Blog Layout

Legalized Corruption Fueled the Death of Internet Privacy: The Problem is Worse at the State Level

April 6, 2017

(Published on Blacklisted News on April 6, 2017)

The Congressional bill that allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to sell your browsing history has been met with a lot of critical media coverage. However, few reporters have set their sights on the flow of money that helped set this legislation in motion. 
 
In general, Internet privacy is a bipartisan issue among the American people. However, this was a partisan issue on Capitol Hill with Republican lawmakers supporting the bill. It was passed in the Senate and House by a very narrow margin, 50 to 48 and 215 to 205 respectively. With that said, there were 15 House Republicans who voted outside of their party lines to keep Internet privacy intact. 
As you may have guessed, those 15 House Republicans received far less campaign money from the telecoms (AT&T, Comcast, etc.), which stand to benefit from selling your Internet history. A report by the non-profit organization, Center for Responsive Politics, showed that they received an average of $77,000 in contributions. Conversely, the other House Republicans received an average of $138,000. In other words, it appears that the telecoms executed an effective strategy for buying the necessary number of votes. 
  
The telecom industry has donated nearly $564,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the author of this bill, over the course of eight terms in the House of Representatives. It’s possible that she will be voted out of office next term, but that’s unlikely. Then again, she is only one member of Congress and her removal will not solve the core issue of legalized corruption, which is a systemic problem. Even if Blackburn were to be voted out of office, she would likely be rewarded with a more lucrative career as a corporate lobbyist.  
AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon spent a combined $40.78 million in lobbying expenses last year. That helped to fund a trade group with a “doublespeak” name, the 21st Century Privacy Coalition. A total of 308 corporate lobbyists worked on behalf of these companies and 225 of them are part of the revolving door between government and the private sector. Of those 225 former government officials, ten of them are former members of Congress:

Don Nickles (R-OK) 
Ron Klink (D-PA)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Jim McCrery (R-LA) 
Vic Fazio (D-CA)
John Breaux (D-LA)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Bob Livingston (R-LA)
Steven D Symms (R-ID)
Jack Fields (R-TX)

We need stronger rules in place to block politicians from becoming part of this revolving door. Otherwise, our elected officials have a powerful incentive to do the bidding of various special interest groups, not the public interest. As of now, U.S. Senators can’t lobby their former colleagues for two years after leaving office and former U.S. Representatives have a one-year delay. This “cooling-off period” is a bare minimum regulation because it doesn’t block the revolving door; it only slows down the process.

Unfortunately, this problem is worse at the state level. Wisconsin is one of the sixteen states that allow politicians to become paid lobbyists immediately after leaving office. Jay Heck, the director of a non-profit group Common Cause Wisconsin, has been trying for two decades to persuade his state’s lawmakers to make a change. He told The Washington Times that many lawmakers haven’t bothered to hide their self-interest when objecting to Heck’s proposal. He’s heard, “Well, what else would we do.”  

On the bright side, Wisconsin has a pending bill that would mandate a one-year cooling-off period. However, this is essentially the same bill from 2013 that didn’t receive a hearing. There was a hearing for the bill in 2015, but it was never put up for a vote. 
There seems to be more bipartisan backing this time around, but one key player has yet to support this proposal -- Scott Fitzgerald, Wisconsin’s Senate Majority Leader. After all, he’s more than familiar with this subject. His brother, Jeff, is the former Speaker of the Assembly who became a corporate lobbyist two days after leaving office in 2013. 

Michigan also doesn’t have a mandatory cooling-off period. An excellent article by Petoskey News-Review, a local newspaper of Northern Michigan, pointed to two former State Representatives who tried to establish a mandatory waiting period. Unfortunately, neither bill received enough votes to become law, but there was an ironic twist to this article. Both co-sponsors of the bill, Lesia Liss and Paul Opsommer, began working as lobbyists, three months and five months respectively after they left office. 

Making matters worse, there are glaring conflicts of interest related to their revolving door exits. While in office, Opsommer adamantly obstructed a public works project that was opposed by his current employer. Likewise, Liss once served on a health care committee that she now lobbies for an insurance company. 

Again, a 1 or 2-year cooling-off period is a fairly minor restriction. As a matter of fact, it can be a mere formality in some cases; there are ways around these restrictions. (This was covered in more detail in my article from two weeks ago, “Revolving door lobbyists are exploiting the rules.”) 

For example, a prominent former member of the New York State Assembly, Keith Wright, joined a powerful law and lobbying group this January, two days after his term ended. State law bars him from lobbying his former colleagues in the Senate or Assembly for two years. However, a blog, State of Politics, astutely pointed out that Wright can immediately lobby the Governor’s office without violating any rules.

Likewise, an influential former North Carolina State Senator, Tom Apodaca, began working with his former colleagues in January as a lobbyist. Oddly enough, Apodaca, who was the Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, wouldn’t be in his current place without skirting the rules. By resigning before his term expired, he avoided the state’s mandatory six-month cooling-off period. He’s now representing companies, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, which helped finance his campaigns.

