Last week, the House of Representatives voted to pass a “compromise” bill which updated FISA; in it, it granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunications firms which are facing lawsuits alleging civil liberties violations from their work with the NSA in wiretapping Americans. This deal, which effectively removes the Judiciary from the legal process, had been rejected earlier this year by the same Congressional body. Even though the EFF and others have shown that this bill is not a compromise, for some reasons Congress supported it now.

What gives?

Well, it turns out the telcos do.

MAPLight, one of many organizations working to shed light on the influence of money in politics, has analyzed the political contributions of ATT, Sprint and Verizon over the past couple months and found that the 94 Democrats who changed their position received an average of $8,359 from the telco PACs. More of their findings are here, including the fact that 88% of flip-flopping Democrats received telco money.

The effect of money in DC is abysmal. It is a procedural cancer which retards the political system. I’m ashamed to say that my representative, Judy Biggert, is a proud supporter of George Bush’s policies and has voted with him 80% of the time, including on this issue. As election season approaches, I was hopeful that the Democratic candidate, Scott Harper, would be able to unseat her and bring some measure of change to DC.

However, at a recent house party, when I asked Mr. Harper about accepting money, he sorely dissapointed me. Although I was impressed with much of what he had to say, Mr. Harper flippantly dismissed the malignant effects of money in politics. He spoke proudly of accepting money from unions and had sought environmental contributions, too. I fully appreciate the difficulty of raising money in a Congressional race, but was disheartened to hear him laud contributions from those he supports.

Mr. Harper or Mrs. Biggert could easily support the unions or telcos without accepting their money. They could meet with lobbyists and executives to learn about issues with which they have little experience. However, when money changes hands, political thought is biased. Both attorneys and lobbyists seek to influence a supposedly impartial decision-maker, but we would never allow an attorney to legally pay a judge. Why should lobbyists?

The Change Congress movement is Larry Lessig‘s new project to end the economy of influence in DC. They are asking candidates to 1) not accept lobbyists/PAC money, 2) vote to end earmarks, 3) support increased transparency and 4) support public financing. Lessig elaborates on the goal in this video.

I sincerely hope the effort is successful so that politicians like Mrs. Biggert and Mr. Harper can represent their constituencies without the bias which is endemic to today’s political system. No longer can we afford the change that $8,000 brings about.