Want A Box At The Grammies With Two Bigshot Congressmen? That'll Be $5,000 (Entertainment Lobbyists Only)
from the soft-corruption dept
We've talked a lot in the past about the concept of soft corruption. These are the kinds of practices that are most likely legal, and possibly even common among the political class, but which absolutely stink of corruption to the average American. And that's a huge problem, not just because of the general ethical questions raised by such soft corruption, but because it creates a cynical American public that does not trust politicians to adequately represent their interests.
Here's just one example. It appears that a bunch of industry lobbyists have been receiving the following email:
If you can't read it, it says the following:
Subject: Chairman Jeffries Grammy Weekend Feb 8-10
Good afternoon!
Chairman Hakeem Jeffries and Ranking Member Nadler will be splitting a box for the upcoming Grammy Awards Feb 8-10. The room block is at the newly renovated Sheraton Grand Los Angeles, which is a short walk from the Staples Center. To access the invite and registration form, please CLICK HERE
Tickets are $5,000 each. If you need a second ticket then please let me know and I will put you in touch with Yuichi Miyamoto from Ranking Member Nadler's team.
Please let me know as soon as possible if you want to attend since we have a limited number of spots. We also request that you use the room block for the stay.
Thanks again!
The link then takes people to an official invite to hang out with Reps. Jeffries and Nadler at the Grammies. Just $5 grand a pop. They'll even book your hotel for you! What a deal! What a steal!
Jeffries and Nadler are both bigshots in Congress. Jeffries (who originally ran for Congress stating: "Washington is broken. Congress is dysfunctional.... We deserve more") was just elected to be the chair of the Democratic Caucus, which makes him an incredibly powerful Congressman. Nadler is the current "Ranking Member" on the powerful Judciary Committee, and once the new Congress begins, will become the Chair of the Judiciary Committee -- the very committee in Congress that is in charge of copyright law. Nadler has a long history of pushing horrific anti-public copyright bills. Back in 2012, he proposed what I jokingly referred to as the RIAA Bailout Act of 2012, as the entire point of the bill was to drastically increase the rates internet radio would have to pay the record labels. He's also mocked digital rights activists, by calling the idea that "you bought it, you own it" was "an extreme digital view."
So, it certainly does seem notable that both of these Congressional Reps (1) have "a box" at the Grammies and (2) they're actively asking industry lobbyists to give them $5,000 per ticket to hang out with the Congressmen at the Grammies.
Again, some may suggest that this is "how fundraising is done" in Congress (though, frankly, it's usually a bit less blatant). But, even so, is this how it should be done? Doesn't anyone in Jeffries' or Nadler's office think that going to a key recording industry event and asking the industry's biggest companies to pay them $5k to spend some time with them... looks really, really bad? And, relatedly, how the hell can we trust that the various copyright bills that are certain to be under Nadler's control over the next two years (at least) are actually written for the benefit of the public, as per the Constitutional requirement, rather than the benefit of his $5,000 paying "friends" who hang out with him at the biggest celebration of the industry over which Nadler gets to set key rules?
In the past, there have been ethical questions raised by Congressional Representatives hosting fundraisers targeting industries they have jurisdiction over regulating, but these things tend to get swept under the rug in Congress as part of "the way things are done."
But, it certainly stinks of the kind of "soft corruption" that makes the public distrust the government. Indeed, it's the kind of thing that makes people say: "Washington is broken. Congress is dysfunctional.... We deserve more."
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: congress, copyright, grammies, hakeem jeffries, jerry nadler, lobbying, recording industry, regulators, soft corruption
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pretty textbox example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pretty textbox example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you mean "textbook."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pretty textbox example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pretty textbox example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pretty textbox example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty textbox example
And yes, "textbox" was an interesting slip of the tongue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty textbox example
My question is less about whether it's old than whether it's a saying.
Like that old saying, some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gross...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
NO, clearly the "exclusive" clause, as you pirates so often complain, is to benefit those who MAKE the products that are stolen.
The Copyright Clause is the practical compromise between The Public which of course wants all including entertainments to be GIVEN for free and those who invest work and money (besides lost opportunity to do other with those) so that ALL can benefit. It cannot work on hope that people will pay, there MUST be some degree of guaranteed exclusive and enforcement on you freeloaders who won't pay under any circumstances, besides against commercial-scale grifters who put in zero work yet often get most of the potential gains. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
As for the rest of Masnick's rant: meh. Only a vehicle to carry his hatred of RIAA besides apparently repeat of personal targeting for past support of it. But when have you ever complained about GOOGLE influencing Congress?
Now you have some actual substance on which to target your empty gainsaying and cheaty hiding, kids. Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
Speak for yourself Biff. Generalizations are usually wrong, for the obvious reasons, all that is needed is one instance where the proclamation does not hold - but you knew that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
Even by his standards, the argument is extraordinarily weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
clearly the "exclusive" clause, as you pirates so often complain, is to benefit those who MAKE the products that are stolen
You have a weird definition of "clearly". The constitution says, very explicitly, what the purpose is: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". Everything else is just your fankwank headcanon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT SOLELY for benefit of The Public!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is a system that is—or was, at least at its inception—meant to ultimately benefit the public. Yes, it outlines and creates benefits for creators, but those benefits are meant to be temporary. Copyright in this day and age not only removes the “temporary” part of most copyright systems (such that virtually nothing created in the year of your birth will ever fall into the public domain within your lifetime), it creates far more stringent limits on public use of copyrighted content (even with regards to Fair Use) and turns copyright into a censorship tool (hi there, DMCA takedown system).
You love to whine about “The Public” and how they want “all[,] including entertainments[,] to be GIVEN for free”. Have you ever considered that the public would be more than happy to pay for copies of such works if they could be assured that they were buying a copy to own instead of renting a copy from a corporation that could revoke access to said copy at any time? Have you ever considered how many independent artists make a living from their work without having to use copyright as a cudgel against their fans? (I mean, shit, I know of a fair number of furries who make decent money through commissions alone.) Have you ever thought about how maybe, just maybe, we might have a richer culture if works made, say, thirty years ago or more were in the public domain and could thus be used as the basis for new, legally-okay creative works?
Nothing you say about copyright has any place in a serious discussion of copyright (outside of mockery and dismantlings such as mine) because your view of copyright can be summed up as this: “Fuck the plebs, copyright holders are demigods, and corporations need more power to enforce copyright even tighter than it is now.” And yes, your positions on copyright are pro-corporate because corporations are the world’s most powerful copyright holders with the world’s most “important” copyrights (just look at how much pop culture Disney owns nowadays!) and the greatest ability to enforce copyright (read: use copyright as a weapon) on a dangerously broad scale. Support for stricter, more stringent copyright benefits only corporations. It also denies the public—which includes you, might I add—the very thing which copyright was supposed to have given them: a rich public domain of cultural works, both scientific and artistic, from which the public can draw to create new works of their own.
But I suppose making sure Michael Jackson can turn a profit for the corporation that owns a dead man’s copyrights means more to you than growing both the public domain and our shared culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legality *is* the corruption
It stinks of corruption because it is corruption. It being legal isn't a mitigating factor or something to be mentioned off-hand, it's a core aspect of the corruption. These are, after all, the people who write the law and write the exceptions that put themselves above it. I mean, it would be inconvenient if politicians couldn't legally accept bribes, make robocalls, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legality *is* the corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legality *is* the corruption
The way the discussion focuses only on Hard Corruption, much like the republican focus on 'collusion' as the only thing Muller is looking for, and the idea that the investigation is into Trump personally, and is a waste of time if it can't prove wrong doing by Trump, an intentional move by politicians who have been narrowing the discussion toward clear crimes since at least the Watergate era, and away from the soft corruption.
Soft corruption is doing things that are universally legal, but raise ethical questions when performed by someone in power. If I got a box at the Grammies and invited industry executives, I likely wouldn't get $5K a head, but even if I did, no one would care. That's just a bunch of financial dick swinging. But when a congressman does it, it turns heads. When a congressman whose primary focus is legislation aimed toward that industry, its a problem.
