Slashdot Mirror
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."
We could have outsourced this flip-flopping to India for a lot less than was paid to members of congress.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
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.
Too bad he's also flipped on his support of the bill.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
... companies will flock to politicians. It's one big protection racket.
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.
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.
Good.. Bad.. I'm the guy with the gun.
$8,359 to sell out this country. Didn't Spitzer spend more on some of his romps. Come on Senators, have some pride.
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
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
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...
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?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
On the other hand, McCain has also consistently supported telecom immunity, so I guess we're pretty much fucked.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
It occurs to me that many of these monies come from government-blessed monopolies. Can they then take such a large portion of their profits and use it to purchase votes? This is a self-amplifying cycle if I've ever seen one.
I can't recall any law that would prohibit it, but perhaps there really should be one...
Too bad he's also flipped on his support of the bill.
That doesn't matter. Obama is whoever you want him to be.
A majority of Democrats are still against the bill (105 for-128 against), whereas the Republicans almost unanimously support it (188 for-1 against).
From TFA:
All House Members (June 20th vote:)
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
-- Boycott Shell
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?
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
It frustrates me to hear people say that government simply wants to bail out the telecoms, as if all they were doing is caving to big business.
My honest opinion is that those pushing this bill don't care at all about the interest of telecoms in this matter. The real reason is they don't want it to come out in court just what they were doing on behalf of our government.
The bill prevents people from suing telecoms for doing something on behalf of the White House. The case is to be thrown out on that grounds. Now, if you were suing the telecoms about this, don't you think the question of what the White House asked for would come up? Don't you think that in order for a meaningful trial to happen, that information would have to come out?
And from there, it's revealed that the White House has been asking for your phone conversations, in matters that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or any of the other things this administration claims it's acting for. And some Democrats probably know this, and don't want to get blamed for it either.
But. Let's also not forget that some Democrats are doing the right thing on this. I checked the roll call, and found that my representative voted no, as did the rep for the district I lived in before. So I can safely say that no one I voted for is behind this. :P
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Hmm, before he shunned the public funding, he shunned interest group funding.
The entire DNC can no longer take money from lobbys or special interest groups, as per his request after Hillary's withdrawal.
He shunned the public funding b/c he could get more money through fairly honest means (mostly private citizen contributions) than the public funding with its restrictions.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
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.
"I don't know which is worse...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low."