Two SOPA Writers Become Entertainment Lobbyists 171
schwit1 writes "According to Politico, 'A pair of senior Hill aides at the center of a brewing battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley are packing their bags for K Street, where they’ll work for two of the entertainment lobby shops trying to influence their former colleagues in Congress on the very same issue. Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.' Techdirt adds, 'Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt.'"
This should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's way to easy to "encourage" someone to write bills in your favor as a company. And politicians wonder why so many people don't even bother to vote anymore.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This should be illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
idea: funding for pork projects get limited the more people do NOT show up to the polls.
lets make 'not showing up' an actual vote. a vote to DE-FUND things.
right now, I voice my dissatisfaction by not voting for the fraudsters (ie, all of them). but it would be nice if I could pull back things I think are wrong without giving the bad guy (note: both guys are bad guys, no matter what or where the issue is) more power I'd do it.
I want to be able to vote AGAINST things. how about that for an idea?
will never happen. our system is gamed against us. better luck in the next life. maybe. (then again, I've heard st. peter will be your new 'walking boss')
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Mmm, there is already a provision for this (Score:2)
Most countries have election rules that mandate that a certain percentage of the population HAS to show up to vote. If say less then 50% of people who can vote, vote, then the elections are void.
Another option is the "none of the above", which can be done by casting an invalid vote, which could be used in countries where only votes are counted.
The rules vary a lot and are difficult to trigger because those that drafted them were probably smart enough to realize that "None of the above" is the only way for a
Re:This should be illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
I would agree to a requirement that no candidate be allowed to take office unless they had garnered a vote count equal to (50% + 1) of the registered, eligible voters for that election.
If only 49% of the people voted in the election, obviously 51% of them wanted "None Of The Above."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No that isn't what they wanted. What they wanted was to delegate their vote to the people that actually do vote. If you don't vote you have no right to complain about a single thing that your elected officials do. You abrogated your responsibility to others. Were people to actually take seriously their electoral responsibility much could be done to alter the politics of this nation.
Rather than this asinine idea that inaction should be a vote of some sort I'd rather see criminal penalties for NOT voting. If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The famous "but two isn't enough!" Argument. Too bad two is plenty. The issue you see is when the electorate chooses not to exercise their vote and those that do vote are ill informed, self-hating, and believe that somehow BOTH sides are the cause of problems when it is clearly the pro-business/wealthy party who is sending both aides to K Street.
Re: (Score:2)
... it is clearly the pro-business/wealthy party who is sending both aides to K Street.
Yes, but *which* pro-business/wealthy party should one vote against?
Too bad two is plenty...
Re: (Score:2)
Now you know that is bullshit. The democrats are split between blue dogs and liberals. The republicans are split between pro-business, bigots, and the religious conservatives. Democrats are traditionally underfunded versus republicans because they aren't pro-business in the way the republicans are.
So you can either ignore reality or accept that liberalism isn't in bed with corporatism.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhuh... And just how do you expect to get around Citizen's United? Where corporations can express their "speech" with as much money is in their coffers without disclosing it at all. Where the only people to get on the ballot are those with the corporate backing. Where you have a choice between corporate shill number 1 and corporate shill number 2.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem, naturally, is that you'll then have one candidate that got 28% of the vote, another that got 24%, and the remaining 47% stayed home. So then who do you send to Washington?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't send anyone. You tell the first two to piss off because they both lost, and then hold another election.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
The correct way to protest is to make a 'no vote'. This is where you tick all the boxes, or none of them, or you write a message voicing your dissatisfaction on the ballot, or smear faeces or stick chewing gum on the ballot, or you vote for a joke candidate. True this may be difficult in the US where many places don't use paper ballots, and there are often no joke candidates (or at least none that are more of a joke than all the rest.) You should be advocating for an abstain box on electronic voting machines. Not voting is using your voice to agree with the people that do vote.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Informative)
There is always a space to write in a candidate. no confidence written in enough times may get someones attention
Re: (Score:2)
And there's always the Pigasus [wikipedia.org] option.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you can show up and null vote, at least here in India.
http://www.pathikshah.com/blog/how-to-register-a-null-vote-rule-49-o/ [pathikshah.com]
Re: (Score:3)
We here in Holland can do that too. In that way you can excersise your right to vote AND give the message that you think none of the parties is good enough to get your vote. That is way better than not showing up, because not showing up gives the message that you are too laze or don't give a damn. And in my opinion, if you don't show up you are not entitled to complain. You had your chance to change things but you chose not to, so then you'll just have to face the consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
This crap is precisely the reason me and my peers don't vote.
And that would be exactly the reason you have no right to a negative opinion.
Vote for one of your friends - get all all your friends together and vote for them also. Maybe you'll get enough together and win.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
And that would be exactly the reason you have no right to a negative opinion.
I think non-voters most certainly have a "right" to a negative opinion, whether or not they choose to "voice" that opinion via voting. They simply view voting as a nearly useless (inaudible) way to voice their opinion; or perhaps that increasing the "percent abstained" figure is a more valuable way to express their opinion -- the "vote of no-confidence".
Personally, I would wager that posting my opinion in the Slashdot comments is likely to have at least as much, if not more, of an impact than visiting the voting booth ever will.
"If you don't order chicken or beef from the menu, you don't have a right to discuss the morality of animal consumption." But I'm a vegetarian!
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This should be illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had 100k friends, that would still be only a tiny fraction of the number of votes needed for federal office of any kind.
Actually, if you look at the 2010 election results, 100K votes is just about the number you'd need to win a seat in the House of Representatives. Of course, this requires that all of the friends in question are in the same congressional district.
Re: (Score:3)
a wealthy corporation can spend millions on campaigns to get the people they want into office.
Why is it that people are so incapable of thinking strategically?
Step 1: Get your name on the ballot for the state legislature. This doesn't require a lot of money.
Step 2: Run a serious campaign. Make your opponent fear losing his seat. Then go to him and let him know that you'll drop out of the race if he gets a bill through the state legislature for public financing of statewide elections, including your state's federal congressional seats.
Step 3: Repeat Step 2 until either the public finance law is passe
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why you're posting anonymously? Because you're part of the conspiracy that is going to kill anyone who tries to fix the democratic process, and you don't want to tip your hand?
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
In the long run we are all dead. -- John Maynard Keynes
Re: (Score:3)
This is an all too common moronic point of view.
If you don't like it run for office yourself herp derp derp
Really? That's your fucking solution? The problem is structural, not individual. Assassinate every member of congress today, and, no matter who replaces them, we'll have the exact same problems tomorrow.
It doesn't matter WHO is elected. We know, from actual, factual research, that situation dictates human behavior more than almost any other factor. Put new people into the same situation, and you'll get the same behavior. Voting for new people will fix no
Re: (Score:2)
OK. What system?
Re: (Score:3)
Only replacing the entire system will have any effect.
Your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. You don't have to replace the entire system, you only have to repair the structural flaws that create the incentives that currently exist. The flaw isn't in the idea of democracy, it's in the way we finance elections. The answer is public financing.
Naturally, that will never pass at the federal level because it doesn't serve the interests of the people who are already there. So do it at the state level. Get a bill in every state legislature that funds candidates
Re: (Score:2)
You need quoting lessons and a dose of IQ, as it's obviously in an extreme lull. I'll spell it out for you:
If all these disaffected nonvoting people would actually get together and support their own person, they could possibly win, provided they're as big a group as they think they are. If not, well, the small fringe minority rarely wins elections without extreme manipulations of PR - see the GOP in the last couple of decades as a point of reference.
Re: (Score:2)
If all these disaffected nonvoting people would actually get together and support their own person, they could possibly win, provided they're as big a group as they think they are. If not, well, the small fringe minority rarely wins elections without extreme manipulations of PR - see the GOP in the last couple of decades as a point of reference.
Yes, they could win. I'm not contesting that. I'm saying it's irrelevant.
It does not matter who is elected. I don't mean the Democrats and Republicans are the same. I mean it DOES NOT MATTER who is elected because the problem is structural. No matter who you elect, the problem persists.
You think I don't understand your point. I do. But you're not even wrong.
People do not behave the way they do because of who they are. They behave the way they do because of WHERE they are. There is plenty of data ba
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the 1% of the non-voters who are making a principled stand are dwarfed by the 99% of the non-voters who: 1. forgot, 2. were too busy watching Desperate Housewives of Bumfuck Wherever or 3. can't read or write. You may think your lack of participation is registering as a vote of "no confidence" but to the politicians you're just another non-entity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not voting is essentially wasting your vote - you're increasing the vote "value" of those who vote by not voting. Contrary to probably your opinion and others who say not voting is making a statement - no, it's not. It's not voting. It's letting other people make a stand and have their voices heard. If you complain and moan and bitch about it later, it's much like the movie critics who bitch moan and complain about the quality of movies but have produced exactly diddly squat themselves. (and yes, if you don
Re: (Score:2)
That is true if there isn't a way to vote blanco.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, if enough people vote for them anyway, even after this and other leaks (wont be surprised if those 2 get reelected if run for congress again), then accept it, your country really like to be
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing makes these corrupt politicians happier than you not voting. You're not making a stand; you're just making it easier for them to do what their doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you can't find someone to vote for that represents you, then run for office yourself. Start locally, work your way up. But not voting is not "voicing dissatisfaction", it is saying "I'm too lazy to give a shit what happens".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, you're full of crap. It's true, one vote doesn't matter. Especially when your only choice is between a politician who increases spending to buy pork and one that increases borrowing to buy pork.
But going to party meetings or working for a campaign? That's how things change. It's how the candidates that actually end up on the ballot get determined, and it's how those candidates determine their positions. Go to one of these places, offer to "help" and then while you're there, argue with them. Make them either see it your way or prove you wrong. If you can get them to be candid and admit their position is chosen based on funding or to play on public ignorance rather than based on reason, be their conscience. Be there to show them that you, as a representative of the human race, disapprove of what they're doing, care about it, and want them to change. Sometimes they will. Not all the time, but sometimes.
Or you can sit at home and bitch about everything on the internet. That's probably just as good.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think this way.
Made the trip from apathy to habitual voter. Read up on everything, kept abreast of the latest developments, supported "my" candidates and voted in line with my desired outcomes.
Now I'm back to not giving a fuck about voting. I've seen what it's worth and I'm tired of being a rube. It's principled apathy, not laziness. I'll keep giving to the EFF and I'll support the Pirate Party when they sail into town but until then there are better things to do with my time.
Re: (Score:3)
we are rubes. you got it right.
nice appearance. got to keep those up, but the system is broken enough that voting is the last thing that will affect change.
so many of us thought obama was about change. did we learn yet?
maybe he had good plans; but the system is just not working.
its 'cute' that some people still think voting in a screwed up system is going to make things better. I wish I could drink that koolaid but I'm too old and bitter and seen the same lie each 4 year period that passes. its old and
Re: (Score:3)
so many of us thought obama was about change
Some of us managed to figure out that lie when he was still in Congress.
The main piece of evidence was this: he was in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
I take a middle ground.
I use the wonderfulness of the Internets to research candidates. I don't just look into what they say, I look into what they do and where they've worked previously. If they're an incumbent or previously held another office, I look into their voting record.
A lot of the time I end up voting for nobody because I feel nobody represents me on the issues that I care about. Then again, I'm largely against how most of the stuff in my state (New Jersey) is run, so I usually have a hard time fi
Re: (Score:3)
That works great at the local level. My father decided one year that he did not want to allow his city representative to run unopposed, so he campaigned against her and ended up winning. He has remained the local representative since, and he does a pretty good job communicating with his constituents and voting what he believes is in everyone's interests.
However, at the national level, this breaks down. It now takes millions of dollars to run for national office (nearing one billion for the President's se
Re: (Score:2)
It would take some big event to prompt a protest group like OWS starting up, pull in an order of magnitude or more people, and form another political party. I think you realize (as I do) how likely that is anytime soon.
Increasingly? I think we might agree on that.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound like one of those Linux nerd in the 1990s who shouted that if you complain about there being no driver for a certain piece of hardware you can easily write it yourself. Think before you say something like this. Not everybody is a politician at heart and/or has the time and money and energy to do what you suggest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Voting doesn't change whether or not idiots get into office. It just lets people pick the most popular idiot to put into office.
Re: (Score:2)
another accurate comment.
the ones that can *qualify* for office are 100% exactly what we don't want or need.
what the hell good is voting for moronA or religiousWhackJobB? I used to think that voting against the religious guy would at least minimize our losses, collectively, but even that seems like a total crap shoot. you can't tell which way the wind will blow once they get in office.
until the system allows folks like you and me to run for office and have a fighting chance, the system is too rigged to be
Re: (Score:3)
They are not idiots. They are narcicisstic sociopaths, mostly very intelligent.
All you folks who sit there thinking these members of the political class are somehow your intellectual inferiors are just the butt of many jokes for those in power.
Re:This should be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Then vote "no confidence" for all the candidates running. There is always a write in space for all positions on a ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also an online summary after each election, showing all kinds of neat statistics (like this [www.val.se]).
They also publish each and every one of the write-in votes (without names of voters, of course) and those results make it painfully obvious that you can't get anywhere if you're such a party. Try searching for "anka" (duck) in that page to see the astounding number of people who voted for the Donald Duck par
Re: (Score:2)
a mass vote against someone should cause them to not be able to get public office for X amount of time. a cooling off period, if you will.
what we should have, though, is not a bunch of fat rich white guys running the country but a rotating group of citizens (very very large group; think internet/shared) resolving issues. if you have a very large group (and groups watching that group) you can solve many problems and you don't have central power figures to get corrupted. make these positions non-paid (so t
Re: (Score:2)
remove the power and you remove corruption. then you get people doing this because they want to and because they want to affect good change.
I fear that day. America would start a religious war. Why?
1. Most people have their own lives which they just want to live (like me).
2. There are some people who STRONGLY believe everyone other should live as they do. Most of them are strongly religious.
3. Those that don't care have better things to do than sit at boring votings and vote on boring things. Those with strong beliefs will want to have power to make changes they want, so will sit at those votings until they make the changes.
Effect - we will liv
Vote for a 3rd party (Score:2)
Any 3rd party. That way, congress will know that you are disgusted, and not just lazy.
Has anyone yet mentioned... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Give the lexicon a few years to catch up, and it could mean that in English as well.
How Conveeeeeeenient.... (Score:3)
And politicians wonder why they get less respect than the IRS.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And politicians wonder why they get less respect than the IRS.
How would they know? People kiss up to them. When you write to them you address them as "Honorable" *snicker*.
I think it should be proper to address them as "shithead": letters, public speaking, whatever. And during the congressional hearings where those people do their grandstanding and yet do nothing, folks being grilled should answer a question from a Congressman like this, "Well, shithead ....."
How is this "not directly corrupt"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Politico article only states that this act is completely legal, not that it isn't directly corrupt. There's a difference between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this "not directly corrupt"? (Score:4, Interesting)
in the UK, the system is (in theory) better. Any constituent can see their representative on demand, provided the representative isn't busy in the House at that time, so everyone has (in theory) equal access and equal lobbying power. Cash-for-questions and similar direct bribery is off-limits and will get a member sanctioned, banned from the House or forced to quit. Well, provided it's discovered and the ethics committee hasn't been perverted.
This is not perfect, the system has some unimaginably large holes - apparently large enough to drive 5,600 phone hacking scandals and assorted cash-for-votes scandals through, but when bribery and high-paying jobs aren't merely legal but de rigour - as is the case in the US, it's a whole different ballgame.
Both systems should be majorly overhauled and the politicians and aides operating in such a manner should be majorly keelhauled, but if only one were to change I think the US should move more towards the UK's standards than the other way round.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, you can do that here.
Of course, the fact that your Representative's office might be 5000 Km away might make that harder than one might initially suspect.
