While this is funny, bribery has a very specific meaning, and every politician learned it very well during the whole Jack Abramhoff scandal.
What the MPAA, and Chris Dodd, are suggesting here is that they're less willing to make campaign contributions (on the up-and-up, as dubious as the up-and-up has become post-Citizen's United).
I'm quickly tiring of the hyperbole from both sides of the issue. As the days go on, this is clearly becoming less a matter of facts at hand and more a boiling over of old media vs. new media attitudes that have been simmering for 15 years.
I know what this conflict is like first hand. I work on the tech/web side of an old media company. Everything becomes us vs. them, and everything appears on the surface to have ulterior motive, when in fact it almost always first stems from a serious lack of understanding, which breeds frustration, which breeds paranoia, which breeds stupid bills like SOPA, with actual ulterior motives and all.
Honestly, I'm interested what types of companies PG and YC think will "kill Hollywood." My feeling is that killing it will necessitate a much, much more understanding and symbiotic approach to Hollywood than many on HN are willing to acknowledge.
I think the argument here is that Chris Dodd is wilfully admitting there isn't a boundary between "bribery" and "campaign donation" in his, or his corporations, mind.
His tone is that his campaign donations should have got him above and beyond treatment from those who didn't. A campaign donation lends no credence of reciprocal action from a candidate. The whole point of backing a candidate is that you believe that candidate supports ideals that are beneficial to you and the public, however Dodd appears to believe that the point of backing a candidate is to pay the most malleable candidate into office.
In Dodd's mindset he committed bribery with his campaign donations. Bribery: "the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty." [emphasis mine]
Dodd believes his donation should influence the actions of his chosen official, thus via the very specific meaning of bribery, he committed it and publicly admitted it.
Right, but that's politics since before Ike's farewell speech and the whole reasoning behind the Federal Elections Committee. Things are not so black and white. A donation can be as much freedom of speech as can be bribery. What the FEC and related Acts that define it do is to draw (I hope) clear lines in the sand differentiating the two.
I'm well aware that people don't like it and I'm not sure why people are suddenly surprised by Dodd's attitude toward campaign donations. Politics are all about influence. Simply because he wished his donations affected politics in his way doesn't make it bribery in the legal sense of the term.
If anything is surprising to me, because I'm inherently cynical about the political process (some of my best friends work as Senate aides and analysts and have no shame telling me how truly depraved the creation of a bill can be; to them, PIPA was a third-tier issue destined to be lost in bureaucracy should it have passed) it's that SOPA/PIPA have been effectively killed precisely because many politicians aren't necessarily beholden to their donators, that influence from an outside party made a huge difference.
So really, this shouldn't be a question about this one thing that Dodd or any other lobbyist thinks about their money's influence (or lack thereof) on the political process. We should be questioning the nature of money in politics in general. Ike was right, and things have only gotten much, much more incestual since his farewell address. But, as the saying goes, we get the rulers we deserve, especially when big tech, despite their size and money advantage over Hollywood, seems uninterested in playing the same games that Hollywood plays on Capitol Hill.
What the MPAA, and Chris Dodd, are suggesting here is that they're less willing to make campaign contributions (on the up-and-up, as dubious as the up-and-up has become post-Citizen's United).
I'm quickly tiring of the hyperbole from both sides of the issue. As the days go on, this is clearly becoming less a matter of facts at hand and more a boiling over of old media vs. new media attitudes that have been simmering for 15 years.
I know what this conflict is like first hand. I work on the tech/web side of an old media company. Everything becomes us vs. them, and everything appears on the surface to have ulterior motive, when in fact it almost always first stems from a serious lack of understanding, which breeds frustration, which breeds paranoia, which breeds stupid bills like SOPA, with actual ulterior motives and all.
Honestly, I'm interested what types of companies PG and YC think will "kill Hollywood." My feeling is that killing it will necessitate a much, much more understanding and symbiotic approach to Hollywood than many on HN are willing to acknowledge.