"It’s not “getting around” anything. It’s recognizing what the government is forbidden from doing."
Yes, in a way, but also somewhat in the same way as the government was forbidden from having a Hollywood Blacklist, but many people in the government appreciated what the American Legion and Red Channels were doing.
Early on, one of their challenges was that people wanted a bundle including TV, and they didn't have the relationships or want to spend the time negotiating a TV rate. The increase in cord cutting is undoubtedly helpful for Google Fiber
Sounds like some idiotic regulations that the FCC would write with regards to broadcasters and "obscenity." Of course, Techdirt has long had an editorial policy in favor of more FCC control of the Internet, though not in this sort of way.
"For most normal people this would be yet another sign of how broken our copyright system has become, but unfortunately it's the way things work these days. "
Yes, there's a massive penalty for not removing something, but never a real penalty for acting "out of an abundance of caution," here with the takedown. It's the same sort of logic that happens in a lot of other areas-- the FDA gets in trouble if they approve a drug (or rapid test) that shouldn't get approved, but they don't get in trouble for making drug or test (or sunscreen) approvals take longer. So just like the DMCA, their results are biased.
It's how things work these days, but it's also how things have worked for decades, and it's not because of corporate interests or anything like that. It's because, unfortunately, it's what we the people want on average, because "better safe than sorry" sounds good to people.
People make fun of trolley problems, but life is full of real trolley problems.
Yes, it's pretty much the "you didn't build that" argument combined with the same sort of net neutrality / Title II / common carrier arguments that (I believe) were weak for ISPs but are certainly weaker here. (If they do apply to ISPs, they could, I suppose, apply to certain other infrastructure services like DNS or generic hosting or Cloudfare type services, but not social media.)
Right, but the Hollywood blacklist was private, and it was done because of belief that it would hurt their business by doing so. Yes, politicians approved of it, and government investigations or lack of testimony was sometimes evidence used, but the studios had their own investigations and a clearance system for people to dispute their blacklisting. They also were influenced by pressure and evidence brought by private groups like the American Legion.
Certainly the same sorts of analogies apply to censorship of, say, LGBTQ issues in decades past, but there it is much easier for me to argue that I opposed the censorship because there was nothing wrong with the views being suppressed.
In the case of the CPUSA, they were as evil and pro genocide as the rioters on Parler. Yes, in both cases some dupes get swept up along with the truly evil. But both are private actions done to protect business, and in both cases people have and had alternatives, even if not as good.
All of this is to explain why the Hollywood blacklist was quite popular at the time, and why people who support the actions against Parler would support the Hollywood blacklist (and similar actions against Nazi sympathizers) then and probably should support it now. Equally, people could oppose either blacklist without actually being sympathetic to the views.
The second Red Scare's Hollywood blacklist operated in the same way. It was privately organized, even if many politicians approved of it and government investigations provided evidence. The studios did their own investigations and provided a process for people to clear their names. Communists violated their contracts. Communists had alternatives to produce entertainment and get their views across without being part of the major studios; in addition to smaller presses, live action theater was virtually unaffected. Yes, the alternatives weren't as attractive as working with the major studios, but they were still there.
I wholeheartedly agree that the people being banned on Parler are dangerous insurrectionists who believe in violence and indeed often genocide, along with a lot of dupes. That also precisely describes the CPUSA, along with other groups like Nazi sympathizers targeted by the Hollywood blacklist and other private blacklists. I am fine with people being okay with the Parler ban, but they should at least be very understanding of the private, and popular Hollywood blacklist of Communists.
"The 1st Amendment protects a company's right not to associate with those it does not wish to associate with. It also protects against being compelled to host speech it disagrees with. Those are both constitutionally protected things. Section 230 does not change that."
That is true, but surely a similar argument can be made regarding ISPs, net neutrality, and the 1st Amendment? I agree that it's certainly possible to distinguish the situations on the basis of exactly how far state action doctrine goes, what is considered a common carrier, whether the market is a monopoly (natural or otherwise) but the editorial line at Techdirt tends to be very strong about claiming that the result is obvious in all cases, even when taking different lines at slightly different levels in the network stack.
Too, a similar argument can be made about, e.g., the Hollywood Blacklist. Yes, the studios sometimes used HUAC hearings as evidence, but they also did their own investigations, provided an internal clearance process to absolve people of accusations, were motivated by private considerations (even if egged on by many politicians), including pressure from their own customers (notably the American Legion.) I think it's pretty clear that the Hollywood studios had the 1st Amendment rights to impose the blacklist. I think it's also pretty clear that many of the people being discussed today are quite evil, though again anyone who was a loyal believer in the CPUSA was as well. (Many of those today were delusional; equally true of CPUSA members.) During the Hollywood blacklist, there were plenty of alternative presses, alternative publications, alternative theaters, and ways to put out pro-Communist works, just not Hollywood studios. Yet I recall people generally denouncing the blacklist on idealistic grounds (including invoking the free speech and free association of the party members, rather than the studios.) Am I to believe that all those people were in reality Communist sympathizers, or did their liberal inclinations come from some other perspective that should at least be given a fair hearing rather than dismissed?
"I thought there was a diff between a private platform (no shirt no service) and an ISP (we dont care if you are naked)."
Legally, any ISP can claim to either operate a "we don't care what you do service" (a BIAS - Broadband Internet Access Service) or a curated service. The FCC even in the proposed Title II regulations acknowledged (and conceded in lawsuits) that an ISP that forthrightly claims to operate in a curated manner would have a First Amendment defense against net neutrality regulations. They just couldn't claim to be totally open and uncensored yet violate net neutrality. This was, of course, a massive loophole, but still held true even with the Title II regs.
"Is there an example of an existing ISP that is "private" and is censoring their customer's content?"
Yes, there's a handful of unusual religious ISPs (like at least one, JNet, that operates in New York for Orthodox Jews, especially Hasidim) that censor their customers' content on their own request (or the request of their rebbe, whom they follow.)
The First Amendment issue is real, and it did indeed provide a way for ISPs to "opt out" of the net neutrality regulations. Trump and Republicans are being hypocritical, but it's wrong to dismiss the First Amendment argument regarding ISPs unless you want to be equally hypocritical (and lose in court.)
Yep, as you point out, "net neutrality" would actually make it easier for the government to regulate this, which would be similar to the old "Fairness Doctrine." Indeed, Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's dissent in opposition to net neutrality specifically pointed out that regulating Google in this way would be unConstitutional, and yet an obvious extension of some of the pro-net neutrality arguments (such as the claim that market power need not be demonstrated.)
If you're in favor of the FCC enforcing net neutrality, then you're the one paving the way for a brand new Fairness Doctrine. The FCC's entire history is full of censorship and mandating fairness. It's exactly the lack of FCC regulation that makes the nonsense that Trump is talking about impossible.
I shudder to think what would happen under a Trump Presidency with an active Fairness Doctrine (glad that was repealed) or with an FCC more used to wielding its powers in the name of "neutrality."
Even tactically, why would want the FCC in charge of *anything* until Trump is out of office? Everyone's worst nightmare right now shouldn't be Pai's order staying in place, but Trump having a u-turn and accepting "net neutrality," only with him getting to decide what neutral and fair and balanced is.
Back in real history, the Fairness Doctrine is exactly what the FCC did when they had the power of regulation. It's really not a stretch to imagine an FCC with Title II powers over the Internet imposing a new Fairness Doctrine the way that Trump wants. Luckily, it doesn't have those powers. It's absolutely impossible to regulate edge providers in that way without reversing Pai's order.
Given that Trump is in office, I'd a million times rather have Pai and the deregulatory order than an FCC completely willing to use Title II powers on the Internet (and against edge providers as well) in the way Trump wants. I also shudder to think what he'd be able to do if the Fairness Doctrine were still part of FCC regulations. Sure, it's all very fun and games to call for regulation when you imagine that it's only going to work the way that you want. People who dream about using the Fairness Doctrine to shut down the biased news at Fox News or Sinclair (and who even now have called for the FCC reviewing their TV licenses) would of course rightly be horrified at Trump's idea of "Fairness," as of course that tinpot dictator has had his own stupid ideas about what broadcast networks should have their TV licenses reviewed from daring to question him.
The very existence of Trump and possibility of electing him is a good reason not to have the FCC be the arbitrator of what's allowed on the Internet. He'd wield power the way the old PRI did in Mexico (as seen by how he's using tariffs and granting waivers for them.)
Yes, the frustrating thing is that a lot of what was redacted seems excessive, and not really necessary for the shooter's privacy, more trying to keep the school board from looking bad. It's a pretty common problem when the agency itself gets to decide what needs to be redacted. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that.
The problem with "local and state oversight of ISPs" is that it tends to be used to bolster monopolistic fiefdoms, not ensure competition. They have loved for years to sign exclusive franchises, starting with cable TV, partially because by guaranteeing exclusive franchises you can extract promises like universal coverage. With regulated monopolies, monopolistic profits in wealthier areas can subsidize service in poorer areas. Competition and good rates near marginal cost in the wealthier more educated areas can mean no service in the poorer areas. Local oversight of ISPs created so many conditions on FIOS that Verizon took much much longer to bring it to Baltimore and Boston. The regulation meant that when it did come it may have been more equitable instead of going to just wealthier areas first (the same way that Google Fiber did through their signup "fiberhood" strategy), but it did mean less competition.
When a natural monopoly exists, there's room for regulation. But regulation (which is something separate from antitrust) also tends to decrease the number of viable competitors and encourage monopolies. Regulation is a good alternative when competition can't exist, such as when there's a natural monopoly and antitrust won't work, but don't confuse it for antitrust.
It's quite difficult to simultaneously achieve universal service and equity along with competition and reasonable, close to marginal cost rates in educated and wealthier areas, as those goals conflict.
Because conservatives wanted a network biased towards them, but that still has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which has never applied to cable, as the FCC has always had a much more difficult time regulating media that does not use over the air spectrum.
If you want to complain about biased conservative media that were helped by no Fairness Doctrine, then complain about talk radio, where the example would actually be pertinent.
Huh? NBC is a broadcast network, and NBC News a broadcast program using the airwaves, not cable. You aren't refuting his point at all. In fact, if anything you are only bolstering it with such a bad example.
Luckily the FCC has no power to do this, as even Red Lion and Pacifica look dubious these days to Justices like Thomas. I suppose that Internet regulation under Title II advocates believe that the FCC should have the power to regulate this at the ISP level, but most of them wouldn't gi so far as to suggest regulation of Internet applications and media.
Exactly, he did receive billions in free advertising from news media who treated his campaign as an entertainment spectacle. Are you planning on instituting news censorship as part of campaign finance reform? I don't think anyone is, so it's pretty clear that campaign finance reform wouldn't limit his strategy.
If campaign finance reform makes people liked by the donor class less likely to win the nomination and the election but has no effect on celebrities, then it <i>must</i> make people like Trump more likely to win the election. Celebrities might not get all the benefits from it, but they'll certainly get some, and I would argue a lot.
Similarly, for people pushing on gun control, it's a tremendous mistake to focus on donations. Money coming from pro-gun donors is extremely minor compared to other issues; it's single issue voters driving it. In addition, it's not like the big money corporations like SESTA (they could live with FOSTA); again, that's driven by popular (but mistaken) revulsion at trafficking and a desire to "do something."
There are some issues that donors rank highly and where they have a big influence. However, it's not every issue (and on many issues different corporations push in different directions, like with steel and aluminum tariffs) and it's equally possible that by pushing campaign finance reform you'll get worse policy on other issues, issues you might consider more important.
You're wrong about "all the money" going to Trump. Trump had much, much less campaign contributions than Jeb Bush (or Rubio) in the primaries, and less money than Clinton. He even had less money than Cruz in the primaries (thanks to the Mercers, who have switched to being big Trump backers.) You can check with Open Secrets, the FEC, the Sunlight Foundation, they'll all agree on that.
I despise Trump, but he didn't win because of money and companies, and he didn't win because of the "rich, powerful, and influential." He won the primary because he appealed to people with whom I utterly disagree on trade and immigration in a way that other politicians don't.
If money, especially corporate and big donor money, won primaries and elections absolutely, then Jeb Bush would have won the Republican nomination, and Clinton would have beat Trump.
Misdiagnosing the problem is an enormous mistake, because it causes you to recommend bad solutions. In fact, campaign finance reform probably makes it easier for celebrity candidates like Trump who are already famous and don't need advertising to introduce themselves to the public.
But most of the time when people talk about a "broken Congress," they are complaining that Congress isn't passing enough laws (and don't really care about the details.) This is utter nonsense of a bill, a total disaster, but presumably it will make the sort of people who love bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake jappy.
"It’s not “getting around” anything. It’s recognizing what the government is forbidden from doing." Yes, in a way, but also somewhat in the same way as the government was forbidden from having a Hollywood Blacklist, but many people in the government appreciated what the American Legion and Red Channels were doing.
Early on, one of their challenges was that people wanted a bundle including TV, and they didn't have the relationships or want to spend the time negotiating a TV rate. The increase in cord cutting is undoubtedly helpful for Google Fiber
Sounds like something the FCC would do
Sounds like some idiotic regulations that the FCC would write with regards to broadcasters and "obscenity." Of course, Techdirt has long had an editorial policy in favor of more FCC control of the Internet, though not in this sort of way.
"For most normal people this would be yet another sign of how broken our copyright system has become, but unfortunately it's the way things work these days. "
Yes, there's a massive penalty for not removing something, but never a real penalty for acting "out of an abundance of caution," here with the takedown. It's the same sort of logic that happens in a lot of other areas-- the FDA gets in trouble if they approve a drug (or rapid test) that shouldn't get approved, but they don't get in trouble for making drug or test (or sunscreen) approvals take longer. So just like the DMCA, their results are biased.
It's how things work these days, but it's also how things have worked for decades, and it's not because of corporate interests or anything like that. It's because, unfortunately, it's what we the people want on average, because "better safe than sorry" sounds good to people.
People make fun of trolley problems, but life is full of real trolley problems.
Yes, it's pretty much the "you didn't build that" argument combined with the same sort of net neutrality / Title II / common carrier arguments that (I believe) were weak for ISPs but are certainly weaker here. (If they do apply to ISPs, they could, I suppose, apply to certain other infrastructure services like DNS or generic hosting or Cloudfare type services, but not social media.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, but the Hollywood blacklist was private, and it was done because of belief that it would hurt their business by doing so. Yes, politicians approved of it, and government investigations or lack of testimony was sometimes evidence used, but the studios had their own investigations and a clearance system for people to dispute their blacklisting. They also were influenced by pressure and evidence brought by private groups like the American Legion. Certainly the same sorts of analogies apply to censorship of, say, LGBTQ issues in decades past, but there it is much easier for me to argue that I opposed the censorship because there was nothing wrong with the views being suppressed. In the case of the CPUSA, they were as evil and pro genocide as the rioters on Parler. Yes, in both cases some dupes get swept up along with the truly evil. But both are private actions done to protect business, and in both cases people have and had alternatives, even if not as good. All of this is to explain why the Hollywood blacklist was quite popular at the time, and why people who support the actions against Parler would support the Hollywood blacklist (and similar actions against Nazi sympathizers) then and probably should support it now. Equally, people could oppose either blacklist without actually being sympathetic to the views.
A nuanced argument in favor of the Hollywood blacklist
The second Red Scare's Hollywood blacklist operated in the same way. It was privately organized, even if many politicians approved of it and government investigations provided evidence. The studios did their own investigations and provided a process for people to clear their names. Communists violated their contracts. Communists had alternatives to produce entertainment and get their views across without being part of the major studios; in addition to smaller presses, live action theater was virtually unaffected. Yes, the alternatives weren't as attractive as working with the major studios, but they were still there.
I wholeheartedly agree that the people being banned on Parler are dangerous insurrectionists who believe in violence and indeed often genocide, along with a lot of dupes. That also precisely describes the CPUSA, along with other groups like Nazi sympathizers targeted by the Hollywood blacklist and other private blacklists. I am fine with people being okay with the Parler ban, but they should at least be very understanding of the private, and popular Hollywood blacklist of Communists.
"The 1st Amendment protects a company's right not to associate with those it does not wish to associate with. It also protects against being compelled to host speech it disagrees with. Those are both constitutionally protected things. Section 230 does not change that."
That is true, but surely a similar argument can be made regarding ISPs, net neutrality, and the 1st Amendment? I agree that it's certainly possible to distinguish the situations on the basis of exactly how far state action doctrine goes, what is considered a common carrier, whether the market is a monopoly (natural or otherwise) but the editorial line at Techdirt tends to be very strong about claiming that the result is obvious in all cases, even when taking different lines at slightly different levels in the network stack.
Too, a similar argument can be made about, e.g., the Hollywood Blacklist. Yes, the studios sometimes used HUAC hearings as evidence, but they also did their own investigations, provided an internal clearance process to absolve people of accusations, were motivated by private considerations (even if egged on by many politicians), including pressure from their own customers (notably the American Legion.) I think it's pretty clear that the Hollywood studios had the 1st Amendment rights to impose the blacklist. I think it's also pretty clear that many of the people being discussed today are quite evil, though again anyone who was a loyal believer in the CPUSA was as well. (Many of those today were delusional; equally true of CPUSA members.) During the Hollywood blacklist, there were plenty of alternative presses, alternative publications, alternative theaters, and ways to put out pro-Communist works, just not Hollywood studios. Yet I recall people generally denouncing the blacklist on idealistic grounds (including invoking the free speech and free association of the party members, rather than the studios.) Am I to believe that all those people were in reality Communist sympathizers, or did their liberal inclinations come from some other perspective that should at least be given a fair hearing rather than dismissed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: net neutrality?
"I thought there was a diff between a private platform (no shirt no service) and an ISP (we dont care if you are naked)."
Legally, any ISP can claim to either operate a "we don't care what you do service" (a BIAS - Broadband Internet Access Service) or a curated service. The FCC even in the proposed Title II regulations acknowledged (and conceded in lawsuits) that an ISP that forthrightly claims to operate in a curated manner would have a First Amendment defense against net neutrality regulations. They just couldn't claim to be totally open and uncensored yet violate net neutrality. This was, of course, a massive loophole, but still held true even with the Title II regs.
"Is there an example of an existing ISP that is "private" and is censoring their customer's content?"
Yes, there's a handful of unusual religious ISPs (like at least one, JNet, that operates in New York for Orthodox Jews, especially Hasidim) that censor their customers' content on their own request (or the request of their rebbe, whom they follow.)
The First Amendment issue is real, and it did indeed provide a way for ISPs to "opt out" of the net neutrality regulations. Trump and Republicans are being hypocritical, but it's wrong to dismiss the First Amendment argument regarding ISPs unless you want to be equally hypocritical (and lose in court.)
Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
Yep, as you point out, "net neutrality" would actually make it easier for the government to regulate this, which would be similar to the old "Fairness Doctrine." Indeed, Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's dissent in opposition to net neutrality specifically pointed out that regulating Google in this way would be unConstitutional, and yet an obvious extension of some of the pro-net neutrality arguments (such as the claim that market power need not be demonstrated.)
If you're in favor of the FCC enforcing net neutrality, then you're the one paving the way for a brand new Fairness Doctrine. The FCC's entire history is full of censorship and mandating fairness. It's exactly the lack of FCC regulation that makes the nonsense that Trump is talking about impossible.
I shudder to think what would happen under a Trump Presidency with an active Fairness Doctrine (glad that was repealed) or with an FCC more used to wielding its powers in the name of "neutrality."
Even tactically, why would want the FCC in charge of *anything* until Trump is out of office? Everyone's worst nightmare right now shouldn't be Pai's order staying in place, but Trump having a u-turn and accepting "net neutrality," only with him getting to decide what neutral and fair and balanced is.
Back in real history, the Fairness Doctrine is exactly what the FCC did when they had the power of regulation. It's really not a stretch to imagine an FCC with Title II powers over the Internet imposing a new Fairness Doctrine the way that Trump wants. Luckily, it doesn't have those powers. It's absolutely impossible to regulate edge providers in that way without reversing Pai's order.
Given that Trump is in office, I'd a million times rather have Pai and the deregulatory order than an FCC completely willing to use Title II powers on the Internet (and against edge providers as well) in the way Trump wants. I also shudder to think what he'd be able to do if the Fairness Doctrine were still part of FCC regulations. Sure, it's all very fun and games to call for regulation when you imagine that it's only going to work the way that you want. People who dream about using the Fairness Doctrine to shut down the biased news at Fox News or Sinclair (and who even now have called for the FCC reviewing their TV licenses) would of course rightly be horrified at Trump's idea of "Fairness," as of course that tinpot dictator has had his own stupid ideas about what broadcast networks should have their TV licenses reviewed from daring to question him.
The very existence of Trump and possibility of electing him is a good reason not to have the FCC be the arbitrator of what's allowed on the Internet. He'd wield power the way the old PRI did in Mexico (as seen by how he's using tariffs and granting waivers for them.)
Yep
Yes, the frustrating thing is that a lot of what was redacted seems excessive, and not really necessary for the shooter's privacy, more trying to keep the school board from looking bad. It's a pretty common problem when the agency itself gets to decide what needs to be redacted. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that.
