Slashdot Log In
Telecom Immunity Flip-Floppers Got More Telecom Money
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:44 AM
from the stark-example dept.
from the stark-example dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: eBay'er Arrested For Attempting To Sell His Vote 501 comments
The Associated Press reports that Max P. Sanders, 19, is charged with a felony for attempting to auction off his vote on eBay for the upcoming presidential election. From the article: '"Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote," said John Aiken, a spokesman for the office. "There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, 'I can be bought... It's a real shame"' Yes, that is a terrible shame, isn't it. Perhaps we should arrest, prosecute, and imprison everyone who sells their vote. The boy says it was all a joke, but prosecutors aren't laughing. Max faces up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines if he is convicted.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill 1088 comments
zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Save Money (Score:5, Funny)
We could have outsourced this flip-flopping to India for a lot less than was paid to members of congress.
Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
It is available, but it is obtuse. A nice place to find such information is OpenSecrets.org [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.
Parent
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Funny)
Really? If I were burying a politician head-first in the sand, I would want to bury him up to the ankles.
Parent
Throw the bums out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Throw the bums out... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
As long as the government legislates the economy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the change we voted for? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:This is the change we voted for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Brilliant Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Man are they cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, I'll bet you it's *not* just the telecoms! (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 and organize... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Why so hard on the Dems? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Let me see if I've got this right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Telecom immunity not the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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:First of all (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:First of all (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, McCain has also consistently supported telecom immunity, so I guess we're pretty much fucked.
Parent
Re:First of all (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Ex post facto is prohibited. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Dear rest of the world, (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent