MPAA threat sparks White House petition for bribery probe Chris Dodd, ex–US senator and current CEO of the Motion Picture Ass. of America, may face a White House investigation after he made an extraordinary outburst that appeared to threaten politicians who had the audacity to take the entertainment industry’s money and then abandon SOPA/PIPA online-piracy legislation. “Those who …
Irish Donkey thinking is wrong. Its not only control of the internet, but the whole of the internet and importantly, powers to close down site worldwide at the merest hint of adverse postings!
Guilty till proven innocent.
And all this to maintain their (Mafiaas) cocaine lifestyle in the name of providing for the artists.
Wankers, bribers and corrupt to the core.
Where's my bulletproof coat?
how far you can shove the brown envelope up their a***s.
Politics is about lobbyists and self interests groups coming up with enough money to Buy The Vote.
It becomes self perpetuating, the more that is offered, the more that is expected, the more they want. On and on it goes.
Every now and again they investigate the bribery and corruption, find a scapegoat or find no evidence. Keeps the little people happy.
The catch, they are investigating themselves!
Will state that his mind was unbalanced when he made the statement, due to cocaine/drink/sex addiction and refer himself to a rehab clinic.
There will be a loud sigh of relief, a statement will be issued that no further investigation is necessary, they hope he will be better soon.
Three month later he will be back and collect $ his reward.
<insert your own phrase or saying here>?
Sadly, with the state of the US Legal System, nothing will ever come of it. His buddies (It's election years so they will need all the campaign $$$ they can get) will pass a law ensuting that the status quo remains the same.
Mike Mozart is a crazy person.
Aparrently the media companies want you to download films and put them up there themselves because cnet host file sharing programs (no really, that was his logic) if you believe him. He link the extradition of the british kid for linking to films to sopa (despite it having sod all to do with that) as well.
People like that are best ignored and left to rant in peace, the things he talks about might be issues, but not for the reasons he thinks and all he does is complicate matters.
He is not nearly as crazy as the people who believe they can continue to force other people to pay lots of $$$$ for content they can get for nothing on the internet.
Crazy maybe.... but he is my kind of crazy... needs to work on that voice though.... He's like Michael Moore on steroids.
He exposes big media hypocrisy and all people can do is cower and cry and call him a crazy person, meanwhile they know full well what's going on as their own government rapes them on the daily. When was the last time you got a break? Did you know that the only retirement you will be able to afford is a 9 millimeter bullet? How many fucking homeless people did you have to walk past on the way to work today? And still the government tell you there's no homeless people, you're just imagining it, don't listen to crazy people like Mike who tell you what's going on.
Step 1 get 20% of the population on psychiatric drugs, step 2 they piss the drugs out into the water and guess what you drink them whether you want to or not. And now you wonder why your mind's knocked for six. Why you can't put facts together or believe the truth anymore, only what the BBC and Fox news tells you. It's like which variety of lies do you want with your shit burger?
When was the last time your vote counted for shit? Oh that's right never. But don't worry, you'll get to be a slave.
The copyright mafiaa’s true modus operandi is revealed, still as that one time resident of the White House (was he???) Abe Lincoln once said “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.
Oh, and this one as well, “'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”.
My prediction as to what difference this petition will make… Nil, the copyright mafia will just bribe more senators to get their way, then one day they will find that they too have gone the way of the dinosaurs.
Wait until our politicians can be digitally reproduced ad-infinitum and downloaded for free... then we'll be talking SERIOUS doo-doo...
But seriously folks, what is the solution to this Dodd doo-doo (pun intended)...?
Maybe we should all become politicians or at least petition signers.
If enough people could see this dirt bag FOX-ranting on You-Tube, then maybe he'd have to get a new job making license plates. He's already actively helped sabotage the economy before with stupid legislation:
"The Dodd-Frank law has 849 pages, compared with 66 pages in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a 2002 law that overhauled accounting rules following the Enron scandal. The landmark Glass-Steagall Act, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and barriers between commercial and investment banking during the Depression, was a slim 34 pages"
For more read: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/dodd-frank_disaster.html
Doesn't anyone see a pattern developing here?
The "Actually take these petitions seriously instead of just using them as an excuse to pretend you are listening" Petition (no joke; it actually exists):
-- -- White House "We the People" Web Site
-- -- -- -- https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
The "Take these petitions seriously" petition.
The "Stop ignoring the 'Take these petitions seriously' petition" petition.
The "Damn it we are running out of quotation nesting levels so behave" petition....
The "You really aren't listening are you" petition.
Unfortunately, elected officials know that if it is easy to sign a petition, then the petition is not worth heeding. There are only two things the Washington crowd will listen to now-a-days, one being "large sums of money".
The second I hope we, unlike the Egyptians, never need to do.
Actually Chris, investigating these lobbyists and their pet politicians who have no shame and no regard for the people who voted for them would go a hell of a long way toward fixing the problems this country faces.
Or you can keep blaming the other political party for all the problems, then vote for the same corrupt morons you always do, who only give lip service to representing their constituents while stuffing their tailored suit pockets with big wads of lobbyist money and then wonder why nothing ever fucking changes.
You just can't get the staff.
Perhaps members of the Legislature should just publish a "shopping list."
Asking questions $
Adding/removing clauses from bill $$
Sponsoring new bill $$$
Senators surcharge CALL.
You might also consider a list of "alternative" remuneration in kind.
Lawyers are the reason we can't have anything nice in seemingly "democratic" countries. Once they've landed in a seat of political power, they don't seem to be forced to follow the same laws that the rest of us do, in terms of little things like racketeering, collusion, bribery.
Dodd has a number of strikes against him:
1) He's a former politician
2) he's a lawyer
3) He's the big cheese of the MPAA
Add em all up and it spells DOUCHE BAG!
I seriously wonder how much he took in "campaign contributions" he took from the entertainment industry, while he was in office.
Personally, I think it should be open season on any politician who takes money from a lobbist. period.
An enema nozzle is a useful piece of equipment, which can be used when somebody is full of $#!7 to relieve the condition, and can be rendered clean again with a simple application of soap and an autoclave.
Dodd does not improve the condition of being full off $#!7, he worsens it. And nothing will render him clean.
He is more like a necrotising bacillus, rendering all he touches unclean, existing only to feed himself at the expense of his host organism, until the host is finally destroyed.
Too picky? Yes, we know that the USA is actually an implementation of a funny model called "polity". However, the House/Senate combo is something they share with fully democratic regimes, and operates on the same rules. If SOPA/PIPA were a constitutional amendment, the different rules would apply, but in this case it is only a regular bill. Therefore, the process can be compared with regular democracies.
Your tasty prose is difficult with which to argue, but I will try:
The commenters who use phrases attempt to mock the USA's political structure are using the example of "regular democracies" incorrectly, by implying that the United States *is* a "democracy" ... ergo, they are misinformed. If the USA were being correctly compared to "regular democracies" (of which I challenge you to produce any example), then lumping all such institutions together might be useful, but it is not.
The USA is *not* a "democracy", even if such a notion is generally accepted as truth, and even if this particular exercise utilizes processes which can also be associated with true democracies, should any be discovered.
Therefore to use that misunderstanding of the nature of the political system as a weapon to mock the system is simply misinformed, and not a very smart insult. Kind of as if an American were to mock the British system as "a Monarchy". It's a misconception that does not get any more relevant with repetition.
Chris Dodd represents one of the many things that are hopelessly wrong with the US political system.
There was a time not so long ago when scum like him at least tried to keep their dodgy dealings on the down low. The last few years it seems like they don't even bother to hide their contempt for the general public any more.
I humbly disagree, as oligarchy subtectually implies that there is at least one or two "grown ups" in charge, over here, that have a general clue. In all honesty, I highly doubt that the executive, judicial or legislative branchs could actually fine their own respective asses, without someone else pointing it out. However, for the sake of argument, I will concur.
We're starting to make Russia look squeaky clean..... let's see what happens when the US Gov't starts prosecuting MegaUpload's customers in industrial fashion (yes they have the customer records).. might even be a good time to invest in the soon-to-be, only-remaining, growth market: prison real-estate. Hard to say who will actually be moving into those new prisons though.... Will it be you and me? Or ex-Senator Dodd and his Congressional buddies? I know who I'd vote for.
This post has been deleted by its author
He took a very favorable mortgage package from Countrywide Loans, one of the more disreputable of the various home loan companies that pumped up the real estate bubble. Of course Dodd's committee regulated the financial industry.
At least he is an ex-Senator now
If it literally cost (for example) $200,000,000 to get re-elected in the hotly-contested districts, then the poor schmuck has to rake in something like $100,000 ¡ *AN HOUR* ! just to stay on track. So if you'd like to have a 30-minute appointment to discuss (for example) copyright policy, then you'll need a good size suitcase to carry the appropriate $50,000 bribe^h^h^h^h^ "donation".
The United States is both a democracy and a republic. A republic is simply a country that does not have a monarch as a head of state. The US is a particular form of democracy called a "representative democracy" where we vote on delegates who make decisions, as opposed to a "direct democracy" where we vote on every decision, or a "democratic republic" where we do what we're told.
they've been affiliated with organized crime since the 1960s? I hope the government charges the MPAA a severe fine for this matter, as I'm sure bribery isn't exactly legal.
I'd also kick everyone out of congress now and get new members who aren't so susceptible to such things...
(gringo talking..)
Did you mean "Why should the government allow the MPAA to influence law when [the MPAA have] been affiliated with organized crime since the 1960s?"
Or did you mean "Why should the government allow the MPAA to influence law when [the government have] been affiliated with organized crime since the 1960s?"
This post has been deleted by its author
What he is saying more than anything else is the only truly unforgivable ethics violation is the failure to stay bought.
If I ask you to vote a certain way, and then hand you a check then its a bribe.
If you come to me and say you support legislation that I want passed, and by the way I could
use a campaign donation to fight off those who do not, then it's not.
If you come to me and say you will support legislation that I want passed if I write a check, then
its a bribe.
If you come to me and say you will oppose legislation that I want passed if I don't write a check, then that's extortion.
Since he is saying that he will only write a check to people who's views coincide with his own,
that's actually legal.
To paraphrase a real Republican (Abe Lincoln) ... you can bribe some of the congressman some of the time...... but you can't bribe all of the congressman all of the time.
The naked abuse of power is never a pretty sight, particularly in a First World country with nearly 10 % unemployment and no end in sight.
with > 26000 petition signatures and rising, Hollywood, MPAA and Dodd could join the illustrious ranks of America's most hated.. I can only hope so. Cause it's gettin' down right ugly out there. Do keep fannin' the fire, citizens.... please.... something has to give.
(Need a 'Rotten Fish' icon)
I agree from your examples that this is not a bribe, yet there is still something smelly about it.
He expressed annoyance that the politicians concerned didn't act in his favour. His annoyance indicates that he thought that his donation would lead to favourable treatment : it is only the absence of an agreement from the recipient that stops it being a bribe.
His statement clearly says (to me at least) that in future he will only donate to politicians who he can be sure will give him something in return. That arrangement is commonly understood to be a bribe.
doesn't change the fact that the whole thing is a f**ked-up system.
These technicalities used to be a nice facade to cover the god-awfully enormous amounts of money sloushing around the system. To cover them at least a little bit.
What's changed in recent years, apparently, is that facades are no longer necessary and people openly speak about the full role that money plays. Obviously Supreme court decisions had a lot to do with this.
The fact they their votes were 'bought' in the first place, without them having the opportunity to change their view, is corruption.
He is not saying he will only write a check to people who's views coincide with his - he is saying he won't write a check to those who 'USED' to agree with him unless they revert back to their original stance. He is bribing them to change their current stance.
A major supermarket chain in my small market town has just pushed through it's planning application by offering what is known as Section 106 (I think that number is correct) money, a large chunk of wedge for the council to spend in 'improving' the town. What do you think would happen if I offered a few hundred quid to hurry through the planning application on my extension or conservatory?
That's a rats' nest of bureaucracy if ever there was one.
Council: We can't even consider your planning application for a grotesque supermarket/retail box/bowling alley unless you promise to spend an additional small fortune putting in other infrastructure in a completely unrelated area that we overlooked in last year's budget.
Developer: But we have evidence to show that this store is needed by at least six people, and we'll be creating jobs (most of which are temporary in the construction of the site). And that cycle path you want us to put in as part of the 106 doesn't actually go anywhere.
...like MPAA et al.
Also it gives you a chill when you see how quickly a formerly reasonable Senator turned into this utterly immoral paid mouthpiece (scumbag lobbyist, that is.)
Let's close that revolving door for good, shall we?
Whilst a Senator, Dodd received more campaign money from Wall Street than any other politician. And the bulk of the $47M he received in donations during his 20 years in office came from individuals and PACs affiliated with the major investment banks. So he understands very, very well the way that money buys political influence.
Well, he is from CT, the hedge fund capital of the world so it's not like he could have acted differently, if he had chosen - do you expect him to refuse that and go to bug pizzeria owners, realtors etc for money? C'mon.
OTOH of course, he liked Big Money's campaign donations - yet at the same time even though it's certainly far from perfect (it does go anywhere near as far as it should) the Frank-Dodd Act pretty much changes the entire legal landscape for these funds, banks and consumer protection as well, I think and in a rather positive way (for us, consumers.)
To "flout" is to openly disregard. Therefore if this is "a brazen flouting" of his above-the-law status then he would be disregarding his above-the-law status, and would hence presumably be acting within the law.
Maybe "a brazen flaunting" would be better? I'm all for brazen flaunting.
in a single outburst, he managed to put himself and anyone he deals with under scrutiny, couldn't have happened to a nicer person too.
awesome comments by this man "if you want to continue getting money from us, you better support us, no matter what".
kinda sounds like those old mafia movie toughguys, collecting their "protection money" from companies.
> “Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”
I read and re-read the above multiple times, and I don't see how you can: 1) assume it is a bribe 2) assume that he is referring to Senators. Heck the linked to video almost make the comment seem to be directed at Obama!
The way I read the statement: he is more then happy to give finical support to those who will try to address "Hollywood's" concerns and he will backup those who will stand for those concerns. It is not illegal to try to donate to someone who try to push an agenda that will benefit you. What he is saying is, after the <insert politician here> promised that s/he will do something to solve the 'Hollywood' problem, we donate to that politician. But when shit hit the roof, the politician drop their support to what they told they would support.... and walked away with the money. Because of this, we are monitoring the politicians that we donated to, and in the future we won't trust those who lied to us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgWDnstRzgg
I understand that you are a paid mouthpiec, working for the parasites and your job is to lie and lie and lie but you just showed your true colors and modus operandi on television in a debate about SOPA (link above), why do you so keen about proving over and over again that you are a truly immoral, really disgusting lying shill...?
The bottome line is do these polititions represent the people who paid for their campaigns or the people who voted for their campaigns?
It's fine taking money from lobbyists if you do believe in their goals, but make it clear to the people who are voting what your agenda is.
They should all have to declare as part of their campaign which "special interests" group contributed to their campaign. Then if people still vote for them it's their own fault.
So perhaps, like people, they should simply be given one vote and go along to the polling station like everyone else and vote with their ONE vote. Perhaps then there would be a fairer representation.
All lobby money should then be pooled into one big lump sum and distributed evenly between running parties. It's a case of then, rather than buying specific politicians to favour and ram through your cause, you have to decide which party is most aligned to your goals - but accept that individual politicians who are not aligned will still get a share.
Perhaps they could go one step further - your lobby money can only be used to fund your own party = net benefit to all. Citizens would get a truly diverse and representative government with many voting options (as opposed to right/far right) and the MPAA, Bank, Insurance parties get a minor share of the votes and minimal influence on government.
"So perhaps, like people, they should simply be given one vote and go along to the polling station like everyone else and vote with their ONE vote. Perhaps then there would be a fairer representation."
"Perhaps they could go one step further - your lobby money can only be used to fund your own party = net benefit to all. Citizens would get a truly diverse and representative government with many voting options (as opposed to right/far right) and the MPAA, Bank, Insurance parties get a minor share of the votes and minimal influence on government."
This is superficially quite mad.
I rather like it. You'd have a pretty good idea what the views of the AmEx party would be for example.
You know, it used to actually work this way, before the rise of the two-party system we see everywhere. It used to be that individual politicians did have their own views, goals and adgendas, and would then work to achieve those goals.
Now it seems that the political party has goals and adgendas and they fabricate cardboard frontmen. The whole two-party system has to be broken down. I want to vote for a person/representative, not a "party".
It's got to the point where some policical parties have their members sign legally binding documents that forbid them from voting differently to the "party approved" view.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
