

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.
The Oregon Democrat also informed colleagues of his staff's findings that "senators have been kept in the dark about executive branch surveillance of Senate phones," in apparent violation of companies' contracts.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden shared the results of his staff's probe into major phone companies in a Wednesday letter to congressional colleagues and also publicly highlighted which carriers disclose government spying to their customers.
"An investigation by my staff revealed that until recently, senators have been kept in the dark about executive branch surveillance of Senate phones, because the three major phone carriers—AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile—failed to establish systems to notify offices about surveillance requests, as required by their Senate contracts," states the letter, published on Wyden's (D-Ore.) congressional website.
"While now rectified for Senate-funded lines, significant gaps remain, especially for the campaign and personal phones used by most senators. I urge your support for legislative changes to allow the sergeant at arms (SAA) to protect senators' phones and accounts from cyber threats, both foreign and domestic," he wrote. "I also urge you to consider switching your campaign and personal phone lines to other carriers that will provide notice of government surveillance."
Wyden noted that "while AT&T and Verizon only provide notice of surveillance of phone lines paid for by the Senate, T-Mobile has informed my staff that it will provide notice for senators' campaign or personal lines flagged as such by the SAA. Three other carriers—Google Fi Wireless, U.S. Mobile, and Cape—have policies of notifying all customers about government demands whenever they are allowed to do so. The latter two companies adopted these policies after outreach from my office."
In a Wednesday statement announcing the letter and the above chart, Wyden's office warned that "beyond members of Congress, journalists, political activists, people seeking reproductive healthcare, and other law-abiding Americans who could be targeted by the government all have reason to be concerned about secret surveillance of their communications and location data."
The findings of his staff include details relevant to every American with a cellphone, but much of Wyden's letter is focused on improving protections for lawmakers. He pointed to "two troubling incidents" that "highlight the vulnerability of Senate communications" to foreign adversaries and U.S. law enforcement: Chinese Salt Typhoon hackers and the U.S. Department of Justice, during the first Trump administration, both collected records of lawmakers and their staff.
"Executive branch surveillance poses a significant threat to the Senate's independence and the foundational principle of separation of powers," Wyden argued. "If law enforcement officials, whether at the federal, state, or even local level, can secretly obtain senators' location data or call histories, our ability to perform our constitutional duties is severely threatened."
"This kind of unchecked surveillance can chill critical oversight activities, undermine confidential communications essential for legislative deliberations, and ultimately erode the legislative branch's co-equal status," he continued. Wyden called on senators to support his proposals for the next annual appropriations bill "that would allow the SAA to protect senators' phones and accounts—whether official, campaign, or personal—against cyber threats, just as we have for executive branch employees."
The longtime privacy advocate's letter to fellow senators was first reported by Politico, which noted that T-Mobile did not immediately respond to requests for comment while spokespeople for AT&T and Verizon defended their companies.
"We are complying with our obligations to the Senate sergeant at arms," AT&T spokesperson Alex Byers said in a statement to the outlet. "We have received no legal demands regarding Senate offices under the current contract, which began last June."
Verizon spokesperson Richard Young told Politico that "we respect the senator's view that providers should give notice to senators if we receive legal process regarding their use of their personal devices, but disagree with his policy position."
Meanwhile, Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress—an advocacy group long critical of government spying on lawmakers and warrantless surveillance—said in response to the revelations from Wyden's office that "we now know that Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, and other phone companies have followed AT&T's unprecedented efforts to facilitate secret government surveillance of their own customers, with some even allowing the government to secretly spy on senators."
"This is a bright, red warning sign at a time when the Trump administration keeps blowing past constitutional checks on executive power and is siccing the Justice Department on elected lawmakers," Vitka added. "These companies should be shamed and ashamed until they fix this."
Supporters of Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn and other critics of the telecommunications industry's efforts to thwart her U.S. Senate confirmation this week called out not only those behind the smear campaign but also Democratic leaders.
"Dem leadership is nowhere to be found defending their nominee."
The digital rights group Fight for the Future tweeted late Thursday that President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) promised to restore Obama-era net neutrality rules, of which Sohn was a chief architect.
"But instead they're sitting on the sidelines while Big Telecom mounts a massive dark money-funded smear campaign against their nominee to the FCC, Gigi Sohn," Fight for the Future added. "Where's the leadership? Do what you said you would do."
Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said Thursday that "it is absolutely absurd that millions of people from across the political spectrum fought for and won net neutrality at the FCC."
Ajit Pai, who chaired the FCC during the Trump administration, "repealed it, Dems promised to restore it, and they've so far failed to do so by caving to industry pressure and slow-walking" Sohn's nomination, Greer added.
"The only reason for this is corruption. Plain and simple," she charged, adding that it is a "good time to remember that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon etc. are huge donors to Democratic leadership and candidates. They've got their hands all up in there."
The campaigner also said that while the telecom sector and others--including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)--attack Sohn, "Dem leadership is nowhere to be found defending their nominee."
Greer pointed to a piece that Scott Roberts, senior director of criminal justice campaigns for Color of Change, wrote for The Root last year, declaring that the FOP is "one of the largest and most powerful hate groups in the country" and "acts as the guardian, enforcer, and perpetuator" of "racist police culture."
The FOP has openly opposed Sohn, citing her "forceful advocacy of end-to-end encryption and 'user-only-access'" and claiming that her employment history, public policy stances, and social media activity "indicated serious animus towards law enforcement officers and the rule of law."
The FOP on Wednesday released polling it commissioned from Morning Consult, which asked U.S. registered voters various questions, including some about Sohn.
"In the poll, 65% of voters had no opinion on this nominee. But after seeing information and social media posts about her extreme positions on policing issues, 6 in 10 said they would be less likely to support the nomination," said FOP national president Patrick Yoes. "For those who say Ms. Sohn's nomination will impact their vote in the Senate's midterm elections, 60% say they are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate--which is very significant in states like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and Washington."
Critics framed the FOP polling as part of the ongoing efforts to tank Sohn's nomination.
"The smear campaign against [Sohn] has been beyond ridiculous," said Techdirt founder Mike Masnick. "Everyone who knows anything about her knows that it's pure nonsense, that she's beyond qualified, and that she will do an amazing job."
"The smear merchants are doing it *because* they know she'll do a good job," added Masnick, who was responding on Twitter to similar comments from technology writer Karl Bode.
Bode had tweeted of the FOP polling that "this is part of a manufactured smear campaign being run by AT&T and Comcast against a highly qualified and extremely popular FCC nominee literally everyone in the telecom/media space knows would be great on telecom monopolization, broadband affordability, and media consolidation."
Related Content

Writing for Techdirt on Friday, Bode blasted the FOP's "not-at-all-scientific poll" as well as the "grotesque campaign" by telecom giants to "spread harmful gibberish in a bid to either flip or provide flimsy justification" for right-wing Democratic senators opposing her nomination.