The problem with "local and state oversight of ISPs" is that it tends to be used to bolster monopolistic fiefdoms, not ensure competition. They have loved for years to sign exclusive franchises, starting with cable TV, partially because by guaranteeing exclusive franchises you can extract promises like universal coverage. With regulated monopolies, monopolistic profits in wealthier areas can subsidize service in poorer areas. Competition and good rates near marginal cost in the wealthier more educated areas can mean no service in the poorer areas. Local oversight of ISPs created so many conditions on FIOS that Verizon took much much longer to bring it to Baltimore and Boston. The regulation meant that when it did come it may have been more equitable instead of going to just wealthier areas first (the same way that Google Fiber did through their signup "fiberhood" strategy), but it did mean less competition.
When a natural monopoly exists, there's room for regulation. But regulation (which is something separate from antitrust) also tends to decrease the number of viable competitors and encourage monopolies. Regulation is a good alternative when competition can't exist, such as when there's a natural monopoly and antitrust won't work, but don't confuse it for antitrust.
It's quite difficult to simultaneously achieve universal service and equity along with competition and reasonable, close to marginal cost rates in educated and wealthier areas, as those goals conflict.
Re: Re:
Because conservatives wanted a network biased towards them, but that still has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which has never applied to cable, as the FCC has always had a much more difficult time regulating media that does not use over the air spectrum.
If you want to complain about biased conservative media that were helped by no Fairness Doctrine, then complain about talk radio, where the example would actually be pertinent.
Re: Re: Re: Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
Huh? NBC is a broadcast network, and NBC News a broadcast program using the airwaves, not cable. You aren't refuting his point at all. In fact, if anything you are only bolstering it with such a bad example.
Luckily the FCC has no power to do this, as even Red Lion and Pacifica look dubious these days to Justices like Thomas. I suppose that Internet regulation under Title II advocates believe that the FCC should have the power to regulate this at the ISP level, but most of them wouldn't gi so far as to suggest regulation of Internet applications and media.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Congress?
Exactly, he did receive billions in free advertising from news media who treated his campaign as an entertainment spectacle. Are you planning on instituting news censorship as part of campaign finance reform? I don't think anyone is, so it's pretty clear that campaign finance reform wouldn't limit his strategy.
If campaign finance reform makes people liked by the donor class less likely to win the nomination and the election but has no effect on celebrities, then it <i>must</i> make people like Trump more likely to win the election. Celebrities might not get all the benefits from it, but they'll certainly get some, and I would argue a lot.
Similarly, for people pushing on gun control, it's a tremendous mistake to focus on donations. Money coming from pro-gun donors is extremely minor compared to other issues; it's single issue voters driving it. In addition, it's not like the big money corporations like SESTA (they could live with FOSTA); again, that's driven by popular (but mistaken) revulsion at trafficking and a desire to "do something."
There are some issues that donors rank highly and where they have a big influence. However, it's not every issue (and on many issues different corporations push in different directions, like with steel and aluminum tariffs) and it's equally possible that by pushing campaign finance reform you'll get worse policy on other issues, issues you might consider more important.
Re: Re: Congress?
You're wrong about "all the money" going to Trump. Trump had much, much less campaign contributions than Jeb Bush (or Rubio) in the primaries, and less money than Clinton. He even had less money than Cruz in the primaries (thanks to the Mercers, who have switched to being big Trump backers.) You can check with Open Secrets, the FEC, the Sunlight Foundation, they'll all agree on that.
I despise Trump, but he didn't win because of money and companies, and he didn't win because of the "rich, powerful, and influential." He won the primary because he appealed to people with whom I utterly disagree on trade and immigration in a way that other politicians don't.
If money, especially corporate and big donor money, won primaries and elections absolutely, then Jeb Bush would have won the Republican nomination, and Clinton would have beat Trump.
Misdiagnosing the problem is an enormous mistake, because it causes you to recommend bad solutions. In fact, campaign finance reform probably makes it easier for celebrity candidates like Trump who are already famous and don't need advertising to introduce themselves to the public.
I like your definition
But most of the time when people talk about a "broken Congress," they are complaining that Congress isn't passing enough laws (and don't really care about the details.) This is utter nonsense of a bill, a total disaster, but presumably it will make the sort of people who love bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake jappy.