Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors

from the money-in-politics-explains-all dept

Mon, Dec 5th 2011 3:31am — Mike Masnick

The Sunlight Foundation decided to take a look at donations from big media companies to politicians supporting SOPA and PIPA... and, not surprisingly, they found there's lots of money there. Of course, to be fair, I would imagine the reverse is becoming true as well: those opposed to the bills have and will be getting donations from people who, you know, actually like the internet. Some will call it corruption, but it seems more like a systemic problem, and it's not clear which came first -- support for certain types of bills... or donations. But once the process starts, it's hard to get out of that cycle. Those who have received big donations from certain industries want that to continue. And, of course, as Lessig is fond of pointing out these days, part of the game is to be a politician "on the fence" so you can raise money from both sides on a controversial issue.

Either way, what's clear is that big media firms have spread their money around pretty far and wide:

Among the 25 SOPA cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, here's a breakdown of which legislators have brought in donations from big media in TV, music and movies during their careers in Congress.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., $1,727,156. His southern district border is Hollywood Blvd. and he was the beneficiary at a fundraiser earlier this month hosted by two lobbyists at a firm that represents the National Broadcasting Association.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., $516,400

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., $488,731

Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., $488,636

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex., $392,995 (sponsor)

Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-VA, $316,686

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., $261,700

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Nev., $248,168

Rep. John Barrow, D-GA, $210,900

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., $204,199

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., $133,023

Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., $130,100

Rep. John Carter, R-Tex., $75,850

Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., $64,648

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-LA, $54,000

Rep. William Owens, D-N.Y., $42,850

Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., $30,000

Rep. Thomas Marino, R-Penn., $21,300

The nearly 40 cosponsors of the Protect IP Act, SOPA's partner legislation in the Senate, have received more than $13.5 million from the TV, music and movies industry since entering Congress. Here's a rundown:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $1,996,470

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., $1,465,160

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., $1,295,718

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., $899,366 (sponsor)

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., $890,668

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., $747,491

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mont., $503,291

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., $493,069

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, $492,407

Sen. Robert Men�ndez, D-N.J., $445,575

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., $430,500

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $368,733

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., $365,589

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Penn., $343,225

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., $312,320

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., $297,771

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, $291,621

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $284,225

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., $254,162

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., $237,084

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., $230,569

Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., $218,539

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., - $217,847

Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., - $171,790

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., $158,066

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., $94,450

So how do we get out of this cycle? You get continued and effective rent seeking when politicians feel indebted to a few big companies with powerful lobbying arms. It's pretty clear that the American public doesn't like it. So when and how does it stop?

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: campaign finance, pipa, politics, protect ip, sopa

104 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 3:47am

never, sorry :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 3:49am

So when and how does it stop?
When you bring in the Swiss referendum system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:01am
  
  Payment processing
  Btw If the new US laws drive payment procesing offshore - then just wait for a country that will never adopt such measures - and which has a history of financial expertise - to fill the gap.... where would that be I wonder?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - IronM@sk, 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:38am
    
    Re: Payment processing
    Nigeria?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:07am
      
      Re: Re: Payment processing
      Could happen if we are really unlucky - but I was thinking of Switzerland.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Payment processing
        Or even Iceland, it would fit nicely with their whole IMMI project.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Robert Doyle (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Payment processing
        The swiss have already bent to US demands in regards to account information regarding US citizens - they would cave to this as well. I hate to say it, but do you want to know who wouldn't bow to the US? China. (Man, my mouth tastes bad saying that...)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Payment processing
        The swiss have already bent to US demands in regards to account information regarding US citizens
        
        Took about 100 years....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 5 Dec 2011 @ 3:59am

Why is this legal?
I still don't understand how if you simply change what you call it, bribery becomes legal. I don't care if they call it donations or lobbying, it's still bribery, and it's still illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alex (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:10am
  
  Re: Why is this legal?
  I must confess I don't know much at all about this subject. Are these sums of money which are just given to these politicians? Are the donations meant to be unconnected to political agenda?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Swedish Turnip (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:37am
    
    Re: Re: Why is this legal?
    If they were supposed to be unconnected to political agenda then all such donations should be anonymous. As soon as you get money from someone, whom you know to have a certain agenda, your motivation for supporting that agenda becomes suspect.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is this legal?
      There are even issues with 'anonymous' giving.
      
