RIAA uses poverty as lobbying tool
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- When corporate record industry enforcement organization the RIAA tried to use poverty to get into the hearts and minds of US politicians and their aides, it ran into a problem with ethics.
“The RIAA was forced to send an embarrassing e-mail to members and staffers … informing them that they would have to pay $90 at the door in Denver if they wanted to come and see West perform.”
That’s a clip from a story in The Hill on Monday.
That’s the RIAA, aka Recording Industry Association of America. The one that’s trying to terrorize people into buying ‘product’ made bu its owners, Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US).
And the West? Like the Kanye West, the guy who makes some of the ‘product’?
The very same.
As ABC News put it, “big entertainment companies pulled out all the stops Wednesday night (that was August 27) with a free concert for about 600 select attendees by one of the country’s biggest hip hop stars, Kanye West.”
That was because the RIAA, ” sought to use the ‘widely attended event’ exemption,” explained the Wall Street Journal.
“This allows lawmakers and aides to attend parties thrown by lobbying organizations if two conditions are met. First, there must be at least 25 non-congressional types at the event. Second, there must be some sort of ‘official duty’ component to the event that makes it necessary for the lawmaker or aide to attend. When the liquor industry threw a cigar party on Tuesday, for example, it had a brief presentation on the dangers of underage drinking.
So, to “satisfy the official duty component,” the suborned The One Campaign whch describes itself as an “advocacy and campaigning organization” acting against “extreme poverty”.
“Sponsors planned to make several speeches on the issue, show a promotional video and distribute literature on global poverty,” says the WSJ. “That was enough to satisfy the Senate Ethics Committee, which long ago cleared the party.”
But shortly before the Big 4 schmoozing event began, the House Ethics Committee told RIAA lawyers the party didn’t count as a “widely attended event”.
That, in turn, meant tickets handed out for free to to House members and their aides were considered gifts, which are banned.
So the RIAA had email its ‘guests’ with the bad news. They’d have to pay $90 each to see West do his thing on behalf of the RIAA —- oops, sorry, needy of the world —- to satisfy the rules.
“Everyone I know is taking a pass now,” said “one angry House aide who had a ticket to the event but decided not to go,” as quoted by CQ Politics, which added:
“Jonathan Lamley, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) —- the event’s sponsor —- said they were still expecting a full house. “Many House staffers are in Denver as volunteers for their bosses back home, and have paid for their own transportation and lodging.
” ‘I already paid my own flight and my hotel room to come out here and volunteer nine to 10 hours a day, and I can’t really afford to shell out another $90 for another event,’ said a second House staffer with a ticket. The aide said he would not attend the concert.”
/sigh
The Hill – Questions raised on party rules, September 8, 2008
ABC News – Money Trail: Kanye West Proves Huge Boost for Media Lobbyists, August 28, 2008
Wall Street Journal – Kanye West Bash: Priceless for Some, $90 for Others, August 27, 2008
CQ Politics – Ethics Rules Zap Kanye West Ticket Holders, August 27, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
So one of their little get togethers, which is nothing more than another method of paying for attention, failed to live up to the ethics laws? A shame more don’t fail. I find it hard to see sympathy for those that were billed or those that could not actually go to this because of the little “snafu”.
As usual, the law is full of loopholes for the privileged, made by the privileged. It is a prime example of why I won’t use the national do not call list. After giving them all your contact info for the phone, guess who has unhindered access, despite your expressed desires not to be contacted? I have a simpler, no fail solution that doesn’t require me to give out that sort of info. It’s called turn off the phone when you don’t need it. I pay the bills, it is my right to use my paid for service as I see fit. I am never interrupted by telesalesmen, surveys, nor political campaigning during supper. It is 100% effective and never fails.