Plus the fact that if you're not a donor, he knows he can safely ignore you....
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think lobbying is corrupt - as long as no bribery is involved. Corrupt is something like loading up your cabinet with Goldman Sachs execs because they contributed to your campaign.
Completely Legal but Highly Corrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt.'"
Incorrect. This is an inherently corrupt practice, much like when Michael Moore pointed out (in the film Sicko) that the politicians who supported the big medical corporations at the expense of health care also got executive level positions after their corrupt legislation was approved by congress.
I will correct the quote:
It may not be directly illegal, but to the public it is corrupt.'
Re: (Score:2)
Occupy's One Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
When people complain that the only way it would work is if government had to disclose all of their now-private meetings, you say, "You're damn right they would." When they say that half of Congress couldn't vote because they're lawyers, you say, "You're damn right they couldn't." That, of course, is the whole problem: we've got hundreds of millionaire lawyers pretending that they care about working class Americans. But instead, they're taking away our rights and giving them to corporations who put money in their campaign coffers.
I don't want any more secret meetings between the companies picking my pocket and the government I pay to employ. No more Vegas style parties on the taxpayer dime. No more loopholes for outrageously wealthy corporations shipping our livelihoods overseas so they can rake in profits while we bail them out. Openly perform your duties as a public servant, or get the hell out of our government.
Re:Occupy's One Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be the sole focus of the Occupy movement: a law that makes it illegal to engage in any business with the private industry which you have recently helped regulate, for a period of 10 years.
Two problems with that idea:
You can't make immorality illegal, no matter how hard you try. The problem is cultural. The mantra that companies' sole priority is to increase shareholder value via any legal means necessary will inevitably lead to companies trying to affect the 'legal means' part of the equation.
I know whereof I speak, by the way. I live in a very small country, and am fairly often asked for expert advice on matters pertaining to technology policy by players on both sides of the field. I answer any request for information to the extent that I can. If it takes a lot of my time, I charge for it. I have only one condition: I refuse to change my advice, nor to hide my opinion, nor to serve one side differently from the other.
In one case, someone involved in litigation asked me to brief his legal team on the particulars of technology in this country. I said I would, but that he should be advised that, while I'd not repeat what was said in the meeting room, I would offer the same advice and information to anyone who asked. He didn't seem pleased with the idea, and never followed up on the request.
As long as profit is the only criterion for success in the US, you're going to have the problem of people gaming the system and congratulating themselves when they do. That has to stop. Competition is not about playing with the rules, it's about playing by them.
What you really need is a generation that says, 'There are some things that I simply will not do.' That won't be easy.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a document that is associated with but not (yet) approved by the Occupy movement that looks quite promising to me. Here [dangerousminds.net] is a nicely formatted version of the document. It calls for a General Assembly of delegates in Philadelphia, and lists a Redress of Grievances. There are a few I take issue with and a few I'm on the fence about, but the vast majority of them I see as things that ought to be addressed, and I'm pretty libertarian.
If they really get their shit together, they will be a force to be r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't think it's a response to the Tea Party. If it is, they're responding to the perversity that the Tea Party became post-hijacking. It looks to me like there are a fair number of common goals. The following are all titles found in OWS Redress of Grievances:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I don't need to say anymore.
Did you actually say anything at all?
Some thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
First, in some countries this would automatically spark an ethics investigation or be deemed corrupt. It may not be "corrupt" in the US, but I suspect that's more of a relative definition of corrupt than an absolute one.
Second, the US is ranked 24th in the world on corruption [dailymail.co.uk]. I'd therefore argue that the standards the US government holds itself to is not only nowhere near what it could be, but isn't even anywhere near as good as other nations are managing on a day-to-day basis. This isn't great for smaller nations, though you can understand that they don't have the resources to be equal and of high quality. They also don't have much influence and the impact of corruption is necessarily limited. A fair number are also very new and don't have much experience. A nation like the US is a different matter. They've plenty of resources, they've had three centuries to work out the flaws, and they've far too much power to not be responsible with it.
