Democratic Lawmaker Pushing Immunity Is Newly Flush With Telco Cash (Sen. Rockefeller)

[gulfcoastliberal]

Just a reminder in case anyone forgot why Sen. Rockefeller (and probably Reid too) insist on protecting their corporate clients.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.

He has also recently benefited from some interesting political contributions.

edit

In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.

But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html

[Glorfindel]

1. Weird...he's a fuggin ROCKEFELLER and he needs donations?

The mind reels...at some point, you'd think there would be an end to greed. I guess not.

:wtf: :crazy:

[Junkdrawer]

5. The family is worth at least $350 Billion...prolly much, much more...

$37,000 is chump change for Jay (or is it John D.?)...

No, I think he is more concerned that the secret government he now oversees is able to snoop on us at will.

[rateyes]

2. Follow the money:

www.fec.gov

AT&T give shitloads of money to Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Clinton, et al. So does Verizon.

It's pitiful what you find when you do searches on the PACS and the Individuals and the Candidates.

Sick.

[L. Coyote]

4. Go to opensecrets and check the 2008 numbers AT&T & Verizon gave $68,000

http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001685&cycle=2008

[Botany]

3. Bought and paid for

[pleah]

6. Another dem to put on the aiding and abetting list!

[robinlynne]

8. worse than aiding and abetting in this case. He created the damn bill.

[Yael]

7. Well isn't that convenient.

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. Sad how openly our "representatives" take cash for favors.

Good case for congressional term limits.

[Elidor]

12. Sad how cheap he was, too

He sold out all Americans for a little chump change. Unbelievable.

[Oilwellian]

10. This makes me sick

To think our right to privacy was sold down the river for a pittance. Absolutely disgusting.

[warren pease]

11. But... they're just buying access...

All these selfless, public-spirited donors really want is good government, and they're willing to pay top dollar for it.

According to this report -- Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: Does the Timing of Contributions Matter? -- there is strong evidence suggesting that campaign bribes do influence the votes of those congress members who pocketed the cash.

Kinda like the largesse AT&T and Verizon bestowed on poor, starving Jay Rockefeller to secure his support for telecom immunity. He didn't really need the money but it's tough to put food on his family on a senator's salary. Plus which, if the telecoms are held legally liable for their actions, the terrorists win.

Also, the closer the money shows up relative to a key vote, the more influence it's going to have. Again, see senator Jay for the grim details.

Shocking, I know, but there you have it. Here's the abstract describing the report and summarizing its conclusions:

Theoretical and empirical studies do not address whether campaign contributions from more than one election cycle are important for congressional voting behavior. Further, they do not address whether campaign contributions from different periods have different effects on legislative voting behavior. This paper analyzes the cumulative effect of campaign contributions over two time periods. Moreover, this paper studies the importance of the timing of contributions for legislative voting behavior. Ten roll call votes on price supports and quotas for various farm commodities in 1981 and 1985 are analyzed. Most of the estimated contribution coefficients are statistically significant. The results show that without campaign contributions farm interests would have lost in five of the seven votes that were won. Moreover, contributions that were given at approximately the same time as the vote have a larger impact on voting behavior than contributions that the legislator received one or two years prior to the vote.

I suppose we could always go to public financing of campaigns, but that wouldn't be a free market solution so it's by definition unAmerican. Whereas bribery is what makes the whole corporate world go round and is the very definition of free market practices.


wp

[Octafish]

13. It isn't a bribe, Senator. It's a token of our appreciation.

The players at that level protect the interests of the monied class.
Telco is lucky to have such friends.
Wish We the People had a few.