Slashdot Mirror
$20 Million on Lobbying Defeats CA Privacy Bill
sphughes writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that banks, insurance companies and other corporations spent more than $20 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses to defeat a recent consumer privacy bill SB773. The story can be found here. These are preliminary figures through July and may actually run much higher. The bill had been modified from opt-in to opt-out but was still killed."
Has there ever been a run on a bank because of a position they've lobbied? If banks are going to be politically active, maybe the choice of bank you use should also be politically motivated from now on.
Make the companies selling your information cut you in for a peice of the profit everytime they sell your information.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Gov. Gray Davis received more than $1 million in contributions from banks, insurance companies and other corporations that opposed Speier's bill.
Looks like the banks are getting good use out of eGray. And who says the Internet can't be profitable.
American democracy is great. Every dollar is represented equally.
I've said it before yes but it seems particularly apt now.
The end of the article mentions two legislators that took the banks' money but then voted against the bill. I'm not sure if we should applaud these folks for voting their mind or treat them as a pariah for taking the cash then not delivering the goods.
In one of Heinlein's books a recurring character defines an honest politician as one who "once bought stays bought".
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
The reason the 2 from SF voted for the bill is because they know that their voting record will be an issue in the upcoming election. Also, once the politickians know that a bill will be defeated, some of them will vote for it if it looks good to their sheep^H^H^H^H^Hvoters, as long as their vote doesn't tip the balance.
These companies need to see that these kinds of actions have consequences.
Have you canceled your MBNA credit cards and told them why you were canceling it?
There are plenty of other banks and Credit card compaines. Time to move your account elsewhere. And vocally explain why.
Until the Supreme Court restores the balance it destroyed with its 1978 decision to equate corporate dollars and legalized bribery with freedom of speech, we can only expect this sort of thing to continue.
... but as we all know, there are potent efforts underway to take that particular voice out of our hands in order to protect the cartels of Hollywood and Nashville, efforts designed to put us back in our place, on the couch, accepting whatever they wish to spoonfeed us.
Even insurrection in the streets is unlikely to do much, as the corporate rhetoric will simply change to "don't give in to mass terrorism, and by the way, here's another two hundred grand for next years campaign." The sole method by which this can be stopped is for the voters to turn these fuckers out for good and put them in the unemployment line, but alas, the latter is prevented by corporate favors granting these useless ex-politicos positions as "consultants," with most of their "consulting" done on the golf course or the beach, while the former is prevented by the Media Cartel's monopoly on widespeard information dissemination which effectively locks everyone out of politics at the federal level who doesn't have millions to spend, thus closing the circle on effective citizen participation in govrenment at the federal level completely.
The Internet may play a role is offsetting this
So, what have any of you done about it, beyond a moment's expression of outrage?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Nonetheless, experts on money in politics say campaign contributions cannot help but influence decision makers -- and that corporations wouldn't donate if they got nothing in return.
Unless you were glued to the business and political sections of the news, the opt-out plan slipped by most of us until we starting getting all of those signature cards in the mail, discretely buried on the inside of the last page of a very boring policy pamphlet, which most people threw away.
Yet here we are today, struggling with the effects DMCA and meekly trying to fend off a slew of similar bad bills that are swirling around us like a bad storm. The pattern is the same - the general public is unaware, the entertainment industry has gobs of money and are buying our elected officials at every turn.
Now, where is that damn letter I've been working on for a month?
I love the way everyone here goes on about the horror of street cameras in Europe and then this slips through without a problem... I think I would rather lose public privacy (what is that anyway ?) and keep my personal privacy.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
The MPAA, RIAA, and Microsoft all misread it as a "Piracy" bill, and lobbied against it, and of course spent more money than the opposition.
Whoops.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
And they wonder why so many people don't even bother to vote any more...... Hey big business! We're Congress...and we're OPEN for business! All it takes ia a few mil and you can pass any law you want!
I am beginning to believe that corruption is the Achille's heel of democracy. South American nations are getting very disenchanated with their own experiements in democracy for this very reason, and America is currently struglling with it at the highest levels of government. Money is a corrupting influence when tied in with politics, and I believe it goes against the very principles democracy is based upon.
I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! It may not solve every problem, but strong, enforced CFR would at least help. The rich and powerful are vastly overrepresented in the legislatures, some effort at restoring balance is incredibly important. This is not about freedom, it is about the health of the democracy. I, for one, reject the notion that spending money is covered by the First Amendment. Speech is saying something. Spending money is buying something.