The fact that New Zealand, Denmark and Finland are first and joint second respectively (none of whom are permanent members of the UN Security Council, hold nuclear weapons, dominate either the IMF or World Bank, or control vast swathes of international trade) is worthy of great respect. They don't have to be as good as they are, they just are because they by-and-large want to be. Not saying they're perfect, this is a ranking system not a measure against a fixed standard, but it is highly commendable none-the-less.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
The cynical side of me says the reason congress always talks about campaign reform, often in a bipartisan way, is to distract people from thinking of bribery reform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the US is ranked 24th in the world on corruption
Just to clarify, the article says there are 23 nations less corrupt than the U.S. (not 23 nations that are more corrupt, as one might assume by the way you worded it). Still pathetic, of course.
Just an idea... (Score:3)
Just an idea...
Occupy The Pirate Bay.
Someone creates a text file that embodies the disgust and derision of the masses towards SOPA (and all that it represents), then uploads this file to TPB. Everyone that feels sympathetic to the contents of the file can then download it and seed it. The idea is to get a running total of seeds as high as possible--a petition, if you will. Those numbers--seeds and peers--can then be used as an argument against SOPA (or anything like it). Perhaps a "declaration of consumer rights" as we consumers would create one...
I'd love to see such a thing at the top of TPB listings.
Now that I think about this, perhaps such an idea could be used to nominate actual laws and bills for consideration by governments.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't beat em..... (Score:2)
...Join em.
Re: (Score:2)
this appears to be flamebait (Score:2)
Any sensible person can see that this is a corrupt practice, and Slashdot readers have seen it all before. Is Soulskill trying to incite more useless rants?
The only useful comment here would be a pointer to someone who could/would resolve the problem.
If your comment can't offer useful information, please keep it to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Better luck next time. (Score:2)
The only reason two of them received positions is because there were only two positions available. Had there been three, then three of them would have been in the headlines. I feel for the ones that didn't get hired. There were so many "good" candidates.
It is directly corrupt (Score:2)
It may not be directly corrupt, ...
It is directly corrupt. What it may not be is illegal, but I wouldn't put serious money on that either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law mostly doesn't apply to congress and even when it does it mostly isn't applied to congress.
With appologies to Gomer Pyle (Score:2)
Corruption (Score:2)
I said it before and I say it again: corruption is legal in the USA. Maybe not on paper but in practice it has been since a long time.
My Current Observations of SOPA (Score:2)
I question the legality of Lobbyists.
And NO, businesses are not people, and money does not have a voice. If so, why was there no Homicide investigation for the Upper Big Branch 29? [nytimes.com] Why are Super Pac's allowed to even exist. And influence from the Unknown is Tyranny.
let us not forget (Score:2)
Prostitution is Legal! (Score:2)
At least in Washington D.C. The Whore Capitol of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Directed by money.
United States of America, the best government money can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how many more (Score:5, Insightful)
how many more times do you need to be shown that business' ability to regulate government is only a way to steal and sell power?
ftfy
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that our systems of government are hundreds of years old, and haven't been updated to match the times. Our "first past the post" electoral system is an 18th century construct, and hasn't been updated to match the times. It means that people are forced to vote for one of two major political parties or have their vote basically not count. It allows small errors in voting to have outsized effects on the outcome (the 2000 presidential vote), or for a candidate who doesn't receive the majority of
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot of money to get worthwhile bribes, these days. Y'know, you need the flashy cars, the fancy outfits, the three metric tonnes of bling, a security detail, a record deal and maybe a couple of Swiss bank accounts. $120k might not be enough for all that.
Re: (Score:2)
60 Minutes: Jack Abramoff on Lobbying and Gov Corruption http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMMppBhOLXA [youtube.com]
Despite the title, it's only 15 minutes long. And certainly worth watching!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bribes should be illegal. You would think they would be, but it's amazing how many congressmen leave Washington as millionaires. This is in my mind, the biggest problem with the country today. You should be allowed to talk to your senator. Everyone should
Re: (Score:2)
I go, "Mock Greed!"