Soft corruption works in part because while unlikely these kinds of events can have a fundraising purpose, even if the need for that fundraising is an issue of contention. The issue is the clear conflict present in the combination of deep pocketed individuals whose interests align with the key legislative activity of the congressman at hand. It takes an activity that is legal for ordinary persons, but is either questionable ethically, or an outright a conflict of interest when performed by a person in position of authority.
That is why it is being highlighted. The legality doesn't make it Corruption. It is what makes it soft corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legality *is* the corruption
What we're talking about is not universally legal. "Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty." (Wikipedia)
Like with campaign contributions, the people paying $5K expect the official to work for them. If a lower level official like a DMV employee accepted $5K from a person who wanted something from them, do you think it would go the same way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legality *is* the corruption
Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
Unfortunately, Black's Law Dictionary has no legal authority in the United States (or anywhere). If you wish to know more about US law related to bribery of public officials and its relation to campaign contributions, please refer to McDonnell v. United States, Robert L. McCORMICK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legality *is* the corruption
Its actually hard to prove bribery, the actual crime, not just a dictionary definition (citing Black's Law dictionary over Merriam-Webster isn't giving you a step up in this regard, they are quite similar). In this case, while the congressman is soliciting donations (and we don't know the cost of the Box or the turnout so we don't know there is profit in this), we can't necessarily say the action had a specific goal. Most statutes require intent to influence specific actions, matching bribe to action. Its why lobbying is so open, and why its such a problem that Comcast's Chief Lobbyist isn't reported as such.
I could work on the definitions, it is true. But I think the core distinction is valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legality *is* the corruption
If anyone other than the government attempts to coerce monies from any member of the citizenry on threat of revocation of their rights and imprisonment, we lock them up and throw away the key.
Your take on "soft" corruption is subjective. Those indulging in it rarely see it as anything other than a job perk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legality *is* the corruption
Soft corruption isn't an official term, nor is hard corruption. I am merely trying to apply the terms used by Techdirt in the way they were used. Soft corruption is, by its nature, abuse that is more accepted by the elite as 'the way things are done'. Of course it is subjective. The whole point is while it is legal, the combination of factors makes it highly unethical and undermines faith in democracy. Even if there is no corrupt intent or action, the perception of corruption in these actions is damaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legality *is* the corruption
Sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
business as usual
Quite often, it's more blatant. And more expensive. But if you want to rub elbows with influential politicians (as well as A-list movie stars) in a small intimate setting, then that privilege tends to come with a very hefty price tag.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-22 1207
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: business as usual
Quite often, it's more blatant. And more expensive. But if you want to rub elbows with influential politicians (as well as A-list movie stars) in a small intimate setting, then that privilege tends to come with a very hefty price tag.
But that's not what I'm complaining about here. Expensive fund raisers are quite common, indeed. That's not the issue here.
The issue is that this is specifically AT AN INDUSTRY EVENT THAT THESE TWO HAVE TREMENDOUS REGULATORY POWER OVER.
That's the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: business as usual
So if this 'pay-to-play' meeting had taken place at some other (non-Hollywood) entertainment venue, let's say the Super Bowl, would that have made the corruption aspect less distasteful?
Also the $5000 price tag might have some aditional relevance, as the maximum allowed political contribution under US law being $5400 per married couple and $5000 per PAC. Although it's clearly not the same thing, the coincidence is interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indentured servitude isn’t part of that deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's in the box?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how the hell can we trust that the various copyright bills that are certain to be under Nadler's control over the next two years (at least) are actually written for the benefit of the public
We can't, of course. When SOPA died Chris Dodd all but threatened every politician he knew that he'd be taking their meal tickets away in case of another failure.
We're at the point where the biggest game changer is a Hail Mary occurrence, like the RIAA admitting that life + 95 years is too long. Which isn't saying a lot, but that's just how deep the rabbit shithole goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publish the link!
Better yet, a Kickstarter: sign up and your question gets asked, live.
Oh, wait. I'm just a voter. Even if I WANTED to go, and had the disposable cash, they'd never let me in the door, because i can only vote once (in my county).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law and moral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]