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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:39AM
Steny H Hoyer (D-MD05) = Democrat from Maryland's 5th congressional district.
and so on.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:42AM (6 children)
What all those telecom surcharges actually go.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:45AM
FTFY.
The next rounds of surcharges will go into the major ISP-es pockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:52AM (4 children)
Actually, those guys are pretty cheap. The surcharges pay more in executive bonuses than in lobbying.
Best Democracy money can buy...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:24AM (3 children)
You can thank for it to the free market fairy - competition between them on the lobbying budget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:37AM (2 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:03PM
I would say they are naive, hence why they don't engage in cash = speech nonsense.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:32PM
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.
(Score: 2) by BananaPhone on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:01AM
Make them captive customers, treat them like shit and buy all the government officials as cheap as you can.
You have the freedom! (tm)
Thank you Corp...err.. Citizens United
/s
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:17AM (28 children)
John McCain has been voting with the democrats.
In the election, he didn't vote for the republican candidate.
In the senate, he votes to keep Obamacare. He does this even though he refuses to use socialized healthcare himself. He is entitled to Medicare, to Veterans Administration care, and of course to Obamacare. None of that is good enough for McCain, but he thinks the rest of us should use it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:20AM
McCain has done his best possibe job at fucking America. 2012 NDAA detention amendment, getting weapons to isis and syrian rebels, bombing his own aircraft carrier, pushing the canceling of the f22 program, and on and on. If there is a bill that serves to fuck americans, you can bet he is for it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:22AM (3 children)
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=C5A24E2D-B28D-4CCF-8037-E8C2E6562051 [senate.gov]
He identifies as a (cis-male) Republican.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:02AM (2 children)
Policy-wise, McCain is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton.
Yet they both seem to be very successful at marketing themselves as candidates to people that detest everything they stand for.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:37PM (1 child)
That's because policy-wise Hillary Clinton is a Republican from a decade or two ago. It's amazing how the entirety of US politics keeps drifting to the right :/
(Score: 4, Touché) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:36PM
You're thinking of Obama, who has described his own policies as those of a "moderate Republican".
For Hillary you've got to go back more than a decade or two I think...Nixon era sounds about right ;)
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:29AM (21 children)
Yeah, right.
Blame a person which doesn't want the limited heath budget to be spent on his account when he can afford it from his own pocket.
You know it makes perfect sense in today's Amurica! Kill any trace of altruism, that's red-hot communism, only the greedy bastards must be allowed to live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Troll) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:39AM (20 children)
Spoken like someone that's never had to rely on the VA for medical care.
No altruistic motive needs to be invented here. No one willingly submits to socialized health care when they can afford something else.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:46AM (16 children)
Of course, given that I'm not USian.
So... you reckon McCain should be vilified because he doesn't need socialized health care?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:12AM (15 children)
No, he should be vilified on entirely different grounds.
The point about health care simply demonstrates his deep hypocrisy. He won't touch it himself, none of his friends would either, the thought is laughable. Yet he works tirelessly to make sure that the rest of us, the 'little people' that are called upon to pay for, and sometimes to die for, this mans hair-brained schemes, have no other choice.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:18AM (7 children)
As opposed to a certain orange character, which works restlessly to make sure the 'little people' have no choice at all... and yet the orange one should not be shamed for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:22AM (5 children)
What are you even talking about?
Trying to reply to a different post?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:44AM (4 children)
Latest I heard of: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/trump-taxes-obamacare-individual-mandate.html [nytimes.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:52AM (3 children)
Was it making you uncomfortable?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:03AM (2 children)
Nope, we were talking about heath care in US, with McCain's position as a particular case.
Was it making you uncomfortable in the topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:11AM (1 child)
Not at all, only a little unsettling when the topic seems to have been shifted abruptly and for no apparent reason.
Going back and re-reading your post several times doesn't render it any less abrupt. On the surface it appears, and I pick this word carefully, *senseless* - I can find no sense in it.
"As opposed to a certain orange character, which works restlessly to make sure the 'little people' have no choice at all... and yet the orange one should not be shamed for it."
