Tweet
I was on Air America with Chris Dodd the other night and took the opportunity to ask him about the upcoming battle over the FISA bill:
JH: I find that people are really upset about the thought that the Republicans will introduce retroactive immunity for the telecos into the new FISA bill in the Senate. I think people feel that that’s just outrageous. And really want to know what kind of leadership is going to come through in the Senate to keep that out of there. And I don’t mean to put you on the spot Senator Dodd but people are really looking for somebody to commit to filibustering this to keep it out.
DODD: Well, may have to do that….Hope it doesn’t come to that.
We discovered the next day that it has come to that. According to the ACLU, the Senate bill does have language that allows telecom company criminals immunity for their crimes.
I just learned that the FISA bill cooked up by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s Senate Intelligence Committee does contain full retroactive amnesty for telecoms. Here is a list of all registered Verizon lobbyists, and here is a partial list of some of the lobbying firms working on behalf of AT&T. AT&T was the fifth largest contributor to Rockefeller’s last campaign, followed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association in Sixth place, Bell South in Ninth Place, and Verizon was in the top 20.
It’s basically legalized bribery and influence peddling — they pour money into the campaign coffers of these Senators from both parties, pay former government officials such as Jamie Gorelick to help them, and then these Senators jump and pass laws providing that they will receive amnesty for serious felonies.
Somehow this completely craven act is going to be shoved down our throats as absolutely necessary so the terrorist boogeymen won’t eat the babies, with the help of an obliging punditocracy.
I certainly hope Senator Dodd means what he says, and that John Kerry — who has been blogging over at savetheinternet.com — joins him.
205 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Hi Jane!
thed
ζεδ?
Shooth!
dang, stopped to read the post ;-)
sorry bout the char set above, forgot to switch back…
This sums it up :
http://www.cagle.com/working/071010/sack.jpg
I really want lobbyists to go away.
Many are under the impression that the Democrats will cave on the telecom thing.
I hope when they shove it down my throat it gets stuck on my tongue phlagth.
do-si-do @ 7
Public financing of elections?
OK I can’t resist quoting a ranting commenter from C&L. We don’t want dems to continue to be the “pussy party”.
Does this bill demand full disclosure of exactly what the telcos were (are) up to? If it does, this is still outrageous. If it doesn’t….
“DODD: Well, may have to do that….Hope it doesn’t come to that.”
WTF….may have to do that…hope it doesn’t come to that. Well, don’t let it come to that.
Boneheads.
drinksforall @ 6
707
AT&T was the fifth largest contributor to Rockefeller’s last campaign, followed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association in Sixth place, Bell South in Ninth Place, and Verizon was in the top 20.
How does that quote go? ‘If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, and then vote against them, then you have no business being in politics’?
Something like that…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 10
How about some structure to elections/campaigns. Here’s your direct mail, your airtime, your stumping schedule. Go for it. Stick to the issues or hand out candy. Your choice. Then you’re done boring us and you can get back to work.
Jeez, it’s like talking to ###### addicts.
this bill better not pass
and the correct terminology MUST be used, the bill ALLOWS THOSE CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE STOLEN INTELECTUAL PROPERTY TO KEEP WHAT THEY’VE STOLEN
tw3k @ 14
excuse my ignorance but what does “707″ mean?
Nice to see FOB Harold Ickes on that Verizon list.
This whole thing makes me ill.
perris @ 17
Is “intellectual property” the same as private information and communication?
Steve Kelso @ 12
outrageous, unacceptable, absolutely not!
and to accept this administrations assurances on anything is madness.
Wow, so it only $16,000 to buy immunity, wtf?
It took me a really long time to figure out 707 ;). it means LOL after rolling over. Like ROFL.
What does freeper mean?
do-si-do @ 11
When will they stop getting taken for a ride? Time for them to get out of the clown car for good.
tw3k @ 23
That was AT&T
$14,900 from Bell South
$13,000 from verizon
drinksforall –
707 means Laughing out loud (LOL) upside down, and or bent over laughing.
The MSM and the DLC sure doesn’t want Gore to run.
AP – An Oscar, an Emmy and the Nobel Peace Prize. Will Al Gore now seek the ultimate reward and Oval Office mantel space? Don’t count on it.
do-si-do @ 24
freepr nem rightart blogers
If they give telcoms immunity, we might as well admit right now we are all but serfs to feudalism of Corporate America.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Jay Rockefeller needs any outside financial help to maintain his seat.
do-si-do @ 30
until we get more n better dems in to federalize it :)
Gee, can I go commit a crime, claim it’s done for National Security and get full immunity?
The boys of Iran-Contra only wish they had a Congress this craven and obliging. Oh, wait they had Daddy Bush.
do-si-do @ 20
it is, it gives more weight to our rigths
wingnuts can “claim” “if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about” when we use those terms, but they can have absolutely no defense against “stealing my intelecutal property”
do-si-do @ 23
“Freepers” are denizens of a right wing blog area known as “The Free Republic.” Not nice people.
OT
If you are around Jane,
you and Stoller squeezed me for a bit for the ActBlue drive for Marshall.
It’s for a good cause.Glad I could help for once.
How incredibly hypocritical of Jay Rockefeller, since he made such a big stink about being told about their illegal activities and storing away a letter to Cheney about it….
Oh….I get it. He’s complicit, because he knew all along and didn’t say something about the crimes of the administration. Huh? Huh?
do-si-do @ 24
A “freeper” is a denizen of the Free Republic, a right wing blog which I could, but will not link to. If you really want to visit, google “Free Republic”
tw3k @ 26
That’s still damn cheap for a US Senator!
Bilbo @ 39
Ann in AZ @ 42
Sure is! considering how they are saving.
It is bribery.
We need to outlaw for profit enterprises from engaging in lobbying congress.
This is an outrage that allows these wealthy corporations and their “share holders” to exert so much sway over congress.
We need to get MONEY COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM GOVERNANCE and doing the people’s business.
Conflict of interest is one of the primary (un)ethical tenants.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 8
Absolutely. The House version, the mostly good version does not have immunity in it. When the conference committee gets together to iron out the differences, guess what difference will be “ironed out” first (in favor of the Senate version)? Amnesty for illegal spying by Telcos.
