House of Cards is not the only way Netflix flexed its presence on Capitol Hill in 2013. It’s also using money.
The rental and streaming company rapidly built up its lobbying efforts in 2013. Just four years ago, the company spent $20,000 on lobbying. Last year, it dropped $1.2 million, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. It’s still ranked well below many other computer and Internet companies on lobbying dollars, though.
Netflix is making money for some lawmakers, too. As the Center for Public Integrity points out, a handful of members on the Hill have money invested in the company. Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas owned between $16,002 and $65,000 in company stock, while Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey owned between $15,001 and $50,000.
The company’s lobbying has focused on net neutrality, which would keep Internet providers from giving preferential treatment or fining sites based on how much bandwidth they use. Netflix has a lot to lose or gain in the policy debate. At peak times, Netflix accounts for roughly one-third of North America bandwidth.
A January federal-court ruling has left the status of net-neutrality rules in limbo. The White House, for its part, reaffirmed its support of net neutrality in response this week to a whitehouse.gov petition. And newly proposed legislation in Congress would temporarily keep the rules in place.
Newly proposed bills means a lobbying bonanza, right? Well, it’s unclear which tech companies will actually throw their weight behind the legislation this time around. Google, which has become an Internet provider in its own right, isn’t a lock to put its massive support behind the latest neutrality efforts. But Netflix, with all the cash it dropped in 2013, could position itself as a major power player.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”