This sure seems like a part of a conversation which we were not having. Hence why I initially thought you might have replied to the wrong post. It's not inconceivable someone in another branch of the thread I had not read had argued that Trump shouldn't be shamed, but no, you confirmed it was sent to me.
It's just not responsive to anything I've said.
If you're doing drugs you might want to tone down the dose just a tad.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:42PM
Let us all just agree that Trump and McCain are both dirtbags. McCain seems to have a streak of honor left in his dark soul, but it is too infrequently called upon. It seems clear McCain is too old with a bit of dementia creeping up, but that isn't a very good excuse. Trump is just garbage, from start to finish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:06PM
The Orange Stallion works tirelessly for the American people and THEIR Dream*.
*Not to be confused with law-breaking invaders of this great nation which feel entitled to everything because they worked so hard not to work hard for anything.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:19AM (5 children)
The point about health care simply demonstrates his [McCain's] deep hypocrisy. He won't touch it himself, none of his friends would either, the thought is laughable. Yet he works tirelessly to make sure that the rest of us, the 'little people' that are called upon to pay for, and sometimes to die for, this mans hair-brained schemes, have no other choice.
Er..Whut?
Is he campaigning for a law to prevent people who use socialized health-care from purchasing health-care services? Provision of socialized health care does not prevent people with the means to do so from either (a) buying health-care directly or (b) buying additional health-insurance. If he doesn't use socialized health-care he is entitled to, and instead buys health services on the open market, he is giving up resources that could have been used on him so they can be used for someone else (who might, possibly, have greater need).
Now, if you want to argue about whether being a member of a health-care scheme should be compulsory or not, that is a different kettle of fish. If you wish to be able to opt-out of socialized health care, please explain why you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying for a military if you are pacifist, or opt out paying for a coast-guard if you live in a state without a coast, or opt out of paying for schools if you are childless. All of those can, and have been debated, so there is a rational debate to be had on healthcare. While people can self-describe as anarchist or libertarian, they don't live in a vacuum, and the rest of society (which could well be in a majority) may well have different views and impose them. That's the deal with living in groups of people. You can certainly campaign for your views, and if you wish, join the Free State Project [freestateproject.org], but please at least acknowledge that people can have opposing views without being idiots. I wish you luck in finding somewhere to live unmolested by government.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by moondrake on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:57AM (2 children)
In principle I agree with socialized health care. I live in Europe, and we have some of that here. And it works fine I think (and there is not much of the funny 2-tier healthcare system for people with money and people without money).
HOWEVER, at some point, my home country at the time started to force me into paying for its mandatory health-care system. Even although I already had a private insurance (I needed this because at the time I moved around quite a bit between countries and the mandatory insurance would not provide me with coverage I needed). In the end, I ended up officially immigrating from that country to avoid paying double.
So I can see where some of the criticism comes from. It would be nice to be able to opt out in case you have a valid alternative insurance. Of course, the problem is going to be that someone has to decide what kind of insurance is good enough.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:21PM
That's a terrible idea, because you end up splitting the insurance pool into two groups: rich and poor. The state-provided healthcare then is then only funded by the poor people and so, because a large subset of those will have no income and therefore no ability to pay towards it, will be underfunded, which will lead more people to opt out, until eventually you're left with only the people who don't pay any tax using it and no one paying for it.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:23PM
Nope, what should be available to you is separate insurance that only covers you when out of the country. Pretty sure you can get that, but I'm the price is probably rather high since traveling is a higher risk.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:24PM
There are a few folks like McCain with large fortunes to call on, there are many more that work hard and make enough money to pay for their needs - once.
With Obamacare, we're required to purchase the mandatory coverage with that money. If that coverage doesn't serve our needs? Too bad. Have to buy it anyways. Only enough money to pay for your health care once, not twice? Well, buddy, you're screwed. Why didn't you inherit a few million from daddy?! What's wrong with you?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:44PM
And he also has no incentive to improve the system because he's paying for it but not using it. So it's in his interest to cut costs even if that decreases the quality of service. Particularly when talking about the VA -- that means he thinks it's good enough for someone who risks their life for the country, but at the same time his own actions say that he doesn't think it's good enough for HIM. If he just wants to free up resources, he can buy an equivalent plan from a private insurer. If he's buying a *better* plan, then he's just admitting that he thinks he deserves better than what he proposes for others.
