Telecom Immunity Flip-Floppers Got More Telecom Money

ya really notes a nice analysis by Maplight.org indicating that those Democratic representatives who changed their vote on telecom immunity between March and June received on average 40% more in contributions from telecom interests than those Democrats who held firm. Maplight asks, "Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart? Their constituents deserve answers." Across both parties, representatives who voted for immunity in June had received almost twice as much telecom money as those who voted against. Wired's coverage includes a quote from Larry Lessig, who is on the Maplight board: "Money corrupts the process of reasoning. [Lawmakers] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money."

Comments

Ex post facto is prohibited.

[IonHand]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Re:Ex post facto is prohibited.

[autocracy]

You never hear about it because the phrase primarily is interpreted as applying when somebody passes a law that marks an individual guilty. Making them not guilty isn't so much of an issue (whatever would we have done with slavery laws then?). eggoeater's quote from the wiki addresses that.

What that basically means is that Congress can't say "John is guilty" (bill of attainder), nor can they say "Wearing blue socks on July 4th, 2007 is illegal" if they pass the law on July 5th, 2007 or later.

Although, I admit when thinking about it now, that changing a civil liability law retroactively may not be tested. Curiouser and curiouser.

Re:Ex post facto is prohibited.

[Chris Mattern]

Because it doesn't apply. Laws that retroactively make things legal are not ex post facto under the Constitution. The wikipedia article you cite specifically states that, and that it applies to the telecom bill (to be fair, that probably got added after you referenced it).

Re:Ex post facto is prohibited.

[Pichu0102]

You speak of that as if politicians care about the law unless it meets their own ends.

Re:Ex post facto is prohibited.

[autocracy]

No, it can't. A bill of attainder is specific in that it is equivalent to Congress being able to pass a law saying an individual is guilty of a crime. Nobody's picking up a criminal record or judicial punishment from this law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

Re:Ex post facto is prohibited.

[orielbean]

Look, you quoted the wiki and did not read the end of the US section... "Finally, Calder v. Bull expressly stated that a law that "mollifies" a criminal act was merely retrospective and not an ex post facto law. The current debate over granting telecoms retroactive immunity for their part in warrantless wiretapping is one that does not invoke the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution."

Accountability

[hags2k]

Where is the accountability for this kind of thing? Is it a matter of the information not being readily available, or is it just that people don't bother to do the research and find out just who is lining their leaders' pockets?

When a presidential candidate simply speaking about not taking money from lobbyists is considered a "bold move" by many in the media, it becomes terribly difficult to have faith in any of our political leaders, at least for me.

Re:Accountability

[CauseWithoutARebel]

It is available, but it is obtuse. A nice place to find such information is OpenSecrets.org

And the accountability? It's with you. With me. With our neighbors and fellow slashdotters. We are a Democratic Republic, we are supposed to keep our elected officials in check by removing them or not re-electing them when they become corrupt or simply stop representing our interests, which means one of two things is in play here:

1) The American people, generally, support wiretapping without oversight and don't want to see telecoms punished even if their support of the program was illegal

or, more likely:

2) The American people do not fully educate themselves on these sorts of matters and don't have a full grasp of the implications involved in allowing it. They have abdicated their responsibility of oversight of the government.

We are a lazy and selfish people, my friend. It's going to take some serious suffering on our parts to change that.

Re:Accountability

[Hijacked Public]

is it just that people don't bother to do the research and find out just who is lining their leaders' pockets?

Because that would just be an exercise in sorting out which candidates get their pockets lined by people you agree with. And it would just be a snapshot. By the next day a different set of people, with whom you might not agree, would be buying the votes.

And you'd also find out they are all on the take, so whether you agree with any of it or not you have no ready replacements available.

Then you'd end up highly cynical about politics, and government in general, and you'd be here on Slashdot looking for any opportunity to spread that cynicism to people who show any sign of not yet being fully cynicised.

Re:Accountability

[Gewalt]

Honest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions from not being honest. What's the repercussions for these lawmakers for corrupting their office? Additional campaign contributions?

Re:Accountability

[spun]

Honest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions from not being honest. What's the repercussions for these lawmakers for corrupting their office? Additional campaign contributions?

Dishonest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions. Honest men are honest because that's what feels right to them. Politicians are kept honest by burying them up to the neck in sand, head first.

Re:Accountability

[Sloppy]

They are only accountable if we want them to be. Most people are still considering voting for either McCain or Obama. In other words, most people don't want them to be accountable.

If the people wanted accountability, the symptom would be that in the November election, McCain and Obama would both lose to someone else, as would many incumbents in Congress.

But only about 1% of Americans see a problem with legislation being purchased. Oh, they say they don't like it, but their actions in the voting booth show they're really ok with it.

Re:Accountability

[Hijacked Public]

It's with you

Which is why it can't work. Often, on Slashdot, the answer to a problem is that people need to educate themselves and then, for sure, they'll make choices we all agree with. If they only understood all there was to understand about a given topic the world would be a better place.

And maybe that is true, but it isn't possible. If we start our list of stuff to be concerned about by looking at the front page of Slashdot we find: Telecom Immunity; Bell puffing up the P2P problem; the offensiveness of WTF; whether we should spend money exploring other planets; China's internet censorship; security on the web; and the big one: a SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment.

Even if you can keep up with all of that, Slashdot is just 1 web forum and it is mostly tech focused.

And even with this limited scope you can find plenty of fundamental misunderstandings. Some people above us right here in this discussion have linked to a Wikipedia article about Ex Post Facto. Those linkers obviously either couldn't be bothered to read all the way through the article or they just didn't get it, because it doesn't apply to the discussion at hand. Look at the comments on the SCOTUS story and there are people writing about how Governments grant people rights, which is about as low level a failure at understanding the concept of rights as there is.

So I don't see education or keeping up with things or people getting more involved as a solution, there is just too much data to work with and getting to it is often arduous. And plenty of it is just beyond their ability to understand. The RTFA meme here didn't come up by accident, and half the time the submissions don't link to actual raw information, they link to a blog summary of an AP story of the highlights of the content of a press release about a paper someone wrote.

Even with a somewhat techy, science oriented, crowd there is still an inability to identify and get at the facts behind any given subject. If our discussions in this limited arena constantly devolve into one Overlord Welcoming post after another, how can we expect anyone else to pay attention past the face on their big screen TV telling them what to think?

Re:Accountability

[Dragonslicer]

Where is the accountability for this kind of thing? Is it a matter of the information not being readily available, or is it just that people don't bother to do the research and find out just who is lining their leaders' pockets?

Most Americans are more concerned about the government letting gays get married or average citizens owning guns.

Re:Accountability

[CauseWithoutARebel]

You don't need consensus for a healthy democracy, you just need a factually valid and composed discourse that allows people to vent frustration, air grievances, discuss differences, and share information in a safe and reliable way.

We'll never agree on everything, and that's not necessary. But this country has gotten to the point where no matter how important an issue is (as gaged by prior opinions of importance) that there isn't even a factual discussion occurring. Not only are people disagreeing, they're bickering over the tiniest differences, starting discussions by insulting each other, and concentrating their opinions into feedback loops through both major media outlets and specialized websites/periodicals.

People don't need to know everything, but there should be a way for them to learn about things they want to become involved in. We don't have that. Maybe we never did. Maybe the serf-like ignorance we see now has always been the standard and we just see that we have the OPPORTUNITY to put an end to it, but not the will.

At any rate, the point is that people must be responsible for maturely engaging in dialogs on important issues, and we don't have that in this country right now.

Re:Accountability

[sm62704]

There is a big, glaring problem with this - multinational corporations. The corporate owned media has convinced voters that if you vote for anyone but a Republican or a Democrat you've wasted your vote.

That way, the corporatti only have to bribe two candidates for any given office with "campaign contributions". So it doesn't matter which of the two candidates the corporate media even MENTIONS loses, they win.

So a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote. You might as well stay home and be painted by the corporate media as "apathetic".

I used to split my votes between Democrats and Republicans. Now I split them between Greens and Libertarians.

I'd like to see some REAL campaign finance reform, not the sham reforms McCain has touted. I want it to be against the law to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, on the grounds that contributing to both is a thinly veiled bribe. And I'd like it to be a felony to contribute to any candidate you aren't eligible to vote for.

Pigs will fly first.

Re:Accountability

[Atario]

So a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote. You might as well stay home and be painted by the corporate media as "apathetic".

I used to split my votes between Democrats and Republicans. Now I split them between Greens and Libertarians.

You might as well make another copy of this, only swap "Republicans" and "Libertarians", swap "Democrats" and "Greens", and change "apathetic" to "fringe". No third party will ever take hold because of our winner-take-all, first-past-the-post mindset.

We seriously need to change to Approval Voting, and possibly a Parliamentary system.

Re:First of all

[k_187]

Too bad he's also flipped on his support of the bill.

Throw the bums out...

[Notquitecajun]

This Congress is probably the best reason we should throw EVERYONE who is an incumbent out the door, particularly those who have been in place more than 1-2 terms - from BOTH sides of the aisle. Republicans are holding to big-government ideals rather than conservative ones, and haven't been worth much since Gingrich left; and Dems haven't done much of anything but posture and "investigate" with committees that have done nothing but waste taxpayers time (suing OPEC? WTF?), and NO ONE is working together well. The ONE argument that Obama has going for him, in my mind (being a conservative) is that he's relatively inexperienced.

Re:Throw the bums out...