In fairness, Tom Apodaca didn’t create this loophole to avoid the cooling-off period; it was the State Ethics Committee. But, bear in mind, that’s the same Ethics Committee that infamously ruled that sex between lobbyists and officials didn’t need to be disclosed because these relationships are not “reportable expenditures made for lobbying.”

By the way, that name, Tom Apodaca, may sound familiar to you. He has made national headlines in the past with another story that demonstrated how money clearly corrupts politics. Notably, Apodaca sponsored an “anti-Tesla” bill in 2013 after receiving the maximum donation ($8,000) from the North Carolina Auto Dealers Association. That law required car buyers to make their purchase through an auto dealership, not online, which nullified Tesla’s business model.

All in all, efforts need to be made for systemic changes at the state and federal level to prevent special interest groups from gaining undue influence. In an ideal world, there would be a lifetime ban on lobbying for former members of Congress. However, a compromise bill with a much lengthier waiting period could become reality if there was enough popular support. The problem is that the general public isn’t widely aware of the corrupting influence from the revolving door. 

This is one of multiple reforms that need to be made to improve the integrity of our political system. Otherwise, we’ll continue to see more bills, such as the one that was signed into law this Monday, which established a market for purchasing everyone’s browsing history. That’s much like the way in which our elected officials can be legally purchased by the highest bidder. 

By Brian Saady 04 Sep, 2024
In early August, the U.S. Treasury quietly sanctioned the tobacco company of Paraguay’s former president, Horacio Cartes. Before entering office, Cartes had extensive links to organized crime and took authoritarian actions while in power. However, Cartes faced no public pressure from the American government until long after leaving office in 2018. America’s leadership looked the other way for so long because Cartes fulfilled its mutual interests.
By Brian Saady 04 Sep, 2024
Two plotters of the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse were exposed as DEA informants. Another was unmasked as an FBI informant. Now, newly-released court documents provide the most startling evidence yet linking the conspirators with the US government.
By Brian Saady 19 Jul, 2024
Does America Belong on its List of State Sponsors of Terrorism?
It’s a tactic directly from China’s playbook
By Brian Saady 21 May, 2024
President Biden signed a well-publicized bill last month that would ban the TikTok app if the Chinese portion of its ownership is not sold to different investors within a year. On its own merits, the original bill (H.R. 7521) passed in the House 352 to 65. However, the TikTok ban was attached to a bill (H.R. 815) that provides roughly $95 billion of aid (mostly military) to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. In the same week that members of Congress patted themselves on the back for protecting Americans from potential Chinese government spying, it passed a bill that extended and expanded a U.S. government surveillance program (Section 702) that routinely violates Americans’ constitutional right to privacy. The message from our government is clear. Dear Americans, don’t worry about China spying on you; that’s our job. We all should be concerned about foreign espionage via a popular app, but we should be more concerned about our government doing the same thing because our government can throw you in prison. With that in mind, you need to view the TikTok ban as merely the U.S. government throwing China’s tactics right back at them. China doesn’t play by the same set of rules. Practically every high-profile American social media platform, news outlet, search engine, and messaging app is banned in China.
By Brian Saady 07 Apr, 2024
Iran provides immunity for Naji Sharifi Zindashti in exchange for committing extrajudicial executions abroad.
By Brian Saady 27 Mar, 2024
Lazy journalists labeled Epstein as a “financier,” a “man of mystery,” a “philanthropist,” etc. This was one of the most sought-after stories of recent times, yet the corporate media dropped the ball through self-censorship and ineptitude. The evidence indicates that Epstein was involved in the intelligence community. It defies logic to think otherwise considering that he was so deeply tied to one of the largest Ponzi schemes of its time, involved in international arms dealing, owned a fake passport, operated a blackmail scheme that masqueraded as a sex trafficking ring, influenced key business/political leaders, held hundreds of millions of dollars of nebulous wealth, among other reasons. Here's a timeline of events that will help to clear up many of the questions surrounding his life. Timeline 1974 June – Epstein finished studying at Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University without receiving a degree. 1974-1976 Epstein was a teacher at Dalton School in Manhattan, an elite private school. 1976 – Epstein was dismissed from Dalton School. Six of his former students spoke to a reporter at The New York Times . They said that he didn’t touch them, but he crossed lines of appropriate behavior, particularly when he attended high school parties. 1976 – Epstein joined Bear Stearns and started as a junior assistant to a floor trader. He gained this opportunity because he impressed then Bear Stearns CEO, Alan “Ace” Greenberg, during a parent-teacher conference . Epstein reportedly tutored the son of Greenberg and was friendly with Greenberg’s daughter. 1980 – Epstein had a rapid rise through the company and became a limited partner in Bear Stearns. 1980 Oct - Epstein featured as Cosmo magazine's “Bachelor of the Month.” 1981 March 12 - Epstein resigned from Bear Stearns. This was after the firm fined him $2,500 for breaking a regulatory rule by letting a friend/client borrow money to buy stock. He also received a 60-day suspension. 1981 April 1 – Epstein testified to SEC officials about his time at Bear Stearns. The SEC questioned him about the suspicious timing of his resignation. It came days before an insider trading scandal. The Seagram Company attempted a takeover of St. Joe’s Mineral Corp. Traders at Bear Stearns were suspected of using offshore accounts to trade based on that nonpublic information. Epstein maintained that his resignation had nothing to do with that investigation and never faced charges. This is the beginning of a pattern of Epstein’s connections to financial scandals without facing time behind bars. 1981 August – Epstein formed his financial advisory firm , Intercontinental Assets Group Inc, which he ran out of his apartment in New York City. 1981 – Epstein was a natural charmer/networker/manipulator/con artist. However, when he met Douglas Leese at a Texas oil tycoon’s party, that was seemingly when he became a player in the intelligence community. Douglas Leese’s name is kind of a footnote in most contemporary Epstein reporting, but Leese was a prominent British arms trafficker. That’s an industry that often is a nexus between intelligence agencies, corrupt politicians, and savvy money launderers; the latter being where Epstein’s help was likely welcomed. Douglas Leese was one of the facilitators of Britain’s largest arms/corruption scandal in history. According to the British Parliament , he helped to arrange some of the bribes, possibly using the offshore bank, the Bank of NT Butterfield in Bermuda, for the Al Yamamah oil-for-arms deal between Saudi Arabia and the British defense contractor worth £43 billion in revenue between 1985 and 2007. Douglas became a mentor to Epstein, according to Douglas Leese’s son, Julian Leese. Douglas Leese was also linked with the Saudi arms trafficker, Adnan Khashoggi. He was one of the key brokers in the Iran-Contra affair .
By Brian Saady 05 Feb, 2024
For the last two decades, while U.S. forces occupied the country, Afghanistan has been the epicenter of the world’s opium production with roughly 90% of global supply. After American troops withdrew from the country, and with the Taliban in charge, Afghan opium production drastically declined. There were an estimated 6,200 tons produced in 2022, as opposed to 333 tons in 2023, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). That may surprise some readers as the Taliban have been credibly linked with the heroin trade. The UNODC estimated in 2009 that the Taliban generated $155 million per year from Afghan opium. They weren’t traffickers but they forced traffickers and farmers to pay a “tax” in their territories. Even though those were handsome profits, the Taliban were relatively a minor part of a massive black market worth then roughly $3 billion annually. History shows that the Taliban’s policy on opium has shifted from time to time depending upon their circumstances. An opium ban in Afghanistan seems to fall in line with the Taliban’s tyrannical fundamentalist Islamic modus operandi. However, it also benefits those in power. Several Afghan warlords derive much of their authority as a result from black market profits. Hence, whoever controls the opium trade, or lack thereof, in Afghanistan holds all the cards in a country where the average annual income is 378 US dollars. After the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan in 1996, they struggled to find international recognition. Therefore, the Taliban killed two birds with one stone when its former leader, Mullah Omar, issued an opium ban in July of 2000. That edict was beyond effective. According to UNODC estimates, Afghan opium production dropped from 3,276 tons in 2000 to 185 tons in 2001. The U.S. State Department even approved $43 million of humanitarian assistance for the Afghanistan government just months before 9/11 due to its strong counternarcotics efforts. After 9/11, the Taliban’s power decreased but didn’t cease. America installed a deeply corrupt transitional government. In turn, opium production escalated exponentially. America sided with militias entrenched in the opium trade who opposed the Taliban, such as the Northern Alliance. But, the Western media has only reported in drips and drabs about the U.S.-allied politicians/warlords who have been far more prominently involved in heroin trafficking. The corruption ran to the top. There are too many flagrant examples to list concisely, but notably, a man carrying 183 kilos of heroin was released by the police because he was carrying a signed letter of protection from Afghanistan’s drug czar, General Mohammad Daud Daud. Wikileaks revealed that former President Hamid Karzai once pardoned five police officers who were captured with 124 kilos of heroin. Even Hamid Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was a known drug smuggler who had been on the CIA payroll for years. Practically the entire Karzai administration was on the CIA’s payroll all while the agency knew these officials were drowning in drug money.
By Brian Saady 19 Mar, 2022
The American Government Has Protected this Corrupt Strongman for Years
By Brian Saady 02 Mar, 2022
The former leader spent years stealing, defrauding, trafficking drugs and worse. When he wasn’t useful anymore, the US indicted him.
By Brian Saady 30 Jan, 2022
A Deep Look at the Assassination of Haiti's President and the Links to the U.S. Government
More Posts
Share by: