Comments on: AP: If Telecom Immunity Doesn’t Pass, AT&T Could Be “Bankrupted”

By: craig07

craig07 — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:26:45 +0000

It seems to me this is a very clear issue. If in fact the telecoms acted illegally by providing access to the government for the illegal wiretapping program (which they most certainly did), then the right approach would be to let the courts decide what, if any monetary figure is adequate to compensate Americans for the damages, then, in a move that is unlikely to happen, revoke all licenses from those businesses to operate any form of communication lines, devices, or protocols that involve the public trust. This will go far is demonstrating to the world that freedoms guaranteed by the constitution are highly valued by the American people and no matter what, it is paramount to our existance.
Any congressman that support immunity for this illegal act should be brought to explain why private companies that violate the constitution, and those that support them should be expelled from public office for their failure to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:27:05 +0000

growth across 21 OECD countries from 1970 to 1990 and found that about one-third of per capita GDP growth could be attributed to telecommunications infrastructure investments — and notes these investments yield excessive returns compared to other forms of infrastructure. Another estimated that ubiquitous deployment of broadband may result in $500 billion worth of economic growth.

And we paid what, $200B in taxbreaks but haven’t gotten anything for it?

Seems like Congress has a natural issue for next year, or certainly the year after that when there’s a Dem president.

Tell telcoms we want a pay off or pay back the dough!

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:13:56 +0000

you don’t have to be an AT&T customer to have been punked by the now notorious “splitter room” that they built at 611 Folsom street in San Francisco.

Is there an analogous ‘room’ in the East?
If so, who owns & runs it?

By: billjpa

billjpa — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:23:13 +0000

ya know what? TO EFFING BAD!
Just keep in mind. This administration will just crank up the printing machine and pump out whatever the telcos need.

By: cheflovesbeer

cheflovesbeer — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:39:31 +0000

Jane better framing would be “Imagine how bad their crimes must be if they will go bankrupt if they have to pay for their crimes. How bad must they be.” always frame the republicans in the worst possible light. Every bit helps.

By: KagroX

KagroX — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:04:44 +0000

AT&T bankrupt? You took that case to the wrong people, chumps.

Free the iPhone! Woohoo!

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:51:46 +0000

I just want to re-emphasize that in these wiretapping discussions, that it’s not just the telephone companies as MadDog pointed out a couple days ago. Your internet service providers are using all kinds of technology to turn over info to law enforcement and I mean outside the scope of a criminal investigation of any type. They are saving your searches and turning them directly over to DOJ as are many search engines, and your ISPs may well be participating in a Magic Lantern type program. I think LHP did a nice post a few weeks ago sorting out some of these mechanisms, and EW may have done a recent one also. MSN was doing this for a long time until exposed and lied to their employees about it for a good amount of time and then apologized. DOJ has continued to press for this summoning the major Telcos and Comcos and Search Engine executives to DC to tell them what the Bush Mukasey OLC monarchy expects of them so that they can spy on you effectively and completely.

The AP story seems to be so typical–a sweeping broad brush stroke statement with no data to back it up.

What might bankrupt these Telcos or Comcos that provide telephone and internet service is their expenses on rosters of huge law firms and lobbyists.

Verizon Lobbyist Database:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lob.....;year=2007

ATT Lobbying Data Base:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lob.....;year=2006

Comcast Lobbying Data Base:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lob.....;year=2007

Total Lobbying Expenditures: $7,078,000
Subtotal for Subsidiary Verizon Wireless: $3,540,000
Subtotal for Parent: $3,458,000
Subtotal for Subsidiary Verizon Business: $80,000
Subtotal for Subsidiary Telesector Resources Group: $0

Itemized Lobbying Expenses for Verizon Communications Firms Hired
Total Reported by Filer

Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)

Verizon Communications
$3,400,000
-

Ogilvy Government Relations
-
$420,000

Liebman & Assoc
-
$340,000

Patton Boggs LLP
-
$300,000

Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc
-
$160,000

Ernst & Young
-
$160,000

Mickey Ibarra & Assoc
-
$150,000

Singer Consulting
-
$120,000

Barbour, Griffith & Rogers
-
$120,000

Capitol Tax Partners
-
$120,000

Bryan Cave Strategies
-
$100,000

Elmendorf Strategies
-
$100,000

Livingston Group
-
$100,000

Walker, Martin & Hatch
-
$90,000

Twenty-First Century Group
-
$80,000

Udwin Group
-
$80,000

Mayer, Brown et al
-
$80,000

Paul, Hastings et al
-
$80,000

Parry, Romani et al
-
$80,000

Capitol Hill Consulting
-
$80,000

DCI Group
-
$80,000

Darlene Richeson & Assoc
-
$60,000

Ken Cunningham Group
-
$60,000

Glover Park Group
-
$60,000

Normandy Group
-
$60,000

Westner Assoc
-
$60,000

Mjwt Consulting
-
$40,000

Halprin, Temple et al
-
$40,000

Law Offices of Kevin G Curtin
-
$40,000

Capitol Impact LLC
-
$40,000

Cassidy & Assoc
-
$40,000

Baker, Donelson et al
-
$20,000

Skadden, Arps et al
-
$20,000

Strategic Partners Inc
-
$20,000

Robison Intl
-
$20,000

Morris, Barbara A
-
$18,000

Bluewater Strategies
-
$10,000

JC White Consulting
-
$10,000

Alston & Bird
-
$0

McGuire, Woods et al
-
$0

Wiley Rein
-
$0

Winston & Strawn
-
$0

Venable LLP
-
$0

$3,458,000

Lobbying Expenses Reported by Subsidiaries Firms Hired
Contract Income
Subsidiary (Lobbied For)

Verizon Wireless
$2,040,000
Verizon Wireless

Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc
$340,000
Verizon Wireless

Venable LLP
$240,000
Verizon Wireless

Wiley Rein
$220,000
Verizon Wireless

Capitol Solutions
$160,000
Verizon Wireless

Ogilvy Government Relations
$120,000
Verizon Wireless

Elmendorf Strategies
$100,000
Verizon Wireless

Normandy Group
$100,000
Verizon Wireless

Baker Botts LLP
$80,000
Verizon Business

Livingston Group
$80,000
Verizon Wireless

Trammell & Co
$60,000
Verizon Wireless

Westner Assoc
$30,000
Verizon Wireless

Capitol Hill Consulting
$20,000
Verizon Wireless

Strategic Partners Inc
$20,000
Verizon Wireless

Bluewater Strategies
$10,000
Verizon Wireless

Birch, Horton et al
$0
Verizon Wireless

Capitol Impact LLC
$0
Verizon Wireless

Halprin, Temple et al
$0
Verizon Wireless

Holland & Knight
$0
Verizon Wireless

Ickes & Enright Group
$0
Telesector Resources Group

Let’s see–supporting the Immunity effort which literally has the Telcoms near hysteria behind the scenes:

Verizon general counsel Bill Barr (who was AG under Poppy Bush 1991-1993)

AT&T Senior Executive Vice President is James Cicconi, who was the elder Bush’s deputy chief of staff.

Republican lobbyists Charlie Black and Wayne Berman (who represent AT&T and Verizon, respectively), former GOP senator and U.S. ambassador to Germany Dan Coats (a lawyer at King & Spaulding who is representing Sprint), former Democratic Party strategist and one-time assistant secretary of State Tom Donilon (who represents Verizon), former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (whose law firm also represents Verizon) and Brad Berenson, a former assistant White House counsel under President George W. Bush who now represents AT&T.

Note that Jamie Gorelick was Deputy AG, the #2 spot at at Reno DOJ and also headed up the Criminal Divisionat DOJ for a time, during the Bill Clinton administration and also exhibited some very disingenuous behavior as to her own screwups at DOJ while on the 911 Commission and actually has refused to answer questions about this. Gorelick also very pointedly tried to steer the 911 Commission to concentrate on the latter years of DOJ and to stay away from her multiple screwups that helped terrorists escape while she was at DOJ.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.....e_gorelick

So very prominent people from Democratic DOJ who were political appointments are working to continue to wiretap you and cover it up. Gorelick is but one.

The Telcos/Comcos are also taking to the blogosphere and blogging for immunity–sounds like a medical research blog doesn’t it?

Take a look at this catchy url from Verizon’s blog:

http://policyblog.verizon.com/.....fault.aspx

By: wrensis

wrensis — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:20:26 +0000

http://projects.washingtonpost.....votes/435/
This site provides the voting records of congress. 76 Senators voted the same as Barbara Mikulski. I simply named the ones that voted the same way, and the ones that did not show up. Not trying to make waves just want a valid look at the realties of the vote. I may or may not agree with her choice in this vote, but she is the Senator and not terribly out of line with 35 other Democrats including Jim Webb.

By: wrensis

wrensis — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:05:19 +0000

It is the list of all of the Senators that voted against Cloture.
Available at this site that provides the votes for everything in Congress
http://projects.washingtonpost.....votes/435/

I continue to support Barbara (Babbs) Mikulski in her right to vote as she sees fit, along with 76 other Senators, 35 of them Democrats. She felt that when the President asked for the records and assured the telecom industry that they were acting within the law, they provided what they felt was demanded.
Discussing the problem is one thing but I object to a Senator being called DUMB to provide comic relief. I frequently call her office and find both them and her very responsive to most liberal viewpoints. And again she was one of the 23 brave Senators who voted against the 2002 Iraq war. She deserves my respect and yours

By: sona

sona — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:13:48 +0000

I never ceases to amaze me that prospects, however unlikely, of corporate bankruptcies create so much heartbreak while millions of children left without health coverage barely raises an eyebrow.

Somewhat OT but tangentially relevant is an an article in The Guardian, (UK) by that indefatigable environmentalist, G Monbiot. The gist of his piece is that the real need is to decouple corporate finance from politics in the USA. He refers particularly to US intransigence re global warming but that analysis applies to a slew of other issues.

He highlights Gore’s shenanigans to sink the 1997 Kyoto summit although he lays the blame at the door of the energy corporations and credits Gore with doing what was politically possible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....27,00.html