Electronic Transaction Reporting Slipped Into Senate Bill

StealthyRoid writes "The Senate mortgage bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (who was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from Countrywide, one of the beneficiaries of the bill) includes an attempt to sneak into law a requirement that all electronic payment processors send detailed transaction data to the federal government. The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000. Quoting FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader) from the article: 'This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking.'" This is the same bill that contains a controversial provision to fingerprint all mortgage brokers.

Comments

You have nothing to fear!

[jeffasselin]

There is no danger if you have nothing to hide obviously.

But just to be safe, might want to hold out on that "McCain is evil" book purchase. Just in case, you know?

Note to moderators: this entire post, barring this line, is sarcastic.

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[bryanp]

Considering that it was slipped in by a Democrat (Dodd) and the person blowing the whistle is a Republican (Armey) you might want to warn people about not purchasing the equivalent "Obama Is Evil" book.

You know how you can tell the party affiliations on a Slashdot story? If its negative about a Republican the summary almost always mentions it. If its negative about a Democrat they usually just say "Senator" or 'Congressman" with no party affiliation.

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how you can tell a naive jackass on Slashdot, or for that matter anywhere? They're the ones who still seem to believe the labels "Republican" and "Democrat" still actually mean anything different from each other. Bless our one-party system for keeping its members too busy butting heads over meaningless crap to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[fractalboy]

It isn't just Slashdot. Look back through any recent news article about a Republican who has done something illegal and/or really stupid. You're not only going to see the word 'Republican' much more often, but news stories also like ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party. While there isn't any true intense misconduct in this particular article, all you have to do is look back to Elliot Spitzer's demise as a real example; most news stories did not plaster the word 'Democrat' all over, let alone suggest a party-wide fallout from the scandal. Just the observations of an independent with a pretty staunch disdain for both major political parties....

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[d3ac0n]

Did you read ANY of the responses to your post? If you had, and then checked up on their claims (they are correct, BTW) you would have found that the only thing painfully obvious about your post is that it was a politically motivated post couched in BDS and ignorance, intended to inflame other posters. In other words, a Troll post. You were modded properly.

Nothing personal, I'm sure you are a fine fellow, but your post came off as horribly trollish. I would recommend dumping the BDS. You'll be better off without it.

(BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome: An Irrational fear of anything related to the George W. Bush presidency, and a tendency to blame everything wrong with the US Government, America, the World, and one's own personal life solely on G.W. Bush.)

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[HeroreV]

There is no danger if you have nothing to hide obviously.

I wish we could seriously apply this to laws. Why not create a "Scope" section for bills that specifies what the bill is about and limits its reach? Then interpret the bill such that anything outside the specified scope would be ignored.

Anything nasty trying to sneak in unnoticed would be in danger of going outside the specified scope and being ignored, but anything legitimately related to the bill would not be affected.

Congressmen often vote on bills they haven't read, but perhaps they could at least make time to review scope sections.

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[Stew Gots]

but news stories also like to ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party.

Yeah. The fact that they held the congress for 12 years and WERE incredibly corrupt, got caught practicing wide stances in men's room stalls while preaching family values, faked intelligence data, progagandized the country into a war, illegally spied on Americans, and instituted a policy of torture - to name but a few of their top hits - had nothing to with that. My god, it would be INSANE to speculate if there were MORE shoes to drop!

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[WebCowboy]

It's pretty much the same way with most of the American media.

Well, media is ultimately run and owned by human beings and it is human nature to hold those people who subscribe most closely to your values system in higher regard.

Speaking as an "outsider" (Canadian), American politics seems dominated by two parties that operate by the very same principles (only the logistics/details differ), i.e. the Republicans and Democrats are two different piles of the same stinky, steamy old crap. Republicans are beholden to Big Oil and big corporate conglomerate manufacturers, especially those with rich defense contracts (Boeing, and so forth). This all leads to the perception of the Republicans as neo-imperialist war-mongers out to secure oil-producing colonies to feed the machines of big oil and military, since the political donations/kickbacks there are the richest. The "Farenheit 911" movie plays this up to almost ridiculous levels whilst Republican loyalists deny it all, but the truth is somewhere in the middle: Bushites aren't out to take over the world and set up an evil empire, but their affiliations with oil and heavy industry corporations do have some degree of undue influence on their policies.

