[Sosfbay-discuss] Telecom Donations Tied to FISA Vote (Washington Independent)

Wed Jun 25 08:32:32 PDT 2008

Guess who takes telecom corporate money hand over fist?  Anna Eshoo. 
That's how she had $1 MILLION TO SPEND ON EACH OF HER LAST TWO CAMPAIGNS
Support our Green candidates Carol Brouillet, Peter Meyers and Barry
Hermanson for congress! Also independent Cindy Sheehan was endorsed by the
SF Green Party!

Green is Grassroots Democracy!

Drew

Telecom Donations Tied to FISA Vote
Tuesday 24 June 2008
http://www.truthout.org/article/telecom-donations-tied-fisa-vote
by: Mike Lillis, The Washington Independent

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was one of the 94 out of 105
Democrats voting for a FISA bill granting telecoms retroactive immunity. A
new study by Maplight.org, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog group,
found that lawmakers who voted in support of the wiretap deal averaged
roughly twice the donations from the nation's leading telecoms over the
last three years as those who voted against it.
(Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke / AP)
Supporters of the spying bill received twice the contributions as those
against it.
    When scores of House Democrats joined Republicans last week to
reauthorize a controversial White House spying program, many critics
attributed that support to election-year jitters. But as liberal
voters continue to bash Democrats on the issue, some campaign finance
reformers charge that political contributions from the telecom
industry, which benefited handsomely under the bill, probably also
swayed votes.

    In an analysis released Tuesday, Maplight.org, a nonprofit campaign
finance watchdog group, found that lawmakers voting Friday in support
of the wiretap deal averaged roughly twice the donations from the
nation's leading telecoms - Verizon, Sprint and AT&T - over the last
three years as those voting against it.

    The figures might not have raised eyebrows except that the proposal
contained a gift for the industry, effectively granting retroactive
legal immunity to the telecoms that enabled the Bush administration's
warrantless eavesdropping program. The immunity provision - blasted by
civil libertarians for putting industry concerns above Fourth
Amendment rights against search and seizure - rescues the companies
from the roughly 40 lawsuits pending against them. Some
money-in-politics watchdogs say the connection between the
contributions and votes is no accident.

    The money-in-politics debate is hardly new to Washington, but it has
taken on greater urgency as both political contributions and federal
budgets grow larger with each passing year. Under the current system,
lawmakers have become ever more reliant on campaign coffers to
maintain their hold on power. Industry, meanwhile, is under constant
pressure to be at the negotiation table when related legislation is
being crafted on Capitol Hill. Money is often the quickest way to gain
that seat. This combination of factors has created a near symbiotic
relationship between Congress and industry, often lending a sense that
business interests take priority over citizens' concerns.

    "It's not a dollar given and a vote bought," said Meredith McGehee,
policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit campaign
finance reform advocate, "but it is a system where large industries
can gain influence and direct how policy is decided."

    The shame, McGehee said, is that the campaign-finance system leads to
conflict-of-interest questions even when none exist. "That undermines
confidence in the legislative process," she stated.

    Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman with Common Cause, echoed the message. "We
certainly know that contributions go a long way to gaining access and
influence," she said. "The appearance is that money buys votes."

    Maplight's analysis, crunched using contribution data from the Center
for Responsive Politics, found that the 293 House members voting last
week in favor of the wiretapping compromise received, on average, more
than double the amount of money as those who voted against it. They
got $9,659 from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint between January 2005 and
March 2008, while those voting against got $4,810.

    But some campaign finance experts warned against linking campaign
donations to votes. "It's way too simplistic just to look at money
given to a candidate and claim it's affected a particular vote," said
Richard L. Hasen, an election specialist at Loyola Law School in Los
Angeles. "It's something that's often alleged, but much harder to
prove."

    "There does seem to be a correlation between telecom money and the way
people voted," Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive
Politics, said in an email, "but as in all cases when you're following
the money, causation is nearly impossible to establish."

    Indeed, in the case of the spying proposal, 94 of the 105 Democrats
voting for the bill had supported an earlier House proposal to renew
the spying law without granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), one of those 94, made clear that
she opposed telecom immunity, but was forced to accept a compromise
for the sake of passing a bill. The immunity language was a concession
to the White House, which threatened to veto any bill without it.

    "I do not believe that Congress should be in the business of
interfering with ongoing lawsuits and attempting to grant immunity to
telecommunications companies that allegedly violated the law," Pelosi
said on the chamber floor last week. "Those companies have not lived
up to the standards expected by the American people ... They come out
of this with a taint."

    In return, Democrats included language previously opposed by the
administration, including a clarification that the president has no
authority outside the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to
collect foreign-to-domestic communications, even in times of war.

    The Senate is expected to pass the bill on Wednesday.

    Not all Democrats felt the compromise language was worth the sacrifice
of civil liberties.

    "I have consistently said that it is not appropriate for Congress to
grant these companies immunity for their actions without having an
understanding of what it is that they did," said Rep. John Dingell
(D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "This
is not only because it will hold the telecommunications companies
accountable for their actions, but because it is the only way of
finding out just how extensive the president's illegal wiretapping
program really was."

    Liberal voters have lit up the blogosphere in agreement, charging that
Democrats caved to White House demands at the expense of
constitutional rights. Some civil liberties advocates also placed
blame on the congressional leaders.

    "This is all part of the abuse of power that we've seen out of this
White House, as well as Congress' refusal to stand up and perform its
constitutional duty to check the executive branch," said Boyle of
Common Cause. "Congress is complicit here."
»

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS
DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN
RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.
TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE
NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS
AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES
ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON
TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW
SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments
This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go
live.

Not a surprise at all but,
Wed, 06/25/2008 - 14:58 - Anonymous (not verified)
Not a surprise at all but, disgraceful nevertheless. It is patently
obvious that most of the Democratic party is *also* in the pocket of big
biz. However, at this point and time one would have hoped that a
micro-gram of morality and ethics would still be driving those whom we
entrusted with the protection of our Constitution and our rights.
Obviously, that is not their driving force.
i have given money to cindy
Wed, 06/25/2008 - 14:56 - Anonymous (not verified)
i have given money to cindy sheehan and i would ask everyone who is beyond
disgusted with pelosi and these spineless sycophants to give what they
can. how else do we send a message? they don't care about our calls,
faxes, protests. only a campaign of removal from office will speak to
them.
It is absolutely disgusting
Wed, 06/25/2008 - 14:04 - EDGEOFNOWHERE (not verified)
It is absolutely disgusting that our elected representatives should be
allowed to take ANY money from ANYindustry/lobby. We should have taxpayer
financed elections with personal contributions limited to $100/year per
candidate. The practice of corporate money has totally corrupted the
government and is destroying our nation. Obama's recent defection from the
public money campaign limits should be ringing alarm bells with anyone who
thinks he will be any different from the present gang of cash whores in
DC. VOTE THIRD PARTY!!
Add a comment:
 Your name:
 E-mail:
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
 Comment: *
Input format
 Filtered HTML
Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl>
<dt> <dd>
Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
 Raw HTML
More information about formatting options

Homepage:

Subject:

_______________________________________________
usgp-media mailing list
usgp-media at gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media