PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars

by llambda • 15 years ago

181 45 15 years ago

saryant• 15 years ago

I called Sen. Cornyn's San Antonio office earlier today to voice my support for the Senator's opposition.

I'm the first to admit that he may or may not actually be in opposition, but calling and telling his office that I'm glad he's publicly stated such is still important.

Please, do the same if your senator has made a similar statement.

brandall10• 15 years ago

I have to imagine in the tangled web of politics there may have been many initially 'for' it who really weren't for it in spirit - their position was tantamount to monetary contributions and towing the line.

In the end what truly matters is that that they represent the wishes of their constituents. I find this protest and its results a glorious thing. But we're only getting started. Unfortunately no position changes for CA (at this moment :)).

masonhensley• 15 years ago

I did the same but around 2pm. His aide told me that Sen. Cornyn was drafting a letter of some sort to the Judiciary committee in opposition to the bill.

artursapek3• 15 years ago

About 35 Senators have not committed to a position, perhaps reluctant to do so for fear of angering either deep-pocketed Hollywood campaign contributors or their constituents back home.

To me this illustrates the problem with lobbying.

famousactress• 15 years ago

Ironically, I read your comment and though I agree completely I tried to consider the opposite argument.. that lobbying is effectively a natural democratic condition since it's done with money that comes from consumers.... BUYING FUCKING MOVIES AND MUSIC.

[Edit: presumably downvotes are for cursing. Sorry, I adore naughty words... To be clear though, the point I'm making is that I'm infuriated at the fact that money I've spent doing exactly what the MPAA/RIAA wants me to (pay for legal content) is being used to limit my freedom. For some reason it's a realization I've only just arrived at, and it certainly makes me want to think twice before feeding the beast anymore. Effectively, this legislation is the best argument for stealing content that I've come across.]

guelo2• 15 years ago

The influence of money is not naturally democratic. If there were a ban on corporate money in politics this would not be occurring.

artursapek3• 15 years ago

I know, it's terrible. "Why I'm A Pirate", on the front page for 17 hours now, makes that point very well. http://ploum.net/post/im-a-pirate

ajuc• 15 years ago

Your argument applies to legalizing bribes also :)

ColdAsIce• 15 years ago

Finally someone gets it. Boycott is the only way forward in this messed situation.

Stop buying movies/music, PCs and Apple computers, there is a fine list of SOPA proponents. For all of them there is an alternative, buy operating support from RedHat or Canonical instead of Microsoft, donate money to independent studios and watch their movies.

Your money is doing this. Your money. You decide what to do with it. Each dollar is a vote.

forcefsck• 15 years ago

Be careful what you vote with your money every day.

mdxch• 15 years ago

Here are the senators seeking re-election this year. Asterisks indicate those who are newly opposed to PIPA.

  Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
  Tom Carper (D-DE)
  Bill Nelson (D-FL)
  Ben Cardin (D-MD) *
  Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
  Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
  Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
  Jon Tester (D-MT)
  Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
  Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
  Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
  Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
  Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
  Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  Joe Manchin (D-WV)
  Richard Lugar (R-IN)
  Olympia Snowe (R-ME) *
  Scott Brown (R-MA) *
  Roger Wicker (R-MS)
  Dean Heller (R-NV)
  Bob Corker (R-TN)
  Orrin Hatch (R-UT) *
  John Barrasso (R-WY)
  Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

qq66• 15 years ago

Ben Cardin is from Maryland.

grout• 15 years ago

I hope Feinstein gets primaried. Her support for PIPA is sick.

guelo2• 15 years ago

Too late for a primary challenge and there doesn't even seem to be a credible Republican challenger.

usaar333• 15 years ago

Boxer supports PIPA as well.

Another example of how things could be better if Northern and Southern California split into two states.

_delirium3• 15 years ago

If her and her husband Richard Blum's shady finance deals over the years haven't been enough to get her primaried, I doubt PIPA will do the trick...

nostromo• 15 years ago

The most interesting part of this article is that PIPA is now effectively a Democratic (capital D) bill with almost twice the number of co-sponsors, in part due to the Heritage Foundation's opposition.

I wish the Democrats would give similar weight to the ACLU or similar organizations. Maybe this is why people say organizing Democrats is like herding cats.

valgaze• 15 years ago

In post-SOPA/PIPA follow-through, Calfornians should write Dianne Feinstein's office (no written statement, no co-sponsor movement) and mention her upcoming reelection bid next November. If she doesn't get with the program, perhaps a vigorous primary challenge is needed.

jfoutz• 15 years ago

Don't underestimate hollywood money's effectiveness with california congresspeople.

philwelch• 15 years ago

The Communications Decency Act, DMCA, and Clipper Chip were all Democratic initiatives, too.

_delirium3• 15 years ago

The CDA vote:

  Democrats: 30-16 in favor
  Republicans: 51-2 in favor (1 not voting)

Neither party looks good in that vote, but one party looks like it lacked even a significant principled minority...

