MPAA Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay B

By +M2Ys4U
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

...ought

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:
"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. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue:

Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can?t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

Source: TechDirt

Mentor

pack34

Posted
Posted

I don't see what the issue is here. They donated money to campaigns for those they believed to protect their interests. If the politicians are no longer protecting their interests they pull their support and their funds. This makes sense to me.

Mentor

Azies

Posted
Posted

I don't see what the issue is here. They donated money to campaigns for those they believed to protect their interests. If the politicians are no longer protecting their interests they pull their support and their funds. This makes sense to me.

This, I'm personally glad they are no longer on the payroll of the Shinra ...er.. I mean MPAA. :p

  • Alera and IceBreakerG
  • Like 2
Mentor

BetaAddict

Posted
Posted

where is it the governments business to protect the entertainment industry?

It never is. However, it has always been a mutual understanding for almost forever that campaign donations and kickbacks from corporations and interest groups is essentially a "you owe me when the time comes" kind of ticket. Unfortunately, they have done enough with SOPA/PIPA to upset voters to point that most of these congressman are starting to realize they have to choose between funding or voters, and they are choosing voters.

Grand Master

Stoffel

Posted
Posted

And that's why it should be illegal to get funds from businesses

So politicians work for the people as they supposed to, and are not in the pockets of the big corporations

  • FMH, +Ryster and Brandon H
  • Like 3
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted

Every issue with this country's politics comes down to one thing: Campaign financing. We really need reform. Out politics have become all about money, and our laws are written by lobbyists. Its a sad, sad state.

Grand Master

+Majesticmerc MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

If the US government have any balls, the MPAA will be forced shut down on Monday. If they think they're powerful enough to override the will of the people and threaten the government in public, then they should expect an equally public beatdown at the hands of the government.

I don't see what the issue is here. They donated money to campaigns for those they believed to protect their interests. If the politicians are no longer protecting their interests they pull their support and their funds. This makes sense to me.

The issue is that the government does protect their interests, the government has done nothing to harm the entertainment industry. "Protecting their interests" means that their preferred government will consider the impact of change on their business. It DOES NOT give them the right to dictate changes for their personal and illegitimate gain, and then throw their toys out the pram and blackmail the government when they don't get their way, and especially when those changes are at odds of the will of the people. Governments should not be for sale, period.

Mentor

pack34

Posted
Posted

If the US government have any balls, the MPAA will be forced shut down on Monday. If they think they're powerful enough to override the will of the people and threaten the government in public, then they should expect an equally public beatdown at the hands of the government.

The issue is that the government does protect their interests, the government has done nothing to harm the entertainment industry. "Protecting their interests" means that their preferred government will consider the impact of change on their business. It DOES NOT give them the right to dictate changes for their personal and illegitimate gain, and then throw their toys out the pram and blackmail the government when they don't get their way, and especially when those changes are at odds of the will of the people. Governments should not be for sale, period.

They have the right to donate their money to support politicians that put forth legislation that they agree with. If the politician no longer supports that legislation, why should they continue to financially support them?

Community Regular

xbamaris

Posted
Posted

They have the right to donate their money to support politicians that put forth legislation that they agree with. If the politician no longer supports that legislation, why should they continue to financially support them?

The only "right" they have is one that should be illegal. They dont "support" politicians, They manipulate them by throwing and dangling money at them.

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

They have the right to donate their money to support politicians that put forth legislation that they agree with. If the politician no longer supports that legislation, why should they continue to financially support them?

Except for the part where the politicians are supposed to be looking after the interests of the America people, not the interests of the mpaa....yeah...totally...

Mentor

pack34

Posted
Posted

Except for the part where the politicians are supposed to be looking after the interests of the America people, not the interests of the mpaa....yeah...totally...

The MPAA are part of the American people. Should it be illegal for individuals to support politicians that agree with their views? A company is a large group of people.

The problem is that the MPAA isn't paying money to fund those it supports. It's almost blatantly saying that they are giving government kickbacks.

I don't see a difference. Say you were for or against abortion. If there was an election and you could donate to the politician that agreed with your stance then you'd be giving him or her a kickback?

The only "right" they have is one that should be illegal. They dont "support" politicians, They manipulate them by throwing and dangling money at them.

Free speech.

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

The MPAA are part of the American people. Should it be illegal for individuals to support politicians that agree with their views? A company is a large group of people.

I don't see a difference. Say you were for or against abortion. If there was an election and you could donate to the politician that agreed with your stance then you'd be giving him or her a kickback?

So you're saying because these people have money, it's okay for them to think they are entitled to pay to have laws created as they see fit? Even though most of the rest of the country (that they are part of according to you) doesn't want or even agree with those laws? And you're also saying it's okay for them to throw a temper tantrum because the spoiled brats got spanked on the bottom and told "no"?

Community Regular

xbamaris

Posted
Posted

Free speech.

How does that relate in any way to free speach? You're not seeing the point. Your basically agreeing with groups who directly BRIBE our Senators to make the decisons. Not that I entirely blame MPAA because the Senators are actually accepting the BRIBES. But when someone dangles $100,000+ in your face and tells you all you have to do is agree with us and you get $100,000 I doubt you'd say no, and in the end, you are not making your own decisions, your making one because someone gave you money.

If I were the Senators I would accept the bribes then tell MPAA to get lost and vote no to SOPA and PIPA. Free money, at the cost of MPAA's stupidity.

Seriously pack34, you're as stupid as Chris Dodd.

  • MidnightDevil
  • Like 1
Mentor

pack34

Posted
Posted

So you're saying because these people have money, it's okay for them to think they are entitled to pay to have laws created as they see fit? Even though most of the rest of the country (that they are part of according to you) doesn't want or even agree with those laws? And you're also saying it's okay for them to throw a temper tantrum because the spoiled brats got spanked on the bottom and told "no"?

If you have money there is nothing wrong with donating it to campaigns for those who share your views. If the politician you supported no longer supports your views why on earth would you continue to fund them?

How does that relate in any way to free speach? You're not seeing the point. Your basically agreeing with groups who directly BRIBE our Senators to make the decisons. Not that I entirely blame MPAA because the Senators are actually accepting the BRIBES. But when someone dangles $100,000+ in your face and tells you all you have to do is agree with us and you get $100,000 I doubt you'd say no, and in the end, you are not making your own decisions, your making one because someone gave you money.

If I were the Senators I would accept the bribes then tell MPAA to get lost and vote no to SOPA and PIPA. Free money, at the cost of MPAA's stupidity.

Seriously pack34, you're as stupid as Chris Dodd.

Do you have proof that it was a bribe and not a campaign donation? You're just looking at any possible way to show them in a negative light because you disagree with them.

Community Regular

xbamaris

Posted
Posted

If you have money there is nothing wrong with donating it to campaigns for those who share your views. If the politician you supported no longer supports your views why on earth would you continue to fund them?

Holy crap, we're not arguing with that. Your missing the bigger picture dude. Its the fact that they had to FUND THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Mentor

pack34

Posted
Posted

Holy crap, we're not arguing with that. Your missing the bigger picture dude. Its the fact that they had to FUND THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And? I don't see the issue.

corporations are NOT people

Corporations are groups of people.

http://en.wikipedia....rsonhood_debate

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing