Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,

Green Eggs and Hillary

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Just last month the star power of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was the driving force in getting the Entertainment Software Rating Board to re-rate GTA: San Andreas as "adults only" following the infamous Hot Coffee revelations. Clinton called for an FTC investigation, and vowed to introduce legislation aimed at preventing the sale of violent and sexually explicit games to minors.

Now, as ace game journalist and Kotaku editor Brian Crecente reports in the Rocky Mountain News, two powerful game industry figures are hosting a $1,000- a-plate fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton on Sept. 14 at Washington D.C.'s Phoenix Park Hotel.

Entertainment Software Association President Doug Lowenstein and Steve Schnur, worldwide executive of music for game publishing giant Electronic Arts, are co-hosting the breakfast event. An ESA spokesman told Crecente that he was unable to comment on Lowenstein's "private schedule."

In July, Lowenstein reacted sharply to Hillary's criticisms, rejecting her call for legislation and blaming parents for providing mature-themed games to their children.

"The legislation proposed by Senator Clinton is unconstitutional on its face," Lowenstein said. "...we hope that after further reflection and dialogue, Senator Clinton will abandon the bill and work cooperatively with industry...We reject any suggestion that parents cannot trust ESRB ratings...You can introduce all the bills in the world but none of them will ensure that parents exercise the necessary control over the games they buy for their kids."

EDITOR'S NOTE: Can't seem to find my ESA-speak to English dictionary, but apparently "further reflection and dialogue" is spelled m-o-n-e-y.

The Rocky Mountain News story quotes Steven Weiss, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics as saying the breakfast fundraiser has the earmarks of "an industry trying to curry favor with one of its critics...It's hard to separate an individual donor from a high level position they hold in an influential industry group...Whether the organization likes it or not, this fundraiser is going to be seen as an industry-backed fundraiser."

EDITORIAL OPINION: This is a stunning lapse of both ethics and judgement for Senator Clinton. Whether or not one agrees with her previously-stated positions on video game content issues, this is a clear conflict of interest, one in which she is complicit even while her game-related agenda is still in its embryonic stage. The ill-advised fundraiser tarnishes Hillary's carefully-honed image, making her appear like just another Washington pol chasing campaign money, never mind the source.

Nor does it show the ESA or the video game industry in a positive light. By all means, fight the good fight, Doug. You've done pretty well on constitutional grounds up until now. But this... The ESA can claim all it wants that the $1,000-a-plate breakfast is a private matter for Doug Lowenstein. That's a transparent falsehood. Doug Lowenstein knows it. Gamers know it, and everyone in Washington knows it.


  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 27 comments

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 11:45:58 UTC 6 years ago

Hillary further guaranteed her defeat in 2008 and maybe even in her re-election bid next year.

Hillary loses credibility now, just as Gore and Lieberman lost their credibility in 2000, when they were accepting Hollywood's campaign contributions while criticizing them for the content in movies, music, games, and TV shows. And we all know that Hillary will be doing the same thing.

== BearDogg-X ==

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 13:10:38 UTC 6 years ago

Lets be honest . . .

Every lobby throws money at politicians, is anyone really shocked about this?

NRA enjoys a high level of influence due to supporting specific candidates financially.

I agree that it is sad, but I think that the video game industry must play the political game or be constantly under fire by self-righteous politicians. No one is going to support the industry unless they feel that there is something to gain, and the only two things that are important to a politician are money and votes.

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 13:19:48 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Lets be honest . . .

"I agree that it is sad, but I think that the video game industry must play the political game or be constantly under fire by self-righteous politicians. No one is going to support the industry unless they feel that there is something to gain, and the only two things that are important to a politician are money and votes."

I agree. Is it sad, YES, but if it is the only way to keep video games from being constantly attacked by politicians, then so be it.

[info]joserz

August 9 2005, 15:37:20 UTC 6 years ago

Hay this is way politics is played. The only way politicions are educated about a subject is thur money. This may not smell kosher to us but that is how corprate America/politics works. I am surprised it has taken the esrb this long to do something like this.

[info]gamepolitics

August 9 2005, 15:59:51 UTC 6 years ago

I'm not as surprised at the ESA as I am at Hillary. I think she is going to get smacked over this... I have heard that the Washington Post is sniffing around the story.

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 18:00:41 UTC 6 years ago

You are right

Hillary has to walk on eggshells with this.

If her stance doesn't soften people will wonder why she is taking charity "from the enemy". If her stance does a 180 people may treat it like taking a bribe.

I wonder if she is considering this dinner due to erosion in her support, her anti-game stance is popular with some parent groups, but it is at the cost of support from gamers and retailers.

Perhaps she sees this as her opportunity to show that she is willing to have an open conversation with the game industry. . . . (and pick up some cash on the side)

[info]toshirotzu

August 9 2005, 19:40:56 UTC 6 years ago

"I'm not as surprised at the ESA as I am at Hillary." Why? She's been doing the same BS with the religious right just to get some votes. Watch her do a 180 once she realizes that most of the millions of young adults in this country play video games. At least Dean's staying true to the left.

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 16:09:38 UTC 6 years ago

Actually, no one knows anything, and this is infused with a fair amount of speculation.

Doug is hosting a fundraiser, not handing gobs of money to Hillary. And since we all know that money is the language politicians speak best, maybe this is the ESA's way of trying to make nice and getting a rapport going. I'm sure gamers would complain if, say, the ESA invited Jack Thompson to dinner, but if stuff like that makes him shut up, then it'd be worth it, no?

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 16:22:25 UTC 6 years ago

>>Doug is hosting a fundraiser, not handing gobs of money to Hillary.

Hosting a fundraiser is the legal way to hand gobs off money to politicians. The host gets the credit for the donations.

[info]gamepolitics

August 9 2005, 17:01:18 UTC 6 years ago

what speculation?

Please explain. Doug is hosting a fund raiser to give money to Hillary Clinton, who is currently working on a critical issue for the industry for which Doug is the point man.

Where is the speculation?

Anonymous

August 10 2005, 00:03:04 UTC 6 years ago

Re: what speculation?

Doug isn't giving her his money. He's arranging it so other people pay money which goes to Hillary.

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 16:35:57 UTC 6 years ago

What is a young and clueless industry supposed to do?

I enjoyed reading your comments about Sen. Clinton and her recent efforts to spotlight violent video games. You took Doug Lowenstein to task for the fund-raiser he is involved in for Sen. Clinton.

What is a young and politically clueless industry supposed to do? When these "policymakers" start getting on this stuff, money is the only thing that they pay attention to.

The video game industry needs to start acting like real business people and get involved in both legislation and politics. The first amendment argument is wearing very thin and it doesn't pay the campaign bills of Congressmen or state legislators.

The rest of the entertainment industry figured this out awhile ago and the video game companies better clue in real quick and start wearing ties and learning how to form an effective lobbying voice. The ESA has done pretty well but the IEMA and others also need to step up.

This is coming from experience. Out here is WA state, we have both Microsoft and Nintendo plus a bunch of other good video game companies (Valve-Half-Life, Cyan-Mist, etc.) but there are a few do gooders (mostly Democrats) who are sponsoring legislation like Illinois'.

If you want to know more, e-mail me directly at Lmcmurran@wsa.org. Thanks, Lew McMurran, WA Software Alliance

[info]quartermaine

August 9 2005, 16:40:28 UTC 6 years ago

I don't really care....

I don't really care, as long as we can help fight game legislation and keep it from becoming law. This isn't illegal. It really helps the industry.

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 20:42:08 UTC 6 years ago

Editorial Opinion or Editorial Naivete?

"This is a stunning lapse of both ethics and judgement for Senator Clinton." This is stunning? Ethics and judgement don't just lapse around the Clintons, they vanish. "It tarnishes Hillary's carefully-honed image, making her appear like just another Washington pol chasing campaign money..." How out of touch are you? She IS only chasing campaign money. Questionable fund-raising has been the norm for the Clintons since Day 1. With everything else that has happened with the Clintons, if you think this issue is going to do anything to "tarnish" her image, you're blind to the realities of politics. This will go away like everything else.

[info]gamepolitics

August 9 2005, 21:55:41 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Editorial Opinion or Editorial Naivete?

You clearly are approaching this from a Clinton-bashing predisposition.

Of course I realize that all pols need to raise money, especially those facing presidential campaigns.

There is such a bright line between last month's denunciation of the game industry and this fund raiser that I do find it stunning...and stupid on Hillary's part. She's very savvy, so I can't figure what she might be thinking here.

Anonymous

August 9 2005, 23:22:41 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Editorial Opinion or Editorial Naivete?

Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of the Clintons, guilty as charged. Regardless, I don't see how anyone can think they exhibit things like ethical conduct. You've got blinders on if you do. You may like their policies, more power to you, but they are not ethical...and therefore you should not be stunned.

[info]gamepolitics

August 9 2005, 23:35:41 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Editorial Opinion or Editorial Naivete?

It's true that Bill had his ethical lapses. I haven't really felt that way about Hillary.

Hasn't George W had his? Karl Rove his?

Politics, I realize, is a tough game (no pun intended...well, maybe a little one) and deals must be made. I just don't see this deal at this time...

It's a coup (albeit a sleazy one) for the game biz if it comes off. They co-opt their single most powerful opponent before she gets a chance to get things rolling.

Anonymous

August 10 2005, 00:52:41 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Editorial Opinion or Editorial Naivete?

Are you talking about all of the crap that guy made up from The American Spectator? The Arkansas project? David Brock, one of the head guys behind all of that stuff. The Whitewater crap, the guy they claimed Clinton had murdered, and the accusation that Clinton smuggled drugs into the country using a small plane were all made up by him. He even admits it now. Whitewater was a land deal that the Clintons actually lost money on. Most of the stuff we heard about Bill Clinton was a load of bs.

Anonymous

6 years ago

Anonymous

August 10 2005, 01:59:00 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Editorial Opinion or Editorial Naivete?

"Ethics and judgement don't just lapse around the Clintons, they vanish."

LOL!

[info]ferrarimanf355

August 9 2005, 23:44:01 UTC 6 years ago

The anti- hot coffee patch is up...

Get the patch here:
http://nomorehotcoffee.com/

[info]evirustheslaye

August 10 2005, 00:07:23 UTC 6 years ago

patches?

patch the game, removing the mod yet fixing crashes.... heck id rather have a game with sex in it that crashes from time to time... hell i wont even buy the game ill just stick to my PS2 GTA:SA orignal M edition... quick note under the discriptors it says strong sexual content anyway

Anonymous

August 10 2005, 01:13:39 UTC 6 years ago

Re: patches?

x2

[info]gamepolitics

August 10 2005, 03:31:44 UTC 6 years ago

Re: patches?

patches?

we don' need no stinkin patches...

Anonymous

August 10 2005, 04:21:20 UTC 6 years ago

Well I can definitely see this as just a new wave of hate for the popular thing by soccer moms who don't want to admit that they suck at parenting. They always want something to blame it on, first it was rock and roll, now it's video games. I'm sure the industry will weather this crap just fine and come out all right

[info]blackmanta

August 11 2005, 04:16:11 UTC 6 years ago

Interesting article in Baltimore's City Paper

I realize I came in a little late for this one, but this news only serves to confirms something I read last week in Baltimore's City Paper by Russ Smith is his column "Right Field." I'll just cut to the chase where he starts to discuss Hillary and GTA:

It's doubtful that Clinton could tell GTA from a mild game like Super Mario Sunshine, but that hasn't stopped her from attempting to score cheap points with parents who are appalled by a pastime that didn't exist in their youth. My 12-year-old son, who's been gaming since he was in pre-school, is predictably disgusted by the attention Clinton and her "family values" confederates are receiving. As he explained it to me, it's not easy to find the GTA sex scene (in which the characters are fully clothed), but rather takes a few hours of combing through "cheat devices" found on the internet. As others have said, if anyone is determined enough to open the "secret" of GTA, how long would it take to click on a hard-core porn website?

I wonder when Clinton appears on a Sunday morning show like Meet the Press if she's offended by the Cialis commercials during the breaks that warn consumers of the possibility that drug-enhanced erections might last hours longer than desired. Where is her outrage over TV series like HBO's The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Sex and the City? Or FX's The Shield or Rescue Me? And why doesn't she slam the entire televsion world for its purient coverage of murder trials or, more disturbingly, the constant loop of the World Trade Center crumbling on Sept. 11?

I'd rather have my kids fiddle around with fantasy video games than relive the real-life tension of that day.

All this fuss over current forms of entertainment that most adults don't understand is nothing new. Protests by the media and politicians over Elvis Presley's "lewd" gyrations, the Beatles' long hair, the emergence of magazines like Playboy, Lenny Bruce's stand-up comedy, and movies like A Clockwork Orange (which received an X-rating in 1971) seem quaint now.

Parents don't need meddlesome and opportunistic politicians like Hillary Clinton to decide what their kids watch or play. It's a cheap ploy, as a July 24 Los Angeles Times pointed out: "[Grand Theft Auto] also prompted a fresh round of indignation in Washington, where the video game industry has replaced the tobacco industry as the easiest target in town."
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…