc, but I think you are going a bit overboard here.

The entertainment industry is a large employer, and the people employed by it are constituents.

You and I may think that SOPA isn't the best way forward, but it is easy to argue that it might protect old, dying industries and the jobs they represent.

Lobby groups are how the voices of people are heard in Washington. It isn't ideal, but nor is it necessarily as corrupt as you are making out.

ldar157• 15 years ago

Interesting. You claim:

1) My guy was honest and just expressing his opinion.

2) My guy had trouble raising money when faced with an opponent who also had the same opinion and whose honesty you cannot vouch for.

You argument does not refute our claim: Money goes to the corrupt. Indeed it would appear to support it.

gee_totes• 15 years ago

I like how the first slashdot comment is about the article itself, then the next open comment I see is something about abortion... Go slashdot

ldar157• 15 years ago

This is a shake down. If Facebook, Google, reddit, etc have something to gain from this, then they need to step and replace the money our poor senators will lose. This is how america works. You want legal "protection", you pays your "taxes".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sopa-the-c...

Shenglong• 15 years ago

So, why is insider trading illegal again?

ck2• 15 years ago

Remember how Obama promised to remove lobbyists and not take their money?

It almost as bad as Guantanamo still being open (except some innocent people there without trial for half a decade).

When lawmakers make their own laws, they are certainly going to guarantee they can always take money and get big benefits (and skip the TSA lines at airports, etc. etc.)

gizzlon• 15 years ago

The Eric S. Raymond link posted at the end is worth a read as well (although it's kind of off topic):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4009 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3367674

SOPA creator received half a million dollars from the TV/Film/Music lobby

Related Stories