[XanC]

The real answer is to reduce the power of government to the point where it simply isn't so critical exactly who holds what office. Right now, it matters a whole lot, because the federal government is basically unrestrained.

Re:Throw the bums out...

[jollyreaper]

No thanks. Maybe somewhere in between, but I think this is a BAD idea - we'd get way too many people involved who would just see running for office as a free paycheck. Plus, there are plenty of business interests which would be shut out of the political process who should have genuine reason to be involved because they would be affected by taxation and regulation.

We've had how many years of over-representation of business interests in government? Forgive my lack of sympathy and concern if we were to actually redress this issue.

Public financing would also likely reduce much voting to the lowest common denominator and result in stupid people voting for stupid things. We need to re-work some of the way lobbying and influence peddling is done in politics, but we need to be careful we don't reduce everything to mob rule.

How could we be any more LCD and stupid than we are right now? At least with 100% public financing, those people we do send to Washington will be able to do as they see fit without having to be concerned with whoring to big pocket donors for reelection capital. The only people they have to worry about satisfying are their constituents. And when it comes to that, the competing interests of all the other interests demanding a piece of the pie should result in compromises that harm the least, or at least that was the theory the Founding Fathers operated under.

Re:Throw the bums out...

[jollyreaper]

Impossible. Perhaps you've forgotten, but the Constitution enumerates what can be considered treason, and this isn't it.

From Article III, Section 3: [cornell.edu]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Semantics. I can argue that people who cause harm to the United States are thus enemies. Taking their bribes and working their agenda against America thus constitutes treason.

But to be less sneaky, I'd rather just pass an amendment that elevates bribery to the same level of infamy as treason.

As long as the government legislates the economy..

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

... companies will flock to politicians. It's one big protection racket.

This is the change we voted for?

[tji]

In the '06 elections, the Democrats won overwhelmingly, taking back control of both houses of Congress. Many of us had high expectations after that.. I mean the public sentiment was about as obvious as it could ever be.

But, what the hell have they brought us? Certainly no meaningful change on the war effort. And no backbone when it comes to any of the tough issues. When the issues get difficult, they fold like lawnchairs.

What a broken system we have.

Re:This is the change we voted for?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"I mean the public sentiment was about as obvious as it could ever be."

It's like voting for Kodos after 6 years of Kang. All you're voting for is a different name for the same thing. The public, it would seem, is easily fooled.

Re:This is the change we voted for?

[A beautiful mind]

Finally, you understand why a two party system is just marginally better than a one party system and why a system that tends toward a two party system is bad.

Re:This is the change we voted for?

[BobMcD]

Finally, you understand why a two party system is just marginally better than a one party system and why a system that tends toward a two party system is bad.

In my opinion, our system really IS a one party system.

I also have a suspicion that this is a direct result of the outcome Civil War, and was designed to prevent that sort of thing from ever happening again.

In that way, our 'two party' system is actually WORSE, due to the deception involved.

Re:This is the change we voted for?

[Talderas]

Democrats didn't actually win Congress, it make look like it, but what actually happened was the Conservative Republicans just didn't go out and vote for the Republicans that had been betraying Conservative principles.

Re:This is the change we voted for?

[A beautiful mind]

In my opinion, our system really IS a one party system.

Essentially, yes. All you get is a change of paint every four years. The two parties being in power for so long created a stagnant system of politics, where the same financial interests are in the background and where backroom deals and agreements decide the major issues. Voter choice is minimalised, since there is nothing a voter can do when both parties in power have the same stand on most issues.

The "brilliance" of the system is that you can always point and say, "but other parties and candidates are free to run and try to get elected", which is true theoretically, but not practically. The system is rigged in a way to support major power blocks. It's the difference between taking the stairs and climbing the wall. Small and mid size parties have no chance of existing and building public support from there, which prevents voters giving support to smaller parties and taking it away from larger ones. A large amount of propaganda is part of the problem.

Re:This is the change we voted for?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Blaming Congressional Democrats for not getting done what they wanted is highly disingenuous, regardless if you agree with them or not."

I would not blame them, but rather thank them for not getting done what they wanted.

Brilliant Idea

[mr_nazgul]

The solution for this is simply put:
1) Corporate contributions directly or indirectly are banned from politics.
2) Only individuals can donate, and there are limits placed on how much one person can donate.
3) Politicians become honest.
4) Pigs grow wings and fly.

Re:Brilliant Idea

[bar-agent]

corporations don't donate money.

Parent is correct. Corporations cannot contribute to a politician's political campaign, but can solicit money from certain employees and pay for certain ads. Read the Wikipedia article.

The problem, I think, is lobbyists. Corporations are able to hire good lobbyists to deliver a focused and professional message to our representatives. But, really, lobbyists aren't the problem, either. In theory, any group of citizens can get their message out equally well by banding together and hiring their own lobbyists. The problem is, we do not do this.

Man are they cheap

[alextheseal]

$8,359 to sell out this country. Didn't Spitzer spend more on some of his romps. Come on Senators, have some pride.

Umm, I'll bet you it's *not* just the telecoms!

[BLKMGK]

I'm willing to bet that if you examine this phenomenon for most any big issue you will find much the same behavior. Oil, automotive, energy, media, name any BIG well funded topic and I'm betting you will see this same sort of activity occuring. In fact I think articles pointing this out for the RIAA\MPIAA have been posted in the past.

Bravo that there's a big spotlight on this but I'll be WAY more excited when this hits mainstream press. Unfortunately the mainstream press is as much a PART of the problem as they are a potential way of informing the public - especially now that ownership rules have been relaxed

Surprised?

[copponex]

This won't receive media coverage. The ecosystem of for-profit media, for-profit corporations, and for-profit government officials have no interest in their constituents.

They don't need their constituents.

The media will give you only two false options that have zero real policy differences, the gerrymandered lines ensure the "proper" parties are elected. They will avoid offending any of their advertisers by reporting things as unimportant as blatant vote-buying to purchase immunity. Instead we'll get to hear about things that are of no importance: sports, celebrity gossip, and political bickering that passes off as dialogue.

But hey, new iPhone next month! Who's already waiting in line? The best Germans will have theirs first...

Re:First of all

[Jhon]

First: Dirty rat bastards!

Yup. Agreed.

Second: Duh.

Yup. Agreed.

Third: Fix it Obama!i>

See. There you lost me. I think both are crap, but this statement of yours is whacked as far as accuracy goes. McCain is the only one who's even seriously TRIED to limit money coming in to campaigns and politicians. Obama blew off his oath to not seek private funds and will now be in the pocket of every major interest group.

The internet allows us to track and organize...

[jollyreaper]

The Internet allows us to track these offenses and organize against the offenders far better than ever before. We need to start funding challengers against every Vichy Democrat who voted for this bill and against every Republican on general principle. And if Obama really goes along with this shit, if he really proves himself to be just another politician, well fuck him, too.

"Reform the system from within," we're told. "Be part of the solution, not part of the problem." At what point do we decide that the system cannot be reformed from within, cannot be reformed from without, and must be overthrown in its entirety? That'll make for some nasty times to be sure but will such measures be forced upon us by necessity?

Re:First of all

[The Warlock]

On the other hand, McCain has also consistently supported telecom immunity, so I guess we're pretty much fucked.

Re:First of all

[bonkeydcow]

Too bad he's also flipped on his support of the bill.

That doesn't matter. Obama is whoever you want him to be.

Let me see if I've got this right...

[Kainaw]

So, we allow companies to donate money to our lawmakers. The companies donate more money to lawmakers that vote for laws in a way that benefits the companies. Why should it be different? Should we only have companies that donate money to lawmakers who vote for laws to run the companies out of business?

Re:Let me see if I've got this right...

[Eoika]

The lawmakers are supposed to make laws that protect the people, not protect a small group of companies.

Re:Dear rest of the world,

[spun]

You know, plugging your ears and yelling, "You're not the boss of me!" when your elders try to give you honest advice simply isn't very mature.

And the US has allowed tyrants, massive corruption, and wholesale slaughter for the last 100 years as much if not more than any other country. Look at the history of Central and South America: we have a nasty habit of helping overthrow democratically elected socialist governments and installing US friendly tyrannical madmen.

Telecom immunity not the real issue

[darjen]

Why do we allow our government this power to begin with? Immunity wouldn't be an issue if they weren't spying on us in the first place. Let's place the true blame where it should be - on congress, not the private companies.

Re:The only solution to such corruption

[danzona]

Privatize the power to conduct a legal prosecution. Imagine the possibilities.

How can replacing a government function with a group that has government like powers possibly become anything other than the government? In the US we had a system to do all the things you describe, then it got corrupt. The only possibility that I can imagine is that the private prosecution would be corrupted too.

Any group that has authority over others is going to abuse that authority. The trick is to grant enough authority to get the job done, but at the same time limit the authority and therefore limit the abuse. It is apparently a very difficult trick.

Re:First of all

[DeadCatX2]

Barack Obama - Change you can believe in. Like how his stance on FISA changed.

Re:Bill of Rights, Article I

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

Telecoms are corporations. They are not people. The Bill of Rights says diddly squat about the rights of corporations.

Re:First of all

[iminplaya]

...we're pretty much fucked.

Got that headline forty years ago.

Re:Not quite!

[Rakarra]

Uhh, ok. So if he votes FOR a bill as a senator, why do you have any confidence that he would -not- vote for a bill as President? Really, there is one and only one reason why he's willing to vote for the bill -- he wants the support of the telcos when he goes against McCain. At very least, he doesn't want to seriously piss them off.

He's selling out to get elected.