Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the 535-101 dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8317

All 535 members of Congress, and how much money they got from ISPs

In March, we published a story that showed contributions from the ISP industry to members of Congress who voted to repeal a landmark FCC privacy rule, opening the door to the sale of customer data. It was one of our most popular stories of the year, and many of you asked why we only published contributions to some members of Congress. Incidentally, every one of the 265 members who voted for the measure in March were Republicans. And many of those same members endorse the effort to end net neutrality.

But it's fair to want to see monetary influence across all of Congress. While it is clear that alignment with the ISPs is currently drawn along party lines, the industry's attempt to gain favor with lawmakers is not partisan. Entrenched telecommunications companies liberally spread money and attention to everyone who holds office. Sometimes that influence comes in the form of lavish parties with Olympic athletes and lobbyists, but consistently it comes in the form of contributions to campaigns.

It's impossible to quantify the overall influence of this powerful industry, but we can chart some of it.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) leads the Senate with $2,554,784. Following him are Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) ($1,692,749), Roy Blunt (R-MO) ($1,283,416), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ($1,119,163), Bill Nelson (D-FL) ($1,028,790), and Senate Minority Leader Charles E Schumer (D-NY) ($984,757).

In the House, Representative Greg Walden (R-OR02) received $1,605,986, followed by Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI06) ($1,590,125), Steny H Hoyer (D-MD05) ($1,429,710), Joe Barton (R-TX06) ($1,262,757), John M Shimkus (R-IL15) ($1,044,204), and James E Clyburn (D-SC06) ($1,030,550).

In the Senate, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took the least from the telecom industry at just $40,219. In the House, Representative Warren Davidson (R-OH08) took just $15 (muffins? flowers? bus fare?) and the next guy up the list took $1,040.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:32PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:32PM (#608945) Journal

    Which makes this a bit interesting. The companies that benefit from network neutrality are a lot bigger than the ISPs, combined. Why aren't they able to outbid them? Are they too ethical to engage in bribery? Doesn't seem likely. Are they just naive?

    What companies are you thinking of there?

    Google used to be in favor of net neutrality...but they've backed down from that a bit recently. And it's easy to see why. Lack of neutrality might cost them a bit more, but they can pay it; any small start-up competitors probably can't. Facebook also claims to support neutrality, yet they already partner with ISPs to offer internet plans that aren't even close to neutral. Even Netflix pays out and partners with ISPs to improve their service. The major incumbent content providers aren't all that worried, because lack of net neutrality could actually be to their benefit by holding back competing services.

    Pretty much by definition, the companies that benefit from neutrality are not large. Large companies can pay the fee and actually benefit by locking out any smaller competitors. It's the small companies that are going to get screwed, because they can't afford the fees for that same level of service.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3