He also wrote:
The Biden team isn't faultless here either. It took the Biden administration nine months to even nominate Sohn, giving the telecom industry... ample time to galvanize opposition. Team Biden also hasn't done anything to defend Sohn publicly, or apply any meaningful pressure on the Senate confirmation voting process. Nor have Sohn's future FCC colleagues voiced any public support, despite the shamelessness of the attacks.
Which, in turn, is fairly reflective of how the federal government doesn't really take stuff like telecom monopolization and telecom consolidation seriously, especially in an era where "Big Tech" has sucked all the oxygen out of the D.C. policy room. And again, this is all occurring in an era when D.C. pretends to be interested in "bipartisan antitrust reform," revealing the hollowness of the gambit.
In a series of tweets Friday, Bode warned that "it is going to be an EXTREMELY long and painful decade if Democratic strategists don't start pulling their heads out of their asses and start displaying something vaguely resembling urgency, passion, and creativity."
"The phony appeal of authoritarianism can only be defeated if the [Democratic National Committee] shakes off corruption and truly represents the public interest," Bode added. "You don't accomplish this by letting a hugely popular media and telecom reformer drown under unopposed GOP/telecom propaganda attacks."
Digital rights and anti-domestic violence groups are pushing lawmakers to pass legislation to protect survivors from stalking and harassment, but advocates are facing a powerful lobbying group for the wireless industry, which aims to weaken the bill.
As The Guardian reported Thursday, the Safe Connections Act, introduced by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in January, aims to ensure companies like Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint allow survivors to remove themselves from family cell phone plans and end their wireless contracts in order to stop their abusers from accessing information about them.
Companies would be required to let a survivor out of their plan and contract within 48 hours after the person requests to be released and provides police reports or an affidavit describing the abuse. Survivors would be permitted to keep their phone number and to be released from their contract even if they owed back payments on the account.
Cell phone companies would also be required to remove domestic abuse hotlines from their call and text records, to protect their privacy should their abusers see the records.
As The Guardian reported, the wireless industry lobbying group CTIA is working to change the language of the bill, making corporations' compliance voluntary and protecting them from civil litigation should they fail to comply.
CTIA said in January when Schatz introduced the bill that it looked forward "to continuing to work with these legislators on the shared objective of protecting survivors of domestic violence."
Survivors have often been forced to stay on their family plans due to the high cost of ending a contract early and the disruption a changed phone number would cause, according to the Clinic to End Tech Abuse (CETA), Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other groups which urged lawmakers to pass the bill in a letter (pdf) last year.
An inability to easily leave a family phone plan can put a survivor in danger, the advocates said.
"Family phone plans can become tools of stalking and other abuse," the groups wrote to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which unanimously passed the legislation last week. "Several plans offer 'parental' controls or apps that an abuser can use to monitor where a victim's or child's phone is--and a history of where the phone has been during the past seven days--as well as what numbers the victim or child has been calling or texting. This information can help the abuser follow, harass, and threaten the victim or other family members. It can also discourage the victim from reaching out to others for help."
The Safe Connections Act would provide survivors with "a pathway to safety," the National Network to End Domestic Violence told The Guardian.
"The survivor is able to separate their phone line and make plans maybe to separate from the abuser," Elaina Roberts, the group's technology safety legal manager, said. "They can reach out to family and friends, or a direct service provider without being monitored or without that being known, so they can plan for their safety."
On social media on Thursday, proponents of the Safe Connections Act shared an open letter calling on their representatives in Congress to support the legislation and fight CTIA's efforts to weaken the legislation.
"Ignore the seemingly heartless greed of CTIA and wireless companies who try to ignore their involvement in abusive domestic relationships," the letter reads. "Since these companies won't do the right thing--because they seem to care more about money than human life--please do what's right and help protect vulnerable Americans."
Famed bank robber Willie Sutton once explained that he busted into banks because "that's where the money is." What a small-timer! Corporate thieves--including the biggest banks--know that the big scores are in the tax code and federal budget. America's superrich establishment decided to woo Trump and his fanatical constituency to back their agenda of plutocratic plunder.
It's working. The big legislative accomplishment of the guy who claimed to be a working-class hero was his 2017 Christmastime signing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As most Americans now realize, the tax cut was not for them but instead was a disgraceful trillion-dollar-a-year giveaway to corporate giants and their wealthiest shareholders.
According to Americans for Tax Fairness, hundreds of TCJA's corporate backers are already making a killing. In just the first three quarters of 2018, big business quietly pocketed stunning tax savings they would have -- and should have -- paid to support America's public needs:
-- Apple: $4.5 billion
-- AT&T: $2.2 billion
-- Bank of America: $2.4 billion
-- Verizon: $1.75 billion
-- Walmart: $1.6 billion
And what about the "jobs" part of the act? Its core promise was that CEOs would devote their huge tax gift to new jobs and pay raises for working stiffs. Indeed, in 2017, about three dozen brand-name giants funded a lobbying front, deceptively named Reforming America's Taxes Equitably, to promote the notion that a tax break would "boost job creation."
But ThinkProgress found that in 2018, RATE members -- including AT&T, Capital One, CSX, Ford, General Dynamics, Intel, Kimberly-Clark, Lockheed Martin, Macy's, Northrop Grumman, T-Mobile, Verizon, Viacom and Walmart -- instead eliminated more than 100,000 U.S. jobs. Verizon, for instance, promptly offered a "voluntary severance package" to 44,000 employees and offshored thousands of its U.S. jobs to India. It was "an opportunity to find more efficiencies," the CEO told workers, "and help expedite ... an innovative operating model for our future." Or, to put it more simply: It was greed.
Ah ... there you have it: Forget America's fundamental values of justice and opportunity for all and don't expect even a modicum of honesty from rich shareholders and top executives. For example, Kevin Hassett, a far-right corporate ideologue chosen by Trump to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers, flat-out lied that the corporate gifts would spark "an immediate jump in wage growth" averaging as high as $9,000 a year.
Got yours yet?
So where did the money go? To the top. After all, only the tax giveaways were mandated -- not a dime in obligations (not even thank-you notes) was written into law. With no strings attached and union voices largely hushed or marginalized, top executives and board members spent it on themselves and their big investors, hiding their grubby motives behind "stock buybacks," an accounting gimmick that hikes the pay of bosses who do nothing to earn it. The three-step fraud:
1. Humongous Incorporated gets a $1 billion tax gift from Uncle Sam.
2. HI quickly spends the booty to buy its own stock, which inflates the shares' value. 3. Since HI top executives are awarded big chunks of company stock -- abracadabra! -- they can reap huge gains by selling that stock at the inflated price.
Workers, who mostly own no stock, gain little to nothing from these buyback scams. Today's corporate ethic (shamelessly practiced by the president) is clear: Take the money and run. For example, as Politico reported last July:
-- Two weeks after AbbVie, a pharmaceutical giant, announced a $10 billion buyback in February, its stock price soared, and eight top execs cashed in $27 million in stock.
