Unhappy with the deal reached between the parties about the legal fate of telecom companies who helped the feds in the aftermath of 9/11, two of the looniest of the left are banding together in an attempt to filibuster the bill in the Senate:
"If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation."
Meanwhile, Pamela Helsey points out that telecom companies give more money to Democrats who support immunity than those who don’t.
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
The question of whether politicians vote according to whose filling their coffers is a fascinating one and well worth asking. In this case, however, it’s a bore. The Democrats being targeted for that special progressive-style love more commonly known as liberal hate are now voting in a fashion I deem correct. What made them change their tunes is not that interesting to me.
Rather than ramble on, let me leave you with 3 thoughts about what is so irritating about this immunity boondoggle:
- If Democrats had been in power in September 2001, it’s highly likely that their administration’s actions would not have differed significantly from those of the Bush administration
- Whatever the right and wrong of this issue – and they’re in the wrong, make no mistake – Democrats are ignoring the present to nit-pick at the past.
- If Democrats have the balls to truly pursue the Constitutional issues behind the government’s use of telecom companies’ data – doubtful – they should be targeting members of the Bush administration rather than private, heavily-regulated corporations.