Reply
Thu 25 Oct, 2007 10:31 am
It sure looks like he is...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
Quote:Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.
He has also recently benefited from some interesting political contributions
Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).
In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.
But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.
Whatever happened to the dems not being corrupt?
Re: Is he bought and paid for?
mysteryman wrote:It sure looks like he is...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
Quote:Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.
He has also recently benefited from some interesting political contributions
Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).
In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.
But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.
Whatever happened to the dems not being corrupt?
I absolutely agree. Him and Senator Biden (D-MBNA) represent a lot of what is wrong with 'big-business Democrats.'
Cycloptichorn
Truly disgusting. Good thing it's being noted.
Not that politics has ever been clean or pretty, but, sheesh, the man doesn't need money - you'd think he'd only be slightly grubby.
Re: Is he bought and paid for?
mysteryman wrote:Whatever happened to the dems not being corrupt?
was that ever an option in the U.S.?
politics is played a bit differently there. doesn't seem to matter what you do unless it threatens someone else's business interests.
Typical case of what I term "Near Bribery". If a Congressperson gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, in a direct bribe, we bristle and that person's career is pretty much shot.
On the other hand, this network of tit for tat, earmarks by way of "payoff" for political favors, campaign contributions as "incentives" and the like is, on the bottom line, the same thing by another point of view. That it is done, by the vast majority of our elected elite, is without question. That the same type of mutual back scratching is done by much of the business world, is without question. That local Governments give "tax incentives" to business to build facilities in their municipalities/districts/States, is without question.
I submit it IS bribery and it is done and it is condoned.
The question remains.... is it "right"? I leave that as a rhetorical question for each of you. To me, at least, it is not "right".
Halfback
Gracious me, someone named "Rockefeller" is accused of gaming the system?
Eagerly do I await your science report on the novel wetness of water.
Re: Is he bought and paid for?
mysteryman wrote:It sure looks like he is...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
Quote:Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.
He has also recently benefited from some interesting political contributions
Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).
In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.
But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.
Whatever happened to the dems not being corrupt?
Does this mean that MM actually considers Bush corrupt?
Or is it only corruption if Dems want it in the bill?
Glenn Greenwald at Salon, Josh Marshall at TPM, Matt Yglesias and others have been yelling about this funding story too. I'm not sure if Open Source did the original research.
Whether MM is consistent in focusing on instances of both republican and dem/corporate corruption isn't really relevant. This is an issue for those of us on the left and it is our responsibility.
blatham wrote:Whether MM is consistent in focusing on instances of both republican and dem/corporate corruption isn't really relevant.
It is a bit, and he is. He's a comparatively even-handed observer and poster.
(no one's perfect, including MM, but I think he deserves his props on stuff like this)
bethie
I guess I wasn't clear. I was speaking to Parados' post preceding mine.
That's what I was referring to, in part.
Sumpin ain't clicking.
MM is right, this looks corrupt. I didn't mean to imply here that MM is being hypocritical (in the manner that parados seemed to me to imply). But even if that was the case, it wouldn't be relevant, principle trumping partisan preferences.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace