Businesses Prefer Not to Be Sued, Film at 11

from the public-private-'partnerships' dept

Wed, Feb 27th 2008 3:32pm — Julian Sanchez

There's nothing up on its website about this yet, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has thrown its ample weight into the warrantless wiretapping fight, with a letter to the House of Representatives urging legislators to approve retroactive immunity for cooperative telecoms as part of changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The letter, from the organization's VP for government affairs, R. Bruce Josten, argues:

The Chamber represents companies across various industries which own or operate vital components of the nation’s critical physical, virtual, and economic infrastructures. The federal government continually depends upon such industries for cooperation and assistance in national security matters, including homeland security programs and activities. The government also turns to these companies in times of crisis, when the speed, agility, and creativity of the private sector can be critical to averting a terrorist attack.
Therefore, the Chamber urges the House to consider S. 2248 and pass this bipartisan compromise legislation. The Chamber firmly believes that the immunity provisions in S. 2248 are imperative to preserving the self-sustaining “public-private partnership” that both Congress and the Executive Branch have sought to protect the United States in the post-September 11 world. The Chamber encourages you consider the effects on the nation’s security should private sector involvement be muted and relegated to the sidelines in instances when industries can help the government protect this nation.

In the 2006 election cycle, the Chamber gave $19,000 to Democratic candidates for the House and $76,500 to Republicans. Its contributions have been more evenly split in this cycle to date: $15,076 for Democrats and $16,500 to Republicans. Members in close races will therefore likely find the "urges" of the Chamber hard to ignore.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fisa, us chamber of commerce

7 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2008 @ 4:13pm

"$15,076 for Democrats and $16,500 to Republicans"
Is buying a vote really that cheap? I thought it took hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hmm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
magscanner, 27 Feb 2008 @ 5:31pm

Cheap
I think they left off the last three zeros. However, if not ...

For that money, which is less than some people spend on their new cars, we could buy some -good- laws for a change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cynic, 27 Feb 2008 @ 6:10pm

The trouble is politicians don't stay bought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Woadan, 27 Feb 2008 @ 9:16pm

"The Chamber encourages you consider the effects on the nation’s security should private sector involvement be muted and relegated to the sidelines in instances when industries can help the government protect this nation." There is a problem with the logic here. Law-abiding businesses don't cooperate with illegal requests, regardless from whom the requests came. If current laws are unclear as to what the mechanism is that triggers the need for action, then by all means, lets clear it up. But as long as the law was violated, then those companies should pay. Expediency is never an excuse. Woodan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 28 Feb 2008 @ 5:31am

Hmm
Agree 100% with Woaden here.

" ... the Executive Branch have sought to protect the United States in the post-September 11 world."

Well, didn't take long to pull out the "post 9-11" terminology. I am surprised we didn't see anything in here about "protecting the children". What a load of crap.

There are already laws set in place for these sort of things. Even if it is really urgent, the government can rush it through to a jugde and get him to issue a warrant pretty fast. Warrants are required for a reason. The telcos knew this. They broke the law. They need to pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
poetryman69, 29 Feb 2008 @ 4:16am

Stop funding the terrorists!
Stop funding the terrorists!

No more Oil Wars!

Energy Independence Now!

Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas

Turn trash into energy

Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

If France can do nuclear power so can we.

If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.

Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.

Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad Peck, 29 Feb 2008 @ 5:49am

The letter
This went online yesterday morning.

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2008/080227_fisa.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]