Didn’t someone also say in the previous thread that Hillary was in favor of immunity? That one of her main “advisors” was a Telco criminal?
mod delete my 41? bad joke :/
john kerry? – he didn’t say shit when the young fellow was being tased….no confidence in that guy!! hope sen dodd can get something done but the lobbyists are putting screws to rocky et al sooo looks as if telecom folks will prevail – surprised? hope i’m wrong………
I don’t care for being squeezed for ANYTHING. It’s wrong and it has to stop.
While I agree with act blue or whatever it’s called. Getting money from people is not how democracy is supposed to work.
STOP ASKING FOR MONEY.
Freeper is slang for those who rant the Free Republic line. Google is your friend, eh? There’s also lots of acronym databases out there.
I think this is a revolting story, and I am just appalled again at how there is no discipline in the Democratic caucus. These cretins wouldn’t know what teamwork was if it hit them in the head.
Reid has zero influence over these revolting crooks. Wonderful. What the fuck just does he do? Mouth empty threats all the time?
I want some answers, goddamnit. Will the majority leaders ever get discipline over the caucus? Will we ever get rid of our terrible consutlants? Will the staffs on the Hill be eternally staffed by excluding web people?
Ha. I’m keeping my money and my sanity, those “democrats” are lucky I’m trapped into giving them my vote.
What IS the money used for by the way?
SanderO @ 49
Sorry, I disagree.
That is how the system works,like it or not,and it does work.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress. *sigh*
I intend to start voting against all the incumbents on my ballot, no matter how ‘good’, because none of them seem to have a clue how to actually do more than hold hearings (although Waxman does very well holding hearings).
If immunity is so important, than why not just let the Decider give them a pardon since he is the only one that knows all the details.
Congress has no business granting it.
The system must be changed.
I don’t like it and it shouldn’t be enabled.
Looks like it’s time for Senator Dodd to step up. It wouldn’t hurt if Senators Biden, Clinton and Obama did the same when this comes to the floor of the Senate, with Edwards, Gravel, and Richardson cheering them on from the galleries and Kucinich stepping up in the House.
All together now, kids: No retroactive immunity!
Unless, of course, it’s the kind of immunity that is granted when one criminal offers assistance to the prosecution in rounding up the rest of the gang. If one of these telecom companies wants to step up like that, with documents and records to back up their story, I say give them immunity in exchange for their testimony.
But that offer is only good for the first company to step forward.
Busted @ 51.
You think the system works?
Works for who?
ulp…now you know edwards is a serious contender….obligatory story of an affair with a campaign staffer – wonder where THAT story came from……….
I don’t have the link, but several months ago there was what I thought was an informed opinion, that the Feds had the monetary liability if the Tele-Coms lost in court. The real reason that the Tele-Coms don’t want to go to court is that it would expose all of the illegal and quasi-illegal data mining that they have been doing as part of “normal business”. The tele-coms would have massive financial liabilities if that was exposed.
This is for the children.
That I can and will help with,
Politics not withstanding.
SanderO @ 49
Let us know when you can afford to buy your own Congressperson. [/snark]
Until then, we’ll give money and votes to the good guys, and work against the bad ones.
P J Evans @ 51
But they go nowhere and come to no conclusion. Ignored subpoenas are given extension after extension after extension. There is no push back at all (stern letters count for shit). My feeling is that they are ALL purposely NOT actually investigating anything because they fear (or know) that anything they investigate will end up forcing impeachment onto the table and THAT must be avoided at all costs.
another ratchet-click towards full blown fascism. The Regime pulls the lever, the (D)’s lock it in and prevent any backsliding.
As Greenwald has mentioned, it has taken the (D) controlled Congress to give the color of Law to actions that Bush had conducted criminally, in secret. They’ll still be secret, but the (D)’s will have made them ‘legal.’
Feeble protestations and hand-fluttering after the fait-accompli should not be mistaken for the actions of an opposition.
SanderO @ 46
You don’t have to give, SanderO — but we have elections under the system we have, not the system we might want. If we want a progressive voice to be heard, that’s going to take money.
Reading the thread again, those monetary amounts are totally unsurprising. Politicians will grovel and slurp for the most ridiculous sums, it’s plain disgusting.
Who is is ever going to hand over a $15,000 check, except a corporation? It’s never happened at Act Blue, I can tell you that.
Any corporate money is always instantly deferred to. Until the net came along it basically was the only way, and this revolting fossil Rockefeller is lost in space. [spits]
It is so far gone that I expect nothing from this congress, from this administration, from the Democrats, from the selection they make for me to vote for president, from hearings, investigations, invasions except for torture. Torture seems to be done well. Sneaky government agencies seem to be thriving. Unaccountability is stellar. Corruption gets five stars.
And, I don’t think the Democrats are just weak kneed. I think they are bought and owned by corporations and neocons. They sold us out and we get to choose between corruption and corruption.
The telcoms have been doing lots of data sharing under the table and the suits could take them down.
Isn’t this the elephant in the room?
FISA was a pretty dress they put on for Kabuki work.
We’re being monitored and that’s that. It’s been going on for a long time and they get the warrant after they got the goods.
We’re spied on.
Who are we even kidding? Our own congress is as corrupt as the Iraqi congress. It really is legalized corruption. It is disgusting, repugnant, nauseating, vomitous, plus it makes me want to puke.
Help me here. ROCKEFELLER has more personal money than junkyard dogs have fleas. If HE is doing this, what are the chances for any less-rich senators and reps?
I have been hearing variations of this (money rules Congress) for well over 20 years. Nothing changes. I am about ready to forget about America.
What I want is simple: if you cannot vote then you cannot donate money. Period. Since corporations do not exist except on paper. Since they are NOT people and have NO vote, they don’t get to give any money to any politician.
Simple. Only VOTERS can give money.
Peterr and others about the money.
What is the money for? It is presumably to get the message of a candidate out to the people? no?
