

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490 x22 or (703) 517-627
Free Press is calling on Congress to attach public service conditions and accountability to the broadband stimulus funds allocated in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009," previewed today in a release from the House Appropriations Committee.
According to the release, the House bill would allocate $6 billion in "wireless and broadband grants" toward "services in underserved areas to strengthen the economy and provide business and job opportunities in every section of America with benefits to e-commerce, education, and healthcare. For every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment."
Read the release: https://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf
In letters sent to House Appropriations Chair David Obey (D-Wisc.) and Senate Appropriations Chair Daniel K. Inouye (D-Ill.), Free Press voiced support for broadband stimulus and urged legislators to target funding toward future-proof networks that are fast, open and affordable.
"While $6 billion is not as much as we had hoped for, it is a substantial investment that represents an important public commitment to broadband," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "This money must be tied to a single agency that can uphold clear principles of public service and enforce concrete administrative accountability."
Full text of the letter is included below:
We write to offer our strong support for the commitment shown by congressional leaders and President-elect Barack Obama to consider high-speed Internet -- our nation's broadband networks -- as a focal point for the economic recovery package. Our telecommunications networks are the nervous system of our economy, catalysts of social mobility, and connection points to knowledge, information and political participation.
We are pleased to see the recent report that as much as $6 billion is allocated in the draft bill for broadband. This represents a critical component of what could be a multifaceted approach to economic stimulus through technology. We urge that these dollars be tied to clear public service principles and concrete administrative accountability. Broadband as economic recovery should be "build-out," not "bail-out."
We must view our communications infrastructure as a public good. This is not a moment to push dollars to large corporations in weakly competitive markets without a firm hand of oversight and an eye to the public interest. Too often in our recent past, government has given money to network owners to expand access and build next-generation connectivity, only to find promises broken and benefits lost. This is a significant part of the reason why the US has dropped to 22nd place in the world in broadband adoption. But change is in the air -- and a telecommunications sector that has long been off track can be righted. Done properly, broadband policy in the economic recovery package is one part of the solution. Public investment can trigger private investment, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, stimulate competition, and deliver to American consumers the permanent economic asset of a world-class communications network.
To do this right will require bold leadership. We ask that you organize broadband policy around these basic principles of public service:
Universality -- Bring networks to unserved and underserved areas.
Openness -- Prohibit discrimination against any lawful content on the networks and empower consumers with freedom of choice among Internet services.
Affordability -- Keep new networks at reasonably comparable prices with existing residential service.
Innovation -- Promote competition among network providers and build future-proof networks that address our perennial lag behind our global competitors.
Accountability -- Ensure that tax dollars spent on broadband networks achieve results, building metrics and benchmarks to guarantee transparency and a return on investment.
We want to especially emphasize a few key points.
First, tax dollars should not be used to fund closed, proprietary networks that shut out content providers, control consumer behavior, and encourage anticompetitive activity. That outcome would be anathema to the goal of building infrastructure of maximum utility to all of the American economy and society. There are several paths that Congress can take to protect consumers. These networks could be made open to all providers on a wholesale basis to promote competition. They could come with mandatory requirements to ensure nondiscrimination between network owners, content providers, and consumers. Or Congress could set policy to reaffirm and expand existing law to protect the innovation engine of the open Internet -- passing to the independent regulatory agencies the task of specifying the rules of the road. We must be clear that it is the open market of unfettered innovation, collaborative production, and consumer curiosity that has driven the success of network technologies to date. All of the economic multipliers that come with infrastructure investment depend on these network effects.
Second, grant monies should flow through a single administrative agency to ensure that accountability is clear and strict. Ideally, this should be an agency with the expertise to account for the impact of broadband stimulus on other telecommunications policy, especially the rate-payer supported Universal Service Fund.