GOD how did Bush get elected President? I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. Now we have a President that has spent over half of his time in office either on vacation or fund raising, or a combination thereof.
... sorry, I seem to have drifted from my original point ...
Do you really think that politicians are going to pass laws that take money AWAY from them? Get real. These clowns passed the laws ALLOWING this virtual bribery in the first place. Maybe a pol gets into office with the best of intentions, but they quickly discover graft..and it goes downhill from there. Personally, Gray Davis is the biggest disappointment here. Look at the choice I have in November for governor: Davis (a democrat and a crook) or Simon (a republican and a crook). If a state of over 35 million people can't do any better then these two clowns, why even bother to vote?
Politicians seen as self-serving, greedy corporate sock-puppets. News at 11...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
What is wrong with this crowd?
When someone finally in lucky enough to come up with one of the few business models that is actually successfully making money on the Internet everyone has to jumb all over it, and make them out to be an evil empire.
Sidenote: I have to hand it to the makers of eGray. Brilliant pastiche guys. Couldn't have better timing today.
-----
Cast a Cold Eye
On Life, on Death
Horseman, pass by
--W.B. Yeats' gravestone
... to increasingly find that my very own state is mired in the new-age "Pay-litical" system?
Man, that's depressing.
What is relavant:
law.emory.edu/FEDERAL specifically the need to create a
Declaration of independance for the new borderless world of virtual
reality and the internet.
(quoting T.D. of I. July 4. 1776)
"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People
to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal
Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That
to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses
and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
Security.
We all know this can be re-written in accord with the spirit of the above,
perhaps even better, but for the scope of the borderless world of Virtual
Reality and the Internet.
Meaning it is our right, our duty to make them go screw themselves.
If Laws are for sale, then when are we going to get a blue light special,
that we little guys can buy?
Well I got news for you people. The US isn't the only government that is corrupted, evil, money driven, etc. All the governments are pretty much the same. So grow up already and smell what each and everyone of your governments is doing. Of course the same apply to Americans.
Goddammit man, that's genius! If I lived in the U.S. and had money to waste on lawyers, I'd do it. Could that actually work? Any lawyers around care to comment?
do not read this line twice.
I agree with you that the system is broken, but I disagree with you as to the solution - what we need is not campaign finance reform but rather campaign reform.
Let me lay out my assertions:
1) Supply and Demand - Supply always equals Demand, or rather Supply(price) = Demand(price), so solve for price.
2) Laws cannot significantly change Demand(price), all they can do is change Supply(price). Demand(price) is set by the consumers.
Now, in the case of campaigns, "price" isn't money, rather it is the availability of money. Demand(price) measures how much candidates (a.k.a. the consumers) and political parties are willing to sell favoratism for money, and Supply(price) is how much money donors are willing to give to get that favoritism. The Demand(price) curve is set largely by the political parties, while CFR would only change Supply(price) by making it harder for donors to fork over money.
The idea of CFR is that lowering the money supply, you will somehow make the candidates more responsive to the people. What will ACTUALLY happen is the big spenders will be able to ask for more favors for the same amount of money. They will find a way to funnel the money in - look at what happened when we started regulating "hard money" (money given directly to a candidate for him to use directly) - the big spenders simply invented "soft money" (money given to political parties and political action committees) to get around it. When we started regulating soft money, the big spenders simply started donating valuable services (while claiming the services weren't valuable).
OK, if you accept my premise, then CFR won't work. What would?
Remember, Demand(price) is set by the political parties. A candidate must run for two elections - the primary and the general election. Thus he must spend roughly twice as much money (increasing Demand(price)). Remember that the primary is not defined in the laws governing election - it is purely a party function (ther are laws regulating the primary, but there is no law mandating its existance). In my state (Kansas) you CANNOT vote in the primary unless you are registered with that party - thus I cannot pick a Democrat and a Republican that I like.
And that is how the parties control your options - when you vote in the primary, you can only select for one party, and when the general election comes around, you take the options you are given by each party. And so I assert that the primaries are part of the problem, and should be removed from the system.
Since there is no law creating the primaries, how can we get rid of them? First, do NOT allow the parties to use public facilities for the primaries unless they allow every eligible voter to participate. If they wish to exclude all non-party members, then let them use their own damn machines in their own damn locations!
Second, do not allow the parties to ask anything other than "Are you eligible to vote in this district?" Don't let them see if I am a registered Republican or Democrat. It's none of their damn business!
These two steps would greatly de-emphasize the importance of the political parties and their primaries (which is WHY you will never hear a Republican nor Democrat offering this idea up). It would lower the bar for independants, and it would remove a great deal of the cost of getting elected (lowering Demand(price)).
Next, how do we insure that the general election is more responsive to the people?
Binding None Of The Above
Require that for every race, one entry on the ballot be "None Of The Above", and that if there is no plurality (no candidate gets more votes than the others) or if NOTA gets the plurality, then all candidates in that race are disqualified from running for that office this term (that's the "binding" part).
I'd require the second election to happen within 1 month of the first - that way they cannot stall for time.
Consider the last US presidental election. Many of the people who voted for (Bush|Gore) were really voting against (Gore|Bush). Even within their own parties many people said "I really don't like (Bush|Gore), but I won't vote for (Gore|Bush), and I won't throw my vote away". Now, if one of the entries had been BNOTA, how would YOU have voted? I assert that we would have disqualified both Bush and Gore.
Now, some people have said "Yes, but then we might NEVER elect someone". I don't think so - the political parties aren't stupid. Again, consider the last presidential election: Had BNOTA been the law of the land, the Democrats would have said "Yes, he's the incumbent VP, but people don't like him. If the Republicans run anybody worth a damn they will win, and if they run Bush, then NOBODY wins. We'd better run somebody people will like." The Republicans would have reasoned simillarly.
Also, BNOTA makes it easier for third parties to come in. Let's say both the Republicans and the Democrats had run Bush/Gore. Individuals like Nader could have sat back and NOT entered the first race. Instead, they could have spent their efforts convicing people to vote NOTA. When Bush and Gore were knocked out, THEN they enter and campaign. Meanwhile the big parties are scrambling to get another set of candidates ready.
Now, back to the Demand(price) curve -when you have only a month to run your campaign, you are limited in what you can do - there's only so much ad time on the air, so many events you can go to, so many HOURS until the election. A smaller party can blitz just as effectively as a big one.
OK, that's my opinion. If you've read down this far, please think about it before hitting that reply button.
www.eFax.com are spammers
because they certainly haven't given a **** about fighting for it.
Maybe they haven't really given a shit about fighting for it, but do you really think they can match the financial backing that corporations provide to their lobbyists? Corporations have professional lobbyists whose only job is to prod congresspeople to vote their way. Add to that all the bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions, and you have something that is unfortunately much more powerful than a handful of Joe Sixpacks going in after work to talk to their representatives.
As another poster in this thread said, welcome to the Corporate States of America.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Does this shock you? These are the people who said money is speech and corporations have the same rights as people. Ain't radical libertarian Randian capitalism great?!?!?!
All hail Bush! The Maximum Leader For Life!
At least at the federal level....
President: chosen by a vote of confidence by each state legislature. Can serve one 5 year term and must be a military veteran.
Senate: chosen by state legislatures again, can serve up to 3 3 year terms
House of Representatives: chosen at random similar to jury duty from the part of the population of a state never convicted of a felony. Term: 1 year.
Before any bill goes to the President for signing a "Constitutional Court" must read it and vote on its constitutionality. Any act of corruption could be summarily punishable by the US Supreme Court if it makes a constitutionality ruling. Any lobbyist and his/her financial backers found to have been involved would receive the maximum penalty the law provides without any appeal. The message: if you aid and abet government corruption you will be punished VERY severely.
The fundamental flaws in democracy are that (a) it legitimizes any action a politician may take in the eyes of said politician if he/she wins by a strong majority, (b) it gives the majority the illusion that it has any moral authority by sheer fact of being a majority and (c) it establishes a political aristocracy that can't relate to either its working class our bourgeoise constituents if it tried. How many think the DMCA would have been passed if Joe Blow down the street was chosen at random to be the next rep for his district and then was asked to draft a law that would make his little Johnny or Suzy a multiple felon? Hint: it probably wouldn't happen and the lobbyist would probably have gotten a black eye just for asking for such a thing.
I stopped believing in democracy the moment that I realized it's natural conclusion. As Peikoff put it, the face of democracy is the execution of Socrates.
Much of the lobbying involved buying meals, hosting parties or providing favors for politicians and their staffs, ranging from business lunches and dinners all the way to the $24,078 golf game in Santa Cruz that lobbyists for the American Electronics Association last year provided a group of legislative aides.
Perhaps politicians should be required to purchase their own fricken lunches and banned from constituant-backed parties. Then again, such legislation often borders on intrusions into personal freedoms.
BTW, why can't they put that bill up to vote? You only need a million signitures in CA for such. IOW, bypass the greedbags in the state capital by putting it on the ballot as a "proposition", as they are known in CA.
It would be interesting to see what kind of "lobbying" the companies do in TV ads. They have been known to confuse and bomboozle voters also. I remember the Gerymandering compaign where they showed bubbling chemical polutants in the ad when the proposition had just about zilch to due with polution.
Table-ized A.I.
Many, if not all, policies and service agreements include a clause that essentially means "We can change or terminate this policy whenever and however we feel like it."
Bear that in mind.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
(* I am beginning to believe that corruption is the Achille's heel of democracy. South American nations are getting very disenchanated with their own experiements in democracy for this very reason... *)
But replacing it with a dictatorship is hardly a fix. You simply trade a system ran by 50 percent thugs and cronnies to one run by 100 percent thugs and cronnies. A dictatorship is only a "fix" by being able to hide the problems they create (for a while).
Like Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others".
(* I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! *)
I don't think it would help much.
First of all, only the rich would be able to run.
Second, the "contributions" move progressively into more and more indirectness. If you ban *all* contributions to politicians, then the influence seekers will simply start funding ads that are favorable to your election positions.
For example, if you are not allowed to give money to the governer nor run ads for the governer, then you simply run ads that support the *policies* that he/she also supports. This will help the governer's re-election.
Elections are a relative thing. Even though supporting policies is not as strong as direct politician support, the other side has the same handicap. Thus, the *relative* influence will remain pretty much the same.
The only way you can ban such policy-supportive ads is to ban free speech by coorporations, and that will NEVER fly in the USA.
By allowing free speech, you allow those who can shout the loudest to speak the most, and those with money can yell louder/more.
However, I would like to try compaign finance reform just to see how it works out. Sometimes you just have to experiment to know what works and what doesn't. I doubt it will work, but realize I might be wrong.
Table-ized A.I.
If "what someone else said about you" must be revealed to the subject/victim, and the sayer is legally liable for correcting any mistakes plus damages incurred, then is there a problem?
Reputations matter. So do references. Do you expect a bank to grant you a substantial loan if you refuse to provide references such as an employer or business partner?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I've been asked about three times as I've exited the grocery store if I'm a registered voter. "Are you freaking kidding?" I'd ask myself. It's just one more piece of information in all the wrong hands.
1) Allow contributions only from individuals who are eligible to vote for the candidate or on the issue.
2) Limit the size of those individual contributions.
3) Prohibit donations of "services" (including advertising). All money and personal volunteering must be supplied by eligible individuals.
In other words, all Senate campaigns would be financed entirely by adult citizens living in the candidate's own district. PACs could only give money collected from citizens within that district. Phone-callers, leaflet hander-outers and other campaign workers would have to live in the district, etc. Outside entities could not sponsor "public service" advertising related to the campaign.
The media restrictions necessary to implement these rules would be attacked as limits on freedom of speech, but they would really be limits on buying air time. Defining freedom of speech as the freedom to buy the most air time is the key hack that has allowed PACs and others to beat the system, turning democracy into a system of legalized bribery. Gigantic sums of money and sophisticated psychological advertising are not what the framers of the Constitution meant by freedom of speech. Scoping campaign finance would allow democracy to function as originally designed, rather than in its present hacked form.
Why should the person with $100,000 has less of a say than a person with $10.00?
Shouldn't have less, but shouldn't have 10,000 times as much either.
Run for Congress. Do it now!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I would rather have 10 people with $100,000 trying influence legislation than 100,000 people with $10.
Ha! Caught you, troll!
Speier's bill was designed to restrict banks and other financial companies from selling or disseminating information about customers' income and spending to third parties.
The banks already have most of your personal information. This is understandable, considering they provide credit cards, mortgages, loans, etc. Similar reasons apply for insurance companies. They need to know your personal info so they know how high your premium should be. This bill was designed to prevent said institutions from selling that information to third parties without express consent from the consumer. These institutions lobbied against the bill so that they can continue to sell this information to direct-marketing-type people. As much as I personally loathe this practice, it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. They trade bits and bytes for hard cash. They don't give any physical resources, and they get cash.
"Bold as Love"
Here in Minnesota, you can vote in the primary for any party, so long as you are eligible to vote (with same-day registration that's usually not difficult), and only vote in one party's primary.
--
E_NOSIG