The DMCA was a Republican initiative legislatively, but passed on an unopposed voice vote and was of course signed by Clinton. Cosponsored by 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats; drafted by the office of Howard Coble (R-NC), who also pushed it through the committee he chaired.

If you want to assign blame by overall party control, both laws, along with the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, were passed by a split government, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, and Democrats controlling the Presidency. So I guess they're "bipartisan achievements", for which we can thank the 1996-1998 "dream team" of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott, who set an inspiring example in pushing through so much major legislation rather than letting themselves be mired in partisan gridlock.

Newgy• 15 years ago

Traditionally, Hollywood (run by angry liberals) and the Republican Party are hostile, so this shift is more of politics reverting to the mean. The main reason GOP members were on SOPA was the support of Nashville and the NFL.

This shift is a very positive development, it means the bill is becoming impossible to pass in a Republican House (and where GOP Rep. Lamar Smith has discredited himself by leading fellow Republicans into the SOPA morass).

_delirium3• 15 years ago

There's no real hostility between Hollywood the industry and the Republicans, just Hollywood the media spectacle. High-profile actors tend to be more liberal, but the Hollywood executives (the ones who actually "run" it) are typically moderate business-conservative type people, the same as most other places in big business. In fact they literally are the same people due to CEO churn, and definitely from the same social circles; e.g. NBC Universal's CEO was formerly Comcast's CEO, and is a personal friend of JPMorgan Chase's CEO.

The RIAA types are even more welcome in the Republican Party traditionally, due in part to Nashville as you mentioned, and in part due to the significant influence of first Sonny Bono and now his widow Mary in Congress.

If this is a regression to the mean, when was the mean ever in effect? In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan maintained strong ties with Hollywood (even with people like Lew Wasserman who were active in the Democratic Party) and promoted their interests; in the 1990s, the GOP led the charge for the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. Arguably there was strong hostility in the 1950s-70s, when Joseph McCarthy thought Hollywood was full of Communists, and Nixon complained about it being controlled by Jewish Democrats, but that was a while ago, and for reasons (paranoia about Jews and Communists) that hopefully aren't going to recur.

rgrieselhuber• 15 years ago

Do they have to pay the lobbyists back? (serious question)

potatolicious• 15 years ago

Of course not - that would be evidence of bribery. These campaign contributions are "gifts" with "no strings attached" - but good luck getting the money next time!

bruce511• 15 years ago

Of course they will gt it next time. I think perhaps you misunderstand how contributions work.

Special interest groups contribute to everyone. They don't pick and choose. Half the people they contribute money to don't even get elected.

At the end of the day there may be questions of scale, but corporations are perhaps the most bipartisan of entities. They understand that the party doesnt matter as much as the person. Regardless of the election outcome they've bet on the winner.

They also understand the tension a politician is under. So this bill gets killed - big whoopee. There are a dozen more like it waiting to be written. Time will tell if the populace have the staying power - corporations certainly do, and politicians have nothing but.

This is a bill that strikes at the best disseminator of information known to man. The only reason it has got so much attention because those that control the Internet (Wikipedia et al.) firstly care enough about this bill, and secondly have a way to communicate with lots of others.

This is an improvement over just big media, but only really concerns bills that are Internet related. There have been plenty of worse bills in the past, and there will be plenty of horrible bills to come. Until voters come to understand that their responsibility extends to more than just making a cross every 4 years (and many don't even do that) then we can't complain if others are filling the void.

nl• 15 years ago

Embarrassing that more Democrats haven't come out in opposition, especially given the amount of money they traditionally raise from Silicon Valley.

learc83• 15 years ago

They also raise a disproportionate amount of funding from the entertainment industry.

shaggyfrog• 15 years ago

> Another co-sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) echoed that sentiment. He blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for "pushing forward w/ a flawed bill that still needs much work."

What a load of dreck. You're a co-sponsor, there, Roy, not some poor, helpless stooge. Sure, it's all the other guy's fault. Suddenly, it's "flawed". For some reason. Before, it was a perfectly fine bill to censor the Internet. Did I get that right?

joshuahedlund2• 15 years ago

Yes it's lame, but if that's what it takes for Republicans to back off, then I guess I'll live with it. Now we just have to wait for the Democrats to realize that the public hates the bill and they can't let the GOP score a big PR win - in spite of the 90% of entertainment industry lobbying that goes to Democrats.

j_baker• 15 years ago

in spite of the 90% of entertainment industry lobbying that goes to Democrats.

I would like to verify this. Got a source?

yumraj• 15 years ago

I'm a hard core social liberal, but given all this I'm forced to really think if Democrats, particularly Boxer and Feinstein deserve my vote [read: they don't].

I wish there were more fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans.

olifante2• 15 years ago

Democrats have been the ones balancing the budget in the last decades. Republicans are fiscal conservatives in name only: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/why-the-gop-...

JuiceMachine• 15 years ago

This is why the tea party was born. Republicans that didn't truly believe in limited government needed to be removed.

PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed

Related Stories