Republicans want their telecom cash

February 28, 2008

Unable to make an honest case for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with an illegal warrantless-search program, the Bush administration and its allies have crawled to Door #2: Dems are resisting because of the trial lawyers.

In the fight over retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program after 9/11, a popular right-wing meme has been that “the real reason Democrats oppose immunity” is because they are allegedly beholden to trial lawyers who “want to push massive class action suits against the telecom companies.” Even though the claim is false, the theme has been echoed by the entire conservative infrastructure.

Robert Novak pushed it in his Washington Post column while Rush Limbaugh aired the charge on his radio show. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) alleged it on the Senate floor and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino made the claim on Fox News.

The president personally repeated this nonsensical line at this morning’s White House press conference.

“[N]ow, all of a sudden, plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know — I don’t want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train — are trying to sue these companies.”

Even by Republican standards, this is just sad. They can’t win the debate on the merits, and they can’t browbeat Democrats into submission, so they’re left to agitate the party’s base with a combination terror/trial lawyer attack that really doesn’t make any sense.

The irony, of course, is that it’s Republican supporters of telecom immunity who are looking to get a financial reward, not Democratic opponents looking for money from the plaintiffs’ bar.

First, the substance.

Having visited EFF’s offices myself, I can confirm Cohn’s description — they’re anything but a swanky law firm. And EFF’s work has been vital to defending and expanding online freedom. The idea that the FISA debate is about trial lawyers, rather than privacy and the Constitution, is an insult both to the hard-working lawyers at organizations like EFF and the ACLU, and to everyone else’s intelligence.

Second, the Republicans’ financial motivation.

With the House Democrats’ refusal to grant retroactive immunity to phone companies — stalling the rewrite of the warrantless wiretapping program — GOP leadership aides are grumbling that their party isn’t getting more political money from the telecommunications industry.

Like most corporate interests with a heavy stake in Congressional action, the major phone companies significantly boosted their contributions to Democrats last year after the party surged back into the majority.

But giving by that sector is getting special attention from Republicans now that the debate over the surveillance program is front and center — and focused on the phone companies’ role in aiding the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“It’s quite discouraging,” said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general. […]

In a reflection of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and an apparent recognition that they would undermine their own messaging by appearing to be motivated by fundraising concerns, Republicans on and off Capitol Hill declined to comment on the record. […]

“There’s no question that from time to time staff, and maybe some Members, say to fellow travelers: ‘Are you giving us some air cover? Are you helping us help you?'” [one Republican lobbyist said.]

Pointing at Dems (falsely) with one hand, while reaching for a telecom handout with the other.

Shameless. Simply shameless.

“…and focused on the phone companies’ role in aiding the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ”

Before the Sept 11th attacks. BEFORE. Never ever forget that this unconstitutional BS started before 9/11.

  • The obvious connection between the telecoms getting what they want (or not) and their campaign donations should be an open and shut case for Clean Elections.

  • Here’s a concept… if you don’t want to enrich trial lawyers in a class action lawsuit, how ’bout you JUST FOLLOW THE DAMN LAW!

    If there’s no merit to the lawsuits, trial lawyers won’t benefit. In reality, if the telecoms can make any legitimate argument that they believed they were acting appropriately, they aren’t likely to be hurt financially. It doesn’t require congress to grant immunity without any fact-finding.

    How have we come to where we’re making an argument that the most important tool for ensuring national security is to make sure that no laws ever apply, that ANYTHING can be done, even in direct contradiction to laws, if the white house wants it? How can this argument be made by any serious person? It galls me almost as much as having to argue how much torture is appropriate.

  • Dee Lorelei (1) “Before the Sept 11th attacks. BEFORE. Never ever forget that this unconstitutional BS started before 9/11.

    If I’m not mistaken the immunity clause in the FISA bill gives cover only for actions after 9/11. The pre-9/11 stuff would still be subject to legal action.

  • Another angle to this is that if the telecom companies get sued, they may be forced to divulge details as to how much and how often they submitted to the administration during the discovery process.

    Right now the administration has kept congressional investigations at bay by claiming they haven’t done anything illegal while at the same time saying they can’t explain what they have done “for security reasons” and executive privilege. Should something come out of a telecom trial that points to obvious illegal activities on the part of the administration, Congress might not be so cowed by the administration’s stonewalling.

    In any case, the administration doesn’t want to find out, so by eliminating the threat of lawsuits, they eliminate the threat of their dirty laundry being aired by the telecoms.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602155.html

  • Danp: That was an addition floated by Feinstein that failed. So far, one of the few things I’m proud of her for.

    Of course, when it failed she voted for the original immunity again. Argh.

  • Repeat after me: It’s not about the liability of the telecoms. It’s not about trial lawyers and runaway juries and crippling penalties. As mentioned, if what they did is legal, they’ll be fine. But that outcome is at the other end of a long, involved, public trial, including something this Administration dreads: the discovery phase.

    Suddenly all their sweetheart deals and illegal spying and political nastiness will come out into the light. The telecoms are likely to emerge whole from this process, but the Administration most certainly will not. That is why it’s so all-fired important to Bushco that these lawsuits never ever ever go to trial — not because they’d lose, but because even winning will kill them.

  • Shameless mendacity is the hallmark of the thugocracy Bushco has created. With a propaganda machine as large and as well-oiled as the Right-wing trumpet they have bamboozled dumbed-down Americans into cowering under their beds.

    Impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach. Our only salvation.

  • The real issue, as it always is, is Dick Cheney’s hatred of all branches of government except the executive. It is his lingering anger, in need of long overdue psychiatric intervention, at Congress and the Courts exposing the crookedness of the Nixon Administration and his embarassment at being identified with it.

    His and his Bush-puppet’s disdain for Congress has long been evident. But in this way they now also show that they think courts are useless and should not have a role in anything.

  • Crissa (8): I called Jay Rockefeller’s office and asked an aide there. He told me, “I’m sure it (the immunity) would include both before and after (9/11).” Arf!! He also gave me a website (below) to look at, but I get a blank page, which may be because of my old software. In either case, I concede. Thanks.

    http://intelligence.senate.gov/071025/s2248.pdf

  • The Republican mentality that was at the root of the DeLay/ Cunningham types of corruption are still endemic in the party. Quid pro quo is still the order of the day and the motivation for passing or denying legislation is still “where’s my money?”

  • Bush demands telecom immunity? fine—give it to them—but Dems need to give it to them on OUR terms, and not Bu$h’s.

    Offer telecoms a choice–roll over on the Bushylvanians and rat them out—on everything, mind you, and not just the initial layer of liability for illegal wiretaps—or be litigated into the Stone Age.

    First off, I don’t think Verizon will make a lot of money by selling the idea of talking to Tokyo by pounding on a hollow log with a rock or your late mother-in-law’s shinbone. They need “today-technology” to make it happen for them.

    Second, there’s got to be more of a reason to “discovery” than just proof of illegal wiretapping. Everyone with an IQ higher than a dissected cat knows about the Bush administration’s telecom gambit, and what they did. Has anyone—anyone at all—ever considered the “primitive” email system that the Bu$h administration put into place? Does anyone realize that “email”—when it was first created—depended entirely upon hardline telecommunications technology?

    Maybe the telecoms have something that the Bushylvanians really don’t want everyone to read—like those “millions and millions” of missing emails.

    Or perhaps tens of thousands of incriminating communications identifying all the graft, theft, organized corruption, premeditated war profiteering, fired US attorneys—all of it.

    ALL OF IT.

    The telecoms just might be “the smoking gun” that implicated Bush and his band of miscreants in every illegal activity imaginable over the past seven years—and not just “the illegal wiretapping” stuff.

    I say Dems should cut the telecoms a deal—trade immunity from being Bu$h’s lackeys for full disclosure of everything they’ve got on Bu$h. Make the offer—and watch how much Bu$h squirms….

  • Pore, pore Repubs; one of their cash-cows is holding its milk… Dahlinks… You should have known… Telecoms are *business* entities; they pay only for the product, not for a promise of one.

    But, Cato Institute calling Bu..Sh.. on Bu$h vis FISA? *Cato Institute*??? I know they’re a libertarian think tank and as such, supposed to stand up for Constitution and rights of individual, but… They’re also — much more — for free markets. Including “free” as in “free from all regulation and supervision”. They should be clamoring for telecoms’ immunity, not saying its a load of offensive nonsense. Will wonders never cease?

  • How amusing. Going for the campaign finance angle. And because the telecom companies are corporations, then they are of course donating to Republicans. Because everybody knows how evil Republicans are and pure Democrats are.

    Hogwash. Garbage. Here’s some real data. As you know, corporations can’t donate to campaigns, but their PACs can. In 2006, the lion’s share of PACs related to the telecom industry donated 62% to Republicans and 37% to Democrats (link here: http://opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=B01&cycle=2006). As of 2/11/2008, this changed. Dramatically. Now, 53% is donated to Democrats, and 47% to Republicans (link here: http://opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=B01&cycle=2008). And this was before all this regarding the expiring of the PAA went down. Of course, who is pointed to by this post as one of those investigating this and reporting a lie? Why none other than Glenn Greenwald. Again, he seems to like to say things without really looking into them to back up what he “finds”.

