[zecho]

Right, but that's politics since before Ike's farewell speech and the whole reasoning behind the Federal Elections Committee. Things are not so black and white. A donation can be as much freedom of speech as can be bribery. What the FEC and related Acts that define it do is to draw (I hope) clear lines in the sand differentiating the two.

I'm well aware that people don't like it and I'm not sure why people are suddenly surprised by Dodd's attitude toward campaign donations. Politics are all about influence. Simply because he wished his donations affected politics in his way doesn't make it bribery in the legal sense of the term.

If anything is surprising to me, because I'm inherently cynical about the political process (some of my best friends work as Senate aides and analysts and have no shame telling me how truly depraved the creation of a bill can be; to them, PIPA was a third-tier issue destined to be lost in bureaucracy should it have passed) it's that SOPA/PIPA have been effectively killed precisely because many politicians aren't necessarily beholden to their donators, that influence from an outside party made a huge difference.

So really, this shouldn't be a question about this one thing that Dodd or any other lobbyist thinks about their money's influence (or lack thereof) on the political process. We should be questioning the nature of money in politics in general. Ike was right, and things have only gotten much, much more incestual since his farewell address. But, as the saying goes, we get the rulers we deserve, especially when big tech, despite their size and money advantage over Hollywood, seems uninterested in playing the same games that Hollywood plays on Capitol Hill.