Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Rahul Kumar
593 Followers
Standing My Ground
4847 Followers
NeosopheusJan 23, 2012
Already signed the petition. Everyone reading this should do the same. United we stand.
generalbulldogJan 23, 2012
Same here. Hopefully charging lobbying groups like theirs can crackdown, or at least limit, this blatant disregard of the people for corporate interests.
eraptorJan 23, 2012
For those who would like to sign this petition, here is a link to it:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv
anomaly100Jan 22, 2012
Do it. Investigate. Please.
h8f8kesJan 23, 2012
Dodd is a friend of Angelo. He wasn't prosecuted then, I doubt they will now.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
They won't, especially not in an election year.
skinturtleJan 23, 2012
Chris Dodd may have gotten himself into some deep s**t over that. Can you imagine the phone calls and inside raking he got for revealing that?
shwaavayJan 23, 2012
What did he reveal? That the point of contributing to political campaigns is to get elected those who support your issues?
I fail to see the breaking news here...
skinturtleJan 23, 2012
You fail to see it because...you are probably part of them.
Come on...don't pretend to play stupid...you know EXACTLY their motives and how they do business and why they give to the collection plate. He basically came right out and said they pay money to have politicians work for them and their agendas.
Politicians might enjoy the bribe money but they are also very concerned about how they look in the public too. I bet none of them enjoyed his little tirade...or threat.
shwaavayJan 23, 2012
They pay money to ELECTIONS CAMPAIGNS, ie to get people elected who agree with them.
If people stop agreeing with you then you don't want them re-elected.
Simple stuff.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skinturtleJan 23, 2012
I highly doubt these guys are just paying out election money. That's not the way they work..
letherialJan 24, 2012
There is a line between agreeing with them and passing unpopular legislation to promote them. Mr dodd basically said cross this line or else. Wouldn't surprise me if it was legal, but its corrupt at its idea.
extremephobiaJan 24, 2012
Technically, he's right. Contributing to a campaign is contributing to a campaign. Those who can't spend, pitch. They walk around and try to persuade others.
His giving funds is not required and his holding back funds is no different than the threat of not voting for someone if they don't do what you want them to.
The investigation has to be into what happens with that money. If there is money given AFTER the election and the politician ends up pocketing it, THAT is bribery. I don't doubt that he did it, I'm just pointing out that providing money to a campaign is not bribery.
theswashbucklerJan 23, 2012
He publicly stated the quid pro quo required for bribery in most statutes.
shwaavayJan 23, 2012
I realize that's what everyone seems to be taking from this but that never happened.
He said that Hollywood would stop contributing to their campaigns.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theswashbucklerJan 23, 2012
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.
"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"
That's a quid pro quo.
extremephobiaJan 24, 2012
"...and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake" is the quid pro quo part.
ghostrunner1Jan 23, 2012
The "Breaking News" is that, although we all knew what was going on, there was never any real evidence of these things that would stand up in court. With Dodd's statements, there is now an official record of the bribery of elected officials.
pivenJan 22, 2012
MPAA CEO Chris Dodd [ former Democrat Senator from CT ] described the blackouts of Wikipedia, Reddit and others as corporate PR stunts which manipulated and exploited the sites’ users.
Then, a few days later when many lawmakers had already dropped their support for PIPA and SOPA , the MPAA’s comments turned even more grim. Chris Dodd, the MPAA’s boss threatened to stop contributing to politicians who don’t back legislation designed to protect Hollywood.
dwtcJan 23, 2012
That's funny, I would describe the PSA-style anti-pracy ads that I'm forced to watch when I see a movie in the theater, or when I try to watch movies that I have bought, as PR stunts which manipulate and exploit the movies' viewers.
