Head of MPAA, Chris Dodd, Threatens Politicians Who Refuse to be Bought by Donations. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Van-man;34325739]Total financial transparency would be a better idea. That way everyone can see their shady transactions. [I]"Oh look, he just got 5 million check from CEO of RIAA"[/I][/QUOTE] This won't work. Think, guys, if official channels were transparent obviously they'd just launder their "donations" through other means.

It's sad truly that the US founding fathers couldn't predict this shit.

... wow.

No, there is only one option. Overturn Citizens United v FEC, send a clear message to the Supreme Court that it is not their purpose to make laws. The word corporation does not occur anywhere in the constitution. They are fictitious entities with the ability to force an entire collective of people to do their bidding, without a conscious or fear of a backlash. But yet the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, and as such, should have the rights of a person. This is, of course, bullshit.

[QUOTE=MarstunoM;34325827]No, there is only one option. Overturn Citizens United v FEC, send a clear message to the Supreme Court that it is not their purpose to make laws. The word corporation does not occur anywhere in the constitution. They are fictitious entities with the ability to force an entire collective of people to do their bidding, without a conscious or fear of a backlash. But yet the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, and as such, should have the rights of a person. This is, of course, bullshit.[/QUOTE] You can't overturn a supreme court ruling. They decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and trying to overturn them on it isn't a good precedent. The government shouldn't be allowed to violate it's own constitution and then overturn the supreme court when the court rules that it's unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=Van-man;34325739]Total financial transparency would be a better idea. That way everyone can see their shady transactions. [I]"Oh look, he just got 5 million check from CEO of RIAA"[/I][/QUOTE] Better yet, turn campaign funding into a money pool to be evenly distributed among candidates. Eliminate favoritism and allow equal ability to advertise in one swoop.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34325025]So why is this legal again?[/QUOTE] Because capitalism.

This is exactly what politics isn't supposed to be...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34325891]You can't overturn a supreme court ruling. They decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and trying to overturn them on it isn't a good precedent. The government shouldn't be allowed to violate it's own constitution and then overturn the supreme court when the court rules that it's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Yes, you can overturn it, with a constitutional amendment to prevent any further misinterpretation on this issue. Might I direct you to the Saving American Democracy Amendment in the senate and the Get Money Out of Politics Amendment in the house?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34325891]The government shouldn't be allowed to violate it's own constitution and then overturn the supreme court when the court rules that it's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Alternatively, no group of unelected douchebags should get to magically supersede the nation independent of any sort of review or appeals. They are highly fallible, the idea that they deserve a final say is absurd. The Supreme Court isn't what it used to be- it's victim to the same corruption and partisan dickfiddling as the rest of the government, rendering any reasons to allow it the massive amount of power it has moot. [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34325261]Supreme court isn't always right.[/QUOTE] To be fair, they're right on that one. There's no good reason to forbid people from saying "I will do everything I can to prevent you from being reelected if you do X". The real issue is that "everything I can" now includes nigh-on infinite funding.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34325891]You can't overturn a supreme court ruling. They decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and trying to overturn them on it isn't a good precedent. The government shouldn't be allowed to violate it's own constitution and then overturn the supreme court when the court rules that it's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] You know they can go back and say "Opps we fucked up" right? That's what happened to the case of the enslaved man who belonged to a slave owner who had escaped in Free Territory. Because he was traveling with the man and technically was property, it was deemed illegal for him to leave even though they had passed through a free state/territory. This was definitely overturned after the Civil War.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34326191]Alternatively, no group of unelected douchebags should get to magically supersede the nation independent of any sort of review.[/QUOTE] Uh, yea they should. That's the whole point of our justice system, judges shouldn't be accountable to the political game and campaigning for re-election. [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=purvisdavid1;34326199]You know they can go back and say "Opps we fucked up" right? That's what happened to the case of the enslaved man who belonged to a slave owner who had escaped in Free Territory. Because he was traveling with the man and technically was property, it was deemed illegal for him to leave even though they had passed through a free state/territory. This was definitely overturned after the Civil War.[/QUOTE] Through constitutional amendment, which is absolutely legit. If you amend the constitution, that's fine. I'm just saying congress and the president should have no power to overturn supreme court decisions.

[QUOTE=certified;34325786]It's sad truly that the US founding fathers couldn't predict this shit.[/QUOTE] You mean the founding fathers who invaded the land, killed most natives and declared it as their own? Yeah they had things other than predictions to worry about.

This is a proof of how organizations that try to implement bullshit laws because of the internet are greedy assholes who likes to bathe in $$$.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34326229]Uh, yea they should. That's the whole point of our justice system, judges shouldn't be accountable to the political game and campaigning for re-election.[/QUOTE] Read the rest of the post. If you think they aren't gaming, you're batshit insane. The current SC deserves none of the powers it has and needs a rules change.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34326259]Read the rest of the post. If you think they aren't gaming, you're batshit insane. The current SC deserves none of the powers it has and needs a rules change.[/QUOTE] Then who deserves that power?

