The day lobbying went honest, Chris Dodd's outburst about legislators not backing up their Hollywood masters

BLOT: (27 Jan 2012 - 03:08:55 PM)

The day lobbying went honest, Chris Dodd's outburst about legislators not backing up their Hollywood masters

Lobbying has a really weird place in this country. It is constantly there, constantly wondered about, bandied about, and worried about. Though from what I have seen, it has always been kept in a general check by its lack of guaranteed success. You can give a congressman $5000 and a nice lunch to get him to hear about your support of solar research, but you cannot demand that the congressman vote your way. Your one whip is that you might not be buying lunch the next go around.¹

What happens when a lobbying deal goes sour for the lobbyist? What happens when someone doesn't seem to notice that he is talking in front of actual people in a medium being actually watched and even recorded, when it comes to discussing how horrible it is that he isn't able to guarantee results through past favors as opposed to the validity of the law? In this case the MPAA's Chris Dodd (and ex-Senator) talked about protecting studio's intellectual properties via SOPA/PIPA and it is not merely that he said he was disappointed in Congress's general move. No, he decided to pull the "We bought you now give us the service we demand" card:

On one hand, this is a perfectly understandable statement. They had supporters, who were also people they "support" through cash donations, and the support "ceased" being mutual [and/or the support wasn't so mutual as to be blind, tomato tomahtah". But in the real world, about the main justifying factor of lobbying is that votes aren't wink-actually-wink being bought² and really the money is only going for campaigning and not any real thing³. What's more, lobbying money is never a good justification for supporting lopsided deals, rushing legislation, or any of the other things of which SOPA had a smell. Saying "Let's see you how you change your mind after you need our phat check on this oh so important campaign year!" is simply stating, out loud, where the poor people can hear, "SCREW THE POOR, WE ARE THE POWERFUL!" I know, you know, they know, and dogs know that's what they have been thinking, but again, it's not the kind of thing you can say. Just like a media star is not supposed to mock the poor kid from the ghetto who got a severe sentence for drug possession while said star has been busted a dozen times, makes movies/videos/songs/etc showing possession, and talks to poor people in prison as community service instead of going to jail. Laws are not fair, and never have any intention of being such, but you at least play by certain politenesses.

At any rate, now Chris Dodd has outed why the MPAA spends so much [though I think less than the RIAA], looks like he has won the grand-prize of an investigation. There is already enough supporters on the petition to the White House supposedly to force the subject. There is at least one juicy quote in the article, that echoes what I have said here: "Companies and individuals who 'donate' to US lawmakers usually express the convenient fiction that their financial contributions are expressions of support for a candidate, and not attempts to bribe them on specific issues." Tee hee.

Politics

1: Note, this is how I understand it. I know in real life it is much more complicated, has had many variations throughout the years, and in practice is probably much different.

2: They are just being rented! *rimshot*

3: Probably a more meaningful statement before campaign budgets reached the sort of level that effectively no candidate will make as much in a decade as they will spend on a single campaign.

OTHER BLOTS THIS MONTH: January 2012