Attacking campaign finance is not the way to go, because (a) it can't work, and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to speak.

Consider, all of you that moan about Citizens United: if it's wrong for a corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to SOPA/PIPA?

And there's no way to stop monetary influence on politics. Even in the most draconian case, where all private funding to candidates was banned, with money coming from public coffers, there are countless backdoors. A CEO hoping for special treatment mind just mention something that turns out to make the politician a pile of money in stock trading, for example.

By "campaign finance" I'm referring to direct contributions to candidates (and promises of cushy jobs upon retirement).

You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.

I don't think you can stop money affecting politics any more than you can stop piracy, or stop people from taking harmful drugs, or stop people from saying stupid things, or a lot of other things. In those cases I think the costs of stopping them outweigh the benefits. I just don't see any other way than constant vigilance.

We (I'm speaking for the entire internet community, which is probably a bad thing to do) could also stop pirating as well.

I mean it would be really something if everyone halved their entertainment budget and halved their "illegal downloads/sharing". That would be a significant message as well. It wouldn't be very easy to convince Joe SixPack, but it might be easier than true campaign finance reform.

Am I really being downvoted for suggesting people stop pirating?

Yes, you are. You would probably also be downvoted for suggesting that we "Give peace a chance." As nice a sentiment as it might be, it's more platitude than practicality. You don't even mention why or to what end you're suggesting that people stop pirating, so no one is likely to change their stance or behavior based on your comment.

Moreover, the piracy numbers thrown out by the industry are almost entirely fabricated (it really doesn't seem like they have any good idea about how much piracy is going on), so even if everyone did what you would suggest, the industry would almost certainly blame piracy for their profits falling by 50% anyway.

I agree and thanks for the clarification.

I didn't really think stopping pirating would do anything, just like I don't think we can practically convince people to stop giving MPAA money.

But if we could do the latter, perhaps we could do the former as well? Because if we were able to only do the latter, it would give MPAA and Congress even more reasons to push this kind of shit through.

It seems to me that this solution simply isn't going to work- similar to asking criminals to stop stealing cars/ murdering people.

Hmm, my point is that if we can convince people to give less money to the MPAA (buying movies, movie tickets), we should also discourage pirating those same movies, to avoid the exact scenario Anechoic mentioned.

I don't think its like asking criminals to not be criminals. I thinks more like: "if you want those bullies to pick on you less, try to act less like a dork". Some may feel like it would be betraying their values, but it really would give the bully less motivation to attack your values.

But I agree its unlikely to happen.

The comical thing is that people do argue that infringement raises awareness of a product and thereby increases sales. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but if so it would certainly be at cross purposes to a boycott.