-- After Mastercard's $4 billion stock buyback, its CEO cashed in for a personal payday of $44 million.
-- After Oracle jacked up its stock price with a $12 billion buyback, its co-CEO cashed in a whopping $250 million in shares.
All is not lost. While the piggiest corporations gorge themselves at the public trough, a growing number of their corporate cousins have stood up for a better way of doing business: B Corporations. The B stands for benefit, referring to these corporations' pledge to benefit workers, the community and the environment. The B Corp community works toward lower levels of poverty and inequality, a healthier environment, stronger communities and high-quality jobs with dignity. For more details and a list of B Corps, go to bcorporation.net.
Joe Biden finally announced on Thursday what everyone already knew. With the release of a three-and-a-half minute promotional video, the former vice president officially threw his name in the ever-expanding ring of Democratic primary contenders seeking to win the opportunity to challenge Donald Trump for the presidency in 2020.
Joe Biden finally announced on Thursday what everyone already knew. With the release of a three-and-a-half minute promotional video, the former vice president officially threw his name in the ever-expanding ring of Democratic primary contenders seeking to win the opportunity to challenge Donald Trump for the presidency in 2020. Biden has already seen his share of coverage, and was the second-most-mentioned Democratic candidate on cable news during the first three months of 2019.
Biden has pledged that his 2020 campaign won't take in any direct donations from lobbyists. But on the first night of his official candidacy, Biden hit the suburbs of Philadelphia to attend a $2,800 per person fundraiser at the home of David L. Cohen, the executive vice president and chief of lobbying for Comcast.
Comcast, one of the biggest lobbying spenders in Washington, also owns MSNBC, which has showered Biden with favorable coverage both before and since his announcement.
In March, Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Lucy Flores published an article in New York Magazine (3/29/19) that described how Biden inappropriately kissed her at a campaign event. Biden has quite a long history of awkward and inappropriate touching, kissing or groping of women and girls.

Mika Brzezinski (MSNBC, 4/1/19) defends Biden's "physical style with women" with former DCCC staffer Adrienne Elrod.
Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, was one of the first to defend Biden (4/1/19). Brzezinski suggested that Flores' allegation was politically motivated, citing Flores as a "huge Bernie person," and asking, "Are we just supposed to take all the words and the fact she said she was violated at face value?" Her guests later that day (4/1/19), former DCCC chief of staff Adrienne Elrod and former CIA and DoD chief of staff Jeremy Bash, seemed to agree that such #MeToo accusations against Biden were "meaningless moments," and merely baseless finger-pointing from Biden's political opponents.
Brzezinski continued her defense of Biden the following day and later in the week on Morning Joe, after another woman came forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior (4/2/19, 4/5/19). Brzezinski said that the allegations were "sad," and that Biden is a "nice guy" and "not a predator." She continued:
This is ridiculous. The conversation has gotten out of control, and Democrats and those on the left who want to tweet me today and go nuts and get all woke, you're eating your young. You're eating those who can beat Trump. You're killing the very people who have been pushing women ahead, who've been fighting for equal pay, who have been doing everything they can to respect women in their lives. We're going to after Joe Biden for being affectionate to women of all ages, and to men as well? It's ridiculous.
While he is indeed a frontrunner, defense of Biden as supposedly the only candidate with the ability to beat Trump is frequently parroted by many corporate Democrats (and by totally, definitely well-meaning Republican Party figures as well). MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle recently re-upped this trope (4/24/19) on the day of Biden's announcement, though to his credit, Axios' Jim Vandehei did push back on this narrative.

Joe Biden (11/18/93) assures the Senate: "It doesn't matter whether or not they're the victims of society. The end result is they're about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons."
On another Morning Joe panel (4/26/19), MSNBC correspondent Rev. Al Sharpton criticized Biden's role in drafting and sponsoring the 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1994 crime bills, and his treatment of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Biden recently issued a half-apology phone call 28 years after the fact to Hill, who told the New York Times (4/25/19) that the call "left her feeling deeply unsatisfied." (Biden continued to dance around giving a full-throated apology to Hill in an appearance on The View--4/26/19.) But despite Sharpton's misgivings about Biden's history, he maintained that Biden somehow had the "equipment despite the hurdles" to appeal to both "blue collar white workers" and "black and brown communities."
On the same program, Joe Scarborough castigated Biden detractors, maintaining that they failed to understand the context of Biden's past support for harsh drug laws, opposition to school integration and support for the Iraq War. He later added that "it's easy for you to sit there behind your laptop, drinking your soy lattes in 2019 judging [him] for trying to make the country better." Sharpton chimed in with further attacks on so-called "latte liberators" and "limousine liberals."
But despite his folksiness (Extra!, 4/13), if there is anyone who serves the interests of financial giants who spend most of their time in limousines, it's Joe Biden. Since the late 1970s, Biden has been the chief defender of the Delaware-based credit card industry in Congress, and played a crucial role in the passage of the 2005 bankruptcy law, which made it harder for Americans to wipe out and restructure unreasonable debts through Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Indeed, credit card company MBNA (formerly owned by Bank of America) was Biden's second-largest donor throughout his Senate career. When Biden drafted the original version of the bankruptcy bill in 2000, he was strongly opposed by then-Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, who was integral in getting the Clinton administration to block its passage. Biden has also been a consistent supporter of further financial deregulation, such as the Gramm-Bliley-Leach Act, which has been pointed to as a partial cause of the 2008 financial collapse.
Yet Biden's extremely checkered political history, where he was consistently on the wrong sides of issues like women's rights, racial equality, financial regulation, drugs and criminal justice, surveillance, and war, still doesn't seem to be enough for the media to deem him damaged goods. In fact, outlets like MSNBC still play up Biden as the most viable candidate, despite the fact that there are others with similarly long tenures in politics who didn't make Biden's same mistakes.
Earlier in the year, Alex Altman came on MSNBC to praise Biden's "electability" (2/21/19), while this week Steve Kornacki devoted a whole segment to prove just how "electable" Joe Biden is for the Democrats in a 2020 matchup against Trump (4/25/19). No other candidate, not even the other front runners, received such a segment from the network.
Indeed, calling Biden the most "electable" candidate is really just code for the most "moderate" or white candidate. Such a designation for Biden discounts the appeal of candidates who are left-wing, female or people of color. In particular, left-wing candidates like Bernie Sanders (the other frontrunner) and Elizabeth Warren are each frequently dogged in corporate media by accusations that they are somehow not "electable" enough.
There is perhaps an underlying logic to these attacks. Warren and Sanders have each called for heightened antitrust regulation. (Amy Klobuchar and Corey Booker have also called for increased antitrust enforcement, but are a bit more tepid on the issue than Sanders and Warren.) Big tech companies, agricultural conglomerates, food and beverage companies, banks and telecom companies like Comcast would surely come under the antitrust microscope and be targeted for breakups if one of these candidates were to win the Democratic nomination. Comcast, in particular, stands out as a major target, considering they have interests in both media content production as well as distribution.
Comcast, along with other internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon and AT&T, holds what are essentially regional monopolies, where they very rarely directly compete with one another in a given area. As of 2017, almost 80 percent of US households have access to just a single ISP that offers broadband speeds of over 100 Mbps. This has a striking impact on US internet users: The nation has just the 20th fastest average internet speed in the world, and, according to the FCC, US consumers pay more for broadband than most other comparable countries. Of course, ISPs are also famous for their unmatched customer service record-Comcast ranks as one of America's most hated companies year in and year out, along with many other ISPs.
Much of the power of Comcast and other telecom companies to maintain their monopolies can be attributed to the revolving door that shuffles telecom lobbyists in and out of government positions. The current FCC chair, Ajit Pai, is the former general counsel for Verizon, while its past chair, Tom Wheeler, was a longtime telecom industry lobbyist for trade groups with connections to Comcast. Meredeth Attwell Baker, a former FCC commissioner under Obama, joined Comcast just four months after giving the greenlight for Comcast's merger with NBC Universal. The acquisition marked the beginning of other vertical mergers between content distributors and content producers, including AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, which owns CNN.
During his Senate career, Biden was far from a hawk on antitrust, supporting antitrust exemptions for the soda industry after receiving donations from Coca-Cola. Judging by the Obama administration's extremely lax antitrust approach, a hypothetical Biden administration would follow the same friendly approach towards corporate interests. Biden hasn't stayed away from discussing the issue of antitrust so far in his campaign, but he has remarked that big corporations shouldn't be "singled out." At a speech last year to the Brookings Institution, he remarked, "I don't think 500 billionaires are the reason we're in trouble. The folks at the top aren't bad guys."
Such deference to massive and unpopular corporate monopolies is anathema to both a healthy economy and contrary to the views of most Americans. But potential antitrust targets like Comcast and AT&T have the ability to manufacture positive press for pro-corporate water carriers like Biden through their news properties. Powerful executives like Comcast's David Cohen might not be shooting out daily emails to MSNBC staff ordering them to promote Biden's candidacy, but employees will often gravitate towards what their employers want. After all, they are well aware of who signs the checks.
Likewise, top MSNBC news personalities exist within the same elite circle of Washington insiders that Biden has inhabited for the past 40 years-in just about every one of the aforementioned segments, one host or guest remarked on their personal relationship with Joe Biden. The insider DC cocktail party circuit doesn't contain very many people who want to attack their corporate benefactors.
It's notable that even before its acquisition by Comcast, MSNBC had a history of tacking to the right and a distinct reluctance to challenge entrenched corporate interests. What's more, the network devotes little interest to economic policy, let alone antitrust, preferring to spend most of its time covering Russiagate.
However, this could change. Since entering the race, Biden has been subject to criticism from his left flank, and will likely remain a target. Sanders recently fired shots at Biden in a fundraising email, calling out his fundraiser with Cohen. Warren added to her long history of criticizing Biden by attacking him for his support of banks and credit card companies during the financial crisis.
However, MSNBC has failed to even mention Biden's fundraiser with Cohen. I can't imagine why.
Michael Copps is a former FCC commissioner who at one point served as acting chair of the Federal Communications Commission. A former deputy assistant and assistant secretary of commerce, he holds a PhD in United States history, is one of our most articulate public interest advocates and currently leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.
"They're trying to get rid of every rule and regulation they ever had that had to do with broadcast, they don't want anything to do with net neutrality and an open Internet."
We spoke the other day just as the House of Representatives passed the Save the Internet bill restoring net neutrality rules that keep the Internet open to all without paying higher fees for fast lane preferential treatment. As of now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the bill will never reach the Senate floor, doubtless because he fears putting GOP colleagues on the record in support of the telecom and media giants despite the vast majority of voters - including Republicans - strongly supporting net neutrality and an open Internet.
The conversation also took place just a few days after the passing of former Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina with whom Copps worked and remained friends. He was 97. As noted in the Washington Post's obituary, "[Hollings] served in the Senate from 1966 to 2005 and was instrumental in enacting laws to alleviate childhood hunger, increase vehicle efficiency after the Arab oil embargo and expand competition in telecommunications when the Internet was in its infancy."
We began by talking about Hollings and segued into a discussion about media reform that has been edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the complete interview here:
Your colleague Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina has died. You were his chief of staff for a dozen years or so. What do you remember about him and which of his accomplishments do you think will be most remembered?
He was probably the most formidable human being I have ever met from the standpoint of just a bright sparkling wit, knowing how to get along with people, just a wonderfully entertaining human being to be with. He believed in public service and he believed in it deeply. He used to cite that wonderful Edmund Burke quotation: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Fritz believed part of the responsibility of his job was the education of his constituency. He didn't come to Washington to bash Washington and then go home and get reelected so he could come back to Washington. He actually believed in public service.
I worked for him for over 15 years, and I remember on issue after issue, whether it was national security or feeding the hungry or the environment or the Panama Canal treaties - he was the first southern US senator to come out in favor of what Jimmy Carter was going to do with the Panama Canal - he would closet himself with experts for a week and get all sides of an issue and then he'd write this long newsletter to his constituents and mail it throughout South Carolina. And on some of these issues they disagreed with Fritz, but he got elected six or seven times because they knew they were getting the truth from the fellow, they knew they were getting what he actually thought and a considered judgment, so he kept getting elected, from 1966 through his last election in 1998.
He was described in his obituaries as a populist.
I think he was. I'm a populist historian and the term gets wrenched out of its context so that it's almost meaningless. Nowadays it can be a xenophobe or something, but I think of populism as the reform era of the late 19th century and the farmers against Wall Street and the big banks that were choking the rural heartlands and all of that. So from the standpoint of trying to protect against the ravages of the oil and gas industry or the banks, Fritz was a champion of that.
He was a segregationist originally but wound up endorsing Jesse Jackson for president in 1988...
He did. He evolved. He actually voted against Thurgood Marshall [to be the first black Supreme Court justice in 1967] - he said it was the vote that bothered him most during his terms in the Senate. He came around and was a leader in civil rights. Tremendous contribution on things environmental. He was the father of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coastal Zone Management Acts, all of that stuff. He worked very closely with [late Wisconsin senator and founder of Earth Day] Gaylord Nelson back in the 1970's on fashioning environmental legislation... He was a man of very strong conviction, you had a hard time changing his mind, but he always listened.
The kind of politician that we don't have enough of these days?
He worked across the aisle. Back in those days there was still a considerable measure of civility in the Senate and every Wednesday night he and a group of senators would gather at one of their houses... Some were Republicans, some were Democrats, they would have a few drinks together, they'd eat dinner, talk and discuss.