    Of course, that doesn’t include the ambulance-chasing shysters. They’ve donated $1.5 million to Democrats, and a little over 4000 bucks (yes, that’s $4000) to Republicans.

    Keep going with the campaign finance angle. It’s proving to be a winner. For those exposing the truth about Dems getting the campaign contributions.

  • Here’s better data. The PACs for the actual Telecom companies and donations:

    PAC Name ↓ Affiliate ↓ Total ↓ Dems ↓ Repubs ↓
    AT&T Mobility AT&T Inc ($5,500) ($2,000) ($3,500)
    Lucent Technologies $12,000 $10,000 $2,000
    Motorola Inc $125,000 $79,000 $46,000
    Nortel Networks $69,947 $35,898 $34,049
    Qwest Communications $297,544 $146,914 $150,630
    Sprint Nextel $96,500 $54,000 $42,500
    US Cellular $8,000 $6,000 $2,000
    Verizon Wireless $18,000 $14,000 $4,000

    Industry-wide for these Pacs?

    Total to Democrats: $719,737 (57%)
    Total to Republicans: $540,179 (43%)

    Pretty good data, eh?

  • Cindy Cohn, the lady at EFF that Greenwald interviewed, isn’t as “poor” as some seem to think she is. As a matter of fact, she donated money to the Kerry campaign (link here: http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?24961463806), and to Jay Rockefeller’s campaign (link here: http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?28020051173). The latter is pretty amusing since it’s Rockefeller who wants the immunity in place. One wonders what she’s angling for; but I won’t speculate.

  • Yes, you’d have have to be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice to donate a total of 750 dollars to two people.

    And no doubt Jay Rockefeller is giving her unlimited access to his office, considering the munificient gift.

    The corporations pay millions for access, but it’s worth nothing unless the payee is elected. Could be they don’t care for the chances of the GOP this election.

    How idiotic can the GOP be, to imagine that corporations are going to show a shred of loyalty to losers who can’t help them?

  • Could be they don’t care for the chances of the GOP this election. Could be.

    How idiotic can the GOP be, to imagine that corporations are going to show a shred of loyalty to losers who can’t help them? Of course, that makes so much sense. Give money to those in Congress who are willing to throw those corporations under the bus, and leave them adding to their costs in defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits.

    Or maybe it’s a combination of things. Remember, I’ve proven we conservatives actually understand arithmetic, unlike “liberals”. You could be right; why should they finance the campaigns of Republican politicians when there is a good chance Democrats may increase their numbers in Congress. Good point. No argument from me. But then that doesn’t really jive with my point about giving money to Democrats all ready to throw them under the bus. Unless, that isn’t, nor ever was, really going to happen.

    I’ll go out on a limb here. The title of the CB post is “Republicans want their telecom cash”. I think the more accurate picture, in light of the data, is that Democrats want their telecom cash. And are dangling the immunity as extortion for more money. Which they are getting. Not only that, they are probably getting more money from the telecom PACs than from the shysters.

    I’ll wager that Pelosi, Hoyer, Conyers, Reyes, and the rest of the Keystone Congress let’s the vot on immunity go through. And it will pass. Because there will be enough Democrats in the House to vote for it. And their campaigns get richer.

    How much do you want to bet? I also think the title of the post should then say, “Democrats extort want their telecom cash”. I think that’s more accurate.

  • of course, your numbers are not nearly as cash-heavy towards the Democrats if you take out Nortel, Motorola and Lucent who are not carriers and do not have networks for the communications to transit. It is pretty much 50-50, which suggests serious fence sitting after a decade of largesse to Republicans.

  • SteveIL – Remember, I’ve proven we conservatives actually understand arithmetic, unlike “liberals”.

    No, I don’t remember – come to think of it, was it you who said “tax giveaways for the rich generates revenue” a while back? If so, that really doesn’t prove it. If you actually have to state “we understand arithmetic”, it must come from a place of insecurity. You need a hug perhaps.

    BTW, you didn’t even BOTHER to read CB’s post – which links to the same point that you say, and states “the major phone companies significantly boosted their contributions to Democrats last year after the party surged back into the majority.”

    You respond to that by making the same point. As Steve Benen said, “this is just sad”

  • So why did Mr. Benen title the post “Republicans want their telecom cash”, when a more accurate title would be the one I suggested?

    • Comments are closed.