And the money is for? ads? travel? what is it for?
perris @ 40
Well, of course I meant “could” in a completely theoretical sense. I’m sure if I actually tried I’d experience problems similar to those that you do. In point of fact, I have never once visited freeperland, a record I intend to maintain intact.
We’re going to have to go into Committee with the Lobbying System we’ve got…er, or something like that.
We may just have to accept that the Telecoms can buy immunity into the Senate bill.
But, we ought to stop it there so that it doesn’t make it into the final bill.
The Current Lobbying System might be able to ‘buy’ consideration of immunity for their clients on the front end, but we ought to be able to ’shout it out’ in the end – if Our voices are more meaningful than the 30 pieces of silver being sprinkled on Jay to sell US out…
tw3k @ 42
Cheaper to buy your Senator than to pay lawyers to defend you, I guess.
Peterr @ 56
:o good point!
juslin @ 56
The Enquirer…planted so that all the regular people not paying attention to politics will read it at every supermarket in the Homeland.
http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-01079.html
I trust Darcy Burner to give money to, and that’s only because all the sisters convinced me of it over a few weeks.
I’ll happily give money for change. Farking Richard Pombo was supposed to be change, Stephanie Hersethanol, the list goes on…
The new crop. Ha. Darcy Burner gets money, that’s it so far. I’m sure it will be a short list next year for my donations.
SanderO @ 71
In this instance it is for advertising to help a Dem change his vote on SCHIP.
Praedor Atrebates @ 61
ding ding!
‘investigations’ were just a way to run out the clock, and mollify (D) captured progressives with something symbolic.
Steve-AR @ 56
a reminder
Jerry Nadler on telecom immunity October 10, 2007
I think that too much money is wasted in political campaigns and getting their message out can be done cheaply by their supporters.
I’d prefer to make 25$ worth of phone banking calls than send $25 to a candidate. What do they do with the money? Has anyone see a report of their expenses?
paradox @ 65
And, I don’t doubt, he’ll get a bonus once the law passes.
One Senator most recently that I have been very disapointed in is Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin. Senator Kohl voted for that idiotic censure of MoveOn and even though he has received calls and letters he insists that Free Speech in newspapers is bad. Kohl is a corporate Democrat and I fear he will will support Telecom Amnesty just as he supported the Bankruptcy Bill. Herb Kohl is a wealth – born affluent man. It is my impression that he was moved to vote against MoveOn because he views Petreaus as someone beyond reproach simply by the status of his rank. Bottom line for me as one who lives in Wisconsin is Herb Kohl is a Blue Dog Senator. He needs to face a primary challenge.
Sorry, I meant Jerry McNerny.
advertising” Did you actually write ADVERTISING?
Do you mean a $50,000 ad in the New York Times is going to influence a few congress critters to change their vote?
Ha?
SanderO @ 48
Then just for the hell of it, who will finance the political campaigns for the candidates? How are they supposed to get money if not by asking for it, or having proxies or political affiliates or supporters ask for it for them? Until/Unless we start publicly financing campaigns, and set up systems to do that, their only way of getting money legally seems to be following the rules and asking as many people as they can for money for advertising and overhead. Unless you know a better way…
SanderO @ 68
those chunky salaries for all those fab experts have to come from somewhere.
The trouble with this money thing is you people are not thinking.
What is the money actually going to be used for? Cui Bono?
How is an ad to change a vote in congress?
SanderO ,
Tell ya what, we can agree to disagree, OK?
I feel like shit now for even bringing it up.
mc @ 74
Sure is, then you get to keep all the nice contracts, hardware and infrastructure. Then build a toll road on it!
kirk murphy @ 24
Shucks, I wish i had been at late nite for clown car. lol.
LS @ 76
oy!
Ann in AZ
I am OK with a TRANSITION to complete public finance of elections.
But in order to get a penny from me
I want to read a signed statement from the candidate they they will sponsor or draft public campaign finance legislation. If they won’t they are part of the problem (campaign finance abuse) and not part of the solution.
We need to get a little quid pro quo.
LS @ 36
I knew there was something that didn’t add up when I learned Rockefeller’s name was associated with the latest mess.
SanderO @ 50
Advertising, busses, airplane rides, hotel/motel accommodations, food on the road, laundry service on the road, tips for baggage handlers, waiters, etc., possibly halls, professional services like accountants, consultants, printing of handbills, etc. Just some of the campaign expenses that the money covers.
Elliott @ 80
yup, good speech!
SanderO @ 68
As I understand it (and others can correct me if I’m wrong), contributions to BlueAmerica are used for independent (i.e. not coordinated with a candidate’s official campaign) ads to support good progressive candidates and also to exert pressure on current members to support progressive causes. An example of this is the SCHIP ads that several recent posts spoke about.
Contributions to campaigns are just that. The BlueAmerica team, led by Howie Klein, screens candidates and brings them by for chats from time to time. BlueAmerica solicits contributions that are turned over to the campaigns themselves, and the campaigns determine how to spend that money.
Think about it this way, SanderO — if you don’t trust a candidate to deal wisely with your $25 contribution, why in the world would you trust them in office?
And another thing — Americans never want to do the HARD WORK to get anything done. Oh, I am not talking about those who run blogs, or who keep track. They know.
I am talking about the average American. You know, those who watch American Idol, etc. To me, this seems easy: if a corporation, like AT&T, acts like this, don’t patronize them. Period. End of story, I did this years ago with Wal Mart. I wouldn’t dream of setting foot in that hellhole store. Ah, but most Americans “have” to — because they are poor. I say BULLSHIT. WAL MART IS MAKING YOU POOR, you imbecile! Even my own kids shopped at WalMart from time to time. Finally they saw the light.
But — Americans are too lazy to make any sacrifices for anything.
I emailed Sen. Mikulski twice yesterday concerning FISA. She’s on the committee. I fear it won’t help though. She’s DINO, through and through. Also contacted my more progressive Rep (Van Holland) and encouraged him to support the “better” bill. He might do so, but I guess it’s all smoke and mirror kabuki anyway. The Senate version will prevail. It wouldn’t be quite as bad if we had some assurance from the telcos that this crap wasn’t going to continue in the future. Not holding my breath.
