Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AT&T Businesses Communications

ISP Lobbyists Pushing Telecom Act Rewrite (dslreports.com) 77

Karl Bode, reporting for DSLReports:Telecom lobbyists are pushing hard for a rewrite of the Telecom Act, this time with a notable eye on cutting FCC funding and overall authority. AT&T donated at least $70,000 to back Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, and clearly expects him to spearhead the rewrite and make it a priority in 2017. The push is an industry backlash to a number of consumer friendly initiatives at the FCC, including new net neutrality rules, the reclassification of ISPs under Title II, new broadband privacy rules, new cable box reform and an attempt to protect municipal broadband. AT&T's Ryan donation is the largest amount AT&T has ever donated to a single candidate, though outgoing top AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi has also thrown his support behind Hillary Clinton.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISP Lobbyists Pushing Telecom Act Rewrite

Comments Filter:
  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @03:10PM (#52771223)

    I don't claim to know any political internals, but $70,000 to get legislation that you basically write yourself passed sounds extremely low. Wouldn't this cost at least mid 6 figures? How much are the industry lobbyists and body shops paying Congress to ignore issues with the H-1B program and expand it? I'd guess there's a lot of non-reported money following behind that official $70K figure.

    Industry lobbying must be the ultimate blank ticket for a Congressperson. It must be nice to just call up a lobbyist, promise to do something and get whatever your heart desires. I often joke with colleagues about "golfware" products like SAP or Oracle where the salespeople just pump the senior execs full of booze, hookers and blow until they sign the deal, but this must take stuff like that to a whole new level.

    • A LOT more than 70K (Score:5, Informative)

      by SeattleLawGuy ( 4561077 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @03:19PM (#52771289)

      AT&T alone is in the 4-15M range per year: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]

      Telecom has a big lobby.

    • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      That's $70k to just a single congresscritter though. You have to grease multiple others on both sides of the aisles in both both houses. And then you probably should donate to the Presidential Victory Fund for incoming presidents, Presidential Reelection Victory Fund for incumbent president, or Presidential Library Victory Fund for 2nd term presidents.

    • by anegg ( 1390659 )
      I suspect its not so cut and dried in many cases (give me the money, you get your law). Its more like the money buys access to the ear of the politician, and the politician's ear is filled predominantly with one point of view, that probably sounds well thought out and reasonable. Unless the politician has the time to go out and seek an alternative view (and that may take a lot of time, because the alternative view may be poorly understood/poorly bankrolled), the politician could just be happy to be passin
    • I don't claim to know any political internals, but $70,000 to get legislation that you basically write yourself passed sounds extremely low.

      Part of the POINT of government corruption is that the cost is low compared to the benefits.

      If using the money to actually build something consumers wanted to buy had a better return - and politicians didn't gate-keep and demand ransom ("rent-seeking behavior"), businesses wouldn't spend a dime bribing politicians - or at least those that did would be out-competed and d

    • $70k gets the legislation into the system -- all that takes is one congresscritter, and yes they're that cheap. Then you have to lobby every committee member on every committee that reviews your legislation, to keep them from re-writing your bill into something you don't want, then you have to lobby enough to make it pass the first vote, then enough for the other half of Congress, including keeping any other committee from sabotaging your bill and enough votes to get passed and made into a law. Then you hav
  • Doesn't a 70k donation seriously violate the maximum contribution limits?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Not when it's donated to, let's use an example here... The Clinton Foundation. Big business buys whatever laws and regulations it wants. Whoever has the deepest pockets wins.
    • by zlives ( 2009072 )

      many ways to skin that cat
      http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch... [fec.gov]

    • There are two types of federal campaign limits. Those to candidates and those to political action committees (PACs). Candidates have some limits, but PACs lost those restrictions in the suprime court ruling known as Citizens United [wikipedia.org]. While candidates and PACs can not coordinate, many politicians have their own PACs dedicated to their pet interest. Another pernicious effect of Citizens United is that disclosure rules do not apply to most of these organizations. The truth is we no longer have any idea how
      • Candidates have some limits, but PACs lost those restrictions in the suprime court ruling known as Citizens United.

        And ordinary citizens shouldn't have limits for the same reasons - but didn't have the big pockets to argue that in court like the organized lobbyists do.

        Campaign spending limits are a bait-and-switch. They pretend to level the playing field by cutting down the big spenders' power. But instead they block the grass-roots' influence - individually or when organizing - while leaving the rich abl

  • Unfortunately, I don't have the money to spare to buy the activities of lobbyists and give massive campaign contributions to those who pass legislation. I'm just an ordinary citizen who is subject to the downward spiral of deteriorating customer service and who watches as our Country falls further and further behind the rest of the world in broadband deployment.

    .
    But the ISPs, God bless 'em. They are making money like crazy as they continue to purchase laws favorable to reducing competition and increasi

    • by SteveSgt ( 3465 )

      "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France

      Likewise, our law, in it's majestic equality, permits the poor as well as the rich to donate millions to their favorite politicians in order to favor their unique interests.

    • Try buying local ordinances instead. It should be cheaper than buying Federal laws.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @04:39PM (#52771817)

    AT&T donated at least $70,000 to back Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan

    Should be

    AT&T bribed Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan at least $70,000

    • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

      Careful! You'll get a lot of politicians and their apologists hemming and hawing and acting faux-outraged that you would suggest that a campaign contribution and a bribe are anything alike. Those major contributions, why don't affect the sort of access a company or individual gets, or what priorities the candidate will focus on, or in any way affect who gets contracts.

  • Here we all are, moaning about the capture of Government by Corporations, and it's all true. The US Government is of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, but what's the solution?

    It seems the only way to change the situation is through violence, but history tells us that that's not a very good solution.

    Does anyone have any thoughts?

    • Nonviolent revolution (a la, civil disobedience in India) has at least one reported instance of success.

      However, the US electorate lacks a suitable cultural stereotype upon which to sustain nonviolence, in the face of government totalitarianism. Eg, when people start getting arrested and destroyed financially, people will either suddenly forget their morals, or will turn violent.

      You asked for an alternative, the problem is that it does not look plausible for US culture.

    • by Mogster ( 459037 )

      Disallow corporations from contributing to campaign funds?

      Allow donations from private citizens only?

      Get rid of the PACs and make politicians work their own campaigns?

      Prevent lobbying from corporations?

      FYI I'm a kiwi and admittedly don't know much about the US electoral laws - our process is a little different down here

    • If we could only somehow convince all the millions of guns in this nation to stand up and revolt ... you know cuz, guns somehow have minds of their own and ... Sadly, I think the only solution at this point is for violence and the citizens to revolt. Don't think it's going to happen though, as the general public is nothing but a bunch of sheep who would rather have their MTV. Anonymous should start a Million Anarchist March on Washington; bring your friends and bring your guns.
  • by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @05:35PM (#52772087)

    Is there even remotely a chance that this insidious cycle can be broken?

    Voting party lines won't fix this. This is party-agnostic.

    It's time we add something to the Constitution: The separation of Commerce and State. But this will never, everty-ever happen. That relationship predates the US, it predates most of the last 2000 years, and I bet such shenanigans went on before that, too.

    Citizen's United made it bloody plain these grotesque hybrid corporation/person abominations have the right to Free Speech, and money is speech. This BS needs to be overturned, it's probably Step 1.

    Step 2 may be the Lobbies must be busted. Commerce went on a union-busting binge, we need to go on a lobby-busting binge.

    The Soap Box is drowned in a sea of noise, the Ballot Box is broken, the Jury Box is bought and paid for, maybe it's time for the Ammo Box?

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...