Appeals Court Notes The Feds Can't Hide Behind 'Lobbyist Privacy' In Not Releasing Documents On Immunity Lobbying

from the open-up dept

Wed, Feb 10th 2010 6:55am — Mike Masnick

For a while now, the EFF has been trying to get the White House to reveal information on who lobbied to get retroactive telco immunity for warrantless wiretapping. The "we're all about transparency and openness" Obama administration has been stalling as much as possible, and while it released some info after a long fight, it still insisted that it was keeping some information private, claiming a heretofore unknown standard of "lobbyist privacy." Yeah, that's a good one. Turns out the courts don't know what it means either, and an Appeals Court has said that it's a bogus excuse, and the government needs to hand over the info:

"There is a clear public interest in public knowledge of the methods through which well-connected corporate lobbyists wield their influence."

I'm still not sure what anyone expects to get out of these documents. We know who lobbied: the telcos did, like crazy. And the reason they did so is because they know they broke the law in assisting the administration in getting info outside the official process. In fact, the recent revelations suggest the telcos didn't just accede to administration demands, but they eagerly assisted in explaining how to get around the rules. So of course they lobbied to get immunity.

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: lobbying, privacy, telco immunity, warrantless wiretaps

17 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 6:57am

"claiming a heretofore unknown standard of 'lobbyist privacy.'"

Meet the New Boss; Same as the Old Boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard, 10 Feb 2010 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  Feel the Change, baby.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:00am

Bet you...
""There is a clear public interest in public knowledge of the methods through which well-connected corporate lobbyists wield their influence.""

I don't know what justice was responsible for that quote, but here's hoping he doesn't get on a plane anytime soon. Opponents of the Executive Branch when there's a Clinton involved have a tendency towards a very short life span....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:22am
  
  Re: Bet you...
  Ron Brown was an opponent of the Clintons?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:27am
    
    Re: Re: Bet you...
    Excerpt: "The answer, in brief, is that Ron Brown was going to prison and had threatened to bring Bill Clinton down with him. He was up to his neck in numerous major scandals: Whitewater, the Denver airport mess, Mena, the Keating Five, Lillian Madsen and her Haitian prostitutes, etc."
    
    http://dangerouslogic.com/ron_brown.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
curious, 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:50am

Dick Cheney
"lobbyist privacy."

Does this doctrine come from Cheneys secret energy meetings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the man aka presidente, 10 Feb 2010 @ 8:21am

BUT but but...
I R HAS ISSUE WITH THIS.
I Want to spy and keep POWA.
I want to KNOW what lil PEEPS DOIN to STOP MY YACHT BULDIN PROGRA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 8:25am

If all lobbying was done in the open, the world would be a much better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 9:04am

Wrong word.
I wish we could all agree to quit using the word "lobby" as a verb, when it isn't. Besides, there is a perfectly good word that *can* be used as a noun and verb and is much more accurate: "bribe".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Wrong word.
  Perhaps you should let Merriam Webster know that lobby is not a verb.
  
  Main Entry: lobby
  Function: verb
  Inflected Form(s): lob·bied; lob·by·ing
  Date: 1837
  intransitive verb
  : to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
  transitive verb
  1 : to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
  2 : to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action
  
  — lob·by·er noun
  
  — lob·by·ism -ˌi-zəm noun
  
  — lob·by·ist -ist noun
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Valkor, 10 Feb 2010 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re: Wrong word.
    Yes, "lobby" is a verb. However, both 1) and 2) have "influence" in the definitions. *That* is what should be substituted with "bribe". If lobbyists didn't try to bribe, why would there be rules against representatives accepting certain gifts?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 9:24am

no surprise
any sane government official tries to hide who gives him bribes. The govt usually ignores what the courts tell them to do anyway. There's no way they will let the people find out who's providing their bribes, drugs, and hookers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 10 Feb 2010 @ 9:33am

Tea Party Thoughts...
While I held my breath with Obama I was initially happy that we'd have a president that could speak. While 99% of what he said made my stomach turn, the one thing that I thought was cool was his ideology on openness in government.

It is now obvious that he only uses openness when forced or as a politcal card now. It is a shame as he seems to be such an ideolog on other items. If he would have fought hard on this first and then tackled the other issues then at least an honest and open debate could have followed.

I believe people live up to your expectations of them and by him blocking the information flow and openness of debate he has essentially said that the American people are too stupid to understand. Imagine if we had a President that thought otherwise and engaged the American people in the tough decisions that we face. In the end, that is the leader that will fix Social Security, Health Care and so on.

That aside, for any Obama supporting that believes he betrayed you on this issue, just remember that he voted for immunity before getting elected and even made the comment that he knew it would upset his base, but is was a tough blah blah blah ...

For me, the only difference between a typical DEM vs. REP is who the handouts go to. Both seem to want to control you - the libs with their political correctness and high taxes to ensure you are always a "working slave" and the conservatives with their religious ideology and corporate welfare. Very few representatives believe in a truly limited government role in our lives. However, we only have ourselves to blame. When "you" refuse to take responsibility for your life, what do you expect the government to do - their job is to serve us and as a whole we demand way too much.

Freedom

P.S. When did it become the Federal Government's job to provide your retirement?, your health care?, your presecription drugs, education?, welfare?, and so on... If Uncle Sam got out of the entitlement business, we'd be running a surplus and have more than enough money for NASA, Defense, and so on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Tea Party Thoughts...
  reguarding your PS there...
  
  yeah, well, most places that have the governments doing that stuff do it Instead of trying to prop up a whole bunch of useless industries.
  
  Makes a heck of a lot more sense, too, for all that it has it's own issues.
  
  here's a fun thing: it's not uncommon for new (stupid) ideas to be tested in small countries (like New Zealand) first.
  
  one thing NZ has done and proved doesn't work is Proping Up Failing Industries... we got a recession, a government change, a massive change in economic policy towards the right (by our leftist, unionist party, no less!), several years of price freezes and huge unemployment out of it, the value of our currency took a hit (it was over valued anyway)...
  
  (admittedly we also got some hydro dams built, not all of this stuff happened at once (there's a logical sequence which doesn't match the order i wrote it in)
  
  now, that was ridiculous subsidies who's initial purpose was long gone. But the bail out packages for the various industries and institutions are basically 'subsidizing suck'... which is hardly different.
  
  bail outs for the corporations only make sense when the reason for issues is a large scale natural disaster that's too big for the insurance companies to handle it And the corporation isn't big enough to simply soak the costs. ie, almost never.
  
  not to mention corporations soak up a LOT more money than your common citizenry.
  
  also note: ALL governments want to control you. it's kinda the point. heck, the need for some limited control is the reason we have them....
  
  (and it should be noted, we have a party who actually gets in here who really IS committed to reducing the government's influence in stuff... starting with offloading all the public infrastructure onto privately owned (and usually foreign) companies. proven fact? that way lies disaster. our own rail network is evidence of it. the ridiculousness regarding water in parts of South America is evidence of it...
  
  really, corporations serve a purpose, but if left unchecked are a Disaster.
  
  You're right about there not being much noticeable difference between the American republicans and democrats...
  
  From the outside, they're all crazies, and the only distinction being where they get their money (and not always that) and who they annoy more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Keating, 11 Feb 2010 @ 5:03am

ACTA - Access to information
"Appeals Court has said that it's a bogus excuse, and the government needs to hand over the info:

"There is a clear public interest in public knowledge of the methods through which well-connected corporate lobbyists wield their influence." "

So why does this NOT work when trying to uncover the ACTA text?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MarkD, 22 Oct 2010 @ 10:08am

John Pospisil has commented on his Australian forum that Eric Goldman is just an old gay and knows nothing about internet law. John Pospisil is a smarmy looking, bald geezer in a low-life, third-world country, Australia. John Pospisil humps kangaroos because he can only get off that way. You see, he was raised by a mutant and that's why John Pospisil looks alien. Why doesn't John Pospisil take a poop in his Australian outback pants and get a life? John Pospisil is a disgrace to all geeks because he sets a new low for geekdom. Even geeks have a single shred of pride. You can't call John Pospisil a prick because he doesn't have one. John Pospisil is an asshole because he has the biggest, foulest hole in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RichR, 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:12pm

John Pospisil is an Australian Jew who is extremely anti-semitic. He is ashamed of his Jewish parents who are the descendants of Jews sent to Australia by England when it was a penal colony in the 1800s. Whatever their crime for their deportation to Australia, only John Pospisil and his immediate family knows. John Pospisil is extremely ugly, gross and prejudiced against his own race. His rantings on anti-Jewish forums have gained him a lot of notoriety. For someone of John Pospisil's limited intelligence and grossly ugly features, he should try to play up to people and earn their good graces instead of being the miserable misanthrope that he is. Instead, he is mired in Jewish self-hatred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]