By the way, FDL really needs a glossary for some of its more commonly used acronyms.
I am a progressive and I have witnessed how money has destroyed the political process in this country.
It has destroyed many things, but I have little control other than where I spend my money.
We need to change a lot. And getting money and fopr profit lobbying out of the political process is one of them.
If progressive candidates cannot sign on to complete public finance then they are not worth my support. END OF STORY.
Was just over at TNH reading about parallel secure fiber optic system(s) http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..acchio-te.
One company, Qwest, agreed to building the system (or part of it) but did NOT agree to some other part of the proposal — and here’s my question:
What Qwest balked at may have been the government’s request for Qwest to incorporate its customer’s records into the government’s system.
Did other telecoms accede to the gov’t’s requests, and is that why the retroactive immunity is required now?
A commenter there asserts that AT&T is now effectively an arm of he gov’t. Is AT&T one of the telcos with that clause in their service contract that says “we can drop you if you complain about our service or otherwise besmirch our spotless name”? Strikes me that if you had the ability to survey all your traffic and pick out disgruntled customers, which seems to be an ability that the processing attached to this parallel network may indeed have, you might say to yourself:
disgruntled customer leads to suits
suits lead to disclosure
disclosure leads to trouble, if they find out the extent of what we do
Is this the line along which people are thinking?
LS @ 72
I think was it FDL or C&L that posted video of, er, Tucker slapping Coulter around for relying on the Enquirer. Seems like a Coulter assist to point the way for low info types all right. Are we that effin’ stupid?
Ann those things are out of control and can be handled by simply have the government pay for them at a fixed amount. You tick off on your tax return if you want to contribute to campaign “expenses”. And then the critters have to stay with that budget.
behindthefall @ 99 -
Qwest is the one that wouldn’t go along with whatever activity now requires retroactive immunity.
AT&T and Verizon have clauses like that.
If our government fails our country, then it’s up to the citizens to give these lawless companies the corporate death penalty. I’ve been pondering what it would take to drive AT&T out of business once they get their immunity. It took decades of pressure from people to end Apartheid in South Africa, because governments failed to act. But eventually the tide turned and the right thing was done. I believe the same can apply to even a massive corporation like AT&T, although it will take a very long time.
I’ve already chosen not to get an iPhone because it only works with AT&T (and I’m such a huge Apple fanboy), and I won’t ever buy goods or services from AT&T. I’ve been spreading the word, and I think people are receptive to it. They can get all the immunity they want from the government, but if they lose their customers what good will it do?
The thing that just absolutely shocks me is why the supposed learned minds of the Senate would even consider such things. This shouldn’t be like Communist China or other totalitarian countries where the government protects their favorite industries. As Atrios said, these Senators would have given immunity to Nixon’s plumbers.
Without trying to take away from Jane’s poll, here is a triple poll.
The first is Obama, Clinton, Edwards. This would reflect what most of us expect to have to choose from.
Second is all of the current candidates. This would show whose positions we agree with, regardless of whether we expect to be able to vote for them.
The third is all candidates plus Gore.
Please answer all three questions
Triple Poll
Please excuse the annoying advertising.
You people are hopeless niaive.
The laws are for the powerless. The powerful get special treatment ALWAYS.
Don’t you see the kabuki here?
behindthefall @ 101
Yeah, good article too. But I would argue more in terms of a privatized arm. Outsourced, soon to be with-out-the-spinal-vote unaccountable.
Peterr @ 52
A long catch phrase needs a catchy tune like SNL’s “He’s Lyle, the effeminate heterosexual.”
I’ll drive by later. I need lunch and a break. Some news is just disgusting. It all starts sounding like the National Inquirer.
Don’t the Amercan people deserve the right to know what the Telcom Companies need immunity from?
Brent Wilkes is on trial right now in San Diego on these same issues. He’s the one who bribed Duke Cunningham, except that he called it transactional something.
Wilkes’ defense is what we’re discussing here, thats how business is done in DC.Greasing the palm, except lobbyists do it and the lawmakers can say they didn’t ask for any of it. It appears to be a slick operation. Its down pat.
time for term limits, send the bums home and start fresh all over with a new crop.
we did that in California. Term limits and or public funding.
time to rein in the children.
If Dodd leads a filibuster, he becomes my #1 vote in the next FDL straw poll.
Hey You @ 107
whatever happened with the class action suit in California? anyone?
GTG, I’ll check back later.
Peace
Here is a link to view results of the Triple Poll.
Triple Poll results
The telcoms will never pay a price for their collaboration in spying on you. They are doing right now. This is much ado about nothing in the end.
These guys stole 2 elections.
They started a war that was to pay for itself.
They do whatever the f they want.
They own it all now.
It’s the new feudalism. We’re their vassals.
Oh, Reid has influence over the Dems.
Here’s how he uses it – to help Bush/Kempthorne continue looting the Treasury and the Dept. of Interior.
Senate Dems can place a hold on nominations – just one Senator.
As megacorps transfer our public assets (Medicare, SS, public housing, public oil/gas leases…) into private control/ownership. America’s public lands (National Forests, BLM preserves, etc) are lucrative prizes.
One big component of taking over public lands for private use is the motorized occupation of public lands by ATV’s and the like.
The Dept of Interior controls National Parks (where industry keeps trying to cram snowmobilies and motorcycles and ATV’s) and Bureau of Land Management lands (vast expanses of America).
And the Bushies’ nominee to head up the top recreation/tourism slot at DOI?
Lyle Laverty, Bush’s nominee, is a creature of the motorized wreckreation industry and the anti-parks crowd.
Oregon Senator Wyden has a hold on Laverty’s nomination.
Who opposes Sen Wyden’s protection of our National public lands?
Harry Reid – actively undermining Democratic Senator Wyden.
The next time Harry bends over for the megacorps’ looting, I hope his bolo tie catches in his special protective undergarments.
Don’t worry – that would only be lethal if he stands up straight.
Crooked Harry won’t have to worry about that.
I don’t think he ever gets off his knees.
SanderO @ 103
If our views are so incompatible with yours, why do you spend so much time here?
I don’t see Feingold going along with this.
GordonM @ 104
Did you see What Nacchio Tells Us about the NSA
LS @ 115
I don’t see Whitehouse going along with this either.
Pectopah @ 53
I said essentially the same thing yesterday. I agree totally. W had plenary pardon power. Let him use it.
do-si-do @ 90
hee-hee. It was good fun
tw3k @ 116
So, did it start under Clinton?
We all hope Senator Dodd means what he says, but we all know that he really doesn’t. Maybe the spin will at least be interesting.
Sorry for the OT again
For those of you that have looked at the triple poll, do you think it would be worthwhile to bring this to Jane’s attention?
LS @ 121
more n better dems like em!
behindthefall @ 99
ATT has the clause in their service agreements that states that they can drop you if you badmouth them. They’re trying to get around it by claiming it is not meant for the average consumer but won’t specifically state so.
The former CEO of Qwest is fighting his conviction on insider trading charges (iirc) by claiming his refusal to follow a program that was requested as part of the proposal you mention (or in addition to the proposal) resulted in his being charged in retaliation.
And yes, AT&T and Verizon are believed to have acceded to the requests for info. AT&T has been sued already for having a “secret room” in switching facilities in SF area. I believe they also inadvertantly provided info during discovery to one plaintiff proving the existence of both the surveillance and his existence as one of the surveilled. AT&T (assisted by the gov’t lawyers) has fought the plaintiff using the info but so far have lost.
Jumping in without reading comments, but my first thought was that perhaps Mr. Rockefeller owns a substantial amount of stock in one of the telecoms…
LS @ 124
Timeline sure looks like it. I’m saving that part to read later.
TJ @ 126
Just shout!
Did you leave a link on the other poll page too?
tw3k @ 127
No, I didn’t. I wanted to get some feedback, in case people thought I was being inappropriate.
tw3k @ 126
Looks like the fiber optic stuff started then, but it was in 2001 that Hayden approached them with the illegal part, and Nacchio walked out of the meeting. So Hayden is a real crook, D’oh!!!
TJ @ 132
Seems topical to me. I don’t see how it would hurt. Your interested and helpful!
TJ @ 128
Go for it.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 10
Two things, really. Non-public money polluting everything before a politician is elected, and corporate lobbying moola corrupting everything after a politician is elected.
Both need to be addressed. Campaign financing needs to be public with *no* additions, not even self money (*waves cheerily at Mitt “i’ve got moola of my own sunk in this campaign” Romney*), and lobbying needs to be completely restricted — no corporate lobbying, and perhaps only NGO type lobbying, with no money distribution. Private individuals can lobby, of course, but the amount of money they have should not be relevant.
It’s got to be absolute, so there’s no twisting about on amounts, or anything like that.
Lots of sunshine and transparency, please…
TJ @ 128
I don’t think so, BTINMB
but then it’s not my blog
OK, I’ll leave the links in the comments of the last thread.
Man…what a snakepit this government is…it just never ends.
LS @ 133
I gota go through that.
LS @ 129
and then they went after Nacchio for insider trading, and I’m making no statement about guilt or innocence, just the gov’t motivation.
Any transfer of something of value to a public official by someone who has an interest in legislation and/or is not related to that official should be seen as an attempt to bribe that official.
peanutbutter @ 136
Sounds like a democracy!
Elliott @ 137
Hmmmm.
More on Romney’s deep…uh…pockets…and what lies beneath them.
kirk murphy @ 141
Holy Underwear!
Badwater @ 121
I doubt it also..Both Dodd and Lieberman have identical Progressive Punch scores for corporate subsidies..67%(Not good) surprisingly Hillary’s score if 100%
Elliott @ 142
Gawd. Commander codpiece II
LS @ 144
Match the candidate:
boxers
panties
bikini
mormon
thong
long underwear
nekked
Elliott @ 142
A female friend and ex-LDS said the worst part was the sex while wearing the underwear. There are strategic flaps.
Has anyone pointed out that former GOP representative Tom Tauke is an officer with Verizon? His title is: Executive Vice-President of Public Affairs and Communications. He has had that position since he was defeated in a Senate race against Tom Harkin.
I would like to point out that Qwest was one of the only former Bells to stand up to this administration and demand warrants prior to releasing customer data. I think they should be rewarded. Maybe a boycott of those companies who transact and interact with us via Verizon and At&T?
Just a thought.
SanderO @ 103
Why are you here, then?
Sorry, but your attitude is so negative that you’re begging to sound trollish.
LS @ 149
I can’t imagine any of em nekked but how’d ya have a beer with!
Steve-AR @ 146
Do they have to wear whatever it is all the time?
Close your eyes and think of Eli Whitney
Woops, I just learned that there is an annoying message on the results page of the Triple Poll. Please turn down your volume to avoid it.
Off on the business of the Queen. See everyone later.
kirk murphy @ 153
I don’t think Mormons cotton to gin.
“…why do you spend so much time here?”
And we do not like to be called okies.
lahoma
GordonM @ 154
Very good = LOL
IrishJim @ 151
I’m with that but verizon kinda has a monopoly on the toobz here. Wasn’t Qwest folded back into the program?
Thomas Tauke and Tom Tauke: Verizon’s Net Neutrality Hit Man?
Silly lefties, laws are only for the underclass, not capitalists and their corporations;)
If you swear to uphold the Constitution at your inauguration and then violate it at every opportunity, how is that not treason? The whole bunch of them belong in jail; Pres, VP and NSA operatives.
I would love to buy my telephone service from a company which guarantees that my privacy will be protected. Period.
tw3k @ 74
But, but, Peterr, what can they tell us that we don’t already know? We know that the administration officials cocked up some reason that seemingly allowed them to do the wiretapping without warrants, and went to the telecom companies and used whatever tactics it took, including intimidation, or promises of favors, or whatever, and had their way with the telecom companies confidential information, so to speak? What do we not know that would benefit us enough to know, that we would let the telecom companies off the hook for illegally letting the government spy on their customers.
Steve-AR @ 146
you’re saying they have to wear it during sex!?
GordonM @ 154
lol!
Elliott @ 161
That is what she said.