Finally, we should be clear that stimulus policy and telecommunications policy overlap at a central conclusion -- speed equals jobs. Limited stimulus funds should be allocated to capital investment plans that would not have occurred otherwise. Further, these dollars should support the construction of new physical network infrastructure wherever possible, as these are the most job-intensive projects. This focus will naturally privilege faster networks which in turn have their own multiplier effect on the economy as consumers and business adopt these services. This program should be available and made attractive to all network owners, including municipalities, non-profits, and other non-incumbent operators.
We look forward to working with Congress, the new administration, and the broad community of public stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome -- Internet for everyone.
View the letter to the House Appropriations Committee: https://www.freepress.net/files/Stimulus_letter_House_MCR.pdf
View the letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee: https://www.freepress.net/files/Stimulus_letter_Senate_MCR.pdf
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490"I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it," said one critic.
Hours after Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died on Saturday, many of his Democratic colleagues in the US Senate posted statements on their social media pages paying tribute to the South Carolina Republican.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that he would most remember Graham (R-SC) for his "his sense of humor and how he deployed it to move his policy positions forward."
"Though we did not often agree," Schiff added, "Senator Graham was never disagreeable."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) similarly said of Graham that "even though we disagreed on much, he was always willing to negotiate, with humor and wit," adding "my heart goes out to his loved ones."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said he was "saddened" to hear of news of Graham's death, which he said came "as a real shock."
"I’m grateful I had the chance to work with Lindsey," said Kim, "including several international trips working on foreign policy."
However, many critics argued that these tributes to Graham overlooked his destructive legacy in public office, including his decades of war mongering and his slavish devotion to the authoritarian President Donald Trump.
"I don't give a fuck that Graham used to be friends with Democratic senators," wrote Thomas Lecaque, associate professor of history at Grand View University. "He was a bloodthirsty bastard who cheered the killing of Muslims and sold his soul to the fascists to be able to push it more effectively. I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse, responding directly to Schiff's post, reminded him of Graham's behavior during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings when he "threw an angry tantrum in defense of a SCOTUS nominee credibly accused of rape."
"Did you all have a good collegial chuckle over that?" Kruse asked.
Brandon Friedman, co-founder of the Rakkasan Tea Company and a veteran of the Iraq War, also responded directly to Schiff.
"What I'll remember most about Senator Graham," Friedman wrote, "is how he sent my friends to die in an unnecessary war in Iraq."
Jen Rubin, editor-in-chief of The Contrarian and former columnist for The Washington Post, described the Democrats' tributes to Graham as "nauseating" and "everything that is wrong" with the US Senate.
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, said the Democrats' statements were just one more signal of weakness from the party.
"The Democratic Party's approval rating is in the toilet," Grossman wrote, "and the main reason is voters see Dem leaders and prominent members acting like things are basically okay instead of fighting like there's an emergency. Slot 'my friend Lindsey Graham, so funny, how great to work with him' comments into that."
Cartoonish Eli Valley was apoplectic about Democrats' fawning hagiography of their late Republican colleague.
"That Democrats see mass-murdering fascists dismantling the country as nothing more than 'colleagues they dislike' is why we've been in a non-stop plummet," Valley wrote. "Incredible this is still debatable, by people who ostensibly oppose fascism, ten years into this?!?"
Political consultant Jamison Foser wrote a parody of the Democrats' statements that imagined them paying tribute to none other than Satan.
"Deeply saddened to learn of the loss of my dear friend Satan, the Prince of Lies," wrote Foser. "Though we often disagreed about matters such as the appropriate role of torture in the afterlife, I will most remember how his quick wit and affable nature made our weekly golf outings a ritual. He will be missed."
Despite the strait's closure, Trump insisted it was "open as far as we're concerned."
US President Donald Trump on Sunday twice told journalists to stop asking him about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran once again closed after the president declared an end to the ceasefire deal between the two countries.
The first instance came during an interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, who pointed to conflicting statements from the Iranian government and US Central Command about the status of the strait, which is an essential shipping lane for global petroleum supplies.
Trump replied that "it's open, and I don't want to talk about it because I want to honor the life" of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who died on Saturday from what his office described as "a brief and sudden illness."
"So I don't want to talk about it," Trump continued. "I told you that before the call."
WELKER: Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is closed. CENTCOM says it's open. Which is it?
TRUMP: It's open, and I don't want to talk about because I want to honor the life of Lindsey Graham, so I don't want to talk about it. I told you that before the call. pic.twitter.com/3ed7dN1bhK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump was again asked whether the strait was still open.
"It's open as far as we're concerned," Trump told Tapper. "Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak."
"Okay," Tapper replied. "We appreciate your time, sir."
TAPPER: Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. Is that true?
TRUMP: It's open as far as we're concerned. Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak. pic.twitter.com/TwssTycQdF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Iran shut down shipping traffic in the strait after Trump launched an illegal war against the country in late February. The strait's closure resulted in spiking oil and gasoline prices, which coincided with further erosion in Trump's approval ratings.
Although traffic through the strait initially picked up in the wake of a June memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran, it has since slumped as the ceasefire between the two nations has fallen apart.
Ana Marie Cox, contributing editor at The New Republic, bashed both Welker and Tapper for heeding the president's requests and not pushing him to answer questions about the war he unlawfully started.
"Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them," Cox wrote in a social media post, "enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics."
Cox's sentiment was echoed by Kai Ryssdal, host of NPR's Marketplace, who remarked that "the guy being interviewed doesn’t get to pick the questions."
Journalist Helen Kennedy challenged Trump's assertion that asking about the status of the Iran war was irrelevant when talking about Lindsey Graham.
"Making war with Iran was Lindsey Graham's favorite thing," Kennedy observed. "It's not like it's unrelated."
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country. What a horrific legacy," said one critic.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most relentless proponents for using US military force overseas, died on Saturday night at the age of 71.
In a statement posted on Graham's (R-SC) social media account, the senator's office said that he "passed away from a brief and sudden illness."
"Sen. Graham's family appreciates prayers at this time," the office added, "and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period."
During his life, Graham advocated either starting or getting involved in multiple wars across the world, and he was reportedly instrumental in convincing President Donald Trump to launch an illegal attack on Iran without any authorization from the US Congress.
Although Graham was once a Trump critic—he infamously declared in 2016 that the Republican Party would get "destroyed" if it made the former Celebrity Apprentice host its presidential nominee—the South Carolina Republican grew to become one of the president's staunchest allies.
Some critics of Graham reacted to his death by rehashing what they considered to be his least admirable traits.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, remarked that Graham "never met a war he didn't want to send your kids to."
Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, also reflected on Graham's lifetime of war mongering.
"You can say a lot about Lindsey Graham," Caraballo wrote, "but at least he got to see the thing he most wanted before he died, bombing school children in Iran."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse predicted that Graham would leave behind a decidedly poor legacy.
"When Lindsey Graham appears in a history book," wrote Kruse, "it'll be his prediction in 2016 that the Republican Party would be destroyed for supporting Donald Trump and then a few lines about how he proved it by becoming Trump's toady. That's pretty much it. That's his legacy. Pathetic lickspittle."
Steve Schmidt, a former Republican strategist who left the party due to its embrace of Trump, wrote that Graham was "a simple, tragic man" who "lacked a moral core."
"The great empty spaces of his life were filled with an insatiable need for 'relevance,'" Schmidt observed. "He found it as a cast member in the most malignant reality show ever made."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, had a similar analysis of Graham's character.
"Lindsey Graham supported the International Criminal Court when it charged [Russian President Vladimir] Putin but turned on it when it charged [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu," wrote Roth. "Principled, he wasn't."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, wrote that Graham "spent the last decade of his life in public service... trying hard to be remembered as an enemy of the Constitution who worked to destroy American democracy."
Grossman added that Graham "exhibited occasional signs that he knew why that was bad but kept doing it anyway."
Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, offered a grim assessment of the late senator.
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country," wrote Zakarin. "What a horrific legacy."