It's like if you visited Microsoft's HQ and every single computer there was a Mac. Frees them up to work on things regular users care about instead of focusing on the needs of developers, right? Or it just means their software is garbage and they know it and have given up on fixing it.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:42AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:22PM (2 children)
Maybe. Maybe not. But perhaps an underlying problem is there are too many who cannot afford that 'something else'. I can afford 'something else'. But those who cannot go to the ER for trivial treatments. Thus the cost radically increases for those of us who can afford 'something else'.
Or Republicans could give the poor people a free coupon to see Dr. Kevorkian [wikipedia.org]. Good for one free office visit.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:56PM (1 child)
I could afford something else if I had the money that was stolen from me under the pretense of providing me health care just over the past few years.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:25PM
The ACA is a pile of garbage only slightly better than the previous setup. As has been stated many times, if you believe all taxation is theft then you're not fit for society. Sadly we don't have a re-education camp to send you to /s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:55AM
It's probably a sure sign of how unhinged you folks have become.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:17AM (6 children)
The only reason this got past the house with only Republicans is because that was all that was necessary to do so. Dems and Reps do a good job at protecting themselves when the vote is going to go the "correct" way anyways, but had they needed a couple more people the Dems would have kicked in a few votes from districts where the vote would not cause problems.
Dem or Rep the only thing they care about is their sponsors.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:54AM
Dem or Rep the only thing they care about is their sponsors.
If they want to keep receiving "donations", they have to serve the "donors". Couldn't be more obvious. It's up to the voters to look past them and vote independent. Nobody else can clean the house.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:58AM (1 child)
I'll tell you what. I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two years ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system. With Hillary Clinton, I said, be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She had no choice! Because I gave.
But we have a lot of differences. A lot of differences. The Dems are weak on crime, they’re weak on illegal immigration, they want the folks to come pouring into our border. Legal and illegal. They want immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked -- and a lot of problems are being caused, although we’ve stopped it to a large extent, as much as you can without the wall, which we’re going to get. Look at what happened in New York yesterday morning. Look at what's happening in New York.
We're trying to do a Tax Cut, the biggest in history. And I asked "Chuck and Nancy" to a meeting about keeping government open and working. They want to substantially RAISE Taxes. No deal! They decided not to show up. They've been all talk. They've been no action. And now it's even worse. Now, it's not even talk.
ObamaCare is finished. It's dead. It's gone. We need to repeal & replace that one. We tried to do the repeal & replace. Where were the Dems? They're obstructionists, folks. The Democrats are obstructionists, no ideas or votes, only obstruction. 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:23PM
Build a wall around the swamp and make the swamp pay for it.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
Every single Democrat voted against this bill.
And your only rebuttal is "what if we lived in an alternate universe where they didn't?"
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:57PM (1 child)
If you want to believe that your Dems are all saints go ahead because you are only screwing yourself.
Senate Democrats held the majority in 2012 for the 2012 NDAA
Senate Democrats held the majority in 2002 when we voted to go to war in Iraq
And on and on
This "us vs them" of Dems vs Reps is a smokescreen when both sides will always make sure to screw us over for their profit.
Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer both voted for the Iraq war and had plenty enough connections to know the whole thing was a scam. How exactly did that vote help you? What about the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act that repealed part of of Glass-Steagall? Only 18% of Senate Dems and 32% of Congressional Dems voted against it.
You keep screaming that "yeah well at last our guys aren't Nazis" as you stand infront of Pres Obama who is busying himself signing legislation damaging habeus corpus.
https://www.rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-detention-president-288/ [rt.com]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:30PM
They aren't the same, but they are both corrupt as hell. The GOP is the Devil, DNC by comparison is Phil ruler of heck.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:12AM (1 child)
American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress [theonion.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:08PM
Some people tried to hire Bernie Stalin... I mean Sanders to lobby on their behalf. He turned around and gave the money to Clinton,w ho has been bought out long ago by a rainbow coalition of foreign interests (including Russia).