Don't Worry About MPAA's Congrats To Obama
from the step-back-from-the-ledge dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in Wired's short article claiming that the MPAA is "already lobbying Obama." And, while I'm certainly never one to suggest that the MPAA isn't full of sneaky tricks, this is hardly anything to get worked up about. I don't even understand why Wired posted it, other than to get people angry. The MPAA, like pretty much every major lobbying organization, put out statements congratulating Obama. That's what you do as a lobbying group, and it's entirely meaningless at this point. I have no doubt that the MPAA will pull plenty of misleading stunts over the next four years, and most likely will convince all sorts of politicians, including Obama, to put into place bad laws. But a simple congratulations statement from a lobbying group is hardly a sign of impending doom.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barack obama, dan glickman, lobbying
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Facts
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=B02
http://www.opens ecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Facts
I have *no doubt* that they will lobby the new administration very heavily. But to say that their congrats message was lobbying is a bit much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Facts
Agreed, they probably had two ads ready to fly. To say they 'will' lobby the new administration is misleading, they have already begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Job, Eleete!
But more interesting is Dan Glickman's non-donation to the Obama Campaign. Perhaps he ran out of cash, or donating to Obama's Campaign was an afterthought.
I see the article as more of a love letter: "Come get super chummy and smoke a fat stogie with the head of the nation's greatest non-profit."
Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush makes bad movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incredible
Guess I was wrong. Sure am glad I read these comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incredible
When you think about it, we haven't really had a president that bucked the system since JFK... and he got assassinated. Conspiracy theories aside you have to note that it makes for a hell of a coincidence.
Every candidate in decades has been more of the same with the exception of Reagan... and only because he had the charisma and money to run whether the established parties wanted him to or not. Each one has had less of a back bone than the last. Each one has been more and more in line with his parties rhetoric. And the Supreme Court? Well go do a comparison of which judges were appointed by which presidents... tell me you don't notice a pattern.
Yes we have three branches, but the lines between those branches in continuing to get more and more blurry with each passing decade while at the same time the power of the legislative branch continues to grow by leaps and bounds.
Think about it. This is the greatest danger of our existing (psuedo-)two party system. Look closely and you can even see the steps both dominant parties have taken to make sure there aren't any more parties rising to power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=B02
http://www. opens ecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Mike
Whether you would accept if he actually did come and ask is a whole nother story. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama is already owned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]