Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
List of those who voted for and against CISPA (house.gov)
150 points by cybertheorist on Apr 27, 2012 | hide | past | web | favorite | 33 comments

Let's not forget companies such as Google which actually lobbied for CISPA. They had the huge blackout for SOPA since it threatens their business plan, but they are in the business of collecting data so supported CISPA.

So much for their "Do No Evil" bull.


I was really surprised by the lack of cynicism surrounding the SOPA blackout. Yes it was in the public good, but it was merely a coincidence that what was good for Google happened to align with what was good for everyone else.

Current US politics is like watching a television program were you root for one team or another, you may feel excited when 'your team' wins but your participation will always limited to that of spectating. The analogy breaks down because in our case we also live in the television.

"I was really surprised by the lack of cynicism surrounding the SOPA blackout."

I wasn't.

For SOPA and PIPA, everyone found a very convenient, visible, and self-affirming scapegoat in "Hollywood." This was a vast oversimplification of the issue; it caused everyone to lock in on a very prominent tree, while ignoring the forest. Entertainment firms were a big part of the SOPA/PIPA lobby, but they weren't the only backers behind the effort, and they weren't even the biggest. But everyone needed the story to have a villain, and at least in the case of the MPAA, the shoe fit.

Of course, the creation of a villain also left an opening for a hero. Companies like Google quickly realized as much and seized the opportunity. Nevermind that some of these same heroes were busy lobbying for CISPA, and/or other yet-to-be-revealed agendas.

The lesson we should be learning from these fiascos is that corporations push agendas through Washington. Nobody's "evil," and nobody's "good." The world isn't that black and white. Instead, we have interested parties relentlessly pursuing their interests. At times, those interests happen to fall in line with our own. At other times, they fall in diametric opposition.

I submit that the real bogeyman is the influence of lobbying on our lawmaking process, and not X issue, or Y issue, or even Z company. Forest. Trees.

>>your participation will always limited to that of spectating.

Only because you choose to. You can join groups that align with your beliefs to help influence the legislation process. Don't complain that you are just an spectator when you don't even want to play the game.

I wonder how many people who complain about politics even vote. Here in Brazil I see people actively trying to avoid voting (it's mandatory).

Honestly, when are you going to quit believing companies like Google are out there to protect your interests? You're completely right, they were against SOPA because it would have been a huge threat to their business, while CISPA could protect their interests so they were all for it.

Why is any of that surprising? They're a company, not a charity. The entity that's supposed to protect its people is the government. If they aren't doing their job then complain about them. Google is doing exactly what is expected of a company: Making money, growing, and moving their own business forward.

I read the article, what does it mean when they say: "A Google spokeswoman said that although the company is lobbying on the bill, it has not taken a public position."

Just lawyer speak?

Also many of those firmly in support of the CISPA bill seems to be the same old usual suspects: Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon.

Is there an official statement from those companies about whether they support it and why?

Here's a post by Joel Kaplan, VP of US Public Policy for Facebook.


The article makes it clear that Google doesn't have a position, but they were involved in the discussion. SOPA had no Internet companies in on the discussion so this seems like a major improvement to me.

On the other hand, tptacek think that the concerns over CISPA are overblown.

Can someone give a short, accurate explanation of what CISPA is about and how it's a threat?

Unlike SOPA, where there was plenty of accurate information about why it was bad, I can't figure out what's going on with CISPA. For instance, reading the Wikipedia page it doesn't seem there's any obligation for companies to share information, nor a right to break privacy policies they couldn't earlier.

So it's entirely unclear to me why my privacy is threatened. I'm pro-privacy but I want to know what there is to be worried about.

If you're wondering why Ron Paul didn't vote, he didn't have a chance because the vote was abruptly moved up a day in advance and rushed through while he was campaigning in Texas.


In Congress, a "not present" is the same as a "nay" vote since only the "yeas" count. Given Paul votes against most legislation, 92% sounds about right.

Aren't they recorded differently though? Even though it doesn't change the results, you should be able to tell the difference between those who vote "nay" and those who just don't vote.

I am absolutely floored. The sun rises in the west and sets in the east. My Congressman (Schiff) did something right. I will reward him with small campaign contribution and a thank-you letter.

A pat on the back and a monetary reward for not fucking up?! even through it ultimately didn't matter? it's amazing how low the bar is set for politicians.

Like I read yesterday here in HN. They need to be rewarded/trained otherwise they will never learn. I'll send a letter to my representative to tell him how disappointed I'm. If a lot of people do that, they will know if they screwed up or did well. Although to be honest, I feel they will never learn.

This kind of practice also encourages congress to hold frequent votes on controversial legislation.

Politicians are people. Nothing wrong with an expression of thanks.

If you want this in JSON format rather than XML, I have reformatted it as such here:


Not surprised to see Amash on the No vote. (He is voluntarily leading a drive to increase Congress transparency by explaining every vote on Facebook/Twitter. https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash) Regarding CISPA he said: "I voted 'no' on CISPA. The bill passed 248-168, but my amendment to protect library, tax, gun, educational, and medical records also passed 415-0."

However, I am rather surprised to Issa on the Aye vote. He was one of the few members that actively worked against SOPA while it was still in committee. His Twitter bio (@darrellissa) says he enjoys "an #OPEN, accessible & uncensored internet."

There's nothing in CISPA that would violate those criteria. It doesn't close or censor anything.

I hate to generalize, but (I'm about to anyway) all my old representatives (dem or repub) voted Aye. You'd think that old people would enjoy some sort of anonymity. However, if is this being sold as a counter-terrorism method I could see why they'd vote for it.

I think the problem is that the "old" people just don't understand the bills. Call it Counter-terrorism, or anti-child-porn and you've got people signing because having a " nay" on a loosely languaged bill probably means fodder for attack ads down the road.

"Congressman [x] voted NO on stopping cyber terrorism"

My rep pulled support for SOPA at the last possible second, and only after public out cry. I sent him a letter thanking him for actually listening to his constituents, but kindly asked for him to resign. If these people don't understand the technology they're being asked to regulate, they should be replaced by those who do.

There is no possible way that a member of Congress could understand everything that they are passing laws on, so they rely on their staff members, constituents, and special interests to educate them.

In this case, unlike SOPA, there were quite a few people who do understand Internet technology who supported the bill.

There should be a Congressional Technology Office, similar to the Congressional Budget Office.

If you don't know who your representative is by name, you can look them up here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

This is the one thing I envy you for in USA politics, you get to see who voted for what. We do not have that in Germany.

Interesting, I didn't realize that recording votes wasn't done regularly in a number of major democracies. While looking for more information I dug up this book chapter on the subject, and it looks like practices vary a lot more than I'd thought: http://www.uni-potsdam.de/db/vergleich/Publikationen/Parliam... (PDF).

What does having the Representative's name in italics signify? (Please don't say co-sponsor...)

There is a key at the top of the page:

  (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact