While if the bill was moved through quietly I'd expect it to pass with more than the 60 votes necessary for cloture, I also expect many of those who would have otherwise rubber-stamped the bill to become quiet if someone actually starts making a fuss about it (as Sen. Wyden is threatening to do). Basically this strikes me as the type of bill that plenty of congress-critters would be willing to move through quietly, but who don't want to stand up and try to justify why they're voting for it if people actually start taking a close look at what's going on. As for what Obama would do, considering that so far his administration has been very friendly towards the likes of the RIAA and MPAA (including appointing several ex-RIAA lawyers to top spots in the DoJ), and considering that it's already expressed support towards other internet-censorship initiatives (such as the ICE domain-name seizures), I'd expect Obama to sign it without hesitation if it came across his desk. Thus I'm really hoping it does end up dying with the hold Wyden is placing on it.

We can hope it dies, but more people are going to have to impress upon their representatives? Senators? why it's bad, and they don't want it...
Mind you, saying that, we got our own version, Digital Economy Act 2010, forced through parliament against all public objection, in the last days of the previous government. And I do mean "forced". There was little to no debate on it, or other normal procedures. It was just passed and signed onto the law books.

I don't imagine the US System to be that much different from ours :\ Except they have far more lobbyists buying off the politicians :P
*runs*

You and be both. I do agree that the more people learn of this bill, the more people will find problems with it. I haven't seen many news stories about this bill on the major cable networks, and that is, perhaps sadly, where most people get their news.

Yeah, slightly off-topic, but isn't this pretty much most bills? At least from my admittedly cynical viewpoint, most government officials preach transparency, but secretly work towards more opacity. When I worked for Congress, I often imagined it as a very dirty kitchen in the middle of the night; just turn a flashlight to a certain area and watch the cockroaches scurry for cover.

I agree to an extent and think most government officials would definitely prefer conducting their business out of the public eye, but I also think there's a definite gradient of how willing politicians are to support various bills once they start getting a bit of public scrutiny. You probably have more insight into this than I do, but my feeling is that at one end of the spectrum there are bills that politicians can get behind and feel that the bill is actually working towards the interests of their constituents (and thus are willing to speak up and publicly support these bills), and on the other end of the spectrum there are bills that they know will be selling out their constituents. I also think that bills toward the latter end of that spectrum are the type that while politicians are often still willing to vote for if the bill benefits one of their larger sponsors, they'll back away from such bills if they think their constituents are starting to take notice.

Yep, exactly. From my experience, each member of congress has a few pet projects or causes that they are willing to stick their neck out on; these are the issues that define them, and they are usually the more important issues for their constituents and/or region (e.g. Big Sugar subsidies in Florida, gay marriage legislation in the San Francisco area, Union issues in the Northeast, and etc.). The rest of the issues they vote on are either used to pander to their voters, with increased publicity, or they are used to secure more campaign donations from various lobbying groups, with far reduced fanfare. If a proposed bill cannot be kept quiet, for whatever reason, then it necessarily becomes a bill that must be used for public pandering. Thus, any politician in question often must change they way they would have potentially voted, if only to effect damage control.

lolwhut?

Now, in my case, being a Brit, they may just have a small point....but I've always signed it stating I was a citizen of the UK.

Hell, the last round of signings for this, I made a 3-paragraph speech about how we have a similar situation here with DEA2010 being forced upon an unwilling electorate by the last government, and that PIPA would be more fuel for them to make worse laws in the future.

But then again, it may depend on what they mean by "fake names"....people signing up with internet nicknames? silly, but understandable - especially given the subject matter :P