The Five Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed The Whistleblower Bill
from the who-will-blow-the-whistle dept
While the bill had some significant shortcomings, we were still somewhat surprised to find out that a US Senator used an anonymous hold to block a bill designed to protect whistleblowers. At the time, we wondered if there would be a whistleblower who would reveal who blocked the bill. However, the folks at WNYC's On the Media set up a neat campaign to contact all 100 Senators and get them to say whether or not they put the hold on the bill. For weeks, many Senators refused to respond, but now the project has reached the point where 95 Senators have said they did not put the block on the bill, leaving just five Senators who have refused to answer. They are:- David Vitter
- Jeff Sessions
- James Risch
- Mitch McConnell
- Jon Kyl
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: anonymous hold, david vitter, james risch, jeff sessions, jon kyl, mitch mcconnell, senate, whistleblower
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it's a negative truth, then expect to be stonewalled with as many half-truths and noncommittal answers as possible.
You won't find many outright lies in politics...never good to go on record with that kind of dirty business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont have to write a long lengthly letter to be ignored and get a response from a intern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"•Mitch McConnell"
Same ol' sht, different day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't recall The Democrats in the Senate saying that they would be transparent.
{Anonymity is an important part of free speech for the citizenry, but it does not apply to a single Senator blocking legislation.}
Who says? The Congress is allowed to make it's own rules under the power of the United States Constitution.
I bet there is a rule that allows this.
{If they are going to do that in the name of the people they represent, they should be expected to step forward and admit it.}
In a non representative republic, or pure democracy that might be the case. This is one of the problems that have come from the United States early Progressive era when the 17th amendment was ratified taking away the states right to select it's senators. Turning the senate into a popularity contest and causing the loss of citizen rights.
Look what happened to the health care bill in the senate where it was returned to the house and Constitutionally "Slaughtered" in the house with deem and pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Republicans did Deem and Pass and similar self executing rules more often than the Democrats when they were in charge so they lack legs to stand on here. Just belly aching.
The Republicans are poor losers and often worse winners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Who says? The Congress is allowed to make it's own rules under the power of the United States Constitution. I bet there is a rule that allows this.
Whether you CAN do something is one thing, Whether you SHOULD do something is quite another.
In fact your representative should be allowed to hide themselves when putting up / blocking bills unless the people they're representing are also hidden - or should I say, not exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
notice something?
ex: Vitter hired the DC madam and apologized for the "Sin".
Is it any surprise these people have something to hide? Wouldn't surprise me if they're linked to the smear campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: notice something?
as opposed to what... being DEMOCRAT and willingly whoring yourself out to corporate insterest which is so immeasurably better?
the problem isnt dem vs rep.... the actual problem is elected officials whoring themselves out. political affiliations have no bearing on them being a whore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: notice something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: notice something?
Another suggestion that will never happen is that congress should be made to obtain their health care in the same manner as everyone else. I do not understand why congress gets to exempt themselves from the laws they foist upon their constituents. If they had to eat their own cooking then maybe the cuisine would improve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: notice something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: notice something?
Gee, I reread the comment and nothing like that was said. Just that all five were cross-waving, flag-wrapped hypocrites. And Republicans. Don't jump on people for noticing that cross-waving, flag-wrapped politicians tend to be Republicans. Democratic politicians wrap themselves in different symbols and seem, on average, to keep themselves less masked. They don't go out whoring at night and then thunder during the day about Christian morals.
Of course any politician of any party who talks about integrity, then takes corporate "free speech" money before pushing some corporate lobbyist's legislative agenda deserves to be snorted at. Just as hypocritical politicians deserve to have their noses rubbed in the fact.
Be as defensive as you need to be, but please try to speak to the point, not to some never-was-there interpretation of somebody's comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: notice something?
Here's an important point that I try to re-iterate whenever possible, because the internet is awash with misinformation on the subject:
The Citizen's United did not allow corporations to donate any more money to candidates than they were already allowed to. It just prohibited the government from banning actual political speech merely because it came from a group of incorporated individuals. There's a big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: notice something?
That may be, but isn't it true that the Citizen's United case opened the flood gates for anonymous spending by political action committees upon attack ads which are not directly sponsored or approved by the candidate?
Political spending was at record levels during this past midterm election, a large portion of the money spent did not have to disclose from where it came. Do you see this as a good thing?
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments. Doesn't US election laws forbid foreign money from being spent upon US political campaigns? Just because a corp has their headquarters in Bethesda does not mean they have the best interests of the country in mind.
It's a shame to see all that money wasted on stupid tv spots and junk mail. It could've been spent on something that would really matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notice something?
How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision? Most of the furor I've seen are over things that were perfectly acceptable before the decision.
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments.
"We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notice something?
CR -> "How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision?"
