Thursday, February 12, 2009

Diane Feinstein Under The Influence

So, my California buddies . . . were you thinking that Diane Feinstein was your friend?
This from

Is Diane Feinstein trying to sneak draconian internet control legislation into the stimulus bill? It sure looks that way.
The Register:
US Senator Dianne Feinstein hopes to update President Barack Obama's $838bn economic stimulus package so that American ISPs can deter child pornography, copyright infringement, and other unlawful activity by way of "reasonable network management."

Clearly, a lobbyist whispering in Feinstein's ear has taken Comcast's now famous euphemism even further into the realm of nonsense.

According to Public Knowledge, Feinstein's network management amendment did not find a home in the stimulus bill that landed on the Senate floor. But lobbyists speaking with the Washington DC-based internet watchdog said that California's senior Senator is now hoping to insert this language via conference committee - a House-Senate pow-wow were bill disputes are resolved.

"This is the most backdoor of all the backdoor ways of doing things," Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky told The Reg. "Conference committees are notorious for being the most opaque of all legislative processes."

This is unacceptable for any of you who value a free and open internet, which I assume is 99.9% of C&L readers. Please contact your representatives and urge them to fight back against this shady backdoor violation of the spirit of the internet.

I’m back. This conference committee stuff should be done away with altogether. In 1997, a relatively innocuous Education Omnibus Bill was stuffed with changes to the Bankruptcy Laws that had been dictated by the banks. Those changes took we, I was one at the time, Bankruptcy Law practitioners quite by surprise. There were only two weeks between the first time they showed up in the Congressional Record, which, to my knowledge, no one reads every day, and when the bill was signed into law. It cost me, yes me, personally, $20,000, to settle a resultant lawsuit filed by a client who was affected.

And the Internet should stay free, don’t you think? Or should we hand over everything of value to the corporations just because they pay off our elected representatives? No libel intended, Diane, I know you’re too smart to take mere money. But what did they offer you?


Anonymous said...

Occam's razor. Might this just be a way to get Republicans to bite? Or is it that she's GOP at heart?

Rory Cripps said...

Thank You Fred! No matter what side of the aisle they're on, they need to be watched . . . and watched very closely. It's a bad scene all around. That's what happens when Americans fall asleep at the switch! Thank you for your intellectual honesty . . . .

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to see how much money the telecoms have contributed to Senator Feinstein recently. This is nothing more than a underhanded effort to kill net neutrality. Do we know if the provision has been inserted into the reconciliation bill?

I'm curious Fred. How did changes to the bankruptcy code end up costing you 20K? I think the changes to the code are going to have some very negative "unitended consequences" as a result of the current economic situation.

Anonymous said...


fred c said...

My suffering at the hands of Republican stooges of the banks:

Those were some relatively innucuous changes to the Bankruptcy Code that were put in at the last minute. One of them made student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (previously they had been dischargeable after seven years).

I had a Chapter 7 client who had dischargeable loans. I, and everyone else in the business, found out about the changes after they had taken effect. They took effect "on signing," which is also unusual for changes to the Bankruptcy Code. So, the client did not get her discharge. So, she went to another lawyer and they sued me.

I, and my friends similarly situated, thought that I had met "the standard of care." But I couldn't let a jury get ahold of it.

Rory Cripps said...

Jeez Fred! Most of them (politicians, bank execs, et al) are Stooges and full of shit too! I'm willing to bet that there are many Democrat bank execs . . . how much do you want to bet? In view of America's past political history, why would anyone expect politicians to do the right thing simply because of their party affiliations? Republican good! Democrat bad! Democrat good! Republican bad! Other than throw money in the direction of special interest groups and get a few holes patched in the roads, what purpose do America's politicians serve?