The political scientist E.E. Schattschneider once called politics “the mobilization of bias.” By this, he meant something both simple and profound. All political battles are fights between competing interests, he noted, but political outcomes are almost always determined by the bias of those paying attention to the conflict. The trick is to make sure you mobilize the crowd that will cheer for you.

The recent extraordinary turn of events in the ongoing debate over regulating internet piracy made for a perfect illustration of Schattschneider's theory. By expanding what he called the “scope of conflict” (i.e., by engaging a public that suddenly seemed to care very much about the issue),  forces arrayed against proposed legislation fundamentally changed the political battle.

Prior to the Wednesday when Wikipedia went dark, most Americans had never heard of legislation known as SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) in the House, and PIPA (the Protect Intellectual property Act) in the Senate.

For months the audience around the issue was dominated by a small group of Washington insiders, tilted in favor of the representatives of Hollywood, who had reason to believe they were on the verge of passing legislation to reduce trafficking in pirated movies, music, and goods. The lobbyists for the movie and music producers had diligently worked the Hill for months to make their arguments (the wheels of friendship and sympathy greased by campaign donations), and everything seemed ready to go.

But then Facebook, Google, Wikipedia and tens of thousands of others changed the scope of conflict in a flash. Harnessing the unique megaphone they had built as content providers, the online companies generated as many as 3 million e-mails to Congress, 7 million signatures and 3.9 million tweets. It was enough to cause many in Congress to wonder whether they had unwittingly kicked a hive.

To many in the Washington commentariat, this supposed David vs. Goliath story presaged a revolution in the way Washington influence would work from now on.  “SOPA protests by Google and Facebook upend traditional lobbying,” wrote Bloomberg News’ Eric Englemen, quoting experts explaining how the tech lobbying effort was “unprecedented” and “trying to reinvent how we carry out democratic politics.”; “Fights are no longer just about which side has the most – or best – lobbyists” wrote Politico’s Anna Palmer under the breathless headline: “K Street’s boom goes bust.”

Would that it were true. For one, the David and Goliath story is mostly a myth. And K Street is for sure not going bust anytime soon.

Yes, Hollywood does spend a lot of money on politics. But so does tech. The Motion Picture Association of American reported $1.3 million in lobbying expenditures through the first three quarters of 2011, and is now run by former Senator Chris Dodd. But Google spent $7.1 million over the same period, and has hired former House Democratic Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, among the 112 lobbyists registered to lobby for the company.  Google’s PACs and employees have given three times the money as the MPAA.

MORE: Political Party Time tracks pro- and anti-SOPA lobbyists.

And, as the Center for Responsive Politics’ Viveca Novak reported, computer and internet companies hired 246 lobbyists to advocate on SOPA and PIPA issues, as compared to 241 lobbyists hired by the TV, music and movie industry.  Companies lobbying on these issues spent $104.6 million combined on these issues in the fourth quarter of 2011. Yes, Hollywood has been at the influence game longer. But tech has been rapidly catching up the last few years.

Moreover, contrary to the Politico article, political fights have never been solely about which side has the most or best lobbyists. Substantial research in political science shows that, once issues are salient enough that there are coalitions and resources on both sides, victory is much more unpredictable. Not that money doesn’t matter. It’s just that there is often money on both sides, and the American system of government has a strong status quo bias. It’s very hard to get bills into law.

In many ways, what happened is a classic story of sunlight working. By calling public attention to a bill that was by most indications a poorly-drafted blunt-force instrument for combating Internet piracy, SOPA’s opponents put the bill back to the drawing board, where both sides will now have a chance to resolve the issue, hopefully in some sort of compromise fashion.

And yet, the way in which content providers were able to use the Internet to mobilize a response was something different. Never before have the content providers been quite so politically engaged and quite so unified. There is an impressive power in all these websites providing a unified message. It is almost as if traditional newspapers and magazines all devoted their front pages to the same blistering editorial on the same day.

And in this respect there is something sui generis about the anti-SOPA lobbying activity. It’s hard to imagine a similar coordinated effort to advocate, say, for a more progressive tax code that no longer taxed passive investment income at a significantly lower rate than salaried income.  This kind of spontaneous uprising is almost certainly limited to issues that hit the Internet content providers where they live. Take a step back, and it looks a lot like the kind of self-interested advocacy that has always dominated politics, with private interests on both sides miming the familiar symbolic tropes of the people and the public good.

Thus, the MPAA’s Chris Dodd wrapped a legitimate concern inside a hyperbole when he said in a statement that “It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.”  The Internet companies that we depend on for content do have an agenda, and too much power in their hands has its own dangers.

So what are we to make of what happened? Part of the lesson here is an old lesson (per Schattschneider), but one worth repeating. The contours of the audience paying attention to a policy usually determine whether that policy ultimately passes. When a broader public gets wind of a crude bill that would transparently benefit a narrow public, that bill is typically rendered toxic and thus politically finished.

It used to be the case that for this to happen, the mainstream media had to be involved in calling attention to the travesty. Those days are disappearing, and this is generally a good thing. By lowering the barriers to entry, the Internet has the potential to make political activism more democratic than ever before, and the SOPA turnaround is proof that it can work politically to engage a broad crowd in short order.

But two major open questions remain:

Can this new model for policy accountability extend to issues that are less of an existential threat to the Internet content providers, or does it depend on the coordinated leadership of the providers? Can other causes replicate the success?

And if the Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, and Wikipedias are becoming new guardians of political accountability, how accountable are they?

It is tempting to be euphoric and say that the day Wikipedia went dark in protest marks a new turning point in the dynamics of power in Washington. But as is often the case, the reality is both less dramatic and more complicated.

MPAA head lobbyist Chris Dodd threatened Congress and the President last week, suggesting that lawmakers should remember that they've been bought, and that if they want to continue to enjoy their piece of the entertainment industry's largesse, they should mind their leash:

"Candidly, 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," Dodd told Fox News. "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."

The corruption here is blatant -- Chris Dodd thinks that his industry's contributions should be able to purchase congressional results. This isn't just money in politics buying access, or systemic corruption, or some theoretical statistical link -- Chris Dodd is threatening the Congress with his industry money.

That money buys votes and affects public policy is nothing new. Boehner wasn't handing out tobacco industry checks on the House Floor in 1995 as party favors, after all. But donors' influence over specific public policy decisions are usually left unspoken, or at least not publicly aired. Chris Dodd's sense of influence entitlement has strayed outside the bounds of normal Washington discourse, and perhaps thankfully so. Dodd is doing a fantastic time of demonstrating everything that's wrong with the system.

On top of the sweetheart mortgage treatment Dodd enjoyed as Senator, he parlayed his position as former Senator to become head of the MPAA, where his connections won him a high salary and influential position. His public pledge to forswear lobbying and related revolving door restrictions weren't even a speed bump on Dodd's path through the revolving door, since directing a team of lobbyists and managing political contributions don't count as lobbying under the law. (Common sense, of course, dictates otherwise -- he's a lobbyist.) Cashing in on connections is often par for the course, as is avoiding lobbying disclosure -- both are de rigueur for former Members of Congress looking for lucrative careers.

But as MPAA head Dodd's signature legislative effort (SOPA and PIPA) ran off the rails, Dodd decided to flex his campaign finance muscles, and threatened his former colleagues to get in line.

And that's where things get weird.

Because Senate Democrats have repeatedly told us that they are interested in protecting the integrity of our elections, and that public service and representation should be protected from the undue influence of money in politics. In fact, here's Senator Chris Dodd, talking about the Citizens United decision:

 "If corporations -- foreign as well as domestic -- are allowed even greater and more direct influence over our elections, our democracy as we know it will cease to exist. I won't stand for that. I urge my colleagues, and the American people, to join me in defense of democracy by supporting this amendment and other interim steps to mitigate the damage done by this decision."

Senator Dodd was concerned about corporations having greater direct influence over our elections, but as MPAA head, Dodd feels empowered to dictate public policy to elected representatives, and strongarm them into passing it.

But this shouldn't be awkward just for Dodd.

In his remarks, he's both threatening and imploring his former colleagues to stay on his side, and to understand that it's his job on the line. In other words, we paid you off, and if you want more industry money, you better toe the line. And by the way, we're friends.

This should be extraordinarily awkward for the rest of the Senate, and especially Dodd's colleagues.  Remember, Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980, and had various leadership and committee positions throughout his career. This isn't a one off backbench house Member. If a Senator with three decades of tenure behind him can do an about face and use campaign cash to dictate public policy, what about the rest of the Senate?

It's shocking to see Senators who usually rail against money in politics ignore the public threats from their former colleague. I haven't seen any public response at all from sitting Senators, while the public perception of the institution is taking yet another hit. While a public White House petition is calling for an investigation of Dodd, the rest of the Senate (and House) have just quietly ignored his threats, at least in public.

That shouldn't be enough. If the former colleague of all these Democratic Senators is going to accuse them of being bought, and threaten to withhold support, the least they can do is deny the influence of the MPAA's money on their actions. If it's not okay to publicly bully Congress with industry money, then somebody should say so.

And if we don't act, this is only going to get worse. All these outside influencers now have tools at their disposal to credibly threaten to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars supporting or opposing candidates, while covering their tracks, if they so choose. If a Senator who has publicly committed to protecting the integrity of representation is willing to bully Members with his industry cash, we can expect this is just a small piece of the action.

We should pass lobbying reform, get real disclosure for super PACs, strengthen ethics enforcement bodies, and follow the money as best we can. And maybe we should be glad when the influential have such hubris that they tell us what they're really up to.

Since you’re reading this, it seems safe to say that you know we haven’t taken our sites dark today. Like many, we find SOPA and PIPA concerning. As we’ve noted before, these bills are antithetical to the idea of a free and open internet—an idea that our work relies upon. We think it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure that this legislation doesn’t pass.

But a big part of Sunlight’s mission is connecting the tech community with the world of political advocacy. And today, of all days, didn’t seem like a good time to go offline. In fact, it’s been thrilling to see tools like our mobile apps being used for anti-SOPA advocacy, and our APIs being used to power the activism of sites around the net.

Although some of the most troubling provisions of SOPA and PIPA are being reconsidered, there’s still plenty of reason to worry about these bills. If you’re similarly concerned, our friends at OpenCongress have a number of suggestions for how to make your voice heard.

About that black bar...

If you're reading this post on our website, you might have noticed the black bar covering our logo. It's there as an expression of solidarity with those opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

SOPA is designed to protect the interests of intellectual property rightsholders more vigorously. Whether or not that's a wise or necessary course of action isn't for Sunlight to say--that's not our mission. But we can say that this bill poses a serious threat to the freedom of online speech. And that's a problem--for an organization that relies on the internet as much as we do, it's a big problem.

It's simply not acceptable for the government to grant itself the power to silence individuals and organizations without appropriate due process. Making this possible would be a mistake under any circumstances; that this extreme threat to free speech is being considered simply to protect an industry's bottom line is outrageous--as is the money that that industry has been spending on the politicians who are trying to pass SOPA into law.