UPDATE: Petition Demands White House Investigate SOPA Supporter

[Bobic]

And hell, if this guy is found guilty of bribing, shouldn't Obama be impeached for accepting the bribe?

Depends. Is it still illegal if he refuses to do the favor the bribe was meant to be for? Because as far as we've seen, he is refusing.

But it wasn't a direct bribe to support SOPA, it was just funding for his party. A more general bribe if you will. And even if he hasn't done this, he will have done what some other contributors asked. If we're defining these donations as bribery (which they basically are), then Obama (and any other president for however long this has been going on for) has accepted a bribe.

Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

They are all cases of bribery. The question is, does this case qualify as illegal bribery.


Actually, the real question is, why is bribery legal at all?

Perhaps these people should be petitioning and complaining about that rather than singling out one guy because he did something irrelevant that the internet doesn't like.

It doesn't work that way and you know it. You have to have a case strong enough that an investigation is warranted. That gets the ball rolling to change the whole system. Thing is, how many politicians want the system to change?

How is this guy admitting to doing a common practice that is completely legal and encouraged by the government a strong case?

This isn't about changing the whole system, unless somehow these people were all completely oblivious to this practice, it's about picking on a guy for supporting SOPA. I'm sorry, but the internet won, don't go chasing down people for revenge, that's just petty and ridiculous.

You cant change the system completely out of the blue, you need to set precedents for this, no single goverment, will ever change the way they rule over night, unless its annihilated under a war or revolution. Frankly I feel this is the more civilized way of doing things.

Claiming the rules only apply to someone who disagreed with you on a bill. Civil.

The issue isnt even about the bill, its about blatant abuse of power, pyro paul just describe perfectly the difference.

If you like living in a state where the rich and powerful can lord over the rest of the populace without being treated as equals, or where laws are only meant for the non elite. Then you are terrible person.

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

Like I said, its more about setting a precedence, I dont really expect this person to get indicted, but when people are faced with this grim reality, that being in a position of power has allowed for some to rig the system to feed them and the few people that support them, it just seems unreal.

Some time ago I was adamant about people in this position being disconnected from their common man, but in recent years ive been privy to talk to some people that do have power and pull in certain Entertainment Industries, and most of their world views are completely skewed and screwed up.

In a really heated chat about Roman Ponlanski, the issue came up, and the answer I received completely demoralized me and made me question the friendship I had with these people.

You can either take the following statements or dismiss them, the choice is yours.

They dont care about destroying someones life, as long as they can make an example they can use to fear monger the rest.

They dont care about laws if someone of their core group is involved, and will use all methods they can to protect their privileged supporters.

I think we're basically on the same side for the big picture, I just find it a bit more than coincidental that the internet is making its stand on a SOPA supporter.

Its not a coincidence at all, a topic that is fresh in peoples minds, will always draw more attention. And besides he was in a Fox News Interview, discussing SOPA when he uttered those words, its entirely relevant to the SOPA issue.

Furthermore, the Petition is asking not only for the investigation of Chris Dodd, its asking for in depth investigation on the whole MPAA and those who have had dealings with them.

Dodd Uttering the words just make him the central point of it.

But what is there to investigate? It's common and accepted knowledge that people donate money to political parties to get their way. And it seems to be common sense for him to not continue giving money to someone whom he doesn't support. I just don't see anything that separates him from every other lobbyist.

That is a very good point of contention, its been stated previously in this thread.

The fact is, there is never any monetary compensation from lobbying, lobbyists are supposedly people that have connections to congressmen, that allow them to bring issues from groups of people towards government.

implying that there is a direct correlation between asking for a certain law to pass and monetary support is bribing.

I'm probably just being too cynical in assuming that the link between lobbyist's money and laws getting passed was an accepted fact. Or, maybe it's the admitting to it that's the problem, it may be well known (to the cynical and possibly paranoid) but you're still not meant to say it out loud.

I'm just sure that a large amount of those signatures were only down to his supporting of a bill they don't like. If it was 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA detractor' I get the feeling there would be significantly less support for the petition. But of course, that's just conjecture.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yes Mr. Dodd...lets protect your job.
Lets protect the free-health care and tax-free benefits you will enjoy as a former Senator.
Or that wonderful pension.

Besides, I'm sure as President of the MPAA, your job and livelihood is in serious jeopardy.

What with how all of those nasty pirates stole all your clientele's profits this last year...
Clearly, there needs to be an all-encompassing law that makes you and companies like yours Judge Jury and Executioner on the Internet.

