Petition Asks for White House Investigation of Chris Dodd, MPAA

A new petition asks the Obama Administration to investigate the MPAA and its president Christopher Dodd for comments he has made publicly about paying politicians to do what the trade group representing the entertainment industry want when it comes to legislation. Dodd is a former Senator from Connecticut. Here's the exact wording of the petition:

"We petition the Obama administration to Investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after he publicly admitted to bribing politicians to pass legislation. Recently on FOX News former Senator Chris Dodd said (as quoted on news site TechDirt), 'Those who count on quote Hollywood for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,' This is an open admission of bribery and a threat designed to provoke a specific policy goal. This is a brazen flouting of the 'above the law' status people of Dodd's position and wealth enjoy.

We demand justice. Investigate this blatant bribery and indict every person, especially government officials and lawmakers, who is (sic) involved."

So far the petition has 21,280 of the 25,000 signatures it needs. You can put your name on it by visiting

Thanks Tom Purdie (@Tom_Purdie). Image Credit:

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    Right, but it is not illegal to make campaign contributions, nor is it illegal to stop making campaign contributions if the politician in question doesn't do what you hoped he/she would.  Again, I'm not saying it's right or ethical, I just don't see how it's necessarily illegal.

  2. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    While I agree with the sentiment, he's clearly talking about campaign donations.  Bribery for all intents and purposes, sure, but in a legal sense?  I just don't see what they think they can charge him with based on just that statement.

Leave a Reply