Deliver a Message to CBC Members: Protect the Internet

Ever since the FCC decided to reclassify broadband as a communication service -- preserving its basic regulatory authority over high-speed Internet -- the big telephone and cable companies have been on the attack.

One telecom industry front group, Americans for Prosperity, announced a $1.4 million ad blitz to smear the move as a "government takeover of the Internet." And the telecoms also enlisted their allies in Congress to speak out against the move. Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) is pushing a letter which calls on the FCC to abandon its plans to oversee broadband -- a move which would in effect end efforts to protect consumers and extend Internet access to all Americans.

Last week, I urged black members of Congress not to sign this letter. But we quickly learned that Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Greg Meeks (D-NY), Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) didn't get the message. ColorOfChange members quickly reacted, placing more than 1750 calls in the span of 48 hours. From our recent press release:

"Our members are deeply concerned that by signing Green's letter, black members of Congress are taking a stance that fails to secure our digital rights," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "Some CBC members have perhaps signed Rep. Green's letter without fully understanding what is at stake while others seem to know, but are serving other interests. There is a significant correlation between those leading the charge and those accepting significant contributions from the industry which stands to benefit from the FCC being rendered impotent. In either case, our members are eager to make clear how important this issue is to our community and to Americans in general, and to explain why they see this as a 21st century civil rights issue."

We've long been concerned that Black leaders and organizations that have taken significant financial contributions from telecom interests could open themselves up to conflicts of interest that mean they don't make decisions which best serve their constituents and all Americans. Recent donation levels suggest that dynamic may be at play now. The figures below represent total contributions from telecom interests during the 2010 election cycle. Research comes from Open Secrets:

G.K. Butterfield: $30,500
Yvette Clarke: $10,500
Lacy Clay: $9,000
Alcee Hastings: $15,000
Eddie Bernice Johnson: $8,000
Gregory Meeks: $27,000
Bobby Rush: $23,000
Bennie Thompson: $15,000

We all have a role to play in making sure that our leaders are accountable to the people who elect them, and not the corporations that fund their campaigns. You can help by using our calling tool at http://www.colorofchange.org/cbcnet_calls and letting these members know what you think. And we'll be sure to keep you informed as this important campaign progresses.

 

Comments

[K377]

09:49 AM on 06/01/2010

The FCC does not have a great record of minority inclusion and when the Chairman announced the Third Way approach, no mention was made to how it would impact minority and women entrepreneurs. Instead of hastily tacking together jurisdictional arguments, Congress could re-write the Act to give the agency explicit authority. In fairness, when listing the contribution figures to prove that a member of Congress has been captured by industry interest, you should also include how much of their campaign funds come from proponents of the FCC’s net neutrality proposals and similar figures for Congress members who support the FCC’s net neutrality rules.

[edejan]

02:35 PM on 05/30/2010

Thank you, Mr. Rucker, for personalizing this most important issue. I have sent letters and petitions previously to the Chairman of the FCC supporting net neutrality. Now it's time to start our own "blitz" of our Congressional representatives. I am especially shocked to see my representative, Bobby Rush, on this list, and many others whom I would not consider corporatists. Thanks for this info and please keep us updated.

[Evelyn Rodriguez]

09:06 AM on 05/29/2010

I applaud Color of Change for the fast actions of its constituents to black members of Congress. However, we must show a united front to defeat this detrimental government action that affects us all. I strongly recommend that Mr. Rucker also reach out to other segments of the American population to form a united front against this potentially harmful federal action. We need to extend our opposition to include Hispanics, Jews, other religious groups, the Christian right, left-leaning organizations, advocates for low-income citizens and entrepreneurial groups. All of us stand to lose if this travesty is not averted. United we stand.

[AltonEDrew]

11:03 PM on 05/26/2010

The unfortunate thing about a vigorous policy discussion is that the silly season of politics will eventually raise its head. Color of Changes’ James Rucker has taken the net neutrality discussion on this path by declaring war on eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Mr. Rucker insinuates in his piece to The Washington Post that the opposition to net neutrality as expressed by these eight congressmen is somehow based on the financial support they allegedly received from a number of telecommunications companies.

I am not naïve about the influence peddling in Washington, but to argue that the members of the Caucus are unable to draw their own conclusions simply because they are not sipping the net neutrality kool-aid is insulting.

Maybe what these congressmen realize is that the politicking of net neutrality advocates hides the real cost of net neutrality. Maybe they realize that the negative costs of reduced facilities deployment and increased subscriber fees may be too much to bear especially for the unserved and underserved minority communities these congressmen are concerned about.

Too bad Color of Change is too busy quantifying campaign donations instead of the negative social costs of net neutrality.