The Press Finally Realizing Jerry Nadler Is In Bed With The RIAA While In Charge Of Copyright Reform
from the oh-look-at-that dept
Back in December, we wrote about how Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of any copyright reform proposals, was hosting a party for music industry lobbyists at the Grammy's this year (along with Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries). To party with Nadler and Jeffries at the Grammys -- the recording industry's biggest event of the year -- you "only" had to pay $5,000 per ticket. A bargain.
Whether or not you believe this is outright corruption, it certainly meets Larry Lessig's definition of "soft corruption." That is activity that may be perfectly legal, but to the vast majority of the public certainly feels corrupt, and raises questions about who's influencing our elected officials. Nadler, of course, has long been deeply in the bag for the recording industry. Years back, he pushed a bill that was little more than a bailout for the RIAA, and he's attacked the idea that if people buy something, they then own it as "an extreme digital view."
But it appears that the more mainstream media is beginning to notice Nadler's conflicts. His hometown NY Daily News has a whole article that talks about Nadler's money grab at the Grammys as well as much, much more.
Jerry Nadler is rockin' and rollin' in campaign cash from the music industry and other intellectual property businesses that he oversees as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a review of recent federal records reveals.
Nadler, who is one of the point men pounding the drums against President Trump’s various improprieties, banked at least $65,000 from corporate music industry political action committees, industry executives, and their lobbyists and lawyers, a Daily News search of Nadler’s campaign receipts found.
He also spent more than $30,000 to hold his own Grammy Awards party — at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles in February.
Yeah. The Daily News doesn't mention that tickets to the party were advertised to lobbyists at $5k a pop. The Daily News points out that this is all legal, but does certainly suggest it appears pretty freaking sketchy:
A spokeswoman for Nadler’s campaign insisted there was nothing improper in dropping $27,250 for a suite at the Staples Center where the Grammys are awarded, $2,290 for food and drinks, $1,835 at the Beverly Hills Hilton and another $2,650 at the Sheraton Grand, all so industry execs could fill Nadler’s campaign coffers and schmooze with the chairman.
The article notes that "in a perfect world" members of Congress who run committees regulating industries probably wouldn't be allowed to host parties at those industry events, selling expensive tickets to get in. But, hey, it's not a perfect world.
“For many Americans, our corrosive fund-raising system calls into question whether members of Congress are acting in the public interest, or for some private financial interest,” Scherb said.
You don't say.
There are still a number of important copyright issues likely to come before Congress in the near future. Does anyone actually believe that Nadler will take the interests of all sides into account? Or does he have at least 65,000 reasons to focus mainly on the views of the RIAA in determining what copyright bills are even considered?
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: copyright, copyright reform, grammys, hakeem jeffries, jerry nadler, soft corruption
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So it's pretty clear Jerry Nadler is the industry's whore. What can be done about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe that's why Nadler is such a wimp when it comes to exercising his supposed congressional powers. he can't afford to subpoena anyone who could upset his payolla apple cart. Not only is he a hack, but he's a dishonest hack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sane NY'ers, yes, all 32,767 of us, have been trying to get Nadler and Silver imprisoned for decades.
But since they're based out of NYC, they're untouchable Democrats.
Was is Nadler or Brooks who said "It's good to be the king!"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Vote for Justice Democrats, and other candidates who pledge not to take corporate money.
Support progressives in local and state races in your municipality.
Encourage your friends to do the same.
Run for office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corruption in DC!?!?
I am shocked just shocked to discover all of these politicians are on the take & have no problem screwing all of us, because they know they just have to claim the other guy will steal some rights or murder all the babies to get relected without question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Lots of self-described progressives support corporatist policies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I mean, it might not...
“For many Americans, our corrosive fund-raising system calls into question whether members of Congress are acting in the public interest, or for some private financial interest,” Scherb said.
In the same way that seeing the sun rise 'calls into question' whether it will set later on, sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Uh, are there actually any of those? I certainly don't remember on any of the ballots I've had to vote on. What I generally see if more hold your nose and vote the least evil of any of the choices presented... and often, the difference in evil is slight indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would it be stupid...
To ask the peolle of the nation, what they Want in a representative..??
ANd for the PEOPLE to figure out the laws and regulations they MUST live by.
Thinking persons are angles, is stupid, but Our ignorance of what they are doing, is even worse.
And I thought there were RULES about being a Corp Stooge, or even a representative/lobbyist. If they are getting money from another agency, I would suggest we put it in the TITLE of their job(s).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice article by someone who doesn't disclose where HIS money comes from, and in which amounts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who pays you to shit-post here everyday?
Because the only other alternative is that you are suffering from a psychological problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If not disclosing where your money comes from and the amounts is a sign of suspicion the fact that they're not willing to even provide a name, never mind those other details, would seem to be more than enough to dismiss them as clearly bought and not worth paying attention to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How's that Nicoletti defense fund coming along, bro?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That can't happen until mind-reading becomes real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Can you remind me when Mike was elected to Congress, and is supposed to be representing a public constituency? And where he's actually the chair of a committee that makes laws? When that happens, then it would seem you would have a point.
Until then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Can you remind me when Mike was elected to Congress, and is supposed to be representing a public constituency?"
November 2020?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don’t stop there
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don’t stop there
Now, now. Don't be a hippocrit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This inane comment has nothing to do with.....er......ANYTHING - as is the usual form with the troll of the month. About time this being was terminated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don’t stop there
No one has a problem with politicians raising funds for their campaigns, we just object to them raising funds from lobbyists whom they effectively work for. It's a massive conflict of interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]