Boucher Collected Thousands From Telecom PAC, Switched Phone Vote

By The Continuous News Desk

Published: June 26, 2008

BY NEIL H. SIMON
MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON – Southwest Virginia Congressman Rick Boucher received $25,000 from telephone companies that he voted last week to legally protect under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Boucher, D-9th, was one of 94 House Democrats who reversed course last week in support of the telephone companies.

He was the fourth-highest telecom recipient among the 94 Democrats. The top was South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, who has received $29,500 from the AT&T, Verizon and Sprint political action committees since 2005, according to an analysis by the campaign finance watchdog group, MAPLight.org.

Clyburn and Boucher were among House members who voted in March to block legal protection for the phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on customers under a warrantless wiretapping program that gained speed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Then, on June 20, Clyburn, Boucher and 92 other House Democrats switched positions and voted for a compromise surveillance bill that included effective immunity for the companies.

The bill (HR 6304) passed the House 293 to 129. The Senate voted 80-15 on Wednersday evening against a last-ditch attempt to kill the bill, setting up a vote on the measure today.

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and others sought immunity from prosecution for cooperating with the government’s anti-terrorism wiretapping program. The companies and others face more than 40 privacy lawsuits from customers. The lawsuits now likely will be dismissed.

“We have a broken system,” said MAPLight Executive Director Daniel Newman. “There is a river of money underlying everything Congress does.”

The money shows that campaign cash and congressional votes go hand-in-hand, Newman said.

“If you have a pro-consumer and a pro-telecom candidate, the telecom-friendly candidate is going to get more money,” he said. “Congress as a whole is biased by the big, special interests.”

Lawmakers denied that the contributions influenced their votes. The money “does nothing,” Boucher said. Indeed, he said his position hasn’t changed, despite his vote.

“I remain opposed to providing immunity to the telephone companies that cooperated with the administration in the warrantless surveillance activities,” he said.

Boucher backed the bill, he said, because it requires the government to go through a special FISA court and establish probable cause before listening in on American citizens at home or abroad.

“That is a fundamental policy position to be firmly embedded in U.S. law. I voted for the bill because it contains that provision,” Boucher said.

Clyburn spokeswoman Kristie Greco said the telecom companies hardly got a sweetheart deal in the compromise FISA bill.

“It also included strong language to protect civil liberties and deny telecommunication companies the broad, unchecked retroactive immunity they desperately wanted,” Greco said in an e-mail.

But most observers say the bill would let telecom companies facing privacy suits off the hook.

Under the bill, a federal court would waive existing lawsuits against third parties that helped the government’s warrantless surveillance program if there was “substantial evidence” the companies received written assurances the program was legal and authorized by the president.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report has said the companies received that assurance from the Justice Department and the White House.

Between January 2005 and March 2008, telecom PACs contributed $9,659 on average to all House members who voted for the new surveillance bill, according to MAPLight.

Spokesmen for AT&T, Verizon and Sprint refused to comment for this article.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, an anti-terrorism think tank, ran TV and radio ads urging congressional action on FISA to include legal protections for the telecom industry.

“They [phone companies] were put in a tough position, and all they’re doing is their part when the government asks,” said foundation spokesman Brian Wise. “That’s why telecom immunity was so important.”

The organization did not coordinate its lobbying with telecom companies, Wise said.

“I had no idea they had given any money,” he said.

AT&T, Sprint and Verizon PACs have contributed about $3.5 million to House campaigns since 2005, according to MAPLight.

The companies spent about $10.8 million on lobbying in the first three months of 2008, according to lobbying disclosure records. Disclosure rules do not require lobbyists to break down their expenditures by issue.

Newman of MAPLight said money from interest groups is undemocratic.

“If you’re Joan Citizen and you’re concerned the government has eavesdropped on your phone calls, who is going to get the meeting – you or telecom?” Newman said. “It’s access.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Computer and Communications Industry Association – opponents of telecom immunity – spent about $1.2 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2008, according to disclosure records.

The ACLU spent $11,675 on campaign contributions to 11 members between January 2005 and March 2008, according to a MAPLight analysis.

ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson charged that the telecom contributions did influence members’ votes.

“They’re making cold political decisions here, not principled ones,” Richardson said.

For the full MAPLight list, go to http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

Neil H. Simon can be reached at or (202) 662-7669.