Or, to keep on the topic, this whole COICA thing represents something worse even than controlling the internet. The only people pushing hard against online piracy are the RIAA and the MPAA. The lawmakers who are most heavily funded by these groups are the ones who put forth the legislation. This means, literally, that you can buy legislation. If you have enough money, as a non-elected entity, you can set political agenda and have a huge influence over where tax dollars are allocated simply by contributing enough to a particular campaign.
Obviously this is old news, but rarely is there such a blatent example. I can't imagine too many people would put "internet piracy" at the top of the list of issues facing America today, yet time in both houses is now being used to determine if, what would have to be a steady stream of tax dollars, should be spent trying to harass sites that have a history of lurking in a legal grey zone. The recent case against ISOhunt should show this type of legislation is unnecessary anyways, as a site that knowingly supported piracy was held liable in a court of law. Essentially, we have crony-ism to the extreme here, and in order to ensure full coffers for their next election, politicians are acting as agents for major corporate bodies.
That coming out against piracy is an easy photo op for either party surely helps. Most people will react more favorably to a harsh condemnation of "theft" but probably don't have the stomach for a calm conversation about remodelling internet media distribution copyrights.