top | item 3482528

PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed

181 points| llambda | 14 years ago |arstechnica.com

45 comments

order
[+] nostromo|14 years ago|reply
The most interesting part of this article is that PIPA is now effectively a Democratic (capital D) bill with almost twice the number of co-sponsors, in part due to the Heritage Foundation's opposition.

I wish the Democrats would give similar weight to the ACLU or similar organizations. Maybe this is why people say organizing Democrats is like herding cats.

[+] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
The Communications Decency Act, DMCA, and Clipper Chip were all Democratic initiatives, too.
[+] valgaze|14 years ago|reply
In post-SOPA/PIPA follow-through, Calfornians should write Dianne Feinstein's office (no written statement, no co-sponsor movement) and mention her upcoming reelection bid next November. If she doesn't get with the program, perhaps a vigorous primary challenge is needed.
[+] Newgy|14 years ago|reply
Traditionally, Hollywood (run by angry liberals) and the Republican Party are hostile, so this shift is more of politics reverting to the mean. The main reason GOP members were on SOPA was the support of Nashville and the NFL.

This shift is a very positive development, it means the bill is becoming impossible to pass in a Republican House (and where GOP Rep. Lamar Smith has discredited himself by leading fellow Republicans into the SOPA morass).

[+] shaggyfrog|14 years ago|reply
> Another co-sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) echoed that sentiment. He blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for "pushing forward w/ a flawed bill that still needs much work."

What a load of dreck. You're a co-sponsor, there, Roy, not some poor, helpless stooge. Sure, it's all the other guy's fault. Suddenly, it's "flawed". For some reason. Before, it was a perfectly fine bill to censor the Internet. Did I get that right?

[+] joshuahedlund|14 years ago|reply
Yes it's lame, but if that's what it takes for Republicans to back off, then I guess I'll live with it. Now we just have to wait for the Democrats to realize that the public hates the bill and they can't let the GOP score a big PR win - in spite of the 90% of entertainment industry lobbying that goes to Democrats.
[+] artursapek|14 years ago|reply
About 35 Senators have not committed to a position, perhaps reluctant to do so for fear of angering either deep-pocketed Hollywood campaign contributors or their constituents back home.

To me this illustrates the problem with lobbying.

[+] famousactress|14 years ago|reply
Ironically, I read your comment and though I agree completely I tried to consider the opposite argument.. that lobbying is effectively a natural democratic condition since it's done with money that comes from consumers.... BUYING FUCKING MOVIES AND MUSIC.

[Edit: presumably downvotes are for cursing. Sorry, I adore naughty words... To be clear though, the point I'm making is that I'm infuriated at the fact that money I've spent doing exactly what the MPAA/RIAA wants me to (pay for legal content) is being used to limit my freedom. For some reason it's a realization I've only just arrived at, and it certainly makes me want to think twice before feeding the beast anymore. Effectively, this legislation is the best argument for stealing content that I've come across.]

[+] saryant|14 years ago|reply
I called Sen. Cornyn's San Antonio office earlier today to voice my support for the Senator's opposition.

I'm the first to admit that he may or may not actually be in opposition, but calling and telling his office that I'm glad he's publicly stated such is still important.

Please, do the same if your senator has made a similar statement.

[+] brandall10|14 years ago|reply
I have to imagine in the tangled web of politics there may have been many initially 'for' it who really weren't for it in spirit - their position was tantamount to monetary contributions and towing the line.

In the end what truly matters is that that they represent the wishes of their constituents. I find this protest and its results a glorious thing. But we're only getting started. Unfortunately no position changes for CA (at this moment :)).

[+] masonhensley|14 years ago|reply
I did the same but around 2pm. His aide told me that Sen. Cornyn was drafting a letter of some sort to the Judiciary committee in opposition to the bill.
[+] yumraj|14 years ago|reply
I'm a hard core social liberal, but given all this I'm forced to really think if Democrats, particularly Boxer and Feinstein deserve my vote [read: they don't].

I wish there were more fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans.

[+] mdxch|14 years ago|reply
Here are the senators seeking re-election this year. Asterisks indicate those who are newly opposed to PIPA.

  Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
  Tom Carper (D-DE)
  Bill Nelson (D-FL)
  Ben Cardin (D-MD) *
  Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
  Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
  Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
  Jon Tester (D-MT)
  Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
  Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
  Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
  Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
  Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
  Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  Joe Manchin (D-WV)
  Richard Lugar (R-IN)
  Olympia Snowe (R-ME) *
  Scott Brown (R-MA) *
  Roger Wicker (R-MS)
  Dean Heller (R-NV)
  Bob Corker (R-TN)
  Orrin Hatch (R-UT) *
  John Barrasso (R-WY)
  Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
[+] grout|14 years ago|reply
I hope Feinstein gets primaried. Her support for PIPA is sick.
[+] qq66|14 years ago|reply
Ben Cardin is from Maryland.
[+] nl|14 years ago|reply
Embarrassing that more Democrats haven't come out in opposition, especially given the amount of money they traditionally raise from Silicon Valley.
[+] learc83|14 years ago|reply
They also raise a disproportionate amount of funding from the entertainment industry.
[+] rgrieselhuber|14 years ago|reply
Do they have to pay the lobbyists back? (serious question)
[+] potatolicious|14 years ago|reply
Of course not - that would be evidence of bribery. These campaign contributions are "gifts" with "no strings attached" - but good luck getting the money next time!