Another Game-legislating Politician Eyes White House Run in 2008

Another Game-legislating Politician Eyes White House Run in 2008

December 4, 2006
Early contenders for the 2008 presidential campaign include several candidates with a track record of attempting to legislate video games.

There's Hillary Clinton (D-NY), of course, sponsor of the Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA). She hasn't announced yet, but her candidacy seems a given.

GamePolitics reported recently on the presidential aspirations of conservative Sam Brownback (R-KS). He is co-sponsor (with Clinton and others) of the Children & Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA), recently passed by the Senate.

Add one more game legislating pol to the list. The Associated Press reports Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) may launch his presidential campaign as early as this week. Bayh cosponsored FEPA with Senate colleague Clinton. Considered a centrist, he is the former governor of Indiana.  

Likely candidates who haven't weighed in the video game issue include Republicans John McCain, Mit Romney and Rudy Guiliani as well as Democrats John Edwards, John Kerry (GP: OMG, not again, please...), Tom Vilsack and Joe Biden.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, another possible candidate, hasn't introduced any game legislation, but the Washington Post reported earlier this year that he snubbed Doug Lowenstein by returning a $500 campaign contribution made by the ESA boss. That's obviously a bad sign for the video game industry.
Posted in

Comments

Submitted by Jabrwock - December 4, 2006 at 7:52 am -0500
Although considering how most would have lit the cheque on fire in public, while stuffing movie company cheques in their back pocket, I guess Obama's reaction was showy, but not altogether controvertial. UNLESS he did accept a cheque from the movie industry...
Submitted by Siftr - December 4, 2006 at 7:54 am -0500
he co-sponsored FEPA?
I wouldn't worry about him. he's just a bandwagon whore.
Submitted by BlitzFitness - December 4, 2006 at 8:07 am -0500
As a resident of Illinois, I must remind people the real problem with Obama. HE HASN'T FREAKING DONE ANYTHING YET!!! Can we please vote for people to the office of presidency that have more qualifications than A) is an American, B) is a politician, C) is old enough, and D) speaks with a good voice?

I'm gonna turn from angry to sad now, because last night I learned that of all the presidential hopefuls combined, it seems that I have a lot more in common with Lieberman and Bayh, and I can't really stand either one. This may turn in to a "King of the Cosmos, Prince of the Cosmos: 2008" write-in from me.
Submitted by Benji - December 4, 2006 at 9:33 am -0500
Is it possible to see who has contributed to Obama's war chest? I'm honestly all for pols not taking money from corporate interests, but if he's specifically snubbing the video game industry rather than corporations as a whole, then it certainly begs some questions.
Also, @BlitzFitness: Part of me wants to think that people other than career politicians have a shot at the presidency, and that Obama's relative novelty shouldn't be that big a problem. But part of me agrees with you - he hasn't really done ANYTHING aside from be a highly eloquent senator that I know of. For that reason I sometimes think his campaign will run out of steam way too quickly for him to get the nod as Democratic candidate.
Submitted by Jabrwock - December 4, 2006 at 10:34 am -0500
@Benji

Depends how your campaign contribution laws work down there. Up here it's only required during election time, if it's for something like a party leadership race, it's not required, unless it's a large contribution...
Submitted by Gamer81 - December 4, 2006 at 11:23 am -0500
I don't know if Obama returning the money to Lowenstein is something bad. It could be that he is against government regulation of video games, but doesn't want to take any contribution from the video game industry. This way, no one can claim that he was "bought" off by the video game industry if he votes against video game bills, the way other lawmakers have been bought off by the movie industry like Liar Leland Yee. So Obama returning the money can actually be a good thing afterall.
Submitted by RaZor - December 4, 2006 at 11:36 am -0500
I'm going to be spending a lot of time over break tearing apart a couple political books, first to better analyze my own understanding of politics and then to see whether Obama would make a good presidential choice. Obama is definitely green, but he has charisma and can talk the talk. I agree with Gamer81 about the campaign contribution thing. This could just be a wise political move more than a statement on his personal convictions.

I'm still greatly interested in whether Obama can walk the walk.

And whether he can be nominated for President and avoid getting a crapload of death threats from stupid white supremacists.
Submitted by Brer - December 4, 2006 at 11:57 am -0500
@Benji

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2...

(all numbers are for the most recent election cycle)

Like most congressmen in the US, the vast majority of funds come from rich individual donors (yes, Democrats too,). The top twenty contributors are in that URL above. As for money from other entertainment sources:

RIAA: $2,000
Jim Beam: $1,000
Best Buy: $2,000

I'm not going to count the $9,500 he got from various Telcos.

While I'm on the site, Evan Bayh:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00003762&cycle=2...

His top contributors.

As for entertainment money it looks like it's mainly Comcast for $500 and the National Assoc. of Broadcasters for $2,000. Again (for those of you interested in net neutrality from the other thread) Telcos and/or ISPs are very heavily represented.
Submitted by Brer - December 4, 2006 at 12:02 pm -0500
A side note, BTW, for the people who talk about how Big Business (whether it's Big Telcos, Big Banks, or Big anything else) buys Washington. Of the ten biggest contributing organizations, only #2 (AT&T) and #9 (Goldman Sachs) are businesses. ALL the rest are Trade and Labor Unions. And to demonstrate the recursive nature of all political power, the -biggest- Union contributing to politicians' campaigns? AFSCME.
Submitted by BlitzFitness - December 4, 2006 at 2:36 pm -0500
@Benji:

I understand what you mean. I'm in no way an Obama-basher (I voted for him), but I'm beginning to worry that we have too many chickens and not enough eggs.

@Brer: Interesting find. *Bookmarks*
Submitted by Grahamr - December 4, 2006 at 3:12 pm -0500
Bah! Brownback. Screw him, Mr. Destroytheesrbwithcraftybill man.
Submitted by yuki - December 4, 2006 at 3:33 pm -0500
Hey grahamr

Relax dude, Brownbacks bill is DOA. No judge on earth would back that bill. Aside from 1st and 14th amendment, it runs afoul of any number of laws regarding government take over of private industry.

So, no worries, brownbacks to stupid.
Submitted by Darth_Toxic - December 4, 2006 at 4:39 pm -0500
After reading more stuff about him and all of his agendas and goals, I've decided that if Brownback wins, I'm moving to the freakin' UK.
Submitted by Arion - December 4, 2006 at 5:32 pm -0500
@ BlitzFitness and @Benji

Obama has done PLENTY to earn his respect.

but don't take my word for it..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

or you can ask anyone thats better informed.

plus his books are pretty good reads, too.

And video game legislation is not even close to his priorities, so I don't think he will waste time and money trying.
Submitted by Daniel - December 4, 2006 at 6:47 pm -0500
This is bad. People keep supporting politicians who are in favor of video game legislation. The video game industry needs to fight back against this threat. We need to show politicians that being in favor of legislation against video games is a bad thing, not a good thing.If they start to see it as a minus, instead of a plus, they will stop trying to get games banned and make unfair laws regulating the sale of violent video games. Every body should be able to play these games. The part that really is amazing is that if you go to other web sites, you will see that Jack Thompson is very abusive and mean to anyone who doesn't totally agree with him. He's not a nice guy and he's saying gamers are nasty? If he wants to talk about nastiness, he should look at his own responses to gamers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 11/22/09 at 12:06am
JDKJ: You should get Phil McCraken to help you spackle those banisters.
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:57pm
ZippyDSMlee: Oh in the pirate hunter article I need my song ieda heckled DS,JD,Beemon sic im !!!
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:56pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:no I am tried from prepping the banisters for painting , worked on them from 12 to 4 and 6 to 8...after I got back from the store...got up early got ready...blah...been up all day..I need a nap...
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:42pm
JDKJ: No. You gonna stay up late tonight soldering?
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: JDKJ:Don't you mean Mctite?
Posted 11/21/09 at 11:33pm
JDKJ: @Zip: Neil, Bob, and Lik McTaint. The McTaint brothers. LOL!!!
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:44pm
Flamespeak: I still think military personell, killing other military personell, on a military complex should be handled by military courts.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:43pm
Flamespeak: I could see this a mixture of the two charges rather than just one or the other.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:43pm
Flamespeak: I think this was mainly a person who snapped, but evidence is showing he definitely had strong inlinations to islamic-extremism.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:41pm
Flamespeak: People are trying to claim that Hasan's actions were not terrorism. I don't jump on the 'terror train' like others, however
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:38pm
mentor07825: Britain certainly does deserve it! And the French! God damn it, it was a hand ball!!!
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: mentor07825:Well Brittan dose deserve it....
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:33pm
ZippyDSMlee: Alyric:I don;t hasliburton having to pay back billoins... don;t you love it when the rich roll over the goverment without a care?
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:32pm
mentor07825: I say we nuke the whales, for the benefit of both mankind and the environment.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:28pm
Austin_Lewis: I say we try Al Gore too. I always said he was in on the racket.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:16pm
Alyric: The leaked information proves these organizations knowingly defrauded governments (i.e., taxpayers) out of billions of dollars. Yet there will probably never be a trial.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:15pm
Flamespeak: working on other things makes me angry. I might have had a jet pack by now. :p
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:14pm
Flamespeak: Just thinking of all the time and manpower wasted to try and make things emit less CO2 emmision that could have been spent
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:07pm
Alyric: @Zip: FYI, the construction of solar panels puts out more pollution than any form of energy production. To say nothing of the toxic components of the panels that cannot be recycled.
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:04pm
ZippyDSMlee: I know I know not the point.
Login or register to post shouts