BWE5TJan 23, 2012
What. An. Idiot. I'll sign that petition
uncoverorJan 23, 2012
Bribery and graft are simply how everything is done it Washington. Publicly financed campaigns would go a long way toward ending this third world banana republic style corruption.
jphrJan 23, 2012
Correct, and the election funding system is an open invitation to bribery even more so since Supreme Court's "Citizen United", but the outright arrogance of a former politician (got this job either for services to MPAA while being senator or for using his influence now) clearly thinking he could do so with impunity ought to be wake up call for the American public.
sacrabosJan 23, 2012
This will allow Obama to back up his rhetoric with action. He claims he doesn't want Corporate America buying votes with unlimited funds - and now here's a former Senator fronting for some big Corporations admitting that he's upset that he's been cheated out of the votes he's bought.
Obama, are you listening? Here is where you can make yourself clear that this country is of, by, and for the people, not the corporations.
nairebisJan 23, 2012
While I sympathize with the problems around elections these days, I think publicly-financed campaigns would be a worse cure than the disease. We would have every idiot coming out of the woodwork looking to feed at the public trough.
I like the idea that politicians should have to get support directly from the people they represent.
ajh16Jan 23, 2012
The easy counter to that is to require that a certain number of signatures be obtained before finance is given and/or give out x number of dollars to however many candidates based on the percentage of signatories they get. Of course, then you have to be careful about how you go about getting signatures. Sponsorship there could be subtle, such as letting petitioners collect signatures right outside your local Walmart.
A better solution is to update the voting system such that it isn't a race between the two people most likely to be able to win, but rather genuinely voting for those that you don't think are a bad choice. Personally, I'd like to see a vote where you can list as many names as you like for the position and whoever gets the most votes wins. Those with signatures from say 5% of the constituents can get their name on the actual ballet, though write ins would also be allowed.
This basically renders campaign finance irrelevant as it is no longer about appearing to be the biggest fish so that people will vote for you in the hopes of getting the lesser of two evils, but rather becomes a contest of who can best fit the desires of the populace.
skellenerJan 23, 2012
Sign it.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv
maquereautinJan 23, 2012
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv
And while your there...
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK
dustinthewind2Jan 23, 2012
No one deserves to be bent over by the Feds quite like Chris Dodd does
ka5p3rJan 23, 2012
MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
i told you the mpaa and ama is in control if this crap.
alienmushroomJan 23, 2012
At least corruption is a crime in China...
reaper527Jan 23, 2012
signed :)
i don't think what he said necessarily is an "open admission of bribery" like the article says. i think it is fair game to say they won't donate to politicians to won't back the legislature the group suppots.
that being said though, i do think there is plenty of shady business going on between the mpaa and congressional leaders, and would love to see it looked into.
hiropendragonJan 23, 2012
Hubris is a bitch. I think let's roll with it and push to end all corporate donations.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
Dodd waitress sandwich. About time this sleaze is drug off the hill in chains.
promethean93Jan 23, 2012
It's all over the internet now that petition really took off wow it got like 20,000 signatures in one day.
LongBJan 23, 2012
17,000+ signatures and another 7k needed to meet the demand. So you are incorrect sir.
alienmushroomJan 23, 2012
iSigned.
alienmushroomJan 23, 2012
Right before site maintenance started. :-)
evildeadashJan 23, 2012
I don't think the reality of the situation should be lost in that we are petitioning the same people who are accepting these bribes... Just sayin'.
jsaintJan 23, 2012
Signed.
davidhartis69Jan 24, 2012
this petition just passed 25000 signers
mannix1962Jan 23, 2012
Its all fixed
SophiaPuffJan 23, 2012
Come on people, they still need 3,868 signatures...
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv
greatsunjesterJan 23, 2012
I don't expect much to come of this. On the political side, Dodd was a democrat - which gives him a big shield to hide behind. Don't take that as a partisan comment, if he had been a republican and we had a repub administration, the same shield would apply.
On the economic side (which is more powerful because it is current), he fronts for the Big Entertainment part of Big Media - giving him a BIG shield to hide behind. His threat is a serious hit on political funds from very deep pockets.
