Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist
from the ah,-the-lies-of-politicians-and-hollywood dept
One of the worst kept secrets in DC and Hollywood over the last month or so is the news that former Connecticut Senator and failed Presidential candidate Chris Dodd is set to become the MPAA's new boss (salary: $1.2 million per year). This came after a failed attempt to get former Senator (and failed presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey to take the role last year.Assuming Dodd takes the role, he's already proving himself to be perfect for a Hollywood job, because it makes him a blatant liar. Last summer, Dodd insisted that he would not become a lobbyist. He made this abundantly clear. When asked what he would do, he was explicit: "No lobbying, no lobbying." Yeah, apparently a million dollar plus salary makes you a liar barely a month after leaving the job. Of course, technically, Dodd is also barred from becoming a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but there's a kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* trick that Dodd and others use to technically claim they're not lobbyists while merely running one of the bigger and most high profile lobbying organizations around.
Of course, it'll also be interesting to see if Dodd sells his soul and changes some of his professed principles. For example, he was a big supporter of "net neutrality." But the MPAA has come out against net neutrality, claiming it would hamper its efforts to "fight piracy." He was also against ISP data retention, which the MPAA has supported (again as a way to fight piracy). On copyright he was somewhat non-committal, but did talk about how fair use rights are important. I imagine that will disappear once he takes the role formerly filled by Jack Valenti -- the man who once declared that fair use doesn't exist.
Anyway, I guess it shouldn't surprise us that a politician lied and went back on his basic principles in favor of a huge check from industry. It happens all the time. The real question is why anyone would take Chris Dodd seriously in this role going forward after proving that he's in it for nothing more than the check.
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: chris dodd, copyright, lobbying, mpaa
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Principles aren't something they believe in, merely something that affects how much money they can make. If going against princples makes you more money, then bye-bye principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is a politician. Frankly, I would have been more surprised if he had actually kept his promise. As the old adage says, "How can you tell a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving."
I have yet to meet a politician (I've met quite a few) who wasn't a two-faced liar. Sure, they will offer you the world to get elected, but then they start breaking every promise they made (though, I think in some cases they honestly made a promise through naivety they eventually couldn't keep, I think this is the exception, not the rule.) I always love hearing "we'll look into that" from a politician...that essentially means "we don't care, but we have to say something to make you feel like we do."
Knowing this, I never vote for a politician based on what they say...I always use their record of action to decide whether to vote for them or not. Not that that makes a difference though, as the last election no one I voted for was elected because a majority of those in my state listen to what the politician says and not what they do, and then they get upset when the politician gets into office and fails to do what they said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would also do away with all the ridiculous campaigning: no more campaigns, just show us your record - what you voted for and against, laws you proposed or opposed, tax money you saved or wasted.
The election process could be so simple and rational. If only people were...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you think so many Governors get elected President compared to Senators? The whole reason Obama was in such a rush to run when he did was because he was relatively without a voting record. He could claim whatever he wanted and there was an insufficient sample size to confirm or rebuke him.
W had the same deal, and Clinton, and Reagan. It's a strategy, if you want to be President, to NOT have a federal voting record....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The politicians passed a law that said you can't do that before an election.
McCain/Finegold we got rid of the second now we need to get rid of the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More power to you.
http://www.votesmart.org/
I agree. Actions speak much louder than words and that's how you figure out who will represent you faithfully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MPAA Go To The Hell You Deserve !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
Dang. I'm having those fantasies again. Now I have to call the doctor and have him increase my medications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not just the check
I'm sure he did it for more than the check. There's also the status. Repping the MPAA means lots of schmoozing and photo ops with movie stars. I'm told politicians love that, even when they're not being paid directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liars and politicians
Quod erat faciendum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pre-requisite ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're so paranoid about your precious piracy being addressed by Congress and law enforcement that you throw these public tantrums that make you look like a 4 year old girl. You're pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the logic we have here, a politician should not, when asked what he will do after leaving office, say "No lobbying, no lobbying." and then take a position running a major lobbying entity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And why would you say that? The MPAA is the lobbying group for the major players in the motion picture industry. Not really representative of all jobs in the US. I guess your argument isn't a genuine one.
(Sorry, sometimes I can't help feeding the trolls.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're still not explaining why Masnick is being such a baby about it. What is he afraid of?
We all know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, actually. The only reason they rate movies is because the government was putting pressure on Hollywood to make movies more family friendly and were getting upset about sex and violence on screen. The MPAA's creation of the rating system was solely a lobbying move, to avoid having new laws passed against Hollywood.
Surely, it helps to understand history before spewing nonsense.
The MPAA is a lobbying organization, top to bottom.
You're still not explaining why Masnick is being such a baby about it. What is he afraid of?
I'm sorry, but can you explain how pointing out a politicians lies is "being a baby"?
It seems to me that sitting around while your band fails, while you advise it to do nothing to adapt other than to cry to the government for help, seems a hell of a lot more babyish.
In the meantime, when you grow up and want to actually learn how to succeed, give us a call. I'm still waiting. It's kind of sad to watch you want to fail like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And stories of your success with bands are all over the web, right?
Oh wait, no they're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And stories of your success with bands are all over the web, right?
So wait, which is it? You don't work with bands at all, or you are better at it than Mike? Choose your rebuttal, man! Don't just throw 'em all and see what sticks! (that's why the floor is so messy around here...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, bonus question, isn't complaining to the gov't about how you can't figure out how to adapt to a changing marketplace a lot more babyish?
