MPAA threat sparks White House petition for bribery probe

@ Eduard Coli

I humbly disagree, as oligarchy subtectually implies that there is at least one or two "grown ups" in charge, over here, that have a general clue. In all honesty, I highly doubt that the executive, judicial or legislative branchs could actually fine their own respective asses, without someone else pointing it out. However, for the sake of argument, I will concur.

Not quite..

But the only memory shorter is that of a politician when asked about his pre-election manifesto promises.

... is probably just faulty IT

When I visited the site, 21 Jan, there were 26K+ signatures, which put it over the minimum of 25K sigs required to get an official response.

Just shy of 26,000 now. :)

Lobbying is to Bribery as Sugar daddies are to Prositution.

Here, fixed for you...

Like hell..

Pay them from the public purse, pay them well but make it an offence punishable with a *long* prison sentence if they take money from any other source.

> Make 'em earn their money the old fashioned way*

Ronald Reagan said precisely one thing of use:

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

Vic.

"representative democracy" where we vote on delegates

who make decisions for business is not a true form of democracy - its more of a piss take.

> a "representative democracy" where we vote on delegates who make decisions

Hactually, a representative democracy is where we vote for people to represent us.

I'm not quite sure where that "servant of the Electorate" role morphed into "Lord and Master of the plebeian class" :-(

Vic.

Please clarify:

Did you mean "Why should the government allow the MPAA to influence law when [the MPAA have] been affiliated with organized crime since the 1960s?"

Or did you mean "Why should the government allow the MPAA to influence law when [the government have] been affiliated with organized crime since the 1960s?"

Thank you

For being the only person that understands what was said, instead of being the usual commentard that answers using their own bias as opposed to actually trying to understand something

@ Richard 15 : Yes, but...

(Need a 'Rotten Fish' icon)

I agree from your examples that this is not a bribe, yet there is still something smelly about it.

He expressed annoyance that the politicians concerned didn't act in his favour. His annoyance indicates that he thought that his donation would lead to favourable treatment : it is only the absence of an agreement from the recipient that stops it being a bribe.

His statement clearly says (to me at least) that in future he will only donate to politicians who he can be sure will give him something in return. That arrangement is commonly understood to be a bribe.

Whether it is "technically" a bribe

doesn't change the fact that the whole thing is a f**ked-up system.

These technicalities used to be a nice facade to cover the god-awfully enormous amounts of money sloushing around the system. To cover them at least a little bit.

What's changed in recent years, apparently, is that facades are no longer necessary and people openly speak about the full role that money plays. Obviously Supreme court decisions had a lot to do with this.

nope

The fact they their votes were 'bought' in the first place, without them having the opportunity to change their view, is corruption.

He is not saying he will only write a check to people who's views coincide with his - he is saying he won't write a check to those who 'USED' to agree with him unless they revert back to their original stance. He is bribing them to change their current stance.

You forgot

The nudge, nudge, wink, wink part.