5 ms·

> The company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that were then

> The company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that were then voted on without debate during a Wednesday morning hearing... How is this legal? Why is this legal?

trhway 8y ago
Managed to convince. Would be interesting to learn how one does it.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  Unanimity is a shield. They can all mutually defer their reasoning for supporting the bill to everyone else who voted, and say that their vote against wouldn't have made a difference. Any vote against would have put pressure on all of the others. AT&T came up with a deal that pleased everyone, and therefore immunized everyone. There were only eight; it's not hard, and politicians are notoriously cheap.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Isn't such deal called a bribe in normal countries?
DannyBee 8y ago
Which part? Remember that all of these articles have spin. The spin so far i've seen on this is pretty stupid[1]. One thing it doesn't note: The amendments were approved 8-0, so all the republicans and democrats on the committee were in favor. But of course, that gets spun as massive conspiratorial collusion by the folks who think it was wrong, and bipartisan cooperation by those who think it was right. edit: It turns out they were not approved 8-0, despite a number of news stories claiming otherwise. They were approved 8-2[2] [1] Someone tried to paint the picture that AT&T was a major campaign contributor to him, but they really aren't: https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=23421278 https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=23421278 [2] https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-california-just-eviscerated-the-best-net-neutrality-bill-in-the-country-1e90defb5086 https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-... et al vs https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822&version=20170SB82295AMD https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  Think OP is referring to the last-minute amendments.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    DannyBee said the amendments were approved 8-0, so presumably that doesn't make them "secretive", nor is it questionable why they are legal: Everyone who is supposed to vote on those amendments did. In favor.
    - pessimizer 8y ago
      > DannyBee said the amendments were approved 8-0, so presumably that doesn't make them "secretive" Just because the people who are required to vote on something know about it doesn't mean they are not secret or "secretive." This is the public's business. > nor is it questionable why they are legal: Everyone who is supposed to vote on those amendments did. In favor. There are frequently other considerations in whether something is legal than whether the people who needed to vote on it voted for it.
    - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
      I know, but I'm pretty sure that's what the OP was referring to.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    I always question what "last minute" really means in these stories. Usually, when i go and look up the legislative calendar, the committee was scheduled to meet and do mark up of that bill, well in advance. So it usually not "last minute" in that sense, only in the sense that "it happened before the vote". There have been cases where the committee meeting/etc was scheduled last minute, but that's super-rare (and not allowed in a lot of legislatures, actually). Here, i believe it was scheduled a week ahead of time, from the data i can find.
    - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
FearOfReprisal 8y ago
There was a study a decade ago, they found that something like 80% of all bills signed into law in the United States are never read, debated, or even considered by their proponents. When a big business says bend over, American politicians ALWAYS bend over, be they Democan, Republicrat, or Liberterrorist.
masonic 8y ago
This is standard operating procedure for the CA legislature clear back to the Willie Brown era, or perhaps even Unruh. "Uh, is this an 'A' vote or a 'B' vote?"

trhway 8y ago

Managed to convince. Would be interesting to learn how one does it.

pessimizer 8y ago
Unanimity is a shield. They can all mutually defer their reasoning for supporting the bill to everyone else who voted, and say that their vote against wouldn't have made a difference. Any vote against would have put pressure on all of the others. AT&T came up with a deal that pleased everyone, and therefore immunized everyone. There were only eight; it's not hard, and politicians are notoriously cheap.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Isn't such deal called a bribe in normal countries?

DannyBee 8y ago

Which part? Remember that all of these articles have spin. The spin so far i've seen on this is pretty stupid[1]. One thing it doesn't note: The amendments were approved 8-0, so all the republicans and democrats on the committee were in favor. But of course, that gets spun as massive conspiratorial collusion by the folks who think it was wrong, and bipartisan cooperation by those who think it was right. edit: It turns out they were not approved 8-0, despite a number of news stories claiming otherwise. They were approved 8-2[2] [1] Someone tried to paint the picture that AT&T was a major campaign contributor to him, but they really aren't: https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=23421278 https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=23421278 [2] https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-california-just-eviscerated-the-best-net-neutrality-bill-in-the-country-1e90defb5086 https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-... et al vs https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822&version=20170SB82295AMD https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...

grasshopperpurp 8y ago
Think OP is referring to the last-minute amendments.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  DannyBee said the amendments were approved 8-0, so presumably that doesn't make them "secretive", nor is it questionable why they are legal: Everyone who is supposed to vote on those amendments did. In favor.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    > DannyBee said the amendments were approved 8-0, so presumably that doesn't make them "secretive" Just because the people who are required to vote on something know about it doesn't mean they are not secret or "secretive." This is the public's business. > nor is it questionable why they are legal: Everyone who is supposed to vote on those amendments did. In favor. There are frequently other considerations in whether something is legal than whether the people who needed to vote on it voted for it.
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    I know, but I'm pretty sure that's what the OP was referring to.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  I always question what "last minute" really means in these stories. Usually, when i go and look up the legislative calendar, the committee was scheduled to meet and do mark up of that bill, well in advance. So it usually not "last minute" in that sense, only in the sense that "it happened before the vote". There have been cases where the committee meeting/etc was scheduled last minute, but that's super-rare (and not allowed in a lot of legislatures, actually). Here, i believe it was scheduled a week ahead of time, from the data i can find.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago

FearOfReprisal 8y ago

There was a study a decade ago, they found that something like 80% of all bills signed into law in the United States are never read, debated, or even considered by their proponents. When a big business says bend over, American politicians ALWAYS bend over, be they Democan, Republicrat, or Liberterrorist.

masonic 8y ago

This is standard operating procedure for the CA legislature clear back to the Willie Brown era, or perhaps even Unruh. "Uh, is this an 'A' vote or a 'B' vote?"