Head Of House Judiciary Committee Dines With MPAA, Joins Their Fundraiser, Following LA Copyright Hearing
from the soft-corruption-at-work dept
In the past, we've discussed the idea of "soft corruption" a few times -- which in some ways can be more nefarious than out and out corruption. In soft corruption, it's not what most people normally think of as corruption (i.e., cash for getting something from politicians), but merely something that presents the very strong appearance of influence buying. It involves situations where even if everything being done is legal and done for the right intentions, the mere appearance of the conflict reduces the public's trust in government. Earlier this week, we wrote about how the House Judiciary Committee, which claims to be working on a major copyright reform effort, held "listening tours" in both Silicon Valley and Los Angeles (unfortunately, reinforcing the idea that copyright is a "Hollywood v. Silicon Valley" concept). As we noted, however, we were pleasantly surprised at the Silicon Valley hearing, that the discussion seemed really positive. It was (a) focused on actual ideas that could be implemented and (b) the members of the Judiciary Committee really seemed open to lots of good ideas.From reports I've heard, the LA listening tour was also pretty good, minus one silly, but expected, flareup involving someone accusing Google of being a criminal pirate enterprise. However, in a move that seems fairly sketchy, following the hearing, the Committee members who were there had dinner with the MPAA. And, in Politico's latest report it notes that the head of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, hung around an extra day in Southern California to put his name on and attend a fundraiser for his colleague Rep. Kevin McCarthy.... put on by the MPAA:
Rep. Bob Goodlatte didn't just bring lawmakers to Silicon Valley and Los Angeles this week to talk with tech companies and content creators about the future of copyright. The House Judiciary Committee chief also offered his name and support to a fundraiser for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the National Republican Congressional Committee, hosted last night by the MPAA, according to an invite snagged by MT.And, yes, if he had done a similar thing up in Northern California with tech folks, it would be equally concerning. I know the cynical folks who read this won't accept this, but I actually do believe that Goodlatte is trying to come up with a reasonable plan for copyright reform that actually takes all the issues into account. While I don't always agree with him, I've found him to be a lot more open to understanding these issues than some of his colleagues. But... that said... this is the kind of thing that most people will see and reasonably think that it undermines Goodlatte's trustworthiness on issues like this. It certainly gives off the appearance of a pretty strong conflict of interest, and makes people more cynical and less trustworthy of the government that is supposed to represent them.
The event, a cocktail reception and dinner at the BOA Steakhouse in West Hollywood, asked for checks to be made out to the McCarthy Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the NRCC, according to a Goodlatte aide. But the Judiciary chairman, who was slated to attend, extended the help a day after he and other lawmakers visited Hollywood to talk tech policy and later dined with the MPAA. A spokeswoman for the congressman added it was Goodlatte's only fundraising event while out in California
Of course, much of the real underlying problem here is the state of money in politics today, and the fact that, for most Congressional Reps. fundraising is nearly 50% of their job responsibilities. So, if you're going to Hollywood, why not tack on a fundraiser? But, again, what that does, in the public's eyes, is make the entire process appear corrupt in some fashion. Thus, even if everyone's goals and intentions are aboveboard, the American public has significantly less trust in the entire system.
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: bob goodlatte, congress, copyright, copyright reform, corruption, crony capitalism, fundraising, house judiciary committee, soft corruption
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Square Root of Negative 1 ??
Well, since many of us have NO trust in the system now, does significantly less than that move us into Irrational Numbers? Or more appropriately into "Infinite Improbability" mode???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Soft corruption isn't limited to hosted dinners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why does Congress allow this?
Shouldn't the same hold true in Congress? I mean hell, why is Congress the only entity where it's considered ethical for people to shift from business to office to business, not having to disclose those ties and being able to write / vote legislature related to those businesses?
I know, I know, I'm dreaming if I think we can stamp out the gross negligence that Congress has shown in mandating ethical (if not moral) conduct by their members.
Still, I can't believe someone hasn't filed some kind of class-action lawsuit against our Corporate Sponsored Congress Critters...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"soft" corruption
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Soft......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why does Congress allow this?
I'm sure many have tried... but how do you go about successfully launching a lawsuit against the people making the laws? There'd have to be a pretty big schism between the judiciary and Congress for that to go anywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I know its the whole high court/low court, but any employee of the government who did this stuff would be looking at an official reprimand, unemployment (with a permanent ban on any future government work,) or a stay at a state or Federal penitentiary. I don't understand how what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Certainly the opposite...if government employees get reprimanded for going to a dinner paid for by a third party (whether or not they in turn pay for their own meal, as is required by the law,) then I don't understand how Senators, Representatives, senior politicians, etc., are allowed to get away with it, since they may be elected, but they are still employees of the government (and should be held to a much higher standard that their plebs and peons.)
How is this not receiving a bribe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can you seriously be any more full of shit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "soft" corruption
Consider a bucket of ice cream, laced with cyanide. Is that nicely flavored and fun cyanide, or is it poisonous ice cream?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Understandable. Google's rich, fun, and smart. The MafiAA are rich, demanding, and crooked. I know which I'd pick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Until then, you can have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look, a distraction!
Had Google or one of the tech companies done this sort of thing before, during or after the previous hearing, I'm guessing you'd be screaming your head off about how it was evidence of them trying to bribe the politicians involved, yet the MPAA does it and the best you can come up with is a weak attempt at deflection? Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Answer that and you've answered your question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well that explains it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look, a distraction!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Look, a distraction!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Look, a distraction!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Square Root of Negative 1 ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "soft" corruption
[ link to this | view in thread ]