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]
The amendments weren't approved 8-0, are extremely hostile to the bill as voted on by others, were introduced in a very unusual way and were not negotiated - they just cut out like half of the law including some pretty critical parts.
Normally (I think) the committee would just refuse to pass the bill and propose amendments that would make it passable, and there would be negotiations. Instead they introduced huge changes the night before the vote and passed a massively modified version of the bill that does not at all reflect the intentions of its authors.
The chairman called two votes. The first one came at the opening of the hearing BEFORE any testimony to accept the chairman's amendments. That passed with the help of Republicans and was a rude slap to the entire point of a hearing (voting BEFORE testimony?).
The second vote (8-2) was to pass the bill as amended out of committee. The chairman did not allow Wiener to pull the bill. Several Dems who voted for the final vote say that they did so so the bill would survive, not because they approved of the amendments.
It also says it was referred to the Privacy and Consumer Protection committee. As the changes kill the 'consumer protection' aspect perhaps they can be unamended in that committee.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
[2] https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-...
et al
vs
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...