 

[Codeknight]

I don't see why people are getting up in arms over this. He's just describing every single politician's reelection plans: balance popularity between the richest and the masses, but mostly the richest. Nothing new and, judging from the past, nothing illegal. :\

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

The internet is like gravity, you don't(Bold faced times 32 font) fuck with it because if you do it will just whoop your ass.

I don't get it.

Have you ever tried to defy gravity?

 

[Epona]

The internet is like gravity, you don't(Bold faced times 32 font) fuck with it because if you do it will just whoop your ass.

I don't get it.

Have you ever tried to defy gravity?

No, care to explain it now or are we going to play 20 Questions?

 

[superbatranger]

I tried to sign but I couldn't remember my password. So I made a new one. I go to the petition, sign in with the new password, but it told me..to edit my profile. I never knew if I actually signed the petition. Well, at least the petition reached it's goal.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

The internet is like gravity, you don't(Bold faced times 32 font) fuck with it because if you do it will just whoop your ass.

I don't get it.

Have you ever tried to defy gravity?

No, care to explain it now or are we going to play 20 Questions?

If you believe you can fly and try to jump off your shed, gravity will say "fuck you" and drag you back down to Earth.

 

[Irridium]

If I could, I'd like to point people (well, US people, but others can look too, I guess) over here [http://www.sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c], since it's somewhat related.

One of the big problems is corporations able to directly contribute and influence the government, most recently seen with the SOPA/PIPA brouhaha. One thing this amendment will do is prohibit corporations from essentially "buying" candidates through donating, as Dodd here has alluded to have done. So Dodd, the MPAA and the like, will no longer be able to donate huge sums to campaigners and then "threaten" them if they don't put the big corporation's interest above the people they were elected to serve.

It also regulating spending and whatnot by campaigners. And force them to reveal their doners, so we know what's what. Also, regulation of corporations by the people. Basically, it overturns the recent Supreme Court decision that essentially said "Corporations are people", and reduces their power quite a bit.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

If I could, I'd like to point people (well, US people, but others can look too, I guess) over here [http://www.sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c], since it's somewhat related.

One of the big problems is corporations able to directly contribute and influence the government, most recently seen with the SOPA/PIPA brouhaha. One thing this amendment will do is prohibit corporations from essentially "buying" candidates through donating, as Dodd here has alluded to have done. So Dodd, the MPAA and the like, will no longer be able to donate huge sums to campaigners and then "threaten" them if they don't put the big corporation's interest above the people they were elected to serve.

It also regulating spending and whatnot by campaigners. And force them to reveal their doners, so we know what's what. Also, regulation of corporations by the people. Basically, it overturns the recent Supreme Court decision that essentially said "Corporations are people", and reduces their power quite a bit.

I am in favor of this but I cannot contribute because I'm Canadian. I'll remember this though.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I don't see why people are getting up in arms over this. He's just describing every single politician's reelection plans: balance popularity between the richest and the masses, but mostly the richest. Nothing new and, judging from the past, nothing illegal. :\

This article http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-online-petitions-that-prove-democracy-broken/ might explain why this entire exercise is hilarious. What do people think goes on in politics?


Best quote "Poisoning the rest of the Internet with passive aggression was just a testing ground for this assault on the heart of democracy. Listen, asshole, if you want to make the White House obey your demands, that keyboard needs to be connected to an orbital laser cannon, not an Internet comment box."

The internet is like gravity, you don't(Bold faced times 32 font) fuck with it because if you do it will just whoop your ass.

I don't get it.

Have you ever tried to defy gravity?

Static electricity will levitate paper. Yeah, I just defied gravity with a balloon and my hair. Incidentally, that's the same gravity that's tethering the moon in orbit.

 

[144_v1legacy]

No, I don't like that, but apparently the rest of the world did, as people weren't complaining until an article entitled 'Petition demands white house investigate SOPA Supporter ' showed up. The ends may justify the means (should this even accomplish anything, which I doubt?) but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the blatant unfairness in the means.

It's probably true that this involving SOPA is a big part of the complaint of bribery, but that's completely legitimate. Bribery on issues of great consequence have greater risks, and to take a bribe for such an important bill requires a greater deal of corruption. Bribery is always bad, but like any misdemeanor, the severity varies.

Well, if he was bribing people for support of this bill then fair enough. But that's not what's instigated the investigation. He essentially said he'd stop funding Obama for shooting it down. Support from investors is what both the democrats and republicans rely on and, if you follow the wonderful link provided by Ukomba, you'd see that it's done by an awful lot of people. It is wrong to punish this man for funding a political party when it is done by so many. Laws don't only apply to those you don't like, if this guy is punished then the whole system needs to be overhauled, which I would actively encourage. I just think picking on one guy, for a crime (?) committed by many, due to his position on something else, is unfair.

Imagine if you and four friends were caught smoking dope. Then the police only reprimand you because they disagree with your views on public health care. That's what the petitioners are doing here.

No, that's not what they are doing here.

And second of all, my whole point was missed. You say "laws don't only apply to those you don't like, if this guy is punished then the whole system needs to be overhauled," and I say, "in a perfect world yes." But we can't catch everyone who breaks a given law. We can't catch everyone guilty of this guy's crime. But we can catch the people who make careless remarks and draw attention to themselves, and we should, because it may be unfair to him that other people who do the same things he does aren't caught, but then again, they weren't stupid about it.

 

[risenbone]

Dunno how many were paying attention in the last presedential campaigne and the primaries befroe it but the interesting thing that came out of it was the guy who had the most money to spend on the campangne was Obama. The other intereting thing was Obama didn't get a whole lot from corperte doners he got the majority of the money from individuals who chipped in 10 or so dollars every now and then. He ended up with so much more money than the republican candidate that that was one of the talking points the republican candidate had to give back his leftovers from the primaries and get the stipend he was allowed by the electral commision and wanted Obama to do the same because Obama still had so much more than that. Obama didn't he funded his entire campaigne from millions of small donations and beat the corprates at their own game. Hate Obama all you like but you have to admire the guy has skills at this political game.

I guess the point is yes the corprates have a bunch of money and power but they can only contribute so much to one person before they arn't allowed to contribute any more and that caps out at alot less than motivated individuals who while singularly can't contribute as much but together they can do so much more. The thing is Americans like to complain about their representitives a whole bunch but for the most part don't seem to realise that they can and should do something about it. If you don't take an interest in politics until it starts to affect you then it's to late you have to take an interest before it gets to that point and then you can do something about stopping it before it evan gets off the ground that is you can financially contribute to those candidates that you feel represent you and you can vote for them. When for the most part you don't evan vote then you get exactly what you deserve.

 

[Disasterpiece Press]

UPDATE: Petition Demands White House Investigate SOPA Supporter




Dodd - "intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."

Pot to Kettle: "You're black."

 

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Speech isn't really considered to be all that important anymore, I think. And it's absurd. The truth is that the man, Dodd, said some really stupid things. However, his quote is a hodgepodge of stupid under a layer of intelligibility. To the common person, yes, this is a threat. It's a quid pro quo statement, a casting couch of sorts. If this kind of a phrase were uttered under the context of gender relations in the workplace, it'd probably warrant a Title 9 search. Unfortunately, that's not the context. In politics, speech somehow means less (even though it ought to mean so, so much more). They'll find a way to weasel out of it. I guess this might be the one upside to Fox news: it makes people feel really comfortable. It makes them feel comfortable enough to be themselves. In this case, a douchebag troll who, if he had a small cat to pet, might be considered to be a fitting Bond villain.

Off topic but still really important: please don't confuse "who" with "whom" anymore.

The Obama Administration will now respond to it, but exactly whom responds has yet to be determined.

Spoiler: Some Grammar Nitpicking

There are 2 independent clauses separated by a coordinating conjunction (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) in addition to one dependent clause. Subject of the first clause is "Administration" with "The Obama" being used as adjectives (which administration? The Obama), and the verb is "will respond" with "now" being used as an adverb (as it answers when/where/how).
The second independent clause is weird. "Who/m responds" is a nominative dependent clause (it's a dependent clause which is used as a noun, in this case, it's used as the subject of the independent clause. I.e.: "Whom responds(Dependent clause as subject) has (as verb) to be determined (an infinitive used as the object of the verb)." Yet is an adverb, I think.

If you're still following: every clause needs a subject and a verb.
Who is subjective case (you use it where you'd use "I" or "he" or "she")
Whom is objective case (used in place of "Me" or "him" or "her")
Since "Whom responds" is the entire clause, and "responds" is the verb, "whom" MUST be the subject of that clause. Because it is the subject, it MUST BE in subjective case. Therefore, it MUST BE "who" not "whom".

Okay, sorry for that. It bugs me when people misuse "whom" far more than when they misuse "who". Simple rule in case you ever want to check: replace "Who" with "I" or "He" or "She". If it's grammatically correct still, profit. If not, change it. (Opposite goes for "Whom": replace with "Me" or "Him" or "Her".)

Spoiler: More Grammar Nitpicking

Okay, English grammar can make this rule weird. For example, "With whom are you going?" is essentially the same as "Are you going with her?" The difference is that the preposition has moved. However, the preposition still forces an objective case because that word is the object of the preposition.

And sometimes you will have a nominative clause used as the object of the preposition. A nominative clause is simply a dependent clause used as a noun. All objects are nouns; therefore, a preposition may have a nominative clause as its object. Additionally, "Whoever" is subjective case (must be used as the subject of a clause) while "Whomever" is objective case (must be used in an object's place: object of the preposition, direct/indirect object, etc.)

So the sentence "I will go with whoever wants to go" is correct. Why? It is correct because "whoever wants to go" in its entirety is used as the object for the preposition "with". Additionally, "whoever wants to go" is a dependent clause. Every clause (both dependent and independent) needs a subject. Since no other words fit as the subject, "whoever" must be the subject; therefore, it needs to be subjective case.

If anyone reads this, I applaud you.

I came in here to say pretty much the same thing, so thanks for saving me some time.

 

[Urameshi13]

You mean the guy who took money from firms Country Financial to ease regulation of their industry, which subsequently (in part) led to the crash of 2008, would do something untoward?

I am stunned.

 

[thiosk]

See? Democrats are just republicans by another name. I keep trying to tell people this.

This republican is most likely voting for obama come election day.

Chris Dodd is right up there with the most pathetic dipshits in congress. Hey, wheres my petition to draw Barney Frank up on some Fannie/Freddie indictments? No? Nothing? Harumph.

Petition for sending Bachmann to Libya? Nothing there either?

snniiiips

I really wanted to write something like "DURR ME LIEK UR ENGRISH NUYCK U WAN MAERRRY MEEZORZ" but every attempt expressed only a deep level of idiocy that would probably necessitate my own forcible sterilization. Regardless, I appreciate the concise explanation of who vs. whom.

 

[duchaked]

aw be nice people. maybe he's just a sore loser :] ...well okay nvm lotsa people are these days lol

 

[Marudas]

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake,"

This is absolutely disgraceful. Long gone are the days that serving in congress was meant as a service to your fellow countryman, that you would perform for a term or two before returning to other work. Now we just have pathetic, uneducated people who sign up for this "job" because the only requirement is lying through your teeth and accepting legally sanctioned bribes (or, in this case, not-legally sanctioned).

Your "Job", congressman, is to serve the desires of the people in your constituency, not your ignorant self. I'm starting to wonder what point we need to get to before we throw all these clowns out and start actually getting something done.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

He effectively said on national television:
"I Gave you Money. If you don't do what I Want then don't expect any more of my money!"

While there is private funding during elections and campaign controbutions from all sorts of people, those that throw in with a canidate does so because they have 'like minded intrests'. Although many can argue that their controbution and funds do influence these politicians choices, the diffrence is that the funds are not explicitly intended to do so.

If i give you 10 million dollars to support your cause and while i hand you the money i say 'I like Muffins'. I'm not giving you the money to make me muffins or change your intrests in muffins... but you'll undoubtably have a much keen intrest in muffin related laws.

and that is where the diffrence between those controbutions and what this senetor said.
He more or less is implying that his money should influence the presidents decision, and is threatening to take it away if he continues to not share the same intrests as him and his company.

Couldn't you just say that Obama has displayed that he doesn't have 'like minded interests' so Mr. Hollywood has decided he doesn't want to keep supporting him.

And hell, if this guy is found guilty of bribing, shouldn't Obama be impeached for accepting the bribe?

If he did say that then all of this wouldn't be happening. but thats the problem... he didn't say that. He threatened the president stating that if they want 'hollywood's support they should pay more attention to their intrests.

The acctual bribe isn't the money, but rather the threat of 'discontinued support'.

 

[chaostheory]

Not to defend this man, but is this really a bribery case? I thought every election was funded by private companies and lobbyists. The republicans taking money from oil companies and Democrats being funded by hollywood (apparently).

Of course, I'm an ignorant Brit so may be grasping the wrong end of a completely different stick. Feel free to quote me and call me a buffoon.

They are all cases of bribery. The question is, does this case qualify as illegal bribery.


Actually, the real question is, why is bribery legal at all?

Simple answer to that question the people in power were bribed at one point to make it legal.

More realistically it is impossible to set up government that won't be run on bribery, making it legal allows for there to be regulations in the form of limits to the amount of money one is allowed to give.