Hacker News Reader

Comment by shin_lao | Hacker News Reader

It's not corruption if he didn't personally benefited from it.

The problem is that if your only source of information is biased, you take the wrong decisions.

I'd say reelection to the second most powerful office in the country is a pretty compelling personal benefit.

The fine line usually placed in the US between corruption and politics as normal is that of the quid pro quo; it's fine to take money from people who happen to share your beliefs, but if you change your votes because of that money, it's corruption.

Politicans have always hidden behind the plausible deniability this gives. You can always claim that you changed your mind on an issue of your own free will, and the donations came later as an unexpected benefit.

But ultimately, it causes well funded interests to dominate political discussion. The teacher's union is almost uncrossable, but how much funding do homeless lobbies get?

Charitably, this is because of survivorship bias - politicans who don't have platforms that generate revenue die out - senators already literally spend half their time raising money [1]. More likely, everyone in congress and the senate sees the writing on the wall and preemtively switches to the right platforms.

The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd earlier this year directly threatening to withhold donations based on SOPA, unless the Obama administration toes the line [2]. It's so long been an open secret in Washington that it was a small step forward for Dodd to take, but it had the unusual effect of exposing the Washingtonian power games to the rest of the country, so it caused quite a bit stir up.

I'm not taking a side on what happened. I genuinely have no opinion one way or another. But if it were as mtgx suggests to curry favour with the MPAA to mend bridges after SOPA, there is zero lattitude on this. It would be corruption.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-big-moment_b...

[2] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-d...

Edit: tows->toes. Yes I am an idiot.

>unless the Obama administration tows the line [2]. It'

toes.

You toe a line.

You put your toe up to the line and stay within that line.

either that, or you have a rope, or "line", attached to something heavy, such as a barge on a canal, and you have to help "tow the line" to get the cargo moving.

Not in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

"the second most powerful office in the country". We are talking about the vice presidency here, correct?

I admit, that was a poor choice of words. How about second most visible, or second most prestigious?

My point was that it's an enviable position, not least of which because it's a great stepping stone to becoming president. Actual political power aside.

That I can agree with.

"My point was that it's an enviable position,"

It's been described by someone who had that position as "not worth a bucket of warm spit".

"not least of which because it's a great stepping stone to becoming president."

This is actually pretty uncommon, in practice.

Anyway, in Biden's specific case, there's no way he'll be President. He probably won't be running for VP again.

> The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd earlier this year directly threatening to withhold donations based on SOPA, unless the Obama administration toes the line [2].

I don't get why this is any more of a problem than money in politics in general. If you give money based on how much you support a politician, and they change their positions, and now you agree less, you don't give them money anymore.

What's the alternative?

"If you've ever given money to a politician, you have to keep doing so even if they change their minds about the issues you care about"?

"Politicians are legally forbidden from changing their mind, even in the face of cogent arguments and massive disagreement from their constituents"?

"Giving money and stopping giving money based on a politician's stances are fine but SSSHHHH don't talk about it!"?

> What's the alternative?

Politicians' campaign spending is strictly limited by law:

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back

Right, "less money in politics" is a partial fix for the problems of money in politics. My point is that railing against what Dodd said is silly. I've no objection to proposals for fixing (or even just improving) the system as a whole.

From the article: Noteworthy is also the MPAA's lobbying disclosure statement of last year which includes money spent on lobbying the office of Vice President Joe Biden.

Spending money on lobbying essentially means paying a lobbyist to have a meeting with important people. It's not like they're handing over briefcases of money.

To be fair, we don't know that to be the case, yet.

I do have to say that implicating Biden in a corruption-feeling scandal during an election year is a great legal strategy.

And a dishonest one at that. He's behaving no differently than the rest of Washington.

If everyone is doing it, is it not a scandal any more?

No... they just spend $10k+ for a dinner plate at a political fundraiser so they can have their side 'heard'.

Come on. It's legalized corruption with one degree of separation from outright "handing over briefcases of money".

I'm sure the MPAA members are generously contributing to the Obama/Biden re-election funds.

I don't understand why you're sure of that, considering how pissed MPAA members are with the Obama administration over SOPA. But I guess deciding something is true is easier than Googling it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/obama-sopa-chris-do...

I googled it, and come up with a much more recent story about Obama raising a record $15 million at a Hollywood fundraiser.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-george-clooney-f...

So while the MPAA may have been posturing about being angry, the reality is they are going to continue to flood money into the Obama/Biden campaign.

There's a big difference between the Hollywood liberal crowd, who have always been hardcore Obama fans, and the lobbying wing of the MPAA. They are not the same community.

How are they not the same community? The MPAA is Walt Disney, Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. The people at these Hollywood fundraisers work for and with Walt Disney, Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.

When the MPAA threatens to cut off funds, the implication isn't just that whatever amount the MPAA has to throw around will go away, it is that the big dollars from the 6 member studios and the super rich executive and celebrity donors will go away. But you still see that money flowing. Just one example, also from Hollywood Reporter, "Jamie and Michael Lynton - He’s CEO of Sony, and she’s a veteran Democratic activist. The two are raising $500,000-plus for Obama this season. Michael has had almost a dozen meetings at the White House, some regarding anti-piracy."

Because the MPAA and RIAA represent the owners and executives of the movie and record companies. "Hollywood" is also comprised of moneyed actors, musicians and artists that generally tend to lean to the left politically. There is definitely a difference between the two "camps"

In that perspective the Megaupload shutdown seems like a pretty good way to make amends right after the SOPA fiasco.

> It's not corruption if he didn't personally benefited from it.

I expect the Obama/Biden election campaign got contributions from MPAA companies. Shutting down Megaupload was payback.

It depends what is considered a benefit. There is something like elections in the next months...

Generally, I want politicians to do things that will make me vote for them!

Voting is one thing. Financial contribution to the campaign is a different thing. I imagine it's the latter that's at issue here.

So yes, you want politicians to do things that will get people to vote for them. But you do not necessarily want politicians to do things to get companies to pay for their campaigns.

It's not only a question of finance. A support is much more relevant as has been seen in the French presidential election. If a candidate doesn't have the public media support, election can become a very difficult up hill battle.

The goal should have been to have more justice in this world. What happened there is wrong. The extradition of the UK "pirate" is much worse and a treason of a country against its own citizen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com