      If you give a candidate $50K, it is going to be pretty easy to indicate where it came from.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silentchasm (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:39am
    
    Re: Re: Why is this legal?
    From my understanding, it's money that is donated to help get that politician re-elected. Without those funds, they can't pay for campaign staff and effectively plaster TV/Newspapers/the Internet with messages that say 'vote for me for congress/senate'. Therefore if they get money and they don't vote a certain way, they may not get more of the money needed to get re-elected from that company, or worse (for them), the company may give that money to their opponent, causing them to lose their seat to someone else that would likely be more willing to support what the company wants (for fear of the same happening to them later).
    
    They're supposedly unconnected, but just think of getting thousands of dollars of support from someone would affect how much you listen to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is this legal?
      As every kid who lives with their parents after high school finds out - "if you're living under my roof, you're living under my rules!"
      
      Except this is just exponentially higher monetary support than letting you live in the basement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - athox, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Why is this legal?
    I think it's money that is tagged for use in election campaigns (anything else seems to me to be class A corruption).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re: Why is this legal?
  1bribe noun \ˈbrīb\
  1
  : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
  2
  : something that serves to induce or influence
  
  both the transitive and intransitive verbs are simply the application of the bribe
  
  2lobby verb
  lob�bied lob�by�ing
  
  Definition of LOBBY
  
  intransitive verb
  : to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
  
  transitive verb
  1
  : to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
  2
  : to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action
  
  So according to Merriam-Webster, the only real difference between the two is that one is specific to legislation and public officials. I guess bribery is wrong because it works on anyone in a position of trust, not just lawmakers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:53am
    
    Re: Re: Why is this legal?
    We don't trust our lawmakers...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is this legal?
      In which case, it's not bribery, it's lobbying.
      
      ...So that's how the greedy little shits get away with it! Make the lawmakers so untrustworthy that you have to go to the megacorps just to get any traction on influence!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:05am

When: when the populace feels shafted enough

How: armed revolt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- heyidiot (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 1:30pm
  
  Pfffffttt!
  ...and pshaw!
  
  Really? Over some easily-circumvented rules that only affect, after all lets admit, a virtual community?
  
  For that, you wish to stage an armed revolt? Bullets and guns?
  
  You're joking, or psychotic. Choose one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - heyidiot (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Pfffffttt!
    I guess "stupid" could be a possibility as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:13am

Only one side?
As you comment, the other side who are fighting SOPA/PIPA could be receiving money from internet companies etc.

However the "other side" I'd like to see is what the contributions are from big media to the neutrals and anti-SOPA/PIPA politicians. A lot of the amounts in the list above are fairly flat (especially around 250k for PIPA support). Is it just that there's a fairly blanket contribution of around 250k from big media?

One way to show this could be to show the average big media contribution to a politician in each house. Does anyone know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: Only one side?
  A good contrast is to look at the amounts and sources of contributions to someone like Ron Wyden:
  
  http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=n00007724&type=I &newmem=N
  
  His biggest contributor is Nike at only $42k. He gets almost as much from local businesses like Lithia Motors and local law firms as he does from big corporations (Nike, Intel, Blue Cross/Blue Shield being the most notable).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Old Man in The Sea, 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:19am

Remove the opportunity for bribery
Simply remove the legalised bribery (political contributions) that any sitting or prospective politician can obtain. Put all of them before the people to fully explain their views and stands. No political advertisements from any source and possibly have each sitting or prospective politician go out and get a minimum number of registered voters that will support that person directly. Anything would be better than what is currently done.

Oh and any person wanting to be a member of the parliament would need to sell all goods and chattels that they or their respective spouse or partners have (no opportunity to give anything into the safe keeping of another person) and put this into the government treasury with a minimum wage being given to them and living in the local public housing and using public transport. As well ensure that no accruing benefits arising from extra years of "service".

This would sort out the wolves from the pack - maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:28am
  
  Re: Remove the opportunity for bribery
  Maybe a bit too drastic. How about this:
  
  You cannot donate directly to any politician/party - you can however donate to a political support fund. At the same time you register where you wish to place your support.
  
  The total pot of money donated then gets divided up in proportion to the number of registered supporters each politician/party has.
  
  That way you can donate as much as you like - but your influence is limited the same way your vote is limited.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re: Remove the opportunity for bribery
    I like this idea...now lets try and get someone to vote for this in the senate...house? someone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:40am
  
  Re: Remove the opportunity for bribery
  I theorised a double-blind collective donation system, where donations were assigned at random to people who were running for election. Some American posters of the forum I made it on shot it down, on the grounds that corruption is an essential part of the system, otherwise you'd have communists running the country.
  
