Can't Buy Me Laws: Congress Must Give Back Chris Dodd's Dirty Money

People inside the D.C. bubble often tell stories about lavish fundraisers and the use of campaign cash to shore up votes in Congress. Conspiracy theories about who uses their PAC money, or direct contributions, to bend the ear of powerful committee chairmen and party leaders circulate throughout the capital faster than the Metro.

433px-Chris_Dodd_2_0.jpg

Former Sen. Chris Dodd wants his former congressional colleagues to deliver MPAA-friendly legislation.

Still, the stories are usually hard to substantiate, and publicly members of Congress and their staffs are quick to deny that money has any influence at all. Rarely is the systemic corporate capture of Washington, D.C., on display in such a transparent and ugly way as it was last week.

Former U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, now the head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), has been pushing the passage of Web-censorship bills in both the House and Senate. When Congress shelved the bills last week amid an unprecedented wave of public opposition, Dodd told Fox News:

"Those who count on '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."

Let’s unpack this statement.

The fundraising prowess of political candidates is a hot topic in the media. Talking heads on cable news drone on about one candidate’s ability to outspend another on TV spots, attack ads, radio blocks and the like.

To be sure, the money machine in Washington has a serious and direct impact on the policymaking process, and it poses a serious and direct threat to the institutions we rely on to protect the interests of everyday people.

However, it isn’t often that the person with the checkbook publicly levels threats as blatant as the one Dodd made last week. Usually these quid pro quos happen behind closed doors, or with an unspoken wink and nod.

In some ways, I welcome the frankness. Having served in the Senate, Dodd understands how the process works. Still, we deserve better and we need to stand up and say so.

We can’t guarantee that top lobbyists like Dodd, who have gone through the revolving door in D.C., will become more ethical. But we can demand that our elected officials make it clear to K Street who they are supposed to be representing in Washington — those everyday people who stood up to Hollywood and stopped Congress from passing bills that would have had dire consequences for the Internet, our nation’s biggest economic engine.

Free Press is urging lawmakers to put their money where their mouths are. We’re asking the top recipients of the MPAA’s campaign cash to give the money back. We’re hoping this will send a message to Dodd and all other corporate lobbyists that our nation’s laws are not for sale.

Photo credit: Embajada of EEUU, Buenos Aires, via Flickr

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.

Joel Kelsey

Joel Kelsey, Political Adviser for Free Press, works closely with the policy team to create Free Press' legislative agenda, to develop and implement political strategy, and to work with the FCC and Capitol Hill on media policy issues. Read Joel's full bio »

Comments

businessdoor's picture

Hello,

By businessdoor (not verified) on February 17, 2012

Hi,
Nice post, thanks to you for sharing such information.

Business Plan Writers

luise's picture

great post

By luise (not verified) on February 07, 2012

great post siti

Frederick Heschke's picture

I love reading all the

By Frederick Heschke (not verified) on February 11, 2012

I love reading all the articles you post. We need to fight for our internet freedom.

Please keep the project going, every little counts.

-Frederick Heschke (Muay Thai)

tyresevans's picture

Political corruption is the

By tyresevans (not verified) on February 02, 2012

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though is not restricted to these activities.
The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, some political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.[1] A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".

I hope no body will do this thing..

Vans

Linda Hill's picture

HUH??

By Linda Hill (not verified) on January 26, 2012

Is there not a vast difference between Bill Gates giving a million dollars to Obama and Microsoft Corporation giving a million? I would say there is. A lobby is not one person donating. It is many people influencing. Donating to the campaign of a Senator is one way to get your choice of candidate elected. Handing out flyers, walking door to door, putting up posters are other ways to get your candidate elected. Buying votes is a totally different story. The college kid or the retired person who works on the Senate campaign hardly feels they are going to get a diplomatic post to England. Get real! Support for your personal choices is the American way. Lobbyists are leaches and even as far back as Thomas Jefferson it has been recognized: capitalism's penchant for exploitation of everything it comes in contact with. A strong central government, without influence by corporations, serving the interests of AMERICANS is what this country was founded on.

Mike Wendy's picture

Irony here

By Mike Wendy (not verified) on January 25, 2012

Joe, the irony here is that the same groups - like yours - which have been harping about money in politics all these couldn't have done what happened last week without, er, how should I put it - your supporters' money in politics. Why don't you ask the objects of your supporters' largesse to return the same?

Anonymous's picture

Uh... what? Exactly what

By Anonymous (not verified) on January 25, 2012

Uh... what? Exactly what money do you think went into the protests last week?

Shoo, troll.

Mike Wendy's picture

To Anonymous

By Mike Wendy (not verified) on January 26, 2012

Well, Mr. Brave Anonymous - the efforts of NetCoalition. Also, you try launching your next online demonstration by buying Google's front page to send e-mails to Congress. That's "priceless," right. Come tax time, they'll have to account for that cost, which is likely worth millions. And that's just Google. Simple fact is, $$$ largely from your side of the aisle changed the outcome. And, quite frankly, I agree with it.

Y8's picture

Nice blog.

By Y8 (not verified) on February 09, 2012

Nice blog. Thank you very much for sharing.

Anonymous's picture

There is a difference between

By Anonymous (not verified) on January 26, 2012

There is a difference between an organization choosing to communicate to the public at its own expense, and an organization paying another organization for that same communication. Granted, Google happens to be in the media business, which makes it an influential player on the communication front. But allow me to draw a parallel:

If I tell my ten most politically influential friends that I support and candidate and I would strongly urge them to support that same candidate, that's my business. We Americans have the right to free association and free speech, and if my friends choose to associate with me even after I bother them with poly-ticks, then nothing is wrong there.
If, on the other hand, someone pays me to support a candidate (even if it's the candidate I would have supported anyway), this is lobbying. It is turning money into contacts, relationships, and influence on another's behalf. I think most people believe that those are things one cultivates on the basis of their own merits and efforts, and they find reprehensible the practice of purchasing those things (just think of the names we call people who do this in social, not-overtly-political circumstances - social-[climber, parasite, leech, etc.]). It's this value from which people speak when they say "there's too much money in politics".

No one is saying that individuals from the [financial, entertainment, oil] industry can't talk among themselves and form cohesive political positions. What we are saying is that those people shouldn't create a financial incentive for other people to speak on their behalf. Instead, they should use their own social and political networking skills to convince people of the importance of issues that are important to them. If that includes some ad time to try to persuade the masses on a particular issue, then money will certainly play some role. But for money to buy favors directly from legislators instead of getting in the same line that everyone else does (the one that leads to the ballot box), or to promise financing in exchange for congressional votes instead of explaining your position (absent any financial incentives) in a letter to your congress person like individual voters do, then this use of money is reprehensible.
The supreme court may have decided that corporations inherit the rights of persons. It's unlikely that position will be reversed. However, it must recognize that using money to bypass the general electoral process by creating direct financial incentives for legislators is a form of bribery, and doesn't constitute freedom of speech for either corporations or natural persons.

Gracey Woo's picture

It is an interesting debate

By Gracey Woo (not verified) on January 30, 2012

It is an interesting debate to be sure. It is true that Google used it's media to get the facts, as Google sees them, out to the public. That can be seen to be connected to finances. Hollywood could have done the same via it's own media: adds placed before movies in theaters, on T.V., in News Papers. I'm rather surprised it didn't. What I find interesting here is what the public did with this information. With the internet it was able to read the actual bill, argue with people, explore differing oppinions. Then the public, as individuals, told their elected officials what their conclussions were - and officials listened. If we agree with the out come or not, I have to be excited that the word of individuals ended up trumping the influence of one coorporation. Google may have cpntroled the initial deployment of information, but from there it was able to take on a life of it's own. With access to all internet information, people were abke to learn more. Eventually, both sides will become more proficiant in getting their slanted view out there, but even so, the people have now found a way to get their voice heard as loudly as those paying for Washington's ear. That is kind of cool. I'm still not sure which side I am on. My knee jjerk reaction is always: pave my roads and keep out of my private life. Still, I love that people reacted and something changed.

Mike Wendy's picture

$

By Mike Wendy (not verified) on January 27, 2012

Free Press is corporation, a non-profit one. Last I checked, they have elected to lobby congress. It takes money to do that. And, whe do you think they get it? Only foundations? Sure. Sure.

You should be thankful that all those things conservatives concern themselve about - like the slowness of the Congressional process. Like the 1st Amendment. It freakin' worked to kill SOPA. Free Press and it's supporters used this. Sorry to say. They're part of the so-called influence peddlers you apparently hate.

The only difference here is that you agree with the outcome.

Long live Citizens United. It works.

Mike Wendy's picture

$

By Mike Wendy (not verified) on January 27, 2012

Free Press is corporation, a non-profit one. Last I checked, they have elected to lobby congress. It takes money to do that. And, whe do you think they get it? Only foundations? Sure. Sure.

You should be thankful that all those things conservatives concern themselve about - like the slowness of the Congressional process. Like the 1st Amendment. It freakin' worked to kill SOPA. Free Press and it's supporters used this. Sorry to say. They're part of the so-called influence peddlers you apparently hate.

The only difference here is that you agree with the outcome.

Long live Citizens United. It works.

Raz's picture

Mike Wendy, Any corporation

By Raz (not verified) on February 01, 2012

Mike Wendy,

Any corporation (including FreePress) that attempts to peddle their influence over elected officials by contributing substantial sums of money to their campaign efforts should give any true American citizen (the kind with a heartbeat) grave concern. Corporations are not citizens and there was no legal precedent to support the outrageous decision made in the Citizens United case. The cases on which the decision was based spoke only of extending freedom of speech protections to "media corporations" such as those producing books, newspapers or film. These cases never suggested (implicitly or explicitly) that all corporations should have the same 1st Amendment protections enjoyed by actual citizens.
Our reprentative democracy is dependent upon elected officials serving those who actually elected them. Last I checked no corporation (even after the Citzens United case) can cast a vote in the ballot box. Corporations should be free to publicly state their views and to publicly plead their case before an elected official but using their vast sums of campaign money to wave in the face of elected officials is an affront to democracy not an extension of it.
I have no doubt that people such as yourself who tout the merits of court decisions such as Citizens United would whole heartedly support any future court decisions that give corporations even greater influence over elected officials. For the sake of American Democracy I hope the vast majority of my fellow citizens are as gravely concerned about the Citizens United court decision as I am.

Anonymous's picture

Uh... what? Exactly what

By Anonymous (not verified) on January 25, 2012

Uh... what? Exactly what money do you think went into the protests last week?

Shoo, troll.

Monica Adidas's picture

I agree

By Monica Adidas (not verified) on January 27, 2012

I somehow agree on what you said. It somehow made sense.

Anonymous's picture

Me Too

By Anonymous (not verified) on February 08, 2012

Made sense

Guildford Web Design

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, quality journalism, and universal access to communications.

Learn More »

close [x]

The Free Press Action Fund is member-supported. We don't take money from government, political parties or businesses. Member contributions fuel our work lobbying Congress and the FCC, filing lawsuits and legal complaints, and aggressively advocating for real changes in media policymaking that benefit the public.

Donate To the Free Press Action Fund »

close [x]