All 95 U.S. House and Senate candidates who pledged support for ‘Net neutrality’ lost

“Before Tuesday’s midterm elections, there were 95 House and Senate candidates who pledged support for Net neutrality, a bill that would force Internet providers to not charge users more for certain kinds of Web content,” David Goldman reports for CNNMoney. “All of them lost — and that could mean the contentious proposal may now be all but dead.”

“The Federal Communications Commission tried to implement Net neutrality rules but got smacked down in April by a court ruling saying it did not have the authority to do so,” Goldman reports. “As a result, it is preparing a proposal asking Congress to give it new authority to regulate broadband Internet service.”

Goldman reports, “Republican lawmakers largely oppose the idea of Net neutrality. Though a majority of Democratic lawmakers support the issue — all of the 95 candidates that said they would support Net neutrality on the left-leaning Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s website were Democrats — they have been divided on whether to pass the FCC’s proposed legislation. The debate over Net neutrality has been fiercely fought on both sides, and experts say the FCC’s proposed legislation had little chance of passing even in the current Congress.

“The widespread Democratic losses made an already uphill battle even tougher. More than a dozen incumbent congressmen who had voted for a similar Net neutrality bill in 2006 were voted out of office on Tuesday, most notably Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., a 28-year House veteran,” Goldman reports. “Now, experts say the FCC needs to regroup and weigh its options.”

Read more in the full article here.

92 Comments

  1. I want to see all the rightwingnuts on this site argue that net neutrality is a bad thing just because Republicans oppose it. Should be fun to watch then try to spin it.

  2. Greater fees paid to Comcast to allow you to access websites they deem should cost you more will ultimately help business and trickle down to benefit the poor, just like it works with Bank of America and BP.

  3. Good Grief! Who would have the party of corporate lackeys that argued the complete corporate control of as many media outlets in as many markets as you could afford was a “free speech” issue, will now back to corpratisation of the Internet. Remember this when your bills keep going ip and up and up, more of the content you want is available from fewer and fewer providers.

    It really is telling how effective corporate propaganda has become when the party that always, always, always defers to coroporate interests can portray itself as looking out for the “average” USAnian, and those same USAnians just suck up the lies without a clue. But I guess it’s not surprising given that 8 years of Bush drove the US to world record debt and bone crushing poverty for many while pushing the lie that giving more money to those who have more than they will ever spend is somehow going to make life better for everyone. Time to wake up from your corporation induced coma, USA.

  4. Idiots, can’t fsking count.

    From TechDirt:

    Apparently the big mainstream reporters don’t even bother with basic fact-checking any more. Last week, we wrote about how a bogus story was making the rounds, pretending that this last election was a referendum on net neutrality, after a paid consultant to the broadband industry put up a blog post noting that 95 Democratic candidates who had signed a pro-net neutrality pledge had lost. What was not mentioned by all the press who covered this was that (a) that particular list involved challengers, not incumbents, and almost all of them were in districts where they were almost certainly going to lose anyway (b) if you looked at a different list of incumbent Democrats who signed a pledge supporting net neutrality, none of them lost and (c) if you looked at a list of incumbent Democrats who signed an anti-net neutrality pledge, many of them did, in fact, lose their races to challengers. Point being: this race was not at all about net neutrality, but the press seems to have glommed onto that “all 95 who supported net neutrality lost” and simply refuse to fact-check it at all.

    Take, for example, the piece written by reporter Chris Lefkow, of AFP, and published over the weekend — long after many sites had debunked this particular talking point. In it, Lefkow seems to get pretty much all of the details wrong. Admittedly, he’s “paraphrasing” from (notoriously anti-net neutrality) Richard Bennett’s blog:
    Bennett, in a blog post at Hightechforum.org, noted that all 95 Democratic members of the House and Senate who had signed a public pledge to protect an “open Internet” had lost their seats in the Republican tidal wave.
    Apparently, Lefkow and the AFP (which I had thought was better than this), don’t think you need to fact-check even the most basic claims as long as they appear on a blog somewhere. First of all, anyone who paid any attention whatsoever to the election last week would know that between the House and the Senate, 95 seats were not lost — in total. As I’m writing this up, there are still some races that haven’t been officially called, but of the official races, the Dems lost 60 seats in the House and another 6 in the Senate. There are 9 uncalled House races and 1 uncalled Senate race — so at most, the Democrats could have lost 76 seats. So anyone who even paid minimal attention to the election would know that this claim is false. The 95 number, as we noted, is about 95 Democratic challengers, not incumbents. And yet here’s one of the bigger mainstream publications claiming, without any support, that 95 incumbents lost their seats over net neutrality.

    And people wonder why no one trusts the big news wires any more.

  5. I guess I am a rightwingnut… Government should never control the price of anything!!!!!!!!!!

    When “evil capitalism” or free market principles really work, you get low cost products with high quality. When Government steps in to control cost and quality you get, Socialism.

    Spend time studying Hugo Chavez and all the great cost controls he is doing to help the people of Venezuela.

    Another example, we are about to get a heavy dose of Obamacare… cost are going up and quality will go down.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.