  It's a rather bizarre argument when you consider that the current system is most likely going to lead to a revolt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ethorad (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re: Remove the opportunity for bribery
    Agreed - if the public feel that taxation is too high, and representation is focusing on corporate interests there could well be a revolt. Stranger things have happened!
    
    First though you need some sort of a slogan regarding the desired link between taxation and representation. Any ideas?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Remove the opportunity for bribery
      "Good governments budget, great governments steal from the poor."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 4:36am

It will only change when the American people decide to put more effort into their voting decisions than basing it upon who has the most campaign signs by the side of the road, and then turn off the TV long enough to go out and actually vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:33am
  
  Re:
  We have the perfect platforms to educate people about their politicians, what they are voting on, and who is bribing ... err ehem ... funding their election campaigns. Facebook and Google+ offer us unprecedented connectivity to create an app that puts everything in one place. The politicians voting record, the constitutionality of the laws having been voted upon, the ability to directly contact your politician, the bills coming up for a vote, and the ability to spread the word about upcoming legislation.
  
  All in all, we have the ability to put them under a microscope, and keep them there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  We need something more significant than having more voter participation. Many of the people who don't vote would vote for the corrupt politicians if they did vote and that could offset the benefit of having more voters who opposed the corruption in the system.
  
  What we need is a ranked voting system. Currently, you either vote Democrat or Republican because you're either brainwashed to a particular ideology or you're voting for the lesser of two evils, or you're voting for an independent as a symbolic but ultimately futile gesture.
  
  People need to be able to vote without being scared that they're wasting their time. That would get more people to vote. That would also get more independent politicians to run and get elected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyle, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:10am

Uh... roy blunt
Roy Blunt is Missouri... not Montana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:42am
  
  Re: Uh... roy blunt
  I expect that the list was originally written using two-letter abbreviations, and someone mistook MO (Missouri) to be Montana.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:14am

I'll admit I know very little about the US political system, but it seems almost literally like rich entities can just buy votes!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:51am
  
  Re:
  Step 1. Fund the campaigns for both parties' candidates.
  Step 2. The winner betrays the people who elected him and writes laws that benefit you at the expense of everyone else.
  Step 3. Give the former winner a job with you when he gets voted out of office.
  
  We have judges that are former lobbyists giving rulings on laws that they helped push through.
  If we protest this situation, the media calls us "terrorists" and police in riot gear pepper spray us. Congress is trying to pass legislation that would instead allow the military to detain us indefinitely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Squid Lips, 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    We haven't protested it correctly yet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:59am
  
  Re:
  No, that's pretty much it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  That is exactly why at&t rules the broadband as part of a duopoly. It bribes both parties for favorable laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- u grim bastid, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:59pm
  
  Re:
  yup
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:22am

This is the only reason I liked OWS.Corruption and Big Money married to Government.I am voting smarter.We need people in Government who won't take more than $500 and will support Term Limits.
If that does not happen I will march on Washington if others will.I no longer care if I get chucked in a jail.Been there before and at least it is warm and I get 3 meals a day.What else can you do ?
The Government Officials do not care about us for the most part.Both of the Parties are Corrupt.Start Voting Independent maybe ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  The spacebar is your friend!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:31am

Blame citizens united and rich people who insist that money is speech. As long as courts keep ruling that money is speech we'll never get out of this cycle of bribery and corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:46am
  
  Re:
  *sigh*
  
  Citizens United didn't change how much a politician can received in campaign contributions. It simply said that the government was not allowed to prohibit speech by an organization (corporations included) merely because that speech was political in nature. It didn't say money was speech, it said speech was speech.
  
  I seriously wish people would read about the case before they go off on it because of what they heard someone say it was about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Regardless - the result is the same, an less-restricted flow of money from those who can afford to "purchase" a campaign contribution. The cycle of raise money/win election/raise money, continues at an ever increasing rate - the end result is a drowning out of the vox-populi as the whores we elect seek to 'optimize' their fund-raising efforts. Bottom line: Citizens United broke an already broken system and released the Kraken...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Regardless - the result is the same, a less-restricted flow of money from those who can afford to "purchase" a campaign contribution. The cycle of raise money/win election/raise money, continues at an ever increasing rate - the end result is a drowning out of the vox-populi as the whores we elect seek to 'optimize' their fund-raising efforts. Bottom line: Citizens United broke an already broken system and released the Kraken...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bjupton (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    It does provide for a way around limits for how much one entity can spend on a candidate.
    
    Revenge for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:35am

Is there a list of donations made by opponents of sopa/pipa. That kind of list might be useful in changing the minds of a few of them. Either that or it will just start a bidding war.

Maybe a per year/term amount would be a little more informative since some of them must have been there more than one term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:37am

In Ireland, at least the politicians have the decency to use discrete brown paper envelopes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:42am
  
  Re:
  correction: in Ireland and the UK, they go "out to lunch" and opinions change. And by lunch, I mean rent boys, hookers and copious amounts of class A drugs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Austin, 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:46am

Conflict of Interest
Representatives with a financial interest should recuse themselves, as judges already do. "In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have a financial interest. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in such firms, while Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd's of London syndicate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: Conflict of Interest
  Representatives with a financial interest should recuse themselves, as judges already do.
  
  Sadly impractical, IMO. Some of these corporations just spread the money around evenly in order to "cover all the bases". If every rep with a financial interest recused, they might not be able to constitute a quorum to vote at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re: Conflict of Interest
    "If every rep with a financial interest recused, they might not be able to constitute a quorum to vote at all."
    
    And would that be a bad thing? No laws passed, as opposed to bad laws passed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe Publius (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Conflict of Interest
      touch�
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:17am

Those numbers...
...make me sick to my stomach. Our democratic republic has failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:38am

Cheap and stupid
Our Congressmen and Senators are not even high class whores. The IP industry is getting off easy for the amount of cash they have to spend. $13.5 million is nothing for even the record labels to spend.

I had hoped that if our government is being purchased, at least it would be valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:05pm
  
  Re: Cheap and stupid
  funny thing is they say they lose millions every year to infringement .. If they'd stop buying politicians maybe they'd have more money 13.5 ffs
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liz (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:38am

Math isn't my greatest subject, but adding all of that up, I get $17,185,892.

$17,185,892 =

859,294 meals at $20 a plate
245,512 trips to the gas station at $3.50 gallon regular gasoline (20gal purchase)
179,019 months of home electricity at $96 (920kwh)
21,482 months of rent at $800
24,551 months of groceries for a family of 4 at $700
17,680 months of daycare service for young children at $972
687 Four-door sedans at $25,000
603 Semesters of private non-profit college tuition at $28,500
114 Fully paid 3-bedroom, 2-bath homes at $150,000

Averages via quick Google search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  Nice! Now tell me how many gumballs that will buy. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    34,371,784 from a half dollar machine.
    68,743,578 from a quarter machine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AR (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:49am

On the continent of Fourecks (cf. The Lost Continent, Terry Pratchett) politicians are put in jail as soon as they are elected, because "it saves time later".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pho3nixf1re (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:00am

term limits
The only permanent solution to this is to enact term limits. There is already a resolution in the senate with bi-partisian support. We need more people to push for this, do it at termlimits.org!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: term limits
  Careful - term limits might impose another unexpected consequence:
  
  Instead of passing laws in return for donations, legislators might start passing laws in return for high-paying private sector jobs once their term is up.
  
  We already see this revolving door effect where public figures land high-paying private jobs after propping up certain industries, and vice-versa - we see those same industries producing people in public positions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:21am

It is sort of a little bit dishonest to suggest in any manner that the donations are specifically for SOPA. Desperation to smear those trying to pass the legislation is high these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  What would happen to the world if SOPA doesn't pass?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    NOOO Think of the children.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    If SOPA doesn't pass, you should be prepared to meet "son of SOPA". This is an issue that isn't going away. The US is more and more an IP economy, and as such, will work to protect it's interests.
    
    Sorry if you cannot see the obvious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That makes sense, but now, the IP economy is failing, both to adapt AND to influence. Futurama had it right when it referred to the current time period as "the Stupid Ages".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The IP economy isn't failing - it is being undermined by those who choose to ignore the law. The demand for IP is huge, should the creators not be recompensed for creating something that so many people want?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The whole thought of intellectual property is just stupid. IMO. Herp I thought of it first you have to pay me the rest of my life to use it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Liz (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the content creators under the major labels would give the people reasonable offers, with reasonable prices, at the ease and convenience that is afforded by 'other' services - then they would reap the benefits far more than the lock-down manner which is commonplace.
        
