Telecom Immunity Flip-Floppers Got More Telecom Money 277
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."
Re:Ex post facto is prohibited. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunatly they'll probably get away with it. From Wikipedia:
Can a monopoly legally do this? (Score:4, Informative)
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...
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)
Re:Brilliant Idea (Score:2, Informative)
This is already how it mostly works in Canada(not step 4). I think it is a good step but it is not a perfect solution.
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.
Re:Telecom immunity not the real issue (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Throw the bums out... (Score:3, Informative)
Any sort of contribution or gift to a politician, monetary or otherwise, will be seen as a bribe and prosecuted as high treason.
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.
Re:First of all (Score:3, Informative)
The lobbyists have an easier job flipping the Democrats on these votes. The Republicans generally vote as a block because they're all AT&T's bitch (except for Ron Paul who still cares about the 4th Amendment). With the House majority, they only needed to flip 1/3 of the Democrats to win the vote, and that's about how it ended up. 2/3 of the House Democrats voted against it.
Re:Accountability (Score:3, Informative)
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?
While the issue of campaign donations is interesting, it would help to listen to what the Democratic leadership has actually said about their motivations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html [washingtonpost.com]
The war spending bill, for example, includes $162 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending on programs such as unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans. Bush, who had threatened for months to veto the legislation, said he will sign it.
Leading Democrats acknowledged that the surveillance legislation is not their preferred approach, but they said their refusal in February to pass a version supported by the Bush administration paved the way for victories on other legislation, such as the war funding bill.
The Democratic leadership traded de facto telecom immunity for increased veterans benefits & increased unemployement payouts.
They literally allowed their votes to be bought by the Republicans.
AND it was their strategy all along.
/Shame
Re:First of all (Score:3, Informative)
We already elected an unqualified individual, and we haven't been seeing a whole lot of limits.
Re:This is the change we voted for? (Score:3, Informative)
In another universe, maybe. In my universe, they captured a little over 50% of the seats. That's hardly an "overwhelming" win.
Re:This is the change we voted for? (Score:5, Informative)
In the '06 elections, the Democrats won overwhelmingly, taking back control of both houses of Congress.
A 49%/49%/2% split in the Senate and a slight 54%/46% majority in the House is not what I would call "overwhelming" in any fashion. If you're looking for activity, you shouldn't look to a body that's evenly split on one side and without a veto-proof majority on the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress [wikipedia.org]
Blaming Congressional Democrats for not getting done what they wanted is highly disingenuous, regardless if you agree with them or not.
Re:Ex post facto is prohibited. (Score:4, Informative)
Where is the post facto law?
Existing law at the time gave the telecoms immunity. The problem is that they had to prove that they were provided with a lawful request. Now don't confuse a lawful request with the legality of the program, for this purpose, it is that someone presented them with something otherwise authorized by law that showed the government had th authority and ordered the taps. A simple order o r authorization by the AG would be sufficient.
The problem is that the administration classified that information and it would be a felony to disclose that information to anyone. The immunity bill doesn't give immunity, it provides a vehicle in which immunity that was already existent at the time can be accessed without disclosing state secrets or causing someone to commit a felony in the simple act of their defense.
I'm not sure how people can have such strong opinions and think things like the constitution is at risk when they don't even know the facts about the situation. Typically I would ignore posts like this because I figured the smart people would sort it out. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening and now it is being claimed that there is a buy off on congress. And the map light project does this without naming any sources, providing their data showing before or after contributions, methodology or anything that I would consider to be the facts surrounding the situation. For all we know, they simply stated their opinion. It is purely amazing that half backed accusations and suggestive opinion can rule the thoughts of people who have all the tools necessary to validate claims in front of them but fail to do so for whatever reason. I think it is something to do with an ideolocracy of some sort where Ideology trumps life and facts.
BTW, if you look at this site, [pogo.org] you see a difference in amounts reported. If you look at this PDF [pogo.org] you can see this in action. So yes, some verifiable numbers, data sets and all that is quite important in making the accusation that our leaders are being paid off. Hell according to the PDF, there is around a 11-15% difference between the candidate and PAC reporting in Dick Gepheardt's reporting alone.
Re:First of all (Score:1, Informative)
I have no idea if it applies in this particular case, but usually when Ron Paul votes against something that you'd expect him to be for it is because he feels that the federal government has no place making such a law either way. Remember, he is for smaller federal government and giving more power to the individual states.