During that time we should compile a list of all representatives that support this bill and any/all donations and from whom those donations came from to support this bill. When the money trail is out in the open, I think both the representatives and the donors may be more timid about pushing forward against an unpopular bill like this.
There is another mechanism used to incentivize support for ill-conceived policies: promises of cushy, high-pay lobbying jobs for officials and members of their staff.
I imagine this would only be uncovered ex-post facto. Here's a nauseating example:
They're a very careful organization, so they're very cautious in stating a congressperson's vote before the actual vote. But it's a start. The contribution ratio for my representative definitely prompted me to call her today.
It's not quite what you're asking for, but OpenCongress.org seems to have a pretty relevant list of the money various reps have received from groups supporting and opposing the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
sopahitlist.com is available. Perhaps it's too violent sounding, so better ideas are welcome.
It'd be a list of SOPA supporters in Congress, and encouragement for their constituents to call in and say something, and/or vote for the other guy at the next election.
People, your domain ideas are excellent but instead of posting them here for all squatters to take, please just register the darn domains. It's only couple of bucks after all.
Lamar Smith needs to be sent a very clear message, in the form of a landslide defeat in the next election to someone along the lines of Darrell Issa. What would it take to make that happen? How do we (the tech community) recruit someone that has the poise and fundraising ability to win an election? What do we do once we find someone?
Smith seems to be Public Enemy #1 on this issue, and I believe he represents a part of Texas with some tech presence (Austin). There may be others who are good targets as well...if the message is "support this anti-technology bill and you'll lose your job", maybe other Congresspeople will think twice about supporting MPAA-written legislation.
(Or maybe they won't. But we won't know unless we try.)
This is a tough seat to go after because it's a reliable Republican district (around 2/3) and Smith has held his seat since way back in 1986. He's extremely entrenched, so the Republicans aren't going to be particularly tolerant of a challenger (edit: in the Primary), and the Democrats probably can't win the district.
I'm not sure who exactly lives in that weirdly-outlined subset of Austin, but unless something dramatic has changed since I lived there, his segment of San Antonio is dominated by traditionalist Chamber of Commerce types. His chunk of Austin might be an exception, but I would expect it will be pretty hard to get much traction in the rest of his district based on tech issues.
These areas are primarily known as Westlake, Westlake Hills, and Lake Travis. These are the upper class areas of the city, where MANY well to do tech entrepreneurs reside (Michael Dell probably being the most prominent).
I'm sure if a large group of said entrepreneurs spoke up, at least some impact would be made.
This is a tough seat to go after because it's a reliable Republican district (around 2/3) and Smith has held his seat since way back in 1986. He's extremely entrenched, so the Republicans aren't going to be particularly tolerant of a challenger (edit: in the Primary)
That's what they said about the Tea Party challengers to Republican incumbents. It can be done, with the right challenger.
I'm pretty sure the Tea Party is an instrument of the same folks running the Repub Party. It's intent was to capture/keep a chunk of redneck voters who would otherwise be disaffected with or embarrassed by voting for Republicans, post-Bush, without losing them entirely to the Dems or some other non-controlled organization. A pretty large chunk of Republican mom-and-pop voters appear to be racists or poorly educated middle-class, for example, and the Repub leadership wanted to create a safe harbor for them to vent that was still somewhat directable. A sort of temporary but loyal opposition. They don't want to lose the guns/bible/redneck demographic permanently because they'd lose the ability to get majorities in elections. If all working middle-class and poor people in country could get behind a single party, the aristocracy/oil/military/banking interests would lose control of Congress.
It would seem like Lamar Smith is hell bent on killing innovation, entrepreneurship and a major source of job creation not only in the U.S but more specifically in his own district.
His district is close to many Austin and San Antonio startups including companies like Rackspace, not sure whether they are within his district or fairly close but the impact would be felt.
"Update.... Or not. Despite the fact that Congress was supposed to be out of session until the end of January, the Judiciary Committee has just announced plans to come back to continue the markup this coming Wednesday. This is rather unusual and totally unnecessary. But it shows just how desperate Hollywood is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, before the momentum of opposition builds up even further."
As a European, just let me say, oh great, now I have to run a Tor relay/bridge for the entire United States, and I'm not sure my basic adsl or my poor little mac mini can cope with that...
I don't think it was actually signed yet, but they've agreed on signing it. So yeah, it's a foregone conclusion, a matter of days - if not hours - before the Commission signs it.
The Parliament is a separate matter. I think they're just going into holiday recess, then in January they'll vote Schultz as the new Speaker and then they'll vote on ACTA.
There's still a chance to stop it, especially since the Parliament is more skeptical. Contact your representatives in the EU Parliament and threaten to vote for someone else in the next election if they support this oppressive Act!!!
Unfortunately Canada plans to support this too, and our current Conservative government steamrolls any and all legislation on their agenda right through the house. Our senate is functionally useless, so it's essentially a foregone conclusion.
This is a result of not having a limit on the amount a corporation can donate to a political campaign. The maximum should be 0, this is more like a government by the people for the corporations.
I live in Poland and I watched almost the whole hearing because I care.
(Although we have a bigger problem in the EU right now - ACTA is about to be signed by the Commission, Parliament vote pending in a couple of weeks.)
Big thumbs up for Congressmen Issa (R-CA), Polis (D-CO), Lofgren (D-CA) and Chaffetz (R-UT) for their performance. Remember those names if you vote in their districts.
For many people, congressional elections are decided before the race even starts. The best way to make your voice heard if you're in this position is to donate to closely contested campaigns in other districts.
As someone who votes in Texas, I'm intimately familiar with the "my vote simply does not matter" situation. Instead, I (literally) vote with my wallet.
On a separate note, I'd like to also list the Congressmen that were the most vocal and eloquent supporters of SOPA during the hearing:
Smith (R-TX), Goodlatte (R-VA), Berman (D-CA).
Please make sure your friends and families associate these names with censorship and stifling of innovation.
I prefer not to decide to withdraw my vote until they cast theirs. And even then, I honestly would rather not withdraw my vote until I've discussed the matter with the relevant congressperson and found out what their reasoning was. If they can make a reasoned argument, I will reconsider. Merely disagreeing with my congressperson is not enough for me to withdraw my vote, because it's a given that I will disagree with them on various points. If they are a reasonable person, I will generally weigh the number of things we agree and disagree on. If they are not willing to listen to reason, my support is out the window immediately.
Anyway, I think despite the fact that it's likely that those who support it now will vote for it, it's perhaps too early to make a decision on voting or not voting for a given person based on this bill alone.
There's no evidence why that would be sufficient proof. They may have different values than you and still consider things reasonable within their framework of values. Then you have to decide whether disagreeing with you on this particular value balance is enough to lose your vote in the context of their other values.
I can't say for sure. It would depend on the particular line of reasoning of the congressperson, and how that changes depending on what they do or do not learn about the technical infrastructure from talking with me.
I hope they don't pull a "1913" and pass the bill on Christmas day like they did with the federal reserve act, legislation which caused the great depression and the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and leaves us about 15 digits in debt here today. sopa is kind of like that. Replacing free market currency/internet with regulated currency/internet.
I fail to understand why taxpayers pay $174,000 as a salary to Congressmen given that 261 of them are millionares. Furthermore, I don't get why they're given a wage when dozens of them are being handed this salary or more on a single issue. McCain got paid almost 12 times as much on this bill as his wage.
The one way to ensure that all Congressmen are millionaires is to take away their pay. Honestly, the salary is already too small, they have to maintain a second residence in DC, which is one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country. In all seriousness, $174,000 is not enough money to support a family in a middle class lifestyle in DC. A townhouse in a safe neighborhood is $5,000/month, most of the public schools are terrible and the private schools expensive, and the local taxes are extremely high.
Also lawmakers can't spend their campaign warchests on personal items.
Complete FUD. I live in the DC region and dont need nearly this much to be comfortable with my family. Now if I wanted to live in a prime spot downtown and forgo any commute or other compromises that would be a different story but I see no reason why our tax dollars should support congress living like rockstars.
Do you also maintain a home in the state that you actually represent? This might be FUD (I don't know) but saying that you do fine with less money isn't indicative of anything if you aren't doing the same thing.
In a perfect world, paying them salary would hopefully make them ignore individuals/companies offering them donations in exchange for favorable legislation because they already were making a good wage.
They horde money for campaign (ads). The notion that they are doing a Scrooge McDuck in taxpayer money is generally false. I'm not putting the onus on the taxpayer, but attack ads and the like are extremely effective and... expensive. Their number one goal is to get (re)elected and money=>ads is the most effective way to do it. Standing on principle and making articulated arguments just polarizes.
This is why in parliamentary systems the MPs get a wage and get campaign funding (IIRC respective to their previous campaign share, IE the incumbent gets the most).
What I don't get there is that they still get payoffs, but we're talking a private jet flight versus $2 million in cash.
You're right. But, my point is there is no amount of money we can reasonably pay them that will come close to the money they require to get re-elected, which is more important to them than anything else.