Boston1775 @ 163
And valued and enhanced as the educational/information tool it is.
Steve-AR @ 167
no wonder it is a minority religion
Elliott @ 30
The Rockefellers are mostly Republicans, and his uncle David is a Bilderberger heavyweight. Jay is the left wing of the Rockefeller family, and his access to family money may have lots of little strings– and maybe a few big strings– attached. IMHO, of course.
Bob in HI
tw3k @ 165
Yeah, it helps to be able to reproduce your kind in the first place o.O
tw3k @ 164
Would make a great ad campaign, don’t you think?
How’s this: “After the abuses you have suffered at the hands of your “leaders” for seven long years, we offer you this: the spine to protect your privacy.”
peanutbutter @ 171
lol
-_-
Hey, everyone–
I want to recommend this website as a handy window into the DC Beltway, but also your homegrown representatives. Just supply your zipcode, and register (free) and you get a customized home page which makes it super-easy to send mail to your *all* of your representatives, as well as lots of other political news, bill tracking, etc.
Bob in HI
Sorry to sound off my rocker on this money thing, but we really need to get this under control.
And so I would like the Blue America candidates to make a statement about campaign finance.
We can’t keep going down this same road. It is enabling lobbyists and so forth because critters are always out looking for cash to campaign. We need them working for the people not running for election.
Results as of 6pm eastern.
If you were limited to the following, which one would you choose?
Hillary Clinton (1) 7%
John Edwards (13) 87%
Barack Obama (1) 7%
A Republican (0) 0%
If you had to choose the current candidate that best represents your views, which one would you choose?
Joe Biden (0) 0%
Hillary Clinton (0) 0%
Chris Dodd (1) 7%
John Edwards (6) 40%
Mike Gravel (0) 0%
Dennis Kucinich (8) 53%
Barack Obama (0) 0%
Bill Richardson (0) 0%
A Republican (0) 0%
If Al Gore Decides to enter the race, who would you choose?
Joe Biden (0) 0%
Hillary Clinton (0) 0%
Chris Dodd (0) 0%
John Edwards (1) 7%
Al Gore (12) 80%
Mike Gravel (0) 0%
Dennis Kucinich (2) 13%
Bill Richardson (0) 0%
A Republican (0) 0%
Boston1775 @ 172
That would go a looong way in my book. but not only privacy but freedom unrestrainedby a tiered system and unfiltered.
Jane–
Thanks for asking Sen. Dodd the right questions!!!
Bob in HI
Donita’s got the best Spin on things:
The Spin I’m In: Super Size, Super Highway
bobschacht @ 170
Cool, I’ll try it!
bobschacht @ 170
Thanks Bob, that http://www.congress.org site looks really helpful.
peanutbutter @ 167
Having once lived near LDS country, I can say the reproduction is not a problem..Baptists and rubber suits, however, may be another matter.
New Donita Sparks thread upstairs.
bobschacht @ 170
Thanks!
PJ Evans
What is a negative attitude? I want to see wrongs righted. There nothing negative about that.
I may be cynical about the political process in this country, but my observation is that it beyond flawed and well into the realm of corruption.
You can see how many republicans have taken bribes shamelessly, as if it was how the system works. You have seen how they are cozy with the lobby shops.
Did you look at the list of telcom lobbyists?
What do you think all those lobbyists are actually doing with them big lobbying fees?
We have a very broken system and progressive candidates must take this one as a priority.
SanderO
You make negative remarks, you make demands for information that (IMO) you don’t actually need, and you call people naive for doing anything other than what you want.
P J Evans @ 182
Nice way to make new friends and influence people.
bobschacht @ 170
I don’t see where to register on the site!
Man, I really need to move from PA!
Casey, Robert P., Jr. seems to be doing ok.
English, Phil needs to go.
SanderO @ 103
Well, that first part of your comment to “you people” sounds a bit “superior” in tone. As egr says, not exactly the way to win friends and influence people. Especially, influence people, I would add.
sander0 is catching a bit of flak lol….tho i can kinda understand his point
SanderO @ 171
You have as much opportunity as the rest of us to come on the blog and ask questions every Saturday, usually at 11am pacific time, and ask a BlueAmerica candidate anything you want for about two hours. You’ll also find links to most of their websites on the BlueAmerica page; many candidates have “contact” buttons where you can ask questions. If you’d like to do a survey of all the candidates’ views on public financing, you might start by reviewing their previous chats on Saturdays. The calendar at the upper right is handy for pulling up Saturday Blue America chats. I think you’ll find many candidates addressed this issue when asked, and I think you’ll be pleased at their responses. Personally, I don’t recall any Blue America candidates opposed to public financing of elections.
But telling the rest of us, who’ve been participating in this process despite our horror at how far off the rails it has gone, that we are hopelessly naive and don’t see what’s happening, is really counterproductive. Don’t be Eeyore, please.
It’s discouraging enough to bat our collective heads against the wall without a frequent commenter reminding us that it just might be futile. We’d rather believe it isn’t. That’s why we’re here. Why are you?
mod, may I please have a typo fixed @ 185
TeddySanFran @ 189
Teddy- thanks for that, especially about the BA chats with candidates- an important reminder. I recollect also that candidates who have been asked about campaign financing support public financing of elections. And, you are certainly a mainstay at the BA chats, so I trust your recollection.
And, it is a huge turn-off for any regular commenter to keep saying “you people don’t get it”. Oh, yeah? Prove it.
tw3k @ 190
Hard refresh now.
tw3k @ 190
Thanks!
I have no idea how to organize such a thing, but if Dodd and Kerry do filibuster, I would stand and stay awake to support them here in California (no way I can get to WDC).
I had to walk away.
Ann in AZ @ 38
I mentioned something about that when Hart was here and CHS didn’t like it one bit.
God forbid we call senators and congresscritters what they are.
I don’t care what party designation they’re collecting their graft under….unless it’s walking on Tenth Avenue and 15th Street in a dress and makeup with stiletto heels, it’s a pros, retired or not retired.
Valley Girl @ 187
I don’t mean to pile on, but according to the tenets of anarchy, the laws are for the powerful to be used against the little people. There isn’t one law I know of that is designed to protect the small fry from the bigger fish in the pond.
I’m finished with begging senators to do the right thing. Oh, please, kind sir, please don’t vote with the guy who just bribed you.
[selise, this one’s for you - hope it helps, even though this is probably inaccurate in places.]
Back in 1978, when we still had a Congress worthy of the name, the contours of the Fourth Amendment were clearly illuminated and re-fortified by passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA stipulated an exception, from the warrants otherwise mandated, when any federal government “electronic surveillance is solely directed at — (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers” and that such surveillance meet the following requirement [under Section 102a(1)(A)] before being exempted from FISA’s otherwise-applicable probable cause warrant requirement [that a target be a foreign agent or an agent of a foreign power] for collection of foreign intelligence that implicates the privacy rights of U.S. persons:
[Presidents have issued Executive Orders requiring the AG to certify probable cause as to a U.S. person being a foreign agent before said person is targeted (as opposed to inadvertently and incidentally surveilled) for surveillance, when located overseas and therefore (seemingly) exempt from FISA’s warrant requirements.]
The 2007 PAA’s [Protect America Act’s] deliberate weakening and undermining of the protective fortification around the Fourth Amendment reduced the standard [under Section 105B(a)] for being exempted from FISA’s otherwise-applicable warrant requirements for collection of foreign intelligence that impacts the privacy rights of U.S. persons, to this:
in addition to allowing such a standard to apply to warrantless surveillance conducted within our borders, via this new definition in Section 105A that creates a FISA-coverage-exception for surveillance conducted within our borders:
[As opposed to known to be, or very likely to be, outside the U.S. because actually surveilled there.]
A “significant” (not “primary”) purpose [which has just been ruled an unConstitutionally permissive purpose by a federal district judge in Oregon] of any such PAA-permitted surveillance must be to obtain foreign intelligence information, and the PAAct appears to require that said information come from or with the assistance of private sector “communications service providers” or equipment used to transmit or store such communications (corporations that get paid by us for this assistance).
Summary: So we went from FISA’s prohibition against the collection of any communication involving a U.S. person [which has been supplemented by an EO-directed, AG-approved surveillance target upon a showing of probable cause that someone’s an agent of a foreign power or a foreign power, when someone is located outside our borders], except where such collection was incidental in spite of a prior Executive Branch certification that any such U.S. person involvement would be quite unlikely to exist – - to the PAA’s free rein to monitor and collect without a FISC warrant or AG finding of probable cause, outside and inside our borders, communications involving U.S. persons provided only that such collection is incidental to surveillance claimed to be “directed at a person” and/or “concern[ing] persons” who are “reasonably believed” (by the Executive Branch, unless that belief is proven to be somehow “clearly erroneous” by the FISC) to be located outside our borders. Leaving unspoken the inference, of course, that such “reasonable beliefs” could be entirely mistaken, to no particular effect, except for the effect of infringing on the Constitutionally-protected rights of Americans.
The original FISA probable cause individualized warrant requirement covered all surveillance of U.S. persons located within our borders (unless it accessed systems known to be exclusively used by non-U.S.-persons), and included strong protections against non-incidental, targeted surveillance of U.S. persons outside our borders, in accordance with the reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment that all such U.S. persons are entitled to.
The PAA gutted FISA’s privacy protections for U.S. persons both home (especially, since that’s where those protections are strongest under FISA) and abroad, by allowing an Executive Branch claim about its intended surveillance objective to override any invasion of the privacy of the communications of Americans ‘incidently’ impacted in the course of that surveillance – surveillance whose intended focus, under PAA’s new Section 105B, is (not) defined and identified as follows:
Let’s re-read the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:
If this isn’t unConstitutional government in action, nothing is.
Http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34143.pdf
H.R. 3773 (the RESTORE Act) attempts to modify the Protect America Act’s revisions to FISA, rather than simply repealing the PAA language [except for Sections 4 and 6 which it does repeal] and starting anew with clear and precise language, as Rush Holt’s alternative bill does (which the Democratic leadership seems to be stifling).
First, H.R. 3773 removes the new PAA Section 105A FISA-coverage-exception definition that implicitly allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons within our borders.
However, the RESTORE Act then proceeds to allow such warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons within our borders by another route:
Not “solely” directed at, and not “known to be” outside the U.S. or “known to be” not U.S. persons. Which leaves a lot unsaid, and therefore a lot of room for spies to ‘play’…
The application for said FISCourt order must contain:
Also required in the application is the same PAA private sector involvement of a “communications service provider,” and the “significant” (not “primary”) foreign intelligence information purpose certification, as well as:
But, again, retained intact from the PAA is this data-mining provision:
In short, the RESTORE Act restores only in name the privacy rights of U.S. persons inside the U.S., and does nothing about the privacy rights of U.S. persons outside our borders. In fact, the PAA’s undermining of FISA’s original fortifications around the Fourth Amendment will remain, to a signficant degree, if the RESTORE Act becomes law:
RESTORE leaves intact the Protect America Act’s evisceration of FISA’s prohibition against the collection, within our borders, of any communication involving a U.S. person, without the issuance of a warrant by the FISCourt upon a finding of probable cause that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, unless the surveillance is only inadvertently and incidentally collected against almost all likelihood (because a required prior Executive Branch determination that “no substantial likelihood” exists of such a communication being captured) during the targeting of non-U.S. persons here or elsewhere. Standards are definitely slipping, thanks to the existence of a secret court in a nominal democracy.
So the RESTORE Act would make semi-permanent the PAA-revised FISA’s free rein to monitor and collect without an individualized, probable cause FISCourt warrant, within our borders, communications involving U.S. persons provided only that such collection is incidental to surveillance claimed to be [”directed at a person” and/or “concerns persons” under PAA] “directed at the acquisition of the communications of a person,” and/or that “the targets of the acquisition of foreign intelligence information” [under RESTORE] are persons, “reasonably believed” [by the Executive Branch (unless the FISCourt determines that said belief is determined to be somehow “clearly erroneous” under PAA) that said procedures are unreasonably designed (under RESTORE)] to be located outside our borders, and also “reasonably believed” by the AG & DNI not to be U.S. persons, under RESTORE.
