1996-01-17
Craig A. Johnson
Below are the replies to Faye Anderson of the Councel of 100 drafted
by myself and Bill Drake.
--caj
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Craig A. Johnson <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Dole Opposes Spectrum Giveaway
Date sent: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 20:58:55
On 15 Jan 96 at 15:22, Faye M. Anderson wrote:
<...>
> William Drake and others should not be surprised by Dole's position:
> A mere cursory review of Dole's record would show his leadership and
> lifelong commitment to protecting the public interest. With respect
> to spectrum giveaways, it bears remembering that Dole led the charge
> to roll back the giveaway of three PCS licenses that the Clinton
> administration had tucked in GATT in 1994.
Yeah, Dole was way out front on those public interest provisions in
the Senate telecom bill this year too. Dole and his erstwhile
puppetmasters Larry Pressler and Trent Lott opposed in committee
virtually every public interest amendment that made it into the bill,
including the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey universal access provisions,
the John Kerry anti-redlining amendment, and all of Bob Kerrey's
consumer-oriented amendments introduced on the floor. Check the
voting record on these amendments and then tell me what a great
servant of the public interest Bob Dole is.
> Rather than question Dole's motives, the far more salient questions
> to be asked are: Where does President Clinton stand on this raw
> giveaway of a public resource? Does this scandalous form of
> corporate welfare fall within the "values" he's protecting in the
> budget negotiations?
In what ways is providing a national policy for a transition to
digital broadcasting "a raw giveaway of a public resource?" It
doesn't even hold a candle to the "Crooks and Swindlers' Protection
Act," otherwise known as the "product liability" act, shepherded
through the Senate, by initial vote, and then a veto override, by the
able manager, Bob Dole.
> The public interest community would be more effective it if quit the
> Republican-bashing and looked for common ground with conservative
> and moderate organizations such as the Council of 100.
Yeah, right! I'll bet that's part and parcel of the Dole strategy
this year. And, you can bet that auctioned spectrum will be bought up
hand and fist by small and medium-sized entrepreneurs who are going to
serve public interests. Gosh, it may even be used to establish nets
for those same schools, hospitals, and libraries that Dole and company
tried to prevent from having "reasonable" or "marginal cost" rates to
network facilities and services.
Yep, let's auction that spectrum to those cellular phone companies and
the beeper crowd. That's in the real public interest!
> Finally, don't believe the partisan and special interest hype. The
> issue is far from over. And, contrary to Craig Johnson's assertion,
> as members of the Technology Policy Council of Dole for President,
> we can assure you that Dole is serious--it is the broadcasters who
> are delusional.
Well, let's see, you are working to get Dole elected President and you
espouse special interests. Does that mean we should not believe you?
Dole is "serious" all right: serious about covering his ass, and
protecting it from a right-wing Republican flogging. The spectrum
auction thing is hype, disengenuousness, and cynicism at its
Washington best.
Watch Dole cry foul when the broadcasters say they will no longer
support the telecom bill, as NBC has already come close to saying.
He'll then run for cover because both he and Pressler need to have
this bill passed. The weak guarantees for "public interest" issues
are just frosting on the cake.
The auction threat is convenient political cover for Dole. When it
begins to bog down the bill, he will pull out all stops and say he did
all he could, but gee it ain't going to fly folks, we'll have to cover
it in a separate bill, which Pressler has already signalled will
happen. We will thus once again be watching Dole be Dole.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:05:15 -0500
To: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj>, •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.••• (William J. Drake)
Subject: Re: Dole Opposes Spectrum Giveaway
I'm responding to Craig's CC: today, and expect this should wash up on
roundtable by the end of the week.
At 2:39 PM 1/16/96, Craig A. Johnson wrote:
>On 15 Jan 96 at 15:22, Faye M. Anderson wrote:
>> William Drake and others should not be surprised by Dole's
>> position: A mere cursory review of Dole's record would show his
>> leadership and lifelong commitment to protecting the public
>> interest.
This is literally the funniest and most contrary to widely know
*facts* thing I have seen on the net this year. Why not add that Newt
is just a misunderstood sweet fuzzy muffin?
>Yeah, Dole was way out front on those public interest provisions in
>the Senate telecom bill this year too. Dole and his erstwhile
>puppetmasters Larry Pressler and Trent Lott opposed in committee
>virtually every public interest amendment that made it into the bill,
>including the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey universal access provisions,
>the John Kerry anti-redlining amendment, and all of Bob Kerrey's
>consumer-oriented amendments introduced on the floor. Check the
>voting record on these amendments and then tell me what a great
>servant of the public interest Bob Dole is.
Actually, Craig could go further back to the 103rd Congress on that
one. The historically and factually challenged can read Dole's
statement when he effectively killed S. 1822 at www.bell.com, or look
at the whole legislative history of this legislation over the past few
years---if you're feeling more masochistic.
>> The public interest community would be more effective it if quit
>> the Republican-bashing and looked for common ground with
>> conservative and moderate organizations such as the Council of 100.
The Republicans would be more effective if they quit their public
interest-bashing, which is obviously much more important to real world
outcomes than anything we might say on this list.
>> Finally, don't believe the partisan and special interest hype.
Hadn't thought of that. Thanks for your objective advise.
Bill
******************************************************
William Drake
UC San Diego/Congressional Fellow
Washington, D.C.
Tel/Fax: (202) 232-4734
Email: •••@••.•••
Editor, The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies for U.S. Policy
(book published September 1995); annotated table of contents at----
http://epn.org/tcf/tcdrak01.html
******************************************************
~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
For subscription info, archived postings/documents, and other useful
material, visit the CPSR Cyber-Rights Web Page at:
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