They'd listen to each other on the floor of the Senate; now nobody listens to anybody else, they all run across the street, where big industries and the political parties have their townhouses, and dial for dollars. Fritz's last big crusade was bemoaning and agitating against the corrupting power of big money in politics, and finally saying I can't do this [fundraising] anymore, it just detracts so much from the job of representing the people and trying to craft legislation in the public interest.
So let's make the turn now and ask, how would you characterize telecommunications policy in this age of Trump?
Our telecommunications ecosystem is seriously in danger insofar as the American people go. And the state of that industry, and I include media in that, carries a huge threat for the future of our democracy to be able to support a vital civil dialogue. I don't believe that you can have a self-governing country unless you have an informed electorate...
The media has been so consolidated with so much loss of community and local radio and TV stations, such damage to journalism - we've lost over half of our newsroom employees since the beginning of the century.
What we see is infotainment substituting for real journalism, opinion-mongering substituting for fact, the demise of in-depth investigative journalism, politics turned into a reality show, which is basically what the 2016 election was - who's going to get voted off the island, who's going to make a rhetorical gaffe rather than digging into the issues that bedevil this country of ours.
So I think we're in danger and a lot of that goes back to the federal policy of encouraging all of these mergers, the big media giants, half a dozen of them, coming in and buying up community stations, closing the newsroom, shuttering it, throwing reporters out on the streets. So many of them are walking the street in search of a job rather than walking a beat in search of a story. I don't think we can sustain that very much longer, I really don't.
You get to a point where you really start making dumb decisions as a country. I think you can make a pretty good argument that we've made some dumb decisions in recent years. We don't have any free pass to the future, America has no automatic free pass to the future. We've got some really serious challenges to confront and to overcome, and it's going to take an informed electorate, which is what democracy is all about, to grapple with those problems and solve them, but you can't grapple and solve unless you know about them, and that's where I believe the media is falling down.
This is my passion, this is what I worked on at the Federal Communications Commission and what I'm working on at Common Cause right now. I don't think there is any more serious issue facing us, and goodness knows, we have so many issues - health, environment, diversity, equal opportunity, global affairs, disability rights. All of that is important and none of it is going to get resolved unless the people have a knowledge of the issues and understand the importance of the issues, and then you build from the grassroots up.
There's nothing very good that's going to come out of Washington in the next three years, maybe the next five years, maybe longer than that. This country is in such dire need of reform, it's going to have to come from the grassroots, but in the final analysis, isn't that where substantive reform in American history has always come from? Starts at the grassroots, then you get the politicians on board, then you get legislation.
I remember that you've always been fond of saying that whatever your issues, all of them depend on media reform.
That's right. When I go around and do town hall meetings, I always like to pick out five or six folks and ask, "What's your biggest issue? What's the most dangerous challenge facing the country?" You'll get answers like jobs, health, environment, climate change. And I'll say, "Well, that's all well and good but those issues aren't going to get resolved unless you get on board with this media and telecommunication policy and get us a journalism that will help you resolve those issues. So if it's not your number one issue, you'd better put it way up there on your scale of rankings."
Your colleague FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel recently told Congress, "Too often the FCC has acted at the behest of the corporate forces that surround it, shortchanging the American people and undermining our digital future."
She's right on target. Before I went to the FCC, I thought, this is going to be the coolest job on God's green earth. I'm going to be dealing with all these edge-of-the-envelope issues with the Internet and technology. I'm going to meet all these innovators and entrepreneurs.
Then I got there [in 2001], and the first call I got was from the chairman, Michael Powell, and he was seeking my help - would you please approve this broadcast merger deal? As soon as I hung up, I realized I was going to be spending an inordinate amount of my time just meeting with the CEO's of these big media companies and the telecom companies: "We have to get larger, we have to take over this other company. It's economies of scale, we're going to go bankrupt, blah blah blah." They'd tell me that, then they'd go to New York and tell all the Wall Street people how great they were doing...
[I]t's pernicious, and one of the things I really tried to do and Jessica is trying to do, is get the FCC to go on the road, talk to the people, find out what they're really thinking about these issues. You sit there [in DC] and are just flooded with all these beautifully gift-wrapped ex parte submissions from big industry with all these big names on them and researched and beautifully presented [but] 88, 90 percent of the American people never hear about any of that and they don't even know the FCC is considering media consolidation or net neutrality or privacy or any of these things that are so important to America right now.
My colleague [FCC Commissioner] Jonathan Adelstein and I probably held sixty or seventy or more town hall meetings around the county and we found that when you went into the communities there was a tremendous interest and an understanding that something has gone wrong with our local media.
I remember being in Sioux Falls late one night -- some of these hearings went on for eight or nine hours, Jonathan and I would always stay until the end -- and this Native American woman got up and she was in tears: "We never get covered, my tribe, my community. When we do get covered it's suicide, unemployment, alcohol, but the things we're contributing and the good things that we're doing and trying to do never get covered." That's true, not just for them but for so many different groups...
I'm encouraged that people are starting to talk a little about this now, that, gee, something's gone wrong here with the local news, what can we do about it? We have to take that discussion and really broaden it to include everybody. We have to get local news and local broadcast journalism back. And then we have to think about our national news and our global news.
You mentioned Michael Powell, who was the Republican FCC chair when you started in 2001, and is now an industry lobbyist...
He's head of the big cable association in Washington, making a couple of million dollars a year, I guess...
The revolving door between government and big business.
The revolving door has really been active in two places: the FCC and the United States Trade Representative, both very, very important agencies in our government.
I think the goal of this administration and perhaps even the chairman of the FCC is to put [the FCC] out of business. They're trying to get rid of every rule and regulation they ever had that had to do with broadcast, they don't want anything to do with net neutrality and an open Internet. [They want to] give it all to the FTC, theFederal Trade Commission, which has very weak enforcement authority, it has no power even to write rules.
But yet they're saying, get it out of here, put it over there and pretty soon they'll be able to put a "Going Out of Business" sign over the front door of the Federal Communications Commission, which is an agency established in 1934 to serve the public interest. [Congress] gave the FCC a lot of powers, which the current Republican majority just denies... because they don't believe in government.
Going back to that, the current Republican FCC chair Ajit Pai, has he lived up - or down! - to your expectations?
He's lived up to Donald Trump's expectations. From the standpoint of the president of the United States, I think Ajit Pai has been one of the most effective appointments that he made, because [Pai] is denuding the Federal Communications Commission, essentially getting rid of so many rules and regulations and that's what the Trump administration is all about.
When you read last week that in agriculture the administration is saying, well, let the pork industry do its own inspection of pork that's sold in the United States. Wow... It's the same across all these agencies: environment, health, the whole ball of wax.
You've mentioned net neutrality a couple of times. One of the first things Trump's chair Ajit Pai did was to tear down the net neutrality rules, the Open Internet order which the FCC put into effect in February 2014 and which public advocacy groups had fought so hard for. But luckily, that repeal is being fought against very hard.
Yeah, thank goodness we have a Save the Internet bill that has gone through on the House side... It would restore the net neutrality rules that the Democratic FCC under [then-Chair] Tom Wheeler put into effect back in 2015. And we need that. You're giving all this power to a few telecommunications and content companies just to determine where you can go, what you can do, can you organize or can't you organize on the Internet.
The Internet was supposed to be the open, dynamic technology of our time, and I started talking about the dangers of the Internet back in 2002 and 2003, if we didn't have some public service obligations and regulations for it.
People said, "Copps, you're way off base. This is an open, dynamic technology, power is at the edges. We've got the power, there's no central power and you don't have to worry about it." But now, lots of Americans have come to realize that while the technology may be out there and dynamic, the business model isn't -- the business model is the same as every industry we've ever seen.
It's a trend toward consolidation and monopoly markets, so this wonderful Internet, which still holds such promise for the future, which could one day if it's not too late still be the town square of our democracy, paved with broadband bricks, so to speak, is now coming under the control of a few who are going to be able to say, "No, you can't start your website here, we don't like the political views of NARAL or something like that, we're going to block this, block that... If content producers play ball with us, we'll speed up their stuff to consumers and slow down everybody else."
That's not what the Internet is supposed to be and we need to get hold of that. Net neutrality is the prerequisite of an open Internet. You can't have an open Internet without net neutrality.
But, and it gets more complicated here, net neutrality by itself is not the realization of an open Internet. You've still got all the problems with these huge companies, consolidation, commercialization. And where is the model on the Internet for online journalism? Yes, there are a few sites, Pro Publica and others, but we haven't begun to get on the Internet the depth of journalism that we used to have in traditional media. We've lost far more than we have gained.
You have companies like Facebook that are taking the news that journalists like you and others produce and they aren't giving a dime for it. They run it along all these ads that bring them billions and billions of dollars without putting anything back into journalism. They'll say, "Well, we gave a million dollar grant a year or so ago." We're talking something much more major than that if you're going to have real journalism on the Internet.
How is artificial intelligence going to affect the Internet and affect us all, affect our jobs - all these are questions revolving around the Internet that we have to have a serious national conversation about and bring people's attention to...
You have to get net neutrality done. Whether Mitch McConnell will ever give it any kind of green light [in the Senate] or that Trump will sign it I doubt, but at least we're laying the base and if we get a different agency or different administration in the future maybe we can do that.
The interesting thing to me, when you go around the country, this is not a partisan issue. I can run around Capitol Hill until I'm blue in the face trying to find a Republican who will support net neutrality or get serious against the kind of consolidation I'm talking about. But look at the polls... 75, 80, 85 percent of the American people -- Republicans, independents, Democrats - all say it was a mistake for the FCC to repeal those [net neutrality] rules... It is not a partisan issue outside the fabled Beltway but we are so under the partisanship mantra in Washington, DC, right now that you can't get anything of substance accomplished.
We have a White House that was opposed to the AT&T Time Warner merger, but [to punish CNN] not for altruistic media reform reasons.
Yeah, I've read that, too (laughs). The Justice Department did end up opposing the merger and they went to court and in one of the most ridiculous court decisions that I have ever read, the presiding judge okayed the merger and he said, well, we don't really deal much in what we call vertical mergers - that's where you would have both the content and the distribution. We only deal in horizontal mergers where companies of like services are joining forces.
But if you control the distribution of something and you control the content, if that isn't in my mind the classic definition of monopoly back to John D. Rockefeller or the old robber barons, I mean, that's how they got a hammerlock on this economy. It worries me, because if we get a brighter day legislatively and in the regulatory agencies, in the long term, a lot of this stuff ends up in court, and the direction of the court, with all the court-packing that Mitch McConnell and his friends are doing, putting in so many judges who don't believe in regulation, who don't believe in rules for the public interest, it could take us a long while to get us out of the hole that we have dug ourselves.
Speaking of the courts, we had mentioned the net neutrality fight in Congress but there's also an ongoing fight in the courts.
There's a decision that's imminent in the next few months. Judging from the questions that were asked in the panels and all, I still have a little bit of optimism - and this would do so much to help restore my faith in the courts - that they would reject what Chairman Pai did in repealing the rules and say let's go back to treating the Internet as a telecom service so that the public interest rules and regulations apply to it - you can't block and throttle and slow down or speed up. I hope that happens, I wouldn't bet the family farm on it, but I'm hopeful.
Is there any validity to industry arguments that net neutrality has a bad effect on business, on improving services and investment in broadband?
That's what they tell the press and the politicians. But when they go to New York and talk to the investors and the analysts, it's all, we're doing great and we're going to do so much better... The whole media atmosphere, telecommunications, too, has just fallen under the delusion that profits are king... I realize that lots of industries have consolidated and that seems to be a trend in the kind of capitalism that we have right now. But I'm taking about an industry that's based on the public good, something that's really important, that's different, something that we'd better make sure works to serve the common purpose of the American people.
People going back to George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson understood this; that, for example, the newspapers of the time had to get out to all the citizens of the country. So what did they do? They subsidized the distribution of newspapers, they built postal roads and post offices.
When he was president, George Washington had a fellow who worked for him named Ebenezer Hazard and Ebenezer refused to spend the monies that they had to help build postal roads. Washington fired him. He said we have to have money for this. This kind of continental government was a new experiment, could that big a republic or democracy survive without an informed public? These statesmen decided, no, it could not.
So fast forward now to the era of Reagan and Bush - "Oh no, the free market can do it all. The free market can get broadband out to every American." You really shouldn't expect some of these companies to go into remote America without some kind of partnership with the government because there's no profit, no business case for it. I'd like to see them do that as a public service but they're not going to do it.
What we've really gotten away from is the private-public partnership between the states, the federal government and the private sector to build infrastructure. That's how we built our bridges and roads and canals and interstate highways and all that stuff throughout the course of our history. But now it's free markets and let's get government off our backs.
For decades, there was a public service commitment that was considered part of the reason that you got to have your broadcast license, a commitment to news and public affairs and community service.
All gone now: "Are you getting out and talking to members of your community about what they want to see? Are you offering opportunities for opposing viewpoints? Are you covering the economy, are you covering diversity? Are you putting some limits on ads on children's programming?" All that stuff is gone.
When I started out in broadcasting there was a procedure called "ascertainment." Anyone could come in off the street and look at the station logs and determine whether you were fulfilling that mandate.
The broadcasters didn't like that. They redbaited it out of existence - "That's communism," and like that. While some of these things were not written down as hard and fast rules, the stations knew they had to come in every three years and make a case to the FCC that they were serving the public interest. All those guidelines are gone. Now, every eight years they send in a postcard, it's little more than sending a postcard and you get your license back [without having] to worry about how you're serving the common good or advancing the public interest.
I wanted to ask you about diversity.
The diversity that we have in our media ecosystem right now is pretty sad. Women own 7.4 percent of full-power commercial television stations. Hispanics own six percent. African-Americans own 0.9 percent. How can you expect to have diversity in broadcasting if you don't have it in ownership? I think it's related. Like the old golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules, he who has the stations determines the content of the programming for all.
It's not just ownership, it's management jobs and all the rest. The tech companies are no better and probably worse in these statistics. This is a country whose strength is premised on diversity, and if we're going to turn it all over to white, male big business control, it's not going to work.
Which, when it comes to diversity, makes an open Internet all the more important. What are some of your other priorities at Common Cause in terms of media reform and democracy?
We're looking at the media ownership rules and trying to reverse what the commission has done in court and with legislation. We're working on how to get broadband out to every American; there's a program called Lifeline that offers subsidized telecommunications and broadband. It's a very small subsidy, $9.25, but millions of people have taken advantage of it. The Pai commission is trying to scale it way back and get rid of it; we're trying o help preserve that program.
We're trying to advance something called the E-Rate, which brings high-speed broadband to our schools and libraries, libraries still being very important as places where people gather. You mentioned [Democratic FCC Commissioner] Jessica Rosenworcel; she talks about the education gap in different parts of America. If you're out in rural America or in the inner city where you don't have that access to broadband, what do the kids do to get broadband so that they can do their homework at the same level as the more advantaged and affluent people can? That's where getting broadband out to everybody and certainly making sure that the schools and libraries have it as we build toward the ubiquity of broadband is so highly important.
I was surprised at how many Americans don't have access to broadband. It's 162 million.
To me, access to broadband is a civil right, because I don't think you can be a fully functioning member of our society, in terms of being able to find a job or educate yourself, the list just goes on and on, without having access to that basic communications [tool]that so influences all of our lives, the lives of those who have it.
Something that has been coming up a lot, and I was curious to get your reaction, is the FCC and robocalls. I know that's something Jessica Rosenworcel has been pushing on and I know it's something I'm afflicted with.
Aren't we all?
It has gone from two billion calls a month to five billion a month just in the course of this administration, something like 2000 calls a second. What can be done?
It's a tough problem. Every day the technology advances for people who are doing this so they can hide their identities and call you more and more. There are a couple of things to be done: I know people have talked about some legislation to beef it up.
The agencies have to get serious. They talk about doing something about robocalls; they have to get really serious about enforcement and they have to get away from saying, ah, we finally found somebody who's doing it, we're going to fine them $5000 or something like that. Who cares? That's not even doing the cost of doing business for most of them. You've got to put some meaningful fines on them and make an example of some of those folks.
And then at the agencies, instead of firing people and making [agencies] smaller, you have to have the expertise of people who understand this stuff, the engineering expertise, so that they can deal with it and know what these spoofers and robocallers are doing. It's not an easy problem but I think that it's one that we could be doing more about and I think the impatience of the American people is rising. Maybe that will happen legislatively. I hope so.
AT&T and Verizon and a couple of others have said that they're going to offer free programs that will help block these calls.
"Watch what we do, not what we say."
What else?
There are so many problems. I think we've hit on the big ones. Hopefully we can get net neutrality, but then we do really have to have this national conversation about the future of the Internet and the other dangers that are out there for it. We all need to be a part of that. Journalists need to be a part of that. And I would like to see much more involvement on their part. People like Margaret Sullivan at The Washington Post and several others have written eloquently and she writes often about it.
I realize the challenges involved. A lot of journalists who are lucky enough to still have a job work for companies that don't give them the luxury of going out and getting involved in issues like that. But if an issue affects your craft, your very livelihood and your future and you feel strongly about it, you need to get involved.
What can people do?
Bring it up in conversations with your families, co-workers and colleagues. Organize in communities. Every time a member of Congress comes home and goes to a town hall meeting, somebody should be out there saying, what about media consolidation? Why aren't you for net neutrality? Why don't we have privacy legislation?
It works. I remember back when I was doing battle at the FCC with one of the chairmen [Michael Powell] over the media ownership rules, a congressman called me and said, "I never knew this was an issue. But I went home a few weeks ago and a couple of people in the audience raised their hands and said what are you doing about media consolidation?" That fellow came back and voted on the right side against media consolidation. That's where they need to hear from you -- back in the community so they know it's a local issue and that it affects the intentions of the people going to the polls in the next election.
Finally, as an academically-trained historian yourself, when all is said and done, what do you think future historians will make of the Trump years?
That this was a time of real troubles for the country. Democracy is a fragile thing and what can undermine it as much as anything is fear. We have so much of the politics of scare and fear and let's tear down trust in institutions.
So who do we trust nowadays to remedy these problems? We have to get back to some leader or some thing that will restore trust in institutions, and look to something or someone who can solve this. It [needs to be] all of us together demanding that... Maybe the sentiment's already there but we need to make politicians understand that. We need a far-reaching change in our regulatory agencies and legislatures in this country.
It's uphill, given the power of entrenched interests. I suppose you can make a case that it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle but as a small "d" democrat I think we should never fall victim to that kind of apathy and depression. We've been through tough times before. We can do this, so let's start working and get it done.
Some 31,000 workers walked off the job at Stop & Shop stores across New England Thursday in response to the company cutting wages and benefits, a strike that prompted the support and praise of prominent Democrats and left wing activists.
The strike is the result of a March vote by store union members to walk off the job if a fair contract between the union and the grocery corporation could not be reached during negotiations.
Even though the labor action was not unexpected, the size of the strike was notable, as HuffPost reporter Dave Jamieson pointed out.
A strike of 31,000 workers is large by any measure, but it is particularly large in the U.S. private sector, where massive work stoppages have become increasingly rare. Excluding the wave of public-sector teacher strikes and a walkout at California public hospitals, the Stop & Shop strike appears to be the largest since 36,500 employees at Verizon (which owns HuffPost) formed picket lines in 2016, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Leaders from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, which is representing the striking workers, pointed to the company's attempts to raise healthcare cost buy-ins by workers and cut pensions as two sticking points in negotiations.
Stop & Shop owner Ahold Delhaize, a European grocery conglomerate, is withholding financial information that would justify those cuts, union leaders said in a statement.
"The company is claiming the proposed cuts are necessary but is unlawfully refusing to provide financial information to verify that claim," UFCW leaders said.
Stop & Shop, in its statement on the strike, said that the company was "ready to meet with union leaders any time" to resolve the dispute.
"We are committed to good faith bargaining and hope to reach new contracts as quickly as possible that both recognize and reward the great work of our associates and enable Stop & Shop to compete effectively in the rapidly changing New England grocery market," the company said.
Workers outside the Stop & Shop in North Adams, Mass., told reporters from local outlet iBerkshires that the company's refusal to use a fraction of its massive profits to help workers--and the subsequent decision to attempt to cut benefits--was the main issue.
"We really decided there had to be a labor action and stand up to this corporate greed," said North Adams union steward and strike coordinator Bill Laviolette.