That is a very good question and I have not seen an analysis, have you? But from what I recall, anonymous contributions were limited to a certain quantity and amounts above that had to be declared - etc.
CR -> "We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
Typical response - fall back on the good ol' battle cry whilst ignoring the consequences of your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notice something?
That may be, but isn't it true that the Citizen's United case opened the flood gates for anonymous spending by political action committees upon attack ads which are not directly sponsored or approved by the candidate?
If you mean "speech", then yes. It did allow for more of it. Why is this a bad thing, again? Because you don't like speech of a particular sort?
Political spending was at record levels
How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision? Most of the furor I've seen are over things that were perfectly acceptable before the decision.
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments.
"We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the power may be gone
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/02/04/06
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
Think about This:
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8
days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before
computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their
address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. 7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three
days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
2 -- How about a significant tax credit that can only be used for supporting legitimate political campaigns and which would be capped and form part of a per person limit on such spending (eg, like the eg 5,000 you mentioned)? [There might be a small related tax hike to make up some of the difference.]
This will drive a lot of money into elections from a wide distribution of people, and the conditioned tax credit would amount to a tax penalty to those not engaging in the political process.
Money is a necessity, but we should try to factor money out as much as possible in the process so that heads rather than dollars are represented.
3 -- (a) Another reform could be to adjust elections to have more than one cycle. This would increase the chances of 3rd party candidates being chosen. (b) Also allow for a point system where you would penalize those you really dislike greater than those whom you don't mind.
4 -- We might even want to experiment nearer to direct democracy by allowing us to hand our votes to representatives on a per vote basis. This would mean that every congressperson would have to more or less earn each and every vote. We might assign our votes to completely different people based on either their voting history on similar matter or based on commitments they make to vote a certain way on a particular bill. [We might want to limit what can go into each such bill.]
A big problem we have is that we pick one person only for several years but there are many many issues to be voted upon. This means the reps need only please us with just enough while having much leeway to go against the popular will many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
The Internet should allow us in time to manage the nation in a radically different way that was not imaginable a few centuries back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
At any point if a certain minimum percentage (60-75%) of congresspersons constituants register their dissatisfaction with the incumbant then an election for that office will be held next year, and the incumbant is not eligible to run for re-election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
First off, if you are changing people every couple of years, what you are doing is making it easier for companies to buy people out. It often takes years to discover wrong doing, but it only takes moments for these guys to vote a law in that helps their friends.
We also see what term limits do to Presidents, making the last 2 years of their term into a lame duck, pardon-a-thon as they use their last remaining shreds of power to pay off the people who got them to the top of the pile.
Term limits would replace career politicians with the drive by shooters of politics.
Pay and benefits wise, elected officials need to receive compensation that makes the job attractive, not repulsive. Low pay is not the way to attract good people. Your CPI or 3% (which ever is less) is a wonderful way to make that pay less and less relevant all the time. In the low inflation years, they get CPI, in the high inflation years, they get less than the cost of inflation. Over a people or 20 years, they are likely to fall far behind the overall CPI, making the pay even less attractive for the next generation.
Your intentions are good, but the net results would be a corporate feeding frenzy and a series of hack politicians only in it for short term personal gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
And this is any different than what we have now? Seriously, take the money out of elected positions (at ALL levels) and you would see changes. Remember that the Founding Fathers originally intended for there to be no career politicians at all. It was meant to be a duty of a citizen to serve, just like jury duty. So where did we go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
> A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Sorry but I have to object this.
These were money to compensite oppotunity cost of corruption. If these were removed, the oppotunity cost for "not corrupting" will increase, and trust me, it'll likely to do more harm than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
primed by the war
We might be getting close to seeking out some real change again. A better candidate than Congressional reform might be "the Constitution applies only to human beings unless noted otherwise" as a reaction to Citizens United.
>> before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones
I do have to pause for a moment and wonder if perhaps we aren't too distracted to focus on a narrow selection of topics. [Nah.]
>> Congressional Reform Act of 2011
As you can see by the other replies, the long list you covered is too complex for any significant number of people to agree to it for an amendment or at least quickly in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
And somehow, that court ruling heralds the end of democracy? We need an amendment to make sure that the government can ban political speech it doesn't like? Yeah, that'll make our situation better . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, central government needs to be severely scaled back and states' rights restored. Corporations need to be stripped of the rights of personhood and be barred from making any political contributions of any kind. Only human beings should be able to contribute, and only a limited amount. And a review process for all laws should be put in place, to periodically assess whether they actually doing what they were intended to do and whether they're still relevant or not and should be repealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He got caught with hookers awhile back after praising himself as the perfect Catholic during election time
Same ole for the GOP
Hypocrites and general morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna know what the worst part of all this is? He still won reelection.
Normal person get caught with prostitute = jail
David Vitter gets caught with prostitute = reelection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]