Some noise will be made, he'll end up apologizing for us misunderstanding his words - then something else will be trotted out to take focus.
breadfredJan 23, 2012
They should make an example of him, just BECAUSE he is a democrat. Than go after all the other bribe takers.
oztogJan 23, 2012
" especially government officials and lawmakers, who is involved."
Grammar fail.
shwaavayJan 23, 2012
I thought so at first as well but read again...
...every person... ...who is involved.
It's grammatically correct but could probably stand a rewording.
oztogJan 23, 2012
Surely it should be "who are involved"
notoneofusJan 23, 2012
They're both wrong.
Change "every person" to "all persons" then "who are involved" is correct.
Change "government officials and lawmakers" to "every government official and lawmaker" then "who is involved" is correct.
yurmutha412Jan 23, 2012
Kind of a loose threat when everyone abandoned the bill. Ha Ha, who are they going to support? There's a time when it's just best to keep your mouth shut and this was it.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
The White House isn't going to do that, they're not even interested in an investigation of a gun running scandal involving our own Government arming drug cartels that may have left a border agent dead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ptthaesFeb 19, 2012
nice info.
http://www.couple.web.id/
chadpyleJan 26, 2012
The White House investigate MPAA bribery? That's like asking Ben Bernanke to audit the Fed!
perryjaialaiJan 26, 2012
Wow, this is what makes people not want to trust their government.
perryjaialaiJan 26, 2012
Wow, this is what makes people not want to trust their government.
perryjaialaiJan 26, 2012
Wow, this is what makes people not want to trust their government.
richfsrJan 24, 2012
Unable to open this. Did White House shut this down?
richfsrJan 24, 2012
Unable to open this. Did White House shut this down?
Foxy55Jan 24, 2012
We all know bribery is very popular even If it hits the light of day.People have been taking bribes since the time of Jesus.Why would things change now.It's a waste of time to investigate this practiceComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Foxy55Jan 24, 2012
We all know bribery is very popular even If it hits the light of day.People have been taking bribes since the time of Jesus.Why would things change now.It's a waste of time to investigate this practiceComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shwaavayJan 23, 2012
Calling this bribery and getting the plebes all upset over it is so disingenuous. This is what political contributions are for.
Why would any person or organization contribute to a politician that doesn't support the cause of that person or organization? You don't see NOW contributing to any politicians who are pro-life, do you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJan 23, 2012
Let me get this straight. Let us say I want to kill my neighbor as he stole my cat. I pay the political party currently occupying the white house 10 million dollar to put a new law in place that allows me to do that.
Following your guidelines, that would be ok with you.
shwaavayJan 23, 2012
No you don't get it at all. If you believe killing as retribution for stealing of cats should be legal, then you would give money to someone who is not currently in office who also thinks killing for retribution of cat theft should be legal.
Then if that person gets elected you would expect that they would try to pass a law to that effect, because that's what they said they support which is why you supported them.
asfinktersezwutJan 23, 2012
Business as usual in Washington.
Cue the Republican Defenders of the Faith to chime in with " but Obama..." and "well the Dems..." rather than admitting one of their own is in the wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blankmikeJan 22, 2012
This was submitted to both the technology and world news section. I have no problem with this in world news but I think it is more a local story for the States and the politics section might be more appropriate. However there is nothing technological about the White House, MPAA, Bribery, SOPA, or political contributions.
This isn't a criticism or Torrentfreak. Their web site is very informative and usually entertaining. I enjoy reading the articles they post. However posters should realise they post articles that are some times not technology related (like this one). This is a political story. I would still read it if it were posted there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alienmushroomJan 23, 2012
Anal.
blankmikeJan 23, 2012
But accurate.
jphrJan 23, 2012
Given the reach of ACTA it is a world matter.
Check twitter @NeelieKroesEU.
blankmikeJan 23, 2012
ACTA is indeed global but SOPA and PIPA are local to the States. Those of us who aren't Americans (there are a lot more of us than there are of you) can't really affect the outcome of American bills unless we start bribing people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.