California net neutrality bill gutted as lawmakers cave to AT&T lobbyists

[Triggered Fridgekin]

A California net neutrality bill that could have been the strictest such law in the country was dramatically scaled back yesterday after state lawmakers caved to demands from AT&T and cable lobbyists.

While the California Senate approved the bill with all of its core parts intact last month, a State Assembly committee's Democratic leadership yesterday removed key provisions.

"What happened today was outrageous," Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill author, said. "These hostile amendments eviscerate the bill and leave us with a net neutrality bill in name only."

Arstechnica

The committee chair, Miguel Santiago, sold out for less than $20000 along with several other democrats flipping.

[Wyrt]

What a fucking cunt. Hope he gets voted out of office.

[Vapo]

Sounds like typical american politics.

[Louisa Bannon]

Sounds like typical american politics.

Which is why we are going to need an alternative to even the deep web, one that cannot be controlled.

[Powerogue]

We have seen, and continue to see, that our government cannot function when bribes like this are perfectly legal and common. How do we take steps to stop this without having to literally burn down the white house and start a new government?

[Elegiac]

We have seen, and continue to see, that our government cannot function when bribes like this are perfectly legal and common. How do we take steps to stop this without having to literally burn down the white house and start a new government?

*hides the gas canister*

Uh....

Not sure. I don't think there is a reasonable alternative other than complete constitutional reform.

[Shadowferal]

Campaign Finance Reform...

[Sunseeker]

Disappointing, but not unexpected.

[cubby]

Campaign Finance Reform...

Citizens United kills that notion before it gets out of the gate. You'd have to amend the constitution, and fuck with the first amendment to fix it.

[Elegiac]

Citizens United kills that notion before it gets out of the gate. You'd have to amend the constitution, and fuck with the first amendment to fix it.

We could always try the pro-life tack and just keep passing state level legislation contravening it until we wear down the Supreme Court.

[cubby]

Arstechnica

The committee chair, Miguel Santiago, sold out for less than $20000 along with several other democrats flipping.

Where are you seeing the amounts that were paid? I skimmed the article but didn't see that info. Just curious.

[Powerogue]

*hides the gas canister*

Uh....

Not sure. I don't think there is a reasonable alternative other than complete constitutional reform.

If I remember right it started when companies were able to be treated as people. Under the legalese logic of "a company is a group of people. People can make donations to government election campaigns. So companies should be able to also."

Hard to argue against unless we go straight for the root and just outright ban all campaign donations in all circumstances. It's the internet age, damn it, it's not expensive to get the word out.

[cubby]

If I remember right it started when companies were able to be treated as people. Under the legalese logic of "a company is a group of people. People can make donations to government campaigns. So companies should be able to also."

Hard to argue against unless we go straight for the root and just outright ban all campaign donations in all circumstances. It's the internet age, damn it, it's not expensive to get the word out.

I'm with you, but because of Citizens United, we have to tact from the other side. Just cap the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns. Not how much that be donated, because that's "free speech", but spent.

That might do the trick.

[Shadowferal]

Where are you seeing the amounts that were paid? I skimmed the article but didn't see that info. Just curious.

Campaign finance disclosures show that Santiago has received $22,600 in contributions from AT&T since 2014, and $4,500 from Comcast.

[szechuan]

And of course the people who claim they care about Americans don't even care about Consumers.

[Milchshake]

Citizens United kills that notion before it gets out of the gate. You'd have to amend the constitution, and fuck with the first amendment to fix it.

Right, you'll have to flip a few SCOTUS seats. See you guys in like 20 years I guess.

Thanks Ralph Nader! Thanks Bernie!

[cubby]

Campaign finance disclosures show that Santiago has received $22,600 in contributions from AT&T since 2014, and $4,500 from Comcast.

Ah, gotcha. Thank you. And yeah, damn - such a small amount to buy such a large profit.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, you'll have to flip a few SCOTUS seats. See you guys in like 20 years I guess.

Thanks Ralph Nader! Thanks Bernie!

That's about all that will do it on the contribution side. Spending side could be altered and I think it would be different law - i.e. not free speech per se.

[Powerogue]

I'm with you, but because of Citizens United, we have to tact from the other side. Just cap the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns. Not how much that be donated, because that's "free speech", but spent.

That might do the trick.

Wouldn't that mean they could then keep the "free speech" money to spend on blow and hookers if they so desired? I don't see how that resolves the issue of bribery at all. Though I'm only just now googling Citizens United to see what exactly the current rules on this are following that court case.

[cubby]

Wouldn't that mean they could then keep the "free speech" money to spend on blow and hookers if they so desired? I don't see how that resolves the issue of bribery at all. Though I'm only just now googling Citizens United to see what exactly the current rules on this are following that court case.

Campaign funds' use do have strict rules, but enforcing them is another matter. In theory our laws prevent that money from being used as you describe; but in reality, it's pretty wide open.

Spending caps are how Canada does it, so donations are irrelevant. I'm not sure spending caps would avoid the free speech argument though.

[Fugus]

I'm with you, but because of Citizens United, we have to tact from the other side. Just cap the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns. Not how much that be donated, because that's "free speech", but spent.

That might do the trick.

Public funding of elections. Can't even self fund and all PAC and other such activity are banned.

The only ones exempt from self funding/donations rules are the ones who polled too low to qualify for the public funding and even they are capped at the same amount the publicly funded candidates were given.

Problem solved. Also make it where they can not profit from this funding in any way. Any items bought with the money is turned over, any left over money is turned over. So if they try to buy a car, they lose the car, if they try to do improvements to their home, they have to turn over the home or pay back the amount they spent on it and so on.

Honestly, if corporations are people, I really want to see someone getting sued by a company asserting his right to face his accuser and arguing in court that just seeing representatives of the company doesn't count.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, you'll have to flip a few SCOTUS seats. See you guys in like 20 years I guess.

Thanks Ralph Nader! Thanks Clinton!

Fix that for you.