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 07/04/09 at 11:08pm
Andrew Eisen: LGJ - Not that I'm aware of. The Twitter feed was someone else's live blog of the debate.
Posted 07/04/09 at 11:04pm
Leet Gamer Jargon: @AE: Wait, wait, wait: JT has a Twitter account?! Are you serious?
Posted 07/04/09 at 09:24pm
PHX Corp: For those that want to know what i watching it's called man vs cartoon(a.k.a fixing Wile E. coyote's Mistakes one trap at a time by EMERTEC)
Posted 07/04/09 at 08:20pm
GoodRobotUs: Went out for my Mum's 65th Birthday, which is the only relevance 4/7 has in the UK for me ;)
Posted 07/04/09 at 08:18pm
Andrew Eisen: Beach + fireworks + root beer + strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, whipped topping, and pound cake = my Fourth of July!
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:58pm
GoodRobotUs: Which seems to be the only point Jack proved, that some people find some games offensive. i.e. Nothing.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:57pm
GoodRobotUs: The discussion was supposed to be whether games were dangerous not 'Do you find some games offensive'...
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: Some agreed, some didn't, but it was their choice to make, not the governments.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: By asking the audience their opinion, he more or less proved that it's a matter of personal choice
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: Meh, he ended proving Mark's point for him
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:26pm
Erik: Jack if you are reading this you are a LIAR. There is no legal weight to the MPAA's ratings.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:24pm
JDKJ: I still think my buddy the midget who rides a unicycle backwards while juggling four bowling pins would have been a much bigger hit with that crowd. And he can make up statistics and misinterpret studies, too.
Posted 07/04/09 at 06:33pm
Alyric: Of course, Mark falls into the common trap about Columbine, which had nothing to do with bullying, etc. See: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/?GT1=3256 for a more thorough explanation.
Posted 07/04/09 at 06:32pm
PHX Corp: Read this http://www.destructoid.com/sgc-09-liveblogging-the-jack-thompson-debate-138502.phtml#ext
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:54pm
PHX Corp: JT is afraid of such ban then advocates it That's what i call a total Hypocrite
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:50pm
PHX Corp: AE: JT is a -Bleeping- Jackass
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:07pm
Andrew Eisen: JT "knew it would be a good audience." Not what he said on Tuesday.
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:01pm
Andrew Eisen: VG cause violent behavior. VG companies influence behavior to get sales. Yeah, that makes sense. (To be fair, the Twitter feed makes deciphering JT's point pretty tough.)
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:52pm
Andrew Eisen: Yes, it's been proposed but as far as I know it has not been passed. Big difference.
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:50pm
Cheater87: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-video-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm
Login or register to post shouts