A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Missouri Republicans who were gearing up to fight Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that would guarantee net neutrality.  Net neutrality is the collective term for a set of principles that would guarantee that Internet service providers (ISPs) cannot discriminate or deny access based on content. It is vitally important to a free and transparent internet.  Consequently, in these days of a debased and diminished news media, it is arguably of equal importance to our democracy.

Since it is to the advantage of the ISPs to be able to charge differentially based on content, they are fighting these new rules tooth and nail.  Thanks to their deep pockets and hard lobbying they are successfully recruiting many congress members to their cause.

Three Democratic members of the House from Missouri, Russ Carnahan, William Lacy Clay, and Emanuel Cleaver have signed onto a letter to the Chair of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, asking him to back away from his proposed new rules:

As the FCC embarks on its much anticipated rulemaking addressing the subject of “net neutrality,” we therefore urge the commission to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network Investment. We are confident that the objective rule of facts will reveal the critical role that competition and private investment – and of necessity will continue to play – in building robust networks that are safe, open and secure.  In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.

As I noted in my earlier post, these assertions are wrong on almost every point since they consist of easily discredited fictions promulgated by the ISPs. Read this Free Press report to understand just how misleading this letter is, and if any of the three congressmen represent you, contact them and make sure they understand the pertinent facts.

Update:  Also consider these suggestions (via the DailyKos):  Please ask Reps. Carnahan, Clay and Cleaver to:

… sign on with Rep. Waxman, Eshoo and Markey as co-sponsors of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458). He should also write a separate letter to Chairman Genachowski of the FCC pledging his support of strong Net Neutrality rules.

The DailyKos diarist also points out that

The fight for Net Neutrality is very real, and it’s getting nasty. You can send a message to Washington by adding your name to the 2-million-person call to action.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter [pdf] to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius today:

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC 20515

August 17, 2009

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

We write to you concerning your recent comments about the public option in health insurance reform.

We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is “not the essential element” of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-not smoke and mirrors. We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies’ good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality.

To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it.

We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their Position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President’s signature, MUST contain a public option.

Sincerely,

Raul Grijalva

Co-Chair

Congressional Progressive Caucus

Lynn Woolsey

Co-Chair

Congressional Progressive Caucus

Barbara Lee

Chair

Congressional Black Caucus

[emphasis added]

They members of the caucus who signed the original letter [pdf] in July included Emanuel Cleaver and William Lacy Clay:

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC 20515

July 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

H-232, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Henry Waxman

Chairman

House Committee on Energy and Commerce

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Charles Rangel

Chairman

House Committee on Ways and Means

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable George Miller

Chairman

House Committee on Education and Labor

2181 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:

We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under

consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of “keeping insurance companies honest,” and their rates down.

To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members ofthe Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low-and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.

In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.

We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.

Sincerely,

Lynn Woolsey

Raul Grijalva

Carolyn Kilpatrick

Jerry Nadler

Phil Hare

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Keith Ellison

Earl Blumenauer

Mel Watts

Donna Edwards

John Olver

Dennis Kucinich

Laura Richardson

Maxine Waters

John Conyers

Judy Chu

Maurice Hinchey

Hank Johnson

Diane Watson

Jackie Spier

Bill Pascrell

Lloyd Doggett

Marcy Kaptur

Mazie Hirono

Bob Filner

Linda Sanchez

Marcia Fudge

Barbara Lee

Andre Carson

Sheila Jackson Lee

Michael Honda

Jim McDermott

William Lacy Clay

Jim McGovern

Yvetter Clarke

Eric Massa

Chellie Pingree

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Elijah Cummings

Bennie Thompson

Gwen Moore

Donald Payne

Fortney “Pete” Stark

Ed Towns

Corrine Brown

Alcee Hastings

Nydia Valezquez

Luis Gutierrez

Grace Napolitano

Albio Sires

John Tierney

Mike Capuano

Chaka Fattah

Jose Serrano

SamFarr

Bill Delahunt

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Added July 31, 2009

Gregorio Sablan

Robert Wexler

Emanuel Cleaver

[emphasis added]

Missouri has some truly excellent Democratic members of Congress.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has helpfully produced a district-by-district breakdown of how HR 3200 (the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act) will affect Missourians.

Here’s a list of each district breakdown in Missouri:

   * Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-1)

   * W. Todd Akin (MO-2)

   * Russ Carnahan (MO-3)

   * Ike Skelton (MO-4)

   * Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5)

   * Sam Graves (MO-6)

   * Roy Blunt (MO-7)

   * Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8)

   * Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9)

Looking at some of the breakdowns, it’s interesting to note that Blunt’s district would benefit quite a bit. Of the 5 categories of benefits listed here, the 7th District is either the leader or the 2nd highest recipient in each category. 16,500 small businesses in Blunt’s district would be eligible for tax credits to pay for their health care plan. 12,500 seniors would no longer face a donut hole in their prescription coverage from Medicare. And so on.

Another interesting fact. The health care reform bill is largely financed from a surtax on the wealthiest Americans. Most families in Missouri won’t face this surtax – in most district the percentage of households that won’t face the surtax is over 99%! The 2nd, represented by Republican Todd Akin has the highest percentage of families that will face the surtax… at a whopping 2.6%.  Just as sure as I am that Akin will vote against any health care reform bill, I’m positive that he’ll claim “higher taxes on hard working Missourians” as a reason for his opposition. Sad, really.

UPDATE: From comments, Maryb2004 points out that there is still time to call – the House is in a lunch recess. So what are you waiting for???

UPDATE II: Victory! Well, sort of. Enough votes were peeled off from both the left and the right that the leadership had to pull the bill. More on this later.

A couple of important votes are coming up this week, the SCHIP veto override on Thursday and the FISA-revising RESTORE Act today. More on the SCHIP vote soon.

Following up on this post, I got in touch with the office of my reliably progressive congressman, the Honorable William Lacy Clay, Jr. I received no clear answer on telecom immunity or basket warrants from the staffers I talked to, but today I received an e-mail from Congressman Clay’s office that concerned me. From the e-mail:

[The RESTORE Act] would create Programmatic Authorizations that would resolve the confusion over whether the intelligence community needs individualized warrants for foreign targets if there is a risk that they might be communicating with American citizens; this would be achieved through a program of collection against the foreign target, that,  upon proper application and review, would facilitate intelligence gathering for an “organization” and effectively eliminate the need for individual warrants against a “particular” terrorist suspect.[emphasis mine]

In other words, the bill would legalize warrants that did not require the government to specify at whom it is targeted, as long as the government could claim a link to a suspicious “organization”. I don’t know about you, but the thought of my government being able to spy on me, my friends, and family without being forced to name a reason terrifies me.  I don’t trust a Supreme Court with Roberts, Alito, and Thomas on it to confirm its unconstitutionality, either.

If a congressman as liberal as Clay is defending this provision, we are in trouble indeed. Get on the phone NOW and let your representative know that blanket warrants are not OK. And pass this message along to your friends!