"They wouldn't show us where they were losing money or why they were making such drastic cuts," Laviolette added.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) echoed her constituent Laviolette's call for fair treatment. In a tweet, Warren said that she backed Stop & Shop workers in their action.
"I stand in solidarity with UFCW for these hard-working families to be treated with the dignity & respect they deserve," said Warren.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also expressed his support for the strikers.
"I stand with UFCW workers in their fight to protect health care and workers' rights," said Sanders.
Both Sanders and Warren are running for the Democratic nomination for president in the party's primary next year.
The strike appears likely to continue for the foreseeable future, until one side gives in--and, as HuffPost's Jamieson put it, in a tight labor market, the advantage is with UFCW and the workers.
"They've been investing in infrastructure here but not in the workers," said North Adams' Laviolette.
Stop & Shop will need to make a decision: either invest in people power or continue to lose money.
With a full House vote on the Save the Internet Act scheduled for Tuesday, open internet campaigners urged members of the public to call their representatives to demand they pass the bill cleanly--without any telecom-friendly amendments attached--to restore net neutrality.
"Any lawmaker who doesn't want to invoke the wrath of their constituents should vote for its clean passage on the House floor."
--Evan Greer, Fight for the Future
"Despite the terrible decision from Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai--a former Verizon lawyer--it's clear that people all across the political spectrum want net neutrality," wrote Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action. "But we'll win only if all of us take action and contact our reps. Are you in? Could you make a call today--and help make history?"
"Call your rep at 202-751-4622. Tell your lawmaker to pass the Save the Internet Act with no loopholes," Crim added. "This legislation would restore real net neutrality protections."
The Save the Internet Act needs at least 218 votes to pass the House. As of this writing, the bill has 197 co-sponsors in the House.
"Call your freakin reps," tweeted digital rights group Fight for the Future.
The vote comes after the legislation cleared two crucial committee hurdles unscathed, despite the GOP's last-minute attempts to ram through telecom-friendly amendments that would have gutted the legislation.
"Telecom lobbyists should just give up now. Despite ISP giants like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying, misinformation campaigns, and buying influence through campaign contributions, they've failed to fool the public and efforts to restore net neutrality are moving forward," Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said after the Save the Internet Act passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.
In an effort to replicate its recent success livestreaming committee hearings on net neutrality--which attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers--Fight for the Future is planning to livestream the House vote to ensure that lawmakers know the internet is watching:
According to a Comparitech survey published last month, 80 percent of the U.S. public--including 77 percent of Republicans--support net neutrality protections.
"The overwhelming majority of voters from across the political spectrum want Congress to do their jobs and restore these basic protections that never should have been taken away in the first place," Greer said. "The Save the Internet Act would do exactly that, and any lawmaker who doesn't want to invoke the wrath of their constituents should vote for its clean passage on the House floor."
Defending Net Neutrality in the media is like an endless game of Whack-a-Mole.
So many Op-Eds and letters to the editor that oppose the Save the Internet Act are written by people with financial ties to the broadband industry. And far too few of these ties are disclosed in the media.
Time to get the hammer!
The latest mole to emerge takes the form of a misleading letter to the editor in the New York Times. Its author is Ev Ehrlich, who's affiliated with the ESC Company and the so-called Progressive Policy Institute. But you wouldn't know that from reading his letter in the Times, as neither he nor the newspaper acknowledges these ties.
It's a concerning oversight because both of these organizations have financial relationships with the phone and cable lobby, which is doing whatever it can to torpedo the Save the Internet Act.
In Ehrlich's 2015 letter to the editor, the Times partially disclosed as much, noting in his bio that he "is president of ESC Company, an economics consulting firm that has telecom clients."
But it doesn't disclose his affiliation with the Progressive Policy Institute, which as part of the nonprofit Third Way Foundation has received five- and six-figure contributions from the major trade associations representing AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other large firms.
And the misinformation doesn't end at nondisclosure. In his new letter, Ehrlich claims that the Save the Internet Act isn't bipartisan.
That all depends on your viewpoint.
It's true that on Capitol Hill, only Democrats -- so far -- support the bill. But if you turn around and face the rest of the country, you're seeing something entirely different.
Public polling shows overwhelming bipartisan support for the Save the Internet Act's legal approach. A 2018 University of Maryland poll found that 86 percent of voters opposed the FCC's repeal of the Title II Net Neutrality rules, including 82 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats.
If Republican members of Congress were genuinely interested in being bipartisan, they'd follow the good counsel of their constituents and support the Save the Internet Act.
At the moment, however, they and Ehrlich are looking the wrong way: toward the broadband industry and its checkbook and not the people of the United States.
Ehrlich also claims that a so-called "light touch approach" is to credit for the alleged "gusher" of investment and innovation across the sector. In this, he's echoing much of the anti-Net Neutrality rhetoric emanating from the Trump FCC, and Chairman Ajit Pai in particular.
Ehrlich wants you to think that Net Neutrality rules have had the opposite effect -- that they turned off the investment spigot. This is far from the truth, as we at Free Press Action have demonstrated time and again, and again, and again.
To cap it off, Ehrlich suggests that support for the Save the Internet Act is merely a ploy from advocates like Free Press Action -- that we're just trying to stir up hysteria and raise more money from our base.
That last doozy is a laugh when you compare the modest budget of an organization like ours to the hundreds of millions of dollars the phone and cable lobby spends on campaign contributions, lobbyists, lawyers, think tanks and PR firms.
This industry money has turned far too many decision-makers in Washington against the interests of the people they're supposed to represent, people who support Net Neutrality in large numbers.
And it's money that's also found its way into Ehrlich's bank account -- inspiring today's shady letter to the editor at the New York Times.
Whack!
When the FCC announced its intention to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, Americans spoke up. When the FCC ignored the fact that most Americans support net neutrality, Americans spoke up again, asking Congress to reverse the FCC's decision. And the Senate listened. This fight continues in the courts, in the states, and, yes, in Congress.
The just-introduced Save the Internet Act would restore the 2015 Open Internet Order and prevent the FCC from pulling the same stunt it did in 2017 by ignoring facts and the clear desire of the people. Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast would once again be banned from engaging in discriminatory data practices like blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. ISPs would once again be accountable for actions that threaten the free and open Internet, public safety, and competition. Privacy protections from your ISP would once again be restored. There would again be protections for real net neutrality.

Legislation that protects real net neutrality recognizes that there are more than three ways for ISPs to leverage the fact that they control your access to the Internet and Internet services' access to you. Legislators that truly believe in a free and open Internet will support the Save the Internet Act and not any bill that does less for Americans.
Americans of both parties have made their opinion on net neutrality clear. Over and over again, we've spoken out. And we're going to keep doing it until we get the Internet we deserve.
Tell your representatives you want them to stand up for real net neutrality. And don't let them redefine net neutrality by supporting one of the other, net-neutrality-in-name-only bills. Tell them you want them to co-sponsor the Save the Internet Act, and take a stand for Team Internet--not ISPs.