The one concession to this permanent undermining of the Fourth Amendment and FISA that the RESTORE Act would pretend to authorize – beyond a lot of after-the-fact reporting requirements and some other issues around the edges – is to require that a FISCourt judge review (apparently just once a year) in advance a description of the procedures [computer program parameters] the AG & DNI will use “to determine that there is a reasonable belief that the targets of the acquisition are persons that are located outside the United States and not United States persons;” The FISC judge is then directed by RESTORE to approve that application for a year-long spying order if the judge finds that said “procedures”…are reasonably designed to determine whether the targets of the acquisition are located outside the United States and not United States persons;” [and that minimization is in place and normal FISA, particularized, probable cause warrants are applied for under Section 104 of FISA in cases where it is “reasonably believed” that involvement of a person within our borders is implicated].
Note the lack of concern about enforcement of this basket/blanket general warrant provision:
If this all seems unnecessarily complicated – it’s because it is. This is our government hiding its on-going access to and partnership with the largest private, corporate-owned communications networks in the nation, and around the world, for purposes of massive data collection and analysis. AT&T apparently started, 11 days after the Bush administration came into office in early 2001 – though the planning had been done during the Clinton administration, perhaps under Mike McConnell himself – construction of a parallel “network operations center” (that matched its own in NJ) for the exclusive use of the U.S. Government’s National Security Agency. That’s alleged in one of those lawsuits now pending in CA, which our Congress and President can’t wait to wipe off the books by passing “immunity” for this open, willful, wholesale corporate/government invasion of our privacy in absolute contravention of the Constitution.
Http://www.rockymountainnews.c…..66,00.html
See especially Exhibit F of the 10-31-06 3rd Section 5 CIPA Submission in the newly-released Qwest litigation documents:
http://denver.rockymountainnew…../cipa2.pdf
The Rush Holt FISA Modernization bill (H.R. 3782) also weakens FISA, but may be a reasonable accommodation to the current realities of how we monitor overseas traffic today. His bill adds another method of monitoring and collecting traffic for purposes of foreign intelligence that is (thought to be) generated and “transmitted exclusively” by those outside our borders while also excepting that category of intelligence collection from the “no substantial likelihood” of U.S. person involvement gold standard exception to FISA warrants that kept the NSA from (legally) doing such data-mining collection on Americans within our borders in the past.
Holt’s bill provides for quarterly FISCourt review (of some sort) of the Executive Branch acquisition of such communications of persons “reasonably believed” to be located outside our borders and not known to be U.S. persons. I think his bill may need some amendment to provide for stricter minimization requirements, but even with that it seems to basically give DNI McConnell the room he needs to keep using the ATT/NSA “network operations center” and associated ‘global spying’ operations that now seem to be based within our borders, and which apparently regularly include (or can’t verifiably exclude) the data of innocent Americans (especially their cell-phone and e-mail traffic).
Rep. Holt’s bill is also a good-government bill, with some provisions for streamlining operations and reforming process while increasing the size of the FISA Court and increasing funding.
Basically, Holt did a much more careful and precise job of amending FISA with a minimum of verbiage, got rid of all the language of the PAA up front, and is using a few phrases to limit the new category of U.S.-based, beyond-our-borders spying to “electronic surveillance [that] is solely directed at – (iii) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted exclusively between or among persons reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” – without requiring the FISCourt to grant a once-a-year sweeping ‘order’ for less specific, more permissive U.S.-based spying that amounts to a blanket or basket or general warrant approval of certain computer program parameters using PAA language, as the RESTORE Act does. [Next time, perhaps the Intelligence Committees of Congress ought to consider the need to change the law before just letting the Lt. Gen. Haydens and Mike McConnells - ‘operators of the world’s largest communications network’ - and the Executive Branch unilaterally redefine the infrastructure landscape, unimpeded, until the deed is irreversibly done.]
I think Members of Congress should absolutely be supporting the Holt version (H.R. 3782) of a new FISA bill, with amendments as appropriate. I can’t see any reason to retain much of the sloppy, vague, confusing, far-too-permissive, and almost certainly unConstitutional language of the PAAct, by enacting the unwieldly RESTORE Act instead of Rush Holt’s clearly superior, precise and narrowly-drafted alternative bill.
juslin @ 44
Kerry has been the only Senator to initiate a filibuster of anything (Alito), so if you dont want him involved you really narrow your options.
I’m leaving the Democrats if this passes.
I’ve had it.
Praedor Atrebates @ 66
ditto
pow wow @ 199 -
thank you so much for this!
i almost missed it, but newtonusr pointed it to me on the late late night thread…. will read in the morning, right now me and my insomnia are dueling to see if i’m going to get to sleep. but, i did want to leave a note to let you to know i’d see it.
more later….
thank you, thank you!
CalGeorge @ 201
we can feild a NEW party, call it “the constitutionalists”
that will get members from BOTH parties, it will be a SECULAR party, it’s platform will be religion OUT of politics, corporations are NOT people, only PEOPLE can contribute to political campaigns
and it will be the party of GOVERNMENT FOR PEOPLE, BY PEOPLE
it will be AGAINST government for corporations by corporations
jane, if you could remind the senator to make sure he frames the discussion in terms that are more indicative of what is at stake
this is MORE then a “violation of our privacy”, it’s MORE then “unconstitutional”
they are stealing, plain and simple, stealing information they want, stealing political information to hold over their ponent’s head, stealing bussiness information like professional contacts, like purchasing sources, like prices
they are stealing competitive bids, they are stealing manufacturing secrets
and they CANNOT deny that is what they are doing because they insist NOBODY check to make sure
there is only ONE reason they don’t want someone to check to see if they are or are not stealing
and THAT reason is that they are stealing
I WISH dodd and ALL the democrats started framing this discussion the way it needs to be framed
they are stealing my information, they are looking up my wife’s dress, they are peeking in my daughters widnow
and UNTIL they PROVE that they are not, then they ARE
and THAT is the way this discussion NEEDS to be framed