What band is that, Masnick? LOL
You told us your band was failing.
And stories of your success with bands are all over the web, right?
There are plenty of success stories, yes. Rather than rushing to insult me, perhaps you should look around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the current ratings system came about in 1966 because Jack Valenti realized the previous self-imposed code the movie industry used since 1930 was out of date. It had NOTHING to do with "lobbying". You're so full of bs that it is mind boggling.
There are plenty of success stories, yes. Rather than rushing to insult me, perhaps you should look around you.
I've looked everywhere on the web. No one says you're a success other than you and your merry band of pirate half-wits here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your desperation is getting transparent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said "my band was failing". ??? That's just another lie that Masnick threw out there. You see, he does that all the time.
Or at least most people see that. It's difficult for you Marcus, because your face is constantly planted somewhere else...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You and I have much more in common than you ever would've imagined.
Someday, maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...are you coming on to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You were screaming and ranting about it not so long ago, all the while failing to realise you were damning your own argument. Too funny. You really couldn't see it.
When Mike pointed out how you were contradicting your whole argument in his favour, you suddenly shut up and ran, and haven't mentioned it since.
Now you're pretending it never happened.
You have made yourself into a total joke on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Logic
Lobbyist
Paranoid
Piracy
Tantrum
Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will make it my mission to make your ridiculous posts become the funniest of the week (funny +1 submitted). My immediate goal will be to make a little "lol" appear in your post (thus, highlighting how dumb it was), but the real prize would be to make it appear in the top 4 of the week.
The goal is to highlight the fact that you generally have nothing useful to say other than "Masn1k is t3h king of t3h P1rat3s!!11111oneone" and insulting pretty much everyone that opposes you (freetard is a popular insult) without resorting to insults or feeding you.
Let's see how it plays out. Perhaps you will win at something in life for once (oops, that one slipped by...).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I usually just mark any of the Anonymous Coward with good grammar's posts as "report", but I will henceforth mark them as "funny".
I'm still going to "report" any posts using the word "freetard" as an insult, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The earth would implode (or explode depending on who wins the power struggle) within 5 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, what's your opinion about "no-compete" contracts?
And more to the point, why do you have a problem with the Law of the Land, what our Representatives Enacted into Law as the Will of the People? Are you some kind of Anarchist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
lol...yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction?
I'm pretty sure the ban is only a single year....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm Dodd did what you told him to do Mike
I think Dodd reads TechDIrt. He found some loyal fans in the MPAA. So he connected with his fans and gave them a reason to buy. $1.2 million per year is just showing you that your formula works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm Dodd did what you told him to do Mike
But will there be lots and lots of t-shirts????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
show me a
Sigh.
Anyways, not an attempted slam on the author, just a little wiped out by all the f'in lying politician stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he went to work as a lobbyist for the group, that might be different. This isn't the same thing. Please Marcus, think past the end of Mike's nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Part of his job is to direct lobbying efforts. That makes him a lobbyist in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not only that, but the *key* priorities of the MPAA -- as stated in the very article linked above -- are entirely based on lobbying. Calling it just an organization that also does some lobbying is false. It's a lobbying organization, top to bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you denying that the MPAA includes an incredibly powerful lobbying force?
Are you denying that the person in charge of an organization with an incredibly powerful lobbying force has anything to do with that force?
Or are you just denying that being in charge of a tonne of lobbyists counts as being a lobbyist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Each of those groups has lobbyists. They also have receptionists and people working in the mail room. None of us assume for a second that the president of the group is a receptionist or works the mail room.
It is one part of what the MPAA does. Even by Mike's own admission, they have panels in the area of anti-piracy (Mike is on a real anti-MPAA run today, they must have peed in his cornflakes this morning). There are more things than that going on.
Mike is just being nasty, attacking where none is merited. I have a feeling he is worried that this move will make the MPAA group overall stronger, than thus upset his pro-piracy business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guy walks into a club and sees an incredibly beautiful woman sitting at the bar. He sits down next to her and says "You are incredibly beautiful and I am an extremely rich man, Will you make love to for one million dollars?" The Woman's Eyes light up and she says "Sure!" The man says "Well�Will you make love to me for one hundred dollars" The woman got angry and said "What kind of girl do you think I am?" The man replied "We already know what kind of girl you are, now we are negotiating".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DISCLAIMER
Anonymous: "I am a lying industry shill with no sense of morality or even the pretext of a point. I fear change like nothing else and cannot comprehend living without extorting as much as I can from my clients and blaming the 'losses' on a nonexistent problem. I do not know how to address an argument or even present one. I just flame because I know I'm wrong and unable to prove a single thing I've said, and I'm terrified to admit it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And no, I am not an industry shill. I don't work for the MPAA or RIAA, nor do I make movies, nor do I make music.
The rest of your post is meaningless horse manure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you never, ever, not once, think or admit they have done anything wrong, ever?
It's intriguing. Maybe you're a politician, simply trying to defend the outrageous racketeering the government has ALWAYS been involved in? Or are you a part of government "Public Relations"?
Rhetorical questions since, either way, you're completely full of shit pal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we get it..
We castigate other countries where politicians take money openly, but here it's almost as bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we get it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GooD StuFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Dodd Not the Right Choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]