        It isn't failing because of people who ignore the law. It is failing because of the people who write those laws and pay off government officials to have them enacted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They are, in record amounts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The IP economy isn't even the 15th largest employer in the US. This legislation is unwarranted and unworkable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The IP economy isn't failing - it is being undermined by those who choose to ignore the law. The demand for IP is huge, should the creators not be recompensed for creating something that so many people want?
        
        The supposed purpose of the IP economy is to drive the real economy. You can't eat IP so if IP is all we have everyone will die of starvation!
        
        There is no moral justification for IP. People who believe there is are the sad victims of 300 years of brainwashing by vested interests.
        
        If you read the history of the subject you will find that IP has it's origins in royal patronage, intended to buy loyalty. In fact if you look at recent developments you will see that little has changed on that score!
        
        Copyright and patents were originally justified in both Britain and America on the pretext that they would benefit the common good by encouraging creation of new work. However studies of the reality of the situation have consistently shown that this is false: Read and learn:
        
        There are plenty of ways for creators to be incentivised and paid without a post creation monopoly. Studies of both copyright and patent have shown that such a monopoly is not only unnecessary - it is counter productive. All it does is to encourage corruption and attract greedy profiteers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The creative economy isn't failing - it is being undermined by those corporate middlemen who want to introduce artificial scarcity and economic inefficiencies to the market. The demand for creative content is huge, should the true creators (i.e. not the copyright or patent HOLDERS, but the true CREATORS!) not be recompensed for creating something that so many people want?"
        
        Sure, we all want artists to make money. They make stuff which makes the world better. So, I wonder, why do RIAA executives make multi-million dollar salaries?
        
        http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/riaa-weighs-in-on-flap-over-executive-sala ries-1005198182.story
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If SOPA doesn't pass, you should be prepared to meet "son of SOPA".
      
      Which won't stop piracy either.
      
      Sorry if you cannot see the obvious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The US is more and more an IP economy
      
      Do you have some data that you're basing that statement on? I could just as easily say the US is more and more a bacon economy and I'd have as much behind my assertion as you do yours.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is what i picture when I think of the "son of SOPA"
      
      http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/son-of-godzilla.html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - u grim bastid, 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        someone somewhere is looking at that photo and screaming infringement ..lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    No more Spongebob.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  I should also point out that it is equally tricky to highlight SOPA, and then point out how much an individual has raised "during their career", especially without giving relative numbers to work from - such as showing their total fund raising over their career, and how much that is on average of each year of said career.
  
  WTG - the smear machine is working overtime again!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    It is a smear campaign to shed light on bribery? LOL! This is how much money he has made from them since being a ....
    
    Our country bought and paid for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 1:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just like our 'terrorists' are their 'freedom fighters'...
      Our 'bribery' is their 'lobbying'...
      
      It makes us feel so much better to label the same action by a different word and pretend that the other person is 'bad' for doing the exact same thing we are (but we called it something 'different' so that makes us 'right' and 'better')....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rubberpants, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Are you suggesting that none of these politicians are in favor of SOPA primarily because they've received a lot of money from the entertainment industry in the past?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    I should also point out that it is equally tricky to highlight SOPA, and then point out how much an individual has raised "during their career", especially without giving relative numbers to work from - such as showing their total fund raising over their career, and how much that is on average of each year of said career
    
    You're making this way too easy for the people like me, the OCD crowd to expose that very thing, with pretty pictures too.
    
    But this is why people invented Maplight, where you can look at that very thing in minute detail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am

No Surprise there then
Those figures speak volumes as to the corruption currently happening on The Hill. It amazes me that this is still tolerated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am

Is there any indication when pipa will be voted on?
I thought last week was the expect time period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:05am

Pay sponsors a crapload of money... so this is how a bill becomes law. So much for School House Rock's bill song!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:17am

Can someone explain Lessig's efforts?
I know he's been pushing some sort of publicly funded campaigns, but I don't know the details. I would love to see a discussion regarding the pros/cons of what he is proposing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Can someone explain Lessig's efforts?
  There are no cons. Except for the crooks, of course, and in America that's enough to doom the effort forever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RevCharlie (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 9:48am

SOPA/PIPA Sponsors
That's it... I'm running for congress. It will take a lifetime to make this much working... Why not join the elite and take a bribe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:09am

Our democratic republic has failed.

Yep, it's being sold a piece at a time to various corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:10am

"If every rep with a financial interest recused, they might not be able to constitute a quorum to vote at all."

Then maybe we need reps who aren't being bought and paid for, like puppets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bjupton (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:19am

Republic Lost
I can recommend Lawrence Lessig's latest book, Republic Lost. Thought provoking.

