Congress votes for more government and more spam
Published December 09, 2003
It was a completely bipartisan sellout:
After an all-night session, the House voted 392-5 early Nov. 22 to pass a slightly amended version of the act. The Senate then passed a slightly changed version Nov. 25 that the House is expected to OK when it returns from Thanksgiving recess Dec. 8 [it did]. The White House is expected to sign the measure into law before the end of the year. [DM News print edition]
It's another example of how a great name for a bill can entirely mask what the bill really does (viz. Financial Modernization Act , Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, USA-PATRIOT Act).
Even Forbes magazine ("Capitalist Tool") doesn't like it: US Congress makes no progress on spam [Forbes 12/09/2003].
A disturbing part of this is the arrogation of control to the Federal level. The Feds seem to have been doing this more and more (viz. energy, environmental issues) since the Republicans gained control of the House, and I don't see how this squares with their claim of being for less government.
You may have to lump it, but you don't have to like it. Write your Senator and HouseRepresentative and tell them what you think.
- Congress votes for more government and more spam
- Published: December 09, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The California spam law was ineptly drawn and was being addressed. It would have been resolved satisfactorily either through legislation or the courts if it hadn't been preempted by the Feds.
But spam is just a minor side-issue, and this act is really another example of the real problem.
The problem is the consistent and ongoing sellout by Congress and the administration to business.
In the case of spam, as the outrcry against it grew (well-founded, with more than half of e-mail being spam), the spammers and direct mail industry started lobbying congress. They found a willing ear (and open campaign coffers), and soon the CAN-SPAM Act was introduced. This has a great sounding name and all who voted for it in congress can now go home and say they voted to CAN SPAM, even though the bill preempts anti-spam laws with teeth in them, and in fact clearly gives spammers permission to spam.
We saw something similar earlier in the new FCC rules issued by aggressively-partisan Chairman Michael Powell. A number of large media companies had exceeded the ownership limits, so rather than penalizing them for it, Powell pushed through a rule that extended the ownership limits beyond where they have any real meaning at all (the Congressional revisions have no practical effect, and the media giants keep their free pass).
A third example relates to energy companies (with long-cherished ties to the administration, as the last two years have shown us). The EPA had enforcement actions going against more than 50 plants for violating the Clean Air Act. The administration's response? They issued a new set of rules, effective 26 December, that will force the EPA to drop most of actions.
Another instance of "break the law, get a free pass if you're big business."
It seems to work, and they keep getting reelected so I don't see it changing any time soon.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10795)
I'm glad they've gutted the spam laws. CLICK HERE to see the other side of this from Reason.
I hate spam too, but I'm real skeptical of legislative solutions for a lot of reasons- starting with that real spammers, the evil ones will operate out of foreign servers beyond the reach of our laws anyway.
Read the Reason page for details on the negative effects of anti-fax spam legislation in practice, and you'll see what kind of unintended bad results can come from ham handed legislating in this area.