Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
44. Not if they are among your top five campaign contributers:
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 10:43 PM
Jan 2012
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026106


Top 5 Industries, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte

Industry Total Indivs PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms $101,369 $72,369 $29,000
Public Sector Unions $75,000 $ 0
Real Estate $70,676 $55,676 $15,000
Health Professionals $63,000 $24,000 $39,000
TV/Movies/Music $55,000 $13,500 $41,500


I know that under the current system, they have little choice but to take money from corporations. That amount is what she has received SO FAR for the 2012 campaign.


If you want to see who gets the most from the Music/Movie industry, here is a list together with their votes, until the blackout and public pressure forced them to rethink that bill.

The largest amounts go to people on the Dem side, like Schumer, Reid, Boxer (big disappointment) Leahy (another big disappointment) and all were ready to vote 'yes' on that bill.

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call

It's beyond blaming them, the longer they are in DC the more they accept how things work there. The problem is the system and that is what must be changed or the people will never be truly represented.

Shorter election seasons would be a start.

It's doubtful, eg, if many of them even knew what it was about. I have read that they are told by the Lobbyists what to think about a particular bill and that they view them as 'experts' so take their word most of the time. The public has little input into this system unless the outrage is so great, they have to listen.


Of course. It is fucking pathetic how transparent they are. Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #1
Utterly dishonest tactics of the authoritarians. woo me with science Jan 2012 #16
Worse is, which Critter(s) will point it out? n/t BadgerKid Jan 2012 #22
Nobody? Factually false, which is tragic considering the indefensible crimes and that proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #57
I understand that you are confused and think these bills are actually about Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #61
Thanks for the post, woo. I have been looking all over the board for you. russspeakeasy Jan 2012 #2
Hey, woo me with science Jan 2012 #7
They say kiddie porn, but it will be used to track filesharing AND pot growers Taverner Jan 2012 #3
Yup. woo me with science Jan 2012 #18
Always. Isn't that what they've mostly used the PATRIOT act for? Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #31
So will that make SSL, HTTPS, VPN and general encryption illegal? MattBaggins Jan 2012 #4
No, that's not how the prospective law was written. boppers Jan 2012 #48
K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #5
Wow. The old Protect the Children Gambit. Disappointed in Debbie. DirkGently Jan 2012 #6
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Wasserman-Schultz's work on this issue cannot be legitimately critiqued. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #8
Please don't defend this fascist crap. LAGC Jan 2012 #11
Well said. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #17
I think it's an ironic way to point at who supports this madness. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #28
Fair points. Thanks for acknowledging there's a massive unresolved problem due to underfunding. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #60
Yeah, I don't think anyone would be opposed to a bill SOLELY to increase law enforcement funding. LAGC Jan 2012 #62
Read and weep: http://protect.org/component/content/article/1196 proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #63
As I said, cloaking this crap in 'kiddie porn' is despicable. Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #27
Don't slime PROTECT.ORG when you don't have any supporting facts and don't know their views on this. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #45
Yes, and Chris Dodd used to be on our side as well Hugabear Jan 2012 #64
And Al Franken. Money talks. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #65
Good point. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #66
If they were so concerned about online child pornography justiceischeap Jan 2012 #42
I guess folks haven't noticed how many of these predators are in elected office :-( Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #49
That's an excellent point. snagglepuss Jan 2012 #53
More like H.R. 1984. /nt Drale Jan 2012 #9
Follow the money, reduce the demand for illegal porn. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #12
I'm not defending any thing Drale Jan 2012 #21
Follow the money, reduce the demand for illegal porn. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #13
You follow the money as explained below - GoneOffShore Jan 2012 #32
The article is from May 2011. Edweird Jan 2012 #10
Try reading more carefully. woo me with science Jan 2012 #14
It wasn't an attempt to 'dis-inform'. Edweird Jan 2012 #24
Thank you. I apologize. woo me with science Jan 2012 #33
Incorrect, if you go to the link for the first article - SOPA sponsor has another Internet bill that quinnox Jan 2012 #15
out of curiosity, any reaction to this quinnox Jan 2012 #19
Hell no, it's not a good idea. Edweird Jan 2012 #23
thanks, I agree quinnox Jan 2012 #25
Now theyre trying to find a scapegoat for SOPA. Initech Jan 2012 #20
How many times can Wikipedia go dark in protest... derby378 Jan 2012 #26
Bullshit Prophet 451 Jan 2012 #29
Anonymous had no problem finding them and exposing them. Maybe they should sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #38
Follow the money: sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #30
Wow, very important information about their contributors. woo me with science Jan 2012 #34
Phhhhhttttt, that's pocket money. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #43
Not if they are among your top five campaign contributers: sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #44
They seem to be catching scads of child porn hawkers even without this. Kablooie Jan 2012 #35
The lobbying has never stopped. I cannot remember which show but there is a pro-SOPA ad on one jwirr Jan 2012 #36
From another thread... krispos42 Jan 2012 #37
Excellent. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #39
Hits the nail on the head.......n/t Rowdyboy Jan 2012 #40
K&R! Louisiana1976 Jan 2012 #41
Jesus... K & R !!! WillyT Jan 2012 #46
I call bullshit. boppers Jan 2012 #47
There's storage for it. If you have a Google account check your web history. joshcryer Jan 2012 #50
Google is not an ISP. boppers Jan 2012 #51
IP's are 4 bytes. MAC addresses are, what, 32? joshcryer Jan 2012 #52
MAC addresses are ripped off the packet at each router hop. boppers Jan 2012 #58
Hell, that would work out well as an excuse for a round of corporate welfare. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #54
It's a hard-drive manufacturer bailout? boppers Jan 2012 #59
When all other excuses fail, it's time to pull out the child porn card meow2u3 Jan 2012 #55
Obviously, then, the solution is to eliminate "the child porn card." proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #56
Always "For the Children". BiggJawn Jan 2012 #67
FYI (off OP topic, but relevant filmmaking) proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #68
Thank you very much. woo me with science Jan 2012 #69
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here we go again. Now it...»Reply #44