Actually, I have enjoyed all of his books. Well, I'm not sure I *enjoy* Republic Lost.

*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:23am
  
  Re: Republic Lost
  You'll love his talk of/by/4 as well as that of Jack Abramoff in figuring out the system.
  
  Basically, the returns on favorable legislation are phenomenal. For every $1 spent on legislation, the company gains $220 in tax savings. A 22,000% return. Why wouldn't you want to do it? This is the problem that Larry Lessig is noting that we have to fight. Everyone wants to fight the system, but getting to the root of the problem is to fight the corruption that allows this in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOlz (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 10:54am

Their Right
Well this explains why big media thinks there's no such thing as free.

Also Rep. Thomas Marino, is going to feel cheap when he sees what the 24 people above him on the list got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jessej, 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:37am

controlling the internet
One phenomenon on the internet is having various items go "viral". This can be a good thing! Consider if millions of eligible voters caught up the notion which is presented on www.voidnow.org ? Specifically, we can make a huge change in Congress by Voting Out Incumbants. The old guard incumbants, who keep getting re-elected time after time are basically parasites preying off our voter laziness. The have EVERYTHING to lose if this notion were to go viral. Hence, they must get their clutches on the internet and control/stop it, any way they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: controlling the internet
  I think that's dangerous though. This doesn't look into the gerrymandering nor the problems of our voting system. Rick Boucher was elected out of office because sentiments ran against the Democrats from the financial meltdown. Instead, we need to have these people have Instant Runoff Elections or a dismantling of the electoral system. Further, getting money out of politics would work to make the system better.
  
  What VOID's main purpose is to have a fresh change in the politics every few years. This can't happen with fresh faces. What will you do with the lobbyists or members that bribe the new batch of politicians? While voting out incumbents works on a small level, the better result is to change the entire political system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barbara Jordan's Ghost, 5 Dec 2011 @ 8:55pm

When will it stop?
When will it stop? It will stop when the American people demand that it stops. Refuse to elect anyone who accepts corporate money to influence their policy-making. Become involved and aware of your elected offices. Pay attention, speak, and act. And if you think your leaders are doing a bad job, reject them as leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsavory (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:44pm

Money Trail
I seen that a few wanted to know whats being paid out on the other side and this is the best I could find.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money

Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] $74,909
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] $55,339
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16] $52,359
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] $48,950
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] $43,033
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] $42,700
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] $42,200
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] $33,524
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] $32,543
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] $29,519

Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $144,673
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $132,934
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $130,224
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $115,245
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $95,045
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $78,670
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA] $72,106
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] $68,550
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $59,650
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $48,150
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsavory (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 11:48pm

PIPA
Sorry forgot to mention that last post was just for the SOPA this is for the PIPA.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money

Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $1,346,579
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $402,425
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $295,640
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $284,849
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $254,975
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $229,824
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE] $209,400
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT] $176,399
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] $159,550
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] $127,450

Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] $302,109
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] $204,150
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] $202,770
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] $141,100
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] $140,014
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] $106,500
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] $92,560
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8] $84,692
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] $82,100
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] $79,313
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2011 @ 8:52am

It's sad that we allow our corrupt government to establish a self interested media cartel. Government established cableco and broadcasting monopolies should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 6 Dec 2011 @ 12:12pm

How NOT to stop it
I'll tell you what we don't do. We don't give the power to regulate lobbying to the very people receiving the benefits. If we do, it will work just like nearly every other federal regulation: exemptions will be written in for the friends of politicians, who will in turn use the regulations to squash start-ups, small businesses, and competition.

Broadly, this stops when federal power is diminished. The more centralized government power is, the better lobbying looks as an investment, and the more widespread cronyism and corruption becomes. Put another way, if the power is not there to buy, corporations won't be looking to buy the power. And I'll guarantee one thing: buying the legislature in all 50 states will be a lot more costly than buying a few federal politicians, with a lot lower return. And that doesn't even consider items that will be kicked all the way down the the county or local level.

It's mind-boggling that so many people look at issues like this and say, "More regulations!" It's regulations that got us here in the first place. How about we leave criminal and civil enforcement up the states, as was originally intended, and the power would not be so easily up for grabs by the highest bidders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 6 Dec 2011 @ 3:08pm

Politicians and Big Money
The main problem is that the Supreme Court (the worst ever) decided it was okay for Big Money to buy politicians. That said, we need some way of breaking this deadly cycle before it destroys us (as you said).
Right on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]