Democrats, however, should not sit smug and superior because they behave every bit as distastefully as Republicans. Democrats, to me, are the "Hollywood party". Big Media is owned by Democrat supporters, and as such Democrats can most easily control the message. Yean yeah, I know there is Fox News and characters like Glenn Beck on CNN and the more "left" Democrats always trot out those examples, however for every Fox there are several New Your Timeses out there. Democrats get to control the mainstream message/tone and get more Hollywood campaign dollars and in exchange the big media conglomerates get more of their agenda through into law.

Rather depressing choice you have in the US it seems. Vote for the Elephants and you get four more years of sending soldiers out to "keep Iraq free" and wiretaps and tracking electronic purchases and all sorts of "war on terror" laws to protect us all--supposedly. Vote for the Asses and you can bet that they'll ensure the path to RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood obsolete-business-model-protection legislation is smooth and paved with gold.

Perhaps y'all should try voting for other parties or independents...

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[Stew Gots]

do you not remember Bill Clinton's sexual practices

Sure, but what's your point? Was there some lack of coverage on Clinton? Did the media somehow fail to note that he was a Democrat?

My point is that a very good percentage of news articles about about a Republican doing something stupid are often more about embarrassing and discrediting the party than they are about a thorough depiction of of the events that spurred the story at hand to begin with.

I know but you offer no proof. Because you can't. It's just your perception.

Surveys show that there are substantially (on the scale of 2-5 times) more Democrats than Republicans in journalism.

Enough with this old chestnut, already. The people who REALLY matter, the guys who run the corporations and own the shares are overwhelmingly Republican. They set the agenda. The reporters may lean slightly Dem but if they act against the editorial policies they are unemployed Dem leaning reporters.

Look at all the stories coming out recently (because of the "military advisors" hired by the media but run out of the Pentagon) of reporters finally fessing up about how they were pressured from above to not print anti-war stories or to always have 2 or 3 pro-Administration guests for every anti-war person. Seriously, if the media was so "liberal" how could that possibly happen?

But they don't even ask the question of how douche bag-esque Democrats have been lately.

This very story about Dodd shows how flawed he is. Many scumbag Dems are going to vote for Telecom Immunity today. And I, among many other, will take note of each and every one of them. All I can say is: remember Joe Lieberman. I just wish the Repbulican party would start to hold their scumbags' feet to fire as well.

Re:You have nothing to fear!

[Omestes]

I wouldn't put the onus of this bias on /., though. I've noticed that the media in general has been publishing more Obama stories than McCain stories. I think there is a good (if not healthy) reason for this, too. Obama is more newsworthy.

Like him, hate him, or indiferent to him, you must admit he something different. And not just racially, but his campain is not quite following the historic pattern, his followers are different. John McCain is just another stodgy white-guy, going for oil executives and big money. No big deal.

Not saying who would actually be the best president, since that's completely subjective. Just who is more interesting.

Though anyone who mouths anything partison, or identifies themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" is in my book a fool. If your political views are so narrow as to fit into a tiny category, your doing it wrong.

I myself an a radical moderate, or more susinctly a a fiscally conservative, social libertarian, with pronounced socialist tendencies, who often veers into dreams of anarchy. What party does that make me? Both parties have insightful stances on several issues, why should I just pick one?

you're freedoms can you feel the slip?

[pseudoJax]

yes what we need more govt intrusion into our daily lives sure they won't monitor transactions unless they're over $10000 for 200. but how will they cull this out after the fact? Someday we'll enjoy the freedom and privacy the Soviet Union use to have.

Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip?

[Zymergy]

What this REALLY means is that *ALL Data* will be collected, but PRESENTLY only data for more than $10k or 200 "items" will 'count' (they can and probably will easily pass some bill amendment to remove this threshold).
Obviously, this implies that all of the data will be collected in full anyway, and when you individually hit $10,000.01 or 201 'items' it will meet some automatic threshold and exit their buffer and your transaction are suddenly officially counted in the IRS databases... Great!

Anyone RTFA and notice that this is REALLY about New Data collection on the Taxation of Internet Transactions hidden inside a "Housing Bill"?
I say this because the data "will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee". I also liked this entry in the full bill summary: "Lenders must document and verify borrowers' income with the IRS." (And I thought THREE independent Consumer Credit Reporting bureaus were sufficient, but NO! now we must directly involve the IRS too for every purchase over $10k)?
Read it for yourself: http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L62HR3221Houseamendments0618SN.pdf

Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip?

[pseudorand]

I think you're reading that wrong. Granted, in full /. for, I haven't RTFA, but from the summary, I understand that small businesses that have less than 200 transactions totaling less than $10,000 dollars will be excluded from the reporting requirement. But that $0.99 fun-size candy bar that you charged to your Wells Fargo VISA will be reported to the government, because both VISA and Wells Fargo have far more than 200 transactions and $10,000. So don't go thinking this doesn't effect you because your transactions are two few or two small. The provision simply protects small businesses (very small businesses) from burdensome reporting requirements, but all consumers are fair game.

Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip?

[Reziac]

I did RTFA, all of it, and I believe your interpretation, and that of the parent, are exactly correct. This is principally a backdoor tax on internet sales, and designed to catch all the small transactions that have hitherto slipped through the cracks.

The problem here is that for most of these very small businesses, being ignored by the taxman is the difference between life and death for their business. So most of the impacted very-small businesses will simply close up shop, because if taxes are rigidly applied, they are no longer even marginally profitable.

Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip?

[Reziac]

An AC protests, "Why exactly is it a problem if they go out of business for breaking the law?"

While technically correct, very small businesses are already at a severe tax disadvantage. Frex, if you have a "hobby business" (one which does not produce enough income to live on, or which for whatever technicality is not considered a fulltime business by the IRS -- small livestock producers often fall into this category), you must pay tax on all your income, but you cannot deduct any of your expenses! after taxes, such businesses are liable to wind up in the hole, and no one can stay in business for long if they're not at least breaking even.

So what's wrong with this proposed law is that it puts a further sqeeze on very small businesses, increasing their disadvantage in the marketplace -- disadvantages that corporations do not experience.

In short, it's yet another discouragement for people trying to get ahead on their own, free of gov't help or hindrance.

And it will actually reduce total tax revenues, since the small income these businesses then won't have at all is now no longer available to put back into the economy (ie. it's no longer taxable income for someone else, because this income no longer exists).

Sometimes when you squeeze too hard, you wind up with nothing at all.

All the better...

[Jaysyn]

... to tax you with, my dear.

Re:All the better...

[Applekid]

... to tax you with, my dear. Funny delivery yes, but not so funny realities. It's clearly paving the way for the federal government to track that persnickity little inter-state commerce that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the country. I'm sure the twinkling in the eyes has at least some part about taking a cut, or at the very least taking a cut for the states (since congress is elected via the state, they're job is to bring home the bacon).

Won't come to pass anyway

[necro81]

The White House is planning on vetoing it.

Re:Won't come to pass anyway

[chill]

Hey! He still has a few months left. There is a possibility -- however slim -- that TWO good things could come from this administration!

Re:Won't come to pass anyway

[Arccot]

Hey! He still has a few months left. There is a possibility -- however slim -- that TWO good things could come from this administration!

The 1st good thing being he's leaving?

Re:Won't come to pass anyway

[Hatta]

Here's #2.

Re:Won't come to pass anyway

[Ender77]

The reason they will veto is is because: "In a statement, the White House strongly objected to provisions of the bill that would send $4 billion in aid to communities hard-hit by foreclosures, faulted other spending plans and changes in how regulators oversee housing programs. " It is NOT for an altruism motive.

Is this the basis for a tax?

[Lord Grey]

From TFA:

A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

The summary says that the minimum reporting is under $10K (USD) or under 200 transactions, but the article shows an and.

Aside from that nitpick, how is this supposed to "raise $9.802 billion over ten years"?

No. no. No.

[Valar]

I keep hearing this "sweetheart deal" thing about Chris Dodd. You know what the actual deal is? A 30 year AR mortgage intro'd at 4.5%. All that means is the man had good credit and timed his purchase well. It's not like that is out of the range for mortgage rates. When I first heard it, I was thinking a no interest mortgage or something like that. Instead, he's paying almost 5%, like the rest of us.

Re:??? WTF?

[cliffski]

presumably to avoid tax fraud. if you are sat at home apparently out of work and claiming state benefits, but in practice have a major ebay store that brings in $80,000 a year, then the federal government would like to

1) tax you
and
2) stop paying you benefits.

How is this not fair? Like many companies, I do most of my business on-line, and have no noticeable bricks and mortar premises. If it wasn't for banks reporting to the govt what I earned, I could pretend to be earning nothing, and pay not a penny in a tax.
Am I missing something here? People really expect the govt to not be interested in small online businesses and taxing them?

my guess

[ProfBooty]

more reported income, so more taxes paid?

Re:Lets take a quick guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real Chris Dodd is a Democrat, but in this case his body has obviously been taken over by those havoc-wreaking Republicans! Invasion of privacy means nothing to them! To think that they have stooped to such base levels of taking over a Democrat's body just to serve their cause!

It is best not to refer to him as a Democrat until it is proved that it is the real Chris Dodd. In fact for the time being it would probably be best to say "A man who claims to be Chris Dodd..."

Now, if it turns out that it is the real Chris Dodd, then of course we have full confidence that his motives are to further, in the best way possible, the social and environmental causes that are vital to this country's continued existence!

Re:??? WTF?

[maxume]

You are missing the benefits of running a cash based brick and mortar business...

As a non-American, can someone explain to me...

[tzanger]

I'm not American, but I have always been surprised about these riders... Why on earth are riders legal? A bill about picking daisies can have a rider about nuclear weapons... there's no connection, they can be introduced any time, and they always seem to be used to sneak in unfavorable laws... Why are they allowed?

Re:As a non-American, can someone explain to me...

[maxume]

Because Congress gets to make their own rules.

There is a mechanism for the various states to get together and amend the Constitution without the participation of the congress, but it has never been used and it is unlikely that it will ever be used.

Re:As a non-American, can someone explain to me...

[throatmonster]

Why? Because the system is seriously f'ed up! Why don't we do anything about it? Um... uh... wait - Lost is about to start!

Re:As a non-American, can someone explain to me...

[Dachannien]

The US House of Representatives has internal rules governing the germaneness of amendments (that is, amendments to bills must be on-topic). The Senate has no such rules, so lots of stuff gets introduced there.

Re:As a non-American, can someone explain to me...

[Tim C]

they can be introduced any time, and they always seem to be used to sneak in unfavorable laws... Why are they allowed?

I think you just answered your own question there.

onos, the gummint knows i sell stuff

[spacefiddle]

Look kids, it's been a fun free ride and all, but if you think the government isn't gonna tax transactions once it figures out HOW to get at those transactions, well, ha ha ha. Sure. Okay.

They take the money you earn while working for a living and use it for corporate welfare and bailing out rich bastards who gamble and lose, so how long do you think they're gonna watch billions of dollars bouncing around the Interwebz before figuring out a way to dip their collective hand in there too?

As for the "freedom watch" website from TFA - you may wanna check out the rest of the site before you send any large donations.

Efforts to regulate carbon dioxide are an attempt by the global Left to gain control of the U.S. economy. lolwut?

Let's stop this "was slipped into the bill" BS

[1 a bee]

A congressional bill, as it evolves and eventually maybe becomes law, is a living document. In every sphere of the real world where multiple authors work collaboratively on a same document, we use content management systems, that allow versioning, attribution, and history. It makes changes to a document transparent. Businesses use it, non-profits use it. Why not demand our Congress to use it and stop this monkey business of "was slipped into the bill"? Sounds like conversation you'd here in the playground, for gods' sake..

Re:??? WTF?

[pjt33]

As usual, the summary is pretty wrong. The "detailed transaction data" of the summary consists of "the annual gross amount of reportable transactions" according to the Senate Bill Summary as quoted in the article - the only information which is less detailed is no information whatsoever. So on the face of it this isn't the intrusion that it's being made out to be.

Yes

[Pheidias]

From TFA:

"Payment settlement entities [...] will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS..."

Although I'm a long-time libertarian, I have to say that if they're collecting ONLY an annual gross dollar figure, and not the details of individual transactions, it probably would help them collect taxes and it would probably be a sensible thing to do in the context of existing laws. Income taxes are stupid in principle, but I can't think of a good reason to apply them only to money that's harder to conceal.

It is a concern that this "gimme a ballpark figure" will eventually become "gimme your customer list" but we can burn that bridge when we come to it...

Kill Bill

[Sethus]

Is it just me, or does this just scream "I want to kill this bill by tacking on all sorts of unrelated things that are completely irrelevant so no one will vote for it, because everyone will hate something about it".

He did get a sweetheart deal

[Shivetya]

According to countrywide he got .5 off his rate because he was a US Senator. He knowingly accepted the VIP designation then tried to claim he thought it meant nothing? He serves and has served on various boards which have some power over this industry? Perhaps his party affiliation is saving him. I bet it is.

Read up on it, http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal

By lowering his rate they effectively handed him $60,000. In other words, Congressmen don't play by our rules. Their ability to regulate the industry means they intimidate without having to lift a finger. Considering his role in this bill and the fact he takes money from Countrywide for his reelection makes the whole thing stink.

and people wonder why crap like this little transaction law slips in. These guys are always slipping stuff in and out trying to avoid our knowledge of what they really do.

Dodd is a crook. He is a liar. He was simply caught and now is trying hide from it.

Re:He did get a sweetheart deal

[nobody/incognito]

bullshit. he got the same rate everyone else was getting, the same rate i got. the only corruption in this case is with the dirty journalists and their stooges. yes, you.

Re:??? WTF?

[Applekid]

I don't really see the privacy angle. If you're not using cash, then a third party is already privy to the transaction, and who knows who has access to it from there. Obviously privacy isn't the buyer or seller's primary concern. It's to everyone's benefit that individuals aren't able to escape their tax obligations through their unconventional business schemes. Why would we want to pay their due? Privacy: the whole thing of "I have nothing to hide" has really taken root. Personally I find it disturbing to use fairness envy ("I pay my fair share, so must everyone else, to the point of invading privacy") to further advances against government-enforced privacy violations. Please refer to Daniel J. Solove's excellent paper on the matter. The point of using, say, a credit card and disclosing to them your transaction is that it's your decision and they are legally bound to their privacy policy. The government has no privacy policy (other than systematically invading it at every opportunity).

Not to say it's never happened before. Terrorists, pedophiles, drug abusers... they all welcome tax evaders as the new bogeyman by which the government can shoehorn new bad laws onto the books with overreaching influence.

So am I for tax-dodgers? No: the people not paying taxes on their ebay stores are ALREADY breaking the law and can ALREADY be successfully prosecuted for it. Financial records can be obtained by subpoena and the proper procedure within the justice system. This bill would force all handlers of electronic payment to account and disclose information at THEIR expense (read: our expense because profit margins sure as hell aren't going to take the hit from government compliance costs). Now justice and investigation doesn't need a warrant or a court order because private companies are now compelled to broadcast this data.

How easily we give up our rights

[tkrotchko]

Well, sure. The government would like to know about your every activity, from breathing, eating, voiding, spending, reading, listening, talking, pretty much everything. The better to tax you, regulate you, imprison you, coerce you.

That doesn't mean we should willing give up that right, nor does it say in the supreme law of the land where the government has been given that power.

Better to let 1 million people cheat on their taxes than 250 million give up every last vestige of privacy.

Re:??? WTF?

[Artifakt]

I do commercial tax prep for an unnamed company, and this is spot on. In 2004, the IRS testified before congress about where they thought the most major tax fraud cases were. The IRS's estimates were that a specific group of Small/Home business filers (the ones using schedule C with just a normal private citizen's 1040/1040A, and not using the commercial tax form 1041 and all the quarterly reporting forms they would have to use if they had employees) were responsible for about 100 billion in tax fraud every year.
        Second place was false filings for the Earned Income Credit, with about 9 billion a year projected loss.
        Congress directed the IRS to focus on the second case first. Some of us saw that cynically - I've heard several fellow tax pros describe it as a Republican dominated congress and executive branch, focusing on the group that doesn't vote or votes Democrat, rather than a larger group that tends to vote and contribute republican. Congress adopted a new set of tax rules that included the "Uniform Definition of a Child (UDC)" rules and told the IRS to go to town.
        Other people, perhaps more charitably, noted that going after the smaller group also tended to catch a lot of dead-beat dads, and was much, much easier to implement. Over the last three years, congress and the tax courts clarified the rules on a lot of business related deductions such as de minimus employee benefits, and cleaned up the tax code re. small business filers. Some significant cases made it through the tax courts during this interval, and my own estimate is the IRS is in a much better position to go after their #1 on their top ten list than they were, and maybe it will start happening. Whether there's a connection to which party is in power is at least debatable.

Re:Another Dodd attack piece.

[russotto]

but when the right points out that Dodd got an effective bribe from a mortgage company before authoring a bill favoring that company, it's an attack?

To be fair to Dodd, _anyone_ could get a sweet deal from Countrywide... that's why they're in so much trouble.

Please....

[VeNoM0619]

Please... as bad as this sounds, but could we PLEASE stop making laws? Every week I feel like there's 1 more thing I can't do, and 1 more thing that I don't want to do but have to.

Could we please just stop making laws? I'm happy with my already limited lifestyle. I'm tired of having to keep up with the list of new obscure laws. We have no more need for lawmakers, everything that we needed for laws has been pretty well ironed out long ago, and any gray areas that have been solved through courts have been good enough.

Why is it that I can list more bad laws than good laws?

Are you watching the same media I am?

[BlackCobra43]

The mainstream "DID CLINTON GET A SLOPPY BLOWJOB????" media, *favoring* democrats? The mainstream "Let's only mention Bush's failings in passing and never his party" media?

There's a reason Republicans (much like yourself, I suspect) blame the "liberal media bias"; reality has a very well-known liberal bias towards not tolerating disgusting slimeballs.

The reason you don't see as many democrats scandals on tv is there aren't as many freaking pedophiles, perverts and corrupted assholes in the Democratic party.

As a little interesting homework, try and make a list of recent indicted Democrats. Then indicted Republicans. Compare. Ponder the "influence of the media on the judges" or whatever apologist bullshit you want to blame THAT on.

Re:I know this is Slashdot...

[d3ac0n]

but could you provide at least one pair of links in the past year from major media outlets (CNN, NYT, and so on), that backs this up.

Fair enough.

How about CNN and William Jefferson

Or, even better, ABC News' slide show on POLITICAL SCANDALS?

Summation on the ABC Slide show from NewsBusters:

* Slide 1, Eliot Spitzer -- No party ID on New York's current Democratic governor.
        * Slide 2, Mark Foley -- immediately labeled "R-Fla."
        * Slide 3, Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- immediately labeled "R-Calif."
        * Slide 4, David Vitter -- immediately labeled "R-La."
        * Slide 5, Randall Tobias (Deputy Secretary of State; April 2007) -- party affiliation not identified, and apparently not known.
        * Slide 6, Bill Clinton -- No Democratic party ID. The slide only mentions Monica Lewinsky. Others, who the BBC 10 years ago referred to as "All the President's Women," are nowhere to be found: Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, and several others. Juanita Broaddrick (backup link)? Surely you jest.
        * Slide 7, Jim McGreevey -- No party ID on the former New Jersey Governor, who resigned in 2004.
        * Slide 8, Larry Craig -- immediately labeled "R-Idaho."
        * Slide 9, James E. West -- No party ID on Republican former Spokane, WA Mayor, 2005. Big whoop, as if a lower-level GOP overlook makes up for the other oversights identified here.
        * Slide 10, Bob Livingston -- GOP Party ID noted in the first sentence.
        * Slide 11, Daniel Crane -- immediately labeled "R-Ill."
        * Slide 12, Gerry E. Studds -- immediately labeled "D-Mass." The Studds scandal dates to 1983.
        * Slide 13, Wilbur Mills -- No party ID on the former Democratic House Speaker.

Summary:

        * Six Republicans immediately identified; one relatively obscure GOP member not ID'd.
        * Four Democratic affiliations not noted; one, involving a matter dating back a quarter-century, immediately identified.
        * One party affiliation not clear, and apparently not known.

Then there is the case of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D). The Today Interview completely IGNORED his political affiliation.

Heck, just go to Newsbusters.org, hit the search feature and put in "Republican, Scandal" or "Democrat, Scandal" You will find HUNDREDS of articles and links to media outlets that back me up.

I'm not trying to claim that either Republicans or Democrats are more corrupt, they both are to varying degrees. The point is though, when you have a National Media ACTIVELY covering up for ONE side, it unevenly loads the presentation of the parties and ultimately, skews elections.

Personally, I think that the template for presenting politicians in ANY news story in ANY media outlet should automatically be [title] [name, first, last] [political party affiliation]. Just automatically, without regard to anything else. Not that I expect it will ever happen. That would be too honest.