House Votes For COMPETES Act, Even With Its Problems, Almost Entirely On Party Lines
from the that's-too-bad dept
Congress is trying to overload anyone who supports an open internet with terrible bill after terrible bill. Last week, they brought out the "COMPETES Act" (renamed from Endless Frontiers which had already been renamed as "USICA" and then became COMPETES). The underlying concept of the bill actually is important -- reviving American innovation. The Senate version of the bill was mostly good and had broad bipartisan support. However, for reasons I don't understand, Nancy Pelosi allowed the bill to be loaded up with a bunch of items on the Democrats' wish list, including the ridiculously dangerous SHOP SAFE Act.
This week, of course, we've been stuck dealing with the reintroduction of the also terrible EARN IT Act in the Senate, and while all of the open internet activists were gearing up to fight that, the House went ahead and voted to approve the COMPETES Act with no changes. It was an almost strict party-line vote, ending up at 222 for and 210 against. One Democrat -- Rep. Stephanie Murphy -- voted against it, and one Republican -- Rep. Adam Kinzinger (who technically is still a Republican) voted for it.
This all seems so incredibly counterproductive by Pelosi and the Democrats. I know they want a "win" and when there's a bill that will move they feel they need to hang all sorts of gifts on it, but following the Senate's lead and coming up with a more reasonable bill that wasn't stuff full of bad ideas would have presented this as an actually interesting and useful bill, rather than turning it into a partisan thing. Politics is where policy goes to die. And, unfortunately, it may take parts of the open internet with it.
That said, the Senate version does not have the nonsense and dangerous SHOP SAFE bill attached, and the hope is that during the conference process where the House and Senate try to square up the different bills, SHOP SAFE will get left on the cutting room floor, where it belongs.
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: competes act, competition, innovation, jerry nadler, liability, nancy pelosi, shop safe, trademarks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"they feel they need to hang all sorts of gifts on it"
I think you missed the r in grifts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So does this mean it will be hard for the COMPETES Act to pass the Senate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If it's call the Competes Act...
It is most likely about blocking competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tribalism FTW. Common sense always loses against partisan bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It means shop safe is basically law unless there's hard opposition in the senate that plans on derailing it during the conference committee
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But wont the senate be split 50/50? if the bill not changed and is pushed wont they end up voting on party-lines like in the house and its likely that Wyden and others will vote against?
Does not sound like is basically law like you are saying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know who opposed shop safe in the senate and I usually stick to pessimism when it concerns congress doing anything good for us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the Shop Safe Act, all the online marketplaces will go offshore, and use the Dark Web and Bitcoins.
So if this passes, watch the value of bitcoin skyrocket.
Ross Ulbricht's mistake was not using Tor to access his own website.
Had Ross used Tor to access his site, instead of connecting directluy, the Feds would have never found him, and he would be one of the richest men in America now, instead of doing life in prison.
Based on bitcoin's value at the time he was busted, and bitcoin's most recent high, he would be the richest man in America now, at about $380 billion after federal and state taxes, if he had been never been caught and was able to cash out his bitcoin at its most recent high.
By comparison, Amazon's Jeff Bezos is worth about $164 billion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Democrats have become a serious problem, particularly under Pelosi and Shiff. The Republicans simply act as speed bumps under most circumstances.
The Swamp is strong and deep.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any way to have
A short list on the side of Bills being voted on Currently?
THere has to be more then a few things going thru the congress.
Isnt there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then: Laws are rules and procedures intended to create a content and healthy society.
Now: Laws are declarations that the rich/powerful think they can get away with certain crimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...if the bill not changed and is pushed wont they end up voting on party-lines like in the house and its likely that Wyden and others will vote against?"
About the only thing most democrats can agree with republicans on is that they don't really want things to get better. The ratchet effect is real enough.
This bill is great for all the monolithic oligopolies and pseudo-monopolies around and very much less so for smaller business and online retailers. So with every major campaign contributor having an interest in this passing, it will likely pass.
If there's anything I'm still very much confused about it would be why so many americans still think they have a government by the people, for the people when almost every politician to make it to the house and senate come with a leash and an owner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"If the Shop Safe Act, all the online marketplaces will go offshore, and use the Dark Web and Bitcoins."
It isn't unlikely. If we've learned anything from history it would be that when government decides to go all-in on protectionist bullshit harming the ability of newcomers to make a buck, circumvention of the offending legislation becomes the norm rather than the exception.
I'd advise anyone not already in the know to read up on the french lace monopoly of the...17th century, I think, as well as the british Red Flag Act.
Shop Safe is just that best legislation money could buy. For the biggest campaign contributors - also the biggest monopolies irked at having to compete - this bill is the g(r)ift which keeps on giving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Competes Act & SHOP SAFE
Absolutely outrageous that they want to dismantle the Gig Economy while continuously bowing down Big Pharma, AG, Food - all at taxpayer expense. Totally disgusted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]