IPac Calls On Senators to Return Entertainment Industry Money
Congress is embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal. Jack Abramhoff is naming names. Depending on who you talk to, indictments are about to be handed out like hall passes. All of this has made lawmakers touchy about their finances, and some have become downright paranoid.
That's why we weren't totally surprised when we heard that seven of the Senators slated to receive IPac iPods may decline our campaign contributions when they arrive. It turns out that Sen. Maria Cantwell does not accept contributions from any political action committees (PACs), which is an evenhanded position that we respect. Some of the other Senators think that taking these particular legal contributions -- made possible by people like you -- would be unseemly. A spokesperson for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison suggested that such a gift would not be in line with the Senate’s ethical standards.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is great news.
We hope that Senators Smith, Hutchison, Boxer, Kerry, Burns, and Ensign are serious about this higher ethical standard. If our iPods are "returned to sender," then surely they'll have to do the same for other PAC contributions! In the last few years, each of these Senators has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars - sometimes millions - from a variety of industry PACs. In the last year alone, Sen. Gordon Smith has accepted $37,000 from PACs representing TV, movie, and music companies (see illustrated comparison below). Sen. Boxer accepted $43,000 from those industries before being reelected in 2004. No more $5 lattes for you, Senator Boxer!
If these Senators won't return the entertainment industry's money, we hope they'll reconsider our iPods. After all, the devices are totally legal campaign contributions, paid for by ordinary Americans. And they speak to a public interest issue that doesn't get much attention: the balance between copyright law and public interest concerns like fair use and technological innovation. Surely the public's dollars deserve the same treatment as the cash distributed by entertainment industry PACs?
We're still sending iPods to these Senators, and we'll pick new recipients if they are returned. But if they are, we hope that Senators Smith, Hutchison, Boxer, Kerry, Burns, and Ensign have the courage to apply their principles to their other funders.
3 Comments:
I think that any PAC or companies (including groups of companies) funding and "donations" should be made illegal, and it is "a clear and obvious bribe with the sole purpose of swaying a person(s) vote and influence" to serve the provider of the funds.
The American people have a long way to wake the heck up and force government to start acting like they should be acting. We did not elect these (insert colorful verb or collection of colorful verbs) to make themselves and their freinds money.
We elected them to do a job, a job that 98% of them are doing very poorly, and in my opinion doing more harm than good to the average American. The pioneers of this country would be sickend if they could see the state of the government today.
that's a noble POV, but kind of naive.
'Donations' are intended to sway, that is what they've been doing for, god how long now?
Not liking them is poor action; acting by finding a politician that you agree with and voicing your opinion is better. You'd be surprised how much you can get them to do by tossing money to their campaign.
Try it; I guarantee your point of view will change.
Naivety is better than changing a pov towards an ignoble ends. Accepting this "norm" does not make it right. Buying government in these ways is dishonest, selfish, disinterested, and unjustifiable. Greed is never honorable. Only those that wish for a higher level of human integrity will attempt to help change things for the betterment of all. When a few people rule the congressional leadership, then it is not a "democracy"--Mussolini knew this.
Post a Comment
<< Home