I'm pretty sure this actually [i]is[/i] blackmail. Entities donating to campaigns is legal, however, blackmail is usually defined as something like: [quote]blackmail includes the exploitation and manipulation of another individual or entity through otherwise legal means[/quote] Meaning, just because the action of donating or retracting donations is legal, attempting to manipulate somebody through otherwise legal actions doesn't make it any less blackmail. This is blackmail.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34326269]Then who deserves that power?[/QUOTE] The King, or alternatively the Party Chairman or a military council. At least that's how other countries do it. [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] According to dictionary.com, blackmail is defined as: 1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations. 2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail. 3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage. verb (used with object) 4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats. 5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract. The MPAA isn't really blackmailing anyone but stating the obvious. Suppose you gave your friend some cash to take care of your kids for a while with the understanding that they would raise them according to your instructions. If they decided to go take your kids out to R rated movies and eat all the stuff in your fridge, you wouldn't pay them anymore. It's a perfectly legal principle, all MPAA is saying is that it won't financially support people who act against them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34326269]Then who deserves that power?[/QUOTE] Given nobody's going to actually push for an amendment to [URL="http://www.law.duke.edu/features/2005/reform.html"]reform the supreme court[/URL], fuck if I know, but I'm not going to complain if they get sidestepped in the interim.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34326259]Read the rest of the post. If you think they aren't gaming, you're batshit insane. The current SC deserves none of the powers it has and needs a rules change.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court's been pretty much the same since the US was founded, and the problems it has now have pretty much been there since the beginning. I tend to think of the Judicial branch as a deformed limb growing out of the otherwise structurally intact (though hardly benevolent) body of the American government.

We all kn Obama will lose a huge amount of money if this happens. At least we know Chris Dodd and the rest of his Republican buddies are blatantly corrupt, this just shows how far it goes. Wait, he's a Democrat? Best not mention any political affiliation then. One bad apple, I suppose. Carry on, then.

[video=youtube;983DwAOCXRI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=983DwAOCXRI[/video]

haha wow, he doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's buying politicians you would think this would be filed under bribery but in american politics it's just coincidentally timed "donations"

The sheer concept of BUYING political power and influence, as opposed to earning it by proving your worth in your profession, is abhorrent. If I were a politician and some weasely oil snake tried to bribe me into supporting his unethical legislation, i'd break the little pustule's face and expose him as a puppeteering scumbag. So much corruption, and not a flamethrower in sight.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34325261]Supreme court isn't always right.[/QUOTE] But surely bears a lot more credibility than anyone on here, so you really are in no position to debate it. Also it's not blackmail, if you are giving someone support and they turn against you, you will stop supporting them, that's not blackmail that's perfectly fine. This guy said that the politicians that don't benefit Hollywood won't be supported, oh my God how horr- Oh wait that exactly what everyone else does.

[QUOTE=acds;34328091]But surely bears a lot more credibility than anyone on here, so you really are in no position to debate it. Also it's not blackmail, if you are giving someone support and they turn against you, you will stop supporting them, that's not blackmail that's perfectly fine. This guy said that the politicians that don't benefit Hollywood won't be supported, oh my God how horr- Oh wait that exactly what everyone else does.[/QUOTE] It's the entire system. Political donations are a joke.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;34328156]It's the entire system. Political donations are a joke.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it makes political influence scale with money. However, [B]everyone[/B] (yes everyone in this thread too) supports the politicians that benefit them in one way or another, be it through voting or through financial support, and everyone removes (or threatens to) said support when the politicians don't do what they want. Of course the entertainment industry isn't going to give money to a politicians who asks when that politician didn't help them, it's perfectly logical and fine. The whole democracy system has a lot of flaws, after all if they didn't use money to influence politicians, they could simply influence people in their industry to not vote for/support said politicians (the entertainment industry especially can subtly influence a lot of people). Yeah it's a flaw of the system, but this guy isn't doing anything wrong. You aren't going to vote for a politician who doesn't help or favour you, are you?

[QUOTE=Falstad007;34326770]We all kn Obama will lose a huge amount of money if this happens. At least we know Chris Dodd and the rest of his Republican buddies are blatantly corrupt, this just shows how far it goes. Wait, he's a Democrat? Best not mention any political affiliation then. One bad apple, I suppose. Carry on, then.[/QUOTE] No one cares what his political affiliation is. We care that he's attempting to push through abhorrent legislation with money so he can make more money down the line.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;34325727]250k will pay for a few years at best.[/QUOTE] Some people only make that amount over a span of a decade. The government shouldn't regulate how much money a person should make, but rather make income taxes progressively higher for those people who do make, say, 11 million dollars per year. A combination of responsible financial practices and sensible placement of federal spending for purposes of redistribution and services both tangible (food, roads, school buildings, etc) and intangible (social security, education, etc) should get our country back on track. Too bad most politicians are in the pockets of corporations. If only we could end the bipartisan gridlock in our legislatures. Given, we'd need to make Democrats grow a pair of testicles and teach Republicans some lessons on proper manners/sensibility. Of course, the problem will fix itself eventually, if we stay on the track we're on. Soon, Democrats will be so bad at enforcing their opinion that they'll just get sucked into the Republican party. Then the conservatives will use their authoritarian social views and broken free-market policies to run this country in the ground. And once we're desperate enough there'll be someone to come dictate the nation with an iron fist. Then people will get tired of the regime and oust it with revolution. And then things will get back on track, and the process will repeat itself.

[QUOTE=Stockers678;34325626]Make a cap on the wealth politicians can have! Lets say 250,000 dollars, plenty for a adult with a family, and nip this corruption in the bud forever. Take any excess and give it to charity. Also, if someone does get paid by a company, lets them when the logos of the companies on the clothes like a racing driver at all public events as well as losing the money.[/QUOTE] Nah. Just tax all campaign contributions by corporations or CEOs thereof at 125%. If it costs more to accept the bribe than the bribe itself nobody will accept them.