Has this outrage been discussed on DU???

[monmouth]

For the full article go to www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Executives at the two biggest phone companies contributed more than $42,000 in political donations to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV this year while seeking his support for legal immunity for businesses participating in National Security Agency eavesdropping.

The surge in contributions came from a Who’s Who of executives at the companies, AT&T and Verizon, starting with the chief executives and including at least 50 executives and lawyers at the two utilities, according to campaign finance reports.

The money came primarily from a fund-raiser that Verizon held for Mr. Rockefeller in March in New York and another that AT&T sponsored for him in May in San Antonio.

Mr. Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emerged last week as the most important supporter of immunity in devising a compromise plan with Senate Republicans and the Bush administration.

A measure approved by the intelligence panel on Thursday would add restrictions on the eavesdropping and extend retroactive immunity to carriers that participated in it. President Bush secretly approved the program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Rockefeller’s office said Monday that the sharp increases in contributions from the telecommunications executives had no influence on his support for the immunity provision.

“Any suggestion that Senator Rockefeller would make policy decisions based on campaign contributions is patently false,” Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for him, said. “He made his decision to support limited immunity based on the Intelligence Committee’s careful review of the situation and our national security interests.”

AT&T and Verizon have been lobbying hard to insulate themselves from suits over their reported roles in the security agency program by gaining legal immunity from Congress. The effort included meetings with Mr. Rockefeller and other members of the intelligence panels, officials said.

The companies face suits from customers who say their privacy was violated. Administration officials say they worry that the suits, pending before the United States

[soothsayer]

1. A real co-inky-dinky. Surrrrrrre it is.

[babylonsister]

2. Yes. I think many of us know how complicit some of the Dems are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2094787

[monmouth]

4. Thanks for posting that, I did not see it...Still stinky IMO...

[atreides1]

3. It's called "Free Speech"

If it was being given to a judge before a decision was rendered it would be bribery, but if it's given to a politician it's "free speech"!

I wish I had $42,000 "free speech" bucks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Is anyone seriously suggesting Jay Rockefeeler can be bought for $42,000?

He's a billionaire who has never known a second of economic insecurity, and he could self-finance his senate reelection campaigns out of his pocket without even noticing it.

He entered public life only out of a desire to do good.

It's pretty weird to think he would change a position for money.

Just sayin'

[monmouth]

6. That's why I was asking...Just doesn't look good I guess is what I'm saying.

[incapsulated]

7. Yeah, in this instance no one can claim any influence

People also need to remember that the democrats initially refused any immunity and this was a ham-handed attempt to make a "deal" with the white house by the intelligence committee.