
Torture fan Cliff Stearns, R-FL, is now setting his sites on killing net neutrality in return for campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry.
As a resident of the ridiculously gerrymandered Sixth Congressional District of Florida, I am subjected to being represented in Congress by wingnut Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns even though the Gainesville area is heavily Democratic. I spent some time during the 2008 campaign cycle writing posts for the blog The Case Against Cliff, and two major themes developed from the research for my writing. First, Stearns appears to be a fan of torture, as seen in the photo on the left of this composite, which was taken from his website in May of 2008, when he visited Guantanamo. He clearly was excited by the visit, even dressing up for it and posing in an Abu Ghraib pose. Second, it was clear from my research that Stearns’ primary source of funding is the telecommunications industry. That was true of the 2008 cycle and is also true of the 2010 cycle. It is little wonder then, that this morning NPR went to Cliff Stearns for quotes about killing net neutrality, as he is the ranking member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee.
For the 2010 election cycle, three of Stearns’ top five contributors were telecommunications-related: Comcast, National Cable & Telecommunications Association and AT&T. Furthermore, The Hill reported back in September that Stearns was using his relationship with NCTA to raise money in an attempt to endear himself to John Boehner, and thereby win a prestigious committee chairmanship when Boehner becomes Speaker:
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) has stepped up his campaign to lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee should the GOP win the House this November, but some Republicans see the late-game effort as too little too late.
Stearns presented House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) with $300,000 at a fund-raising event on Tuesday night. Half of the money came from Stearns’ political action committee; the other half was raised at the dinner.
The fundraising event, hosted by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), had a suggested contribution of $5,000.
/snip/
At Tuesday’s dinner, Stearns accompanied his fundraising dollars with a complimentary speech about Boehner, who gets five votes on the steering committee, more influence than any other member.
Here is NPR’s story on Republicans’ efforts to kill net neutrality and how Cliff Stearns is poised to deliver the death blow:
What a surprise: the NPR story details Comcast getting caught blocking transfer of some files and, you will recall, they were at the top of the list of contributors to Stearns, who is duly carrying out their wishes.



25 Comments

At least two of us are subjects in Cliff Stearns’ district. NPR? Why is Stearns being thrust into the nationwide spotlight? Watch for his House appointment under the Boehner reign. Boehner came to Ocala to fund raise for Stearns. He flies under the radar.
IIRC, those rules were actually anti-neutrality laws in disguise…Those were the legislation entered by Waxman right?
Yes, the Waxman legislation sucked, but Stearns also will be leading the charge to gut any actions by the FCC that would lead to real regulations that protect net neutrality. FCC was starting to show a little courage and some signs it would head in that direction, but you can count on Stearns to quash that quickly. That’s what he is really positioning for in this piece.
Yeah, Cliff’s forays into the national spotlight haven’t been very frequent. I think his first was when he signed on to the wingnut effort in Congress to de-fund PBS when Sesame Street introduced an HIV-positive character on the South African version of the show.
Sorry you share the Stearns burden.
The NPR story says that net neutrality would be more regulation.
This is not true. Simply applying the regulations that exist already to the internet, just as they used to apply before BUSH deregulated internet.
http://my.firedoglake.com/marinara/2010/09/28/anti-net-neutrality-bill-gets-leaked-from-waxmans-office/
is my old blog on this particular bill. Could be better. What Waxman’s bill does is, make ISP’s do what they are already doing, but allow them to slow the internet traffic of any company that they do not have a partnering agreement with. That’s net neutrality in name only, and that’s why my blog from back then is so angry.
Yeah, you didn’t actually say it but Rep. Stearns will soon be chairman of
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet
nm you did say it. :)
“he is the ranking member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee.”
and
“Stearns’ primary source of funding is the telecommunications industry”
don’t mix. This smells like poop.
Net neutrality is dead as a doornail under the new congress, imo.
Ain’t democracy grand? Congress is for sale to the highest bidder. And that means our laws are for sale, too.
Sounds like a politician.
I guess I’m still shocked when I see these painfully obvious conflicts of interest. Someone who is supposed to monitor and balance the telecoms, but gets all his money from the telecoms? Shocked isn’t the right word; startled is.
I wonder how much we’ll have to pay to still read FDL?
Ironically, as I was working on writing this post, the OpenSecrets.org website was down. It came back within a half hour, but that was a really ominous development given the topic of the post.
Ominous indeed. I’m concerned. This site has been outspoken about Comcast and their upcoming ventures, and I have comcast for my home service provider. I bet there will come a day when I try to log on to FDL at home and FDL will be blocked.
I’m wondering if you and others truly think we’ll loose access to places like FDL.
Yup. What it is and how it is done: Whatever congressperson heads up a subcommittee invariably ends up being a major recipient of contributions from whatever industry will benefit from the influence of the committee. Stearns as head of Telecommunications Subcommittee and primarily funded by the telecommunications industry will most likely mean the death of net neutrality. Practically speaking, within this standard political arrangement there is no conflict of interest.
We have had FCC board member Copps in our town. He listened to us the other night, he’s so on our side.
Net neutrality for sale to ranking committee member, sounds like what we could have anticipated.
Or, will the site have to pay for their readers to have access. And, I imagine there will be lawsuits and usually issues are stayed while litigations are in process.
And I’d like the thank the visionary and courageous leadership of Barack Obama for giving up the gains of 2006 and 2008.
Stearns can write all the bills he wants and get them through the House. They’ll still have to clear the Senate where someone like Al Franken can put a “hold” on it and play like a republican. That’s what it’s going to take, none of this bi-partisan BULLSHIT going forward. “Bi-partisanship is just another word for fuck me hard, big boy”. I wonder if BHO has gotten that message yet?
Relatedly, from Slashdot.org:
“Technology: MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns”
Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday November 17, @05:53PM
from the don’t-worry-about-it dept.
…An anonymous reader writes
“The EFF has gone into detail about why it opposes ‘The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,’ or COICA. It has the potential to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down any domestic website, or block any foreign website it so chooses, setting the stage for Internet censorship in the United States. Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying ‘…the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.’”
Furthermore, the Brattleboro Reformer (online) reports that this bill (S3804) was introduced on Sept 20 by VT Senator Patrick Leahy, of all people.
Thus, if any of you are constituents of Senator Leahy, you might want to consider giving him a call…Meanwhile, I’m thankful for the EFF and it’s good to know that the geeks are alright and still care deeply about our First Amendment rights and freedoms.
Assuming holds by Democrats are actually given the same weight as holds by Republicans…
I am attempting to negotiate a wireless internet contract with my local ISP/telcomm provider. They cannot provide full strength signal to my location and I am asking for fair pricing based on that condition.
Should I be asking whether or not my the contract becomes null and void if net neutrality rules change to my detriment during the period of my contract?
Is this question one that all of us should be asking our providers?
I figure that is Obamas’ next move. he has to take out net neutrality to shut up the f—ing retard progressives that won’t join the veal pen.
lets just call them salesmen and sales managers, selling our country right out from underneath us. Senator and congressmen doesn’t seem to fit anymore. This is beyond outrageous!