Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen Who Lobbied FCC Against Net Neutrality & Received Payoff
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica published an article Friday highlighting the results from research conducted by a money-in-politics watchdog regarding the 28 congressmen who sent a combined total of three letters to the FCC protesting against re-classifying the internet as a public utility. These 28 members of the U.S. House of Representatives 'received, on average, $26,832 from the "cable & satellite TV production & distribution" sector over a two-year period ending in December. According to the data, that's 2.3 times more than the House average of $11,651.' That's average. Actual amounts that the 28 received over a two year period ranged from $109,250 (Greg Walden, R-OR) to $0 (Nick Rahall, D-WV). Look at the list yourselves, and find your representative to determine how much legitimacy can be attributed to their stated concerns for the public."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
I'm in the healthcare and higher education industry, but my beliefs don't always match that of my employers. While I can understand employees of a company may want to keep their business going, I consider it a far cry from actual lobbyists or company executives doing the same.
make it illegal.
All this is, is confirmation of what everyone already knew in their gut, but try to ignore on a daily basis. This is just for something as "small" as net neutrality, use your imagination for more important issues.
Lobbyists influence politicians! Who knew!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
My congressman, Greg Walden, is in a rock solid Republican district. He gets re-elected no matter what he does. As long as he can stay out of jail and avoid a primary challenge he wins by 2 to 1 in every race. He can take money from the highest bidder and get away with it. He is "congressman for life".
does that mean that Nick Rahall is just an idiot for thinking that Net Neutrality is a bad idea?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
one of the nasty parts of our history they don't teach is that large sections of our Constitution and the basis of our Representative government were designed to keep poor people from voting themselves the land that the wealthy had already claimed. It's all right there is books and documents from the time. There really wasn't any reason to hide it since if you were literate you were probably rich.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
All this is, is confirmation of what everyone already knew in their gut, but try to ignore on a daily basis.
They have to ignore it. Otherwise they would feel stupid for reelecting them, and people don't like to be made to feel dumb.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
you can only donate to candidates that you can vote for, and only so much money. Everyone gets the same amount of "Free Speech" then. All that's left after that is to enforce equal air time laws.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So... donating to the campaigns of congressmen that'll vote for things you want is now bribery?
Look at their own god damned quoted data: http://maplight.org/us-congres...
They donated to 397 members of the house out of 435 members which is 91%
Letter 1 was signed by 4
Letter 2 was signed by 20
Letter 3 was signed by 4
So we have a total of 28 signers.
So just random statistical chance would mean 91% * 28 = 26 of them would have received contributions.
27 received contributions, so the total is only off by 1 member or 3%.
Give me a break. Arstechnica is worse than FoxNews. Why does anyone even read that garbage?
I despise ALL politicians, and I fully support net neutrality, but this "story" is a joke.
The issue is not just that lawmakers are given money by corporate interests and then vote for their benefit. It's that someone cannot even participate in the election process without getting vetted by monied interests. Long before a politician runs for office, or even in a primary, he has to present himself to a roomful of rich people who will then determine that the politician will work on their behalf. The party doesn't matter, the process is the same. I don't care if they ran as a left-leaning democrat or a tea party Republican, they have to be vetted by the $30,000/plate club before they can take the first steps toward holding office.
By the time they get into office, it's already assured that they will find a way to make sure the 1%'s interests are taken care of. Whether they take the extra step like writing a letter to the head of the FCC or sponsoring a bill, well, that's negotiable later for a price, but you already know for sure that they're predisposed to protect the wealthy and powerful.
As someone above has pointed out, the US Constitution was founded as a plutocracy, and despite all the flowery language about liberty and equality, we were designed to be a country that was run by the wealthy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
While it may be legal for a representative to vote a certain way, if they're voting that way because they're getting a payoff to vote that way, it's a bribe in my book. Calling it a campaign contribution is just semantics. Our system of unlimited spending on political campaigns enhances the likelihood that votes on issues such as net neutrality will go the way the highest bidders want it to go.
Large sections of our Constitution and the basis of our Representative government were designed to keep poor people from voting themselves the land that the wealthy had already claimed... There really wasn't any reason to hide it since if you were literate you were probably rich.
A dangerous assumption to make.
In 1776, one book, written in complex language, sold over 120,000 copies in Colonial America.
First convert 120,000 into a fraction of the U.S. population in 1776: compared to the population at the time of 2.5 million, 120,000 is roughly 1 in 20, or 5%. Today's U.S. population is about 300 million --- of which 5% is 15 million.
Fifteen million copies today! More surprisingly, Common Sense by Thomas Paine sold this equivalent in just three months. In its first year, it sold 500,000 copies, or 20% of the colonial population.
Today's equivalent is 60 million copies.
Were Colonial Americans More Literate than Americans Today?. ''Every Man Able to Read''
In the late colonial and early federal era, disputes over land ownership centered on the opening of the western frontiers to settlement and the abolition of feudal tenures. The Last Patroon
The Library of America's two volume "The Debate on the Constitution" can be found in most public libraries.
For Americans this is Shakespeare, and more. Not only is it wonderful writing, it is wonderful thinking. -- Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio
Industry lobbyists exert control over Congress through bribery, Congress exerts control over the US through law, US exerts control over as much as the world as possible through sheer bullying. Americans unimpressed by the lack of voice in Congress? What about all the rest of us that have to put up with a world marred by industry lobbyists? America's lack of democracy poisons the planet. -- Guess we'l have to start teaching our children about Anthropogenic Global Insanity...
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
I'm fully aware of the Supreme Court's recent rulings equating unlimited campaign spending with free speech. I disagree with their reasoning. Other democracies limit both overall campaign spending as well as the length of election campaigns, and those democracies function quite well. When the Court says, "This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money," it ignores obvious alternative methods of mass communication. In the U.S., for example, we have public broadcasting networks in both radio and TV that could be used to give every candidate ample and equal opportunities to reach the public. The Court citing "free speech" as if it always triumphs every other consideration ignores the fact that our society and our courts often limit the free speech of individuals when not doing so would cause harm to other individuals or to society as a whole. Aside from that, I do not agree that campaign spending equals free speech. It comes down to whether or not we believe unlimited campaign spending distorts and corrupts the political process. I believe the evidence is that it clearly does, and I believe that issues like net neutrality illustrate that. Many of the representatives who signed Letter 2 that was referenced in the Ars Technica article represent areas where Internet access is very limited. They are betting that since so many of their constitutents don't have home Internet access, most of them won't even notice their actions on net neutrality or even know what it is. In fact, I doubt most of those representatives could explain net neutrality if asked. They got contributions and signed the letter they were asked to sign because that's how the campaign funding business works.
Take a look at this chart. There are 12 house members who received campaign contribution at or above the level of John Barrow. A total of $880K were given to these campaigns. If that $800K, $391K was given to the five campaigns that signed the letters and $489K was given to campaigns that did not sign the letters. Giving campaign contributions does not guarantee public support.
Also take a look at this report. Out of the 51 bill the group had a position on the House voted their way four times. That is an 8% success rate. It does not look like the contributions are making a difference.