Nancy Pelosi on Technology
Democratic Representative (CA-8)
Supports "Fairness Doctrine" requiring balance in talk radio
Liberals plotting to undermine Fox News are itching to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" to destroy talk radio and invoke campaign finance laws to restrict speech on the Internet. The "Fairness Doctrine" does not apply to TV stations, newspapers,
magazines, or Hollywood movies. Only on the radio is the government required to enforce "fairness."
By mandating that any political views disseminated over the radio be counterbalanced by the opposing view, the "Fairness Doctrine" not only requires
radio stations to give boring crackpots airtime, it also creates a conceptual and administrative nightmare. What is fair? There are conservative and liberal views--but there are also libertarian, Green party, Federalist, & Marxist views. Reimplementation
of the "Fairness Doctrine" spells the end of talk radio.
So naturally Democrats are itching to bring it back! Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and numerous Senators have said they want to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine."
Source: Guilty, by Ann Coulter, p. 18-19
, Nov 10, 2009
Voted NO on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government.
- CISPA conducts federal cybersecurity activities to provide shared situational awareness enabling integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, and recover from cyber incidents.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
- Rep. SINEMA: We need a 21st century solution for this 21st century problem. This bill ensures that research and development, intellectual property, and software code is no longer being stolen by China, Iran, and Russia.
- Rep. MAFFEI: We've already seen state actors like the People's Republic of China pursue widespread data theft from American computer networks. This is a clear and present danger.
Reference: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act;
; vote number 13-HV117
on Apr 18, 2013
- Rep. McNERNEY: I'm concerned with the civil protections not required in H.R. 624. Businesses should be required to remove personally identifiable information before submitting data to Federal agencies.
- CNet.com: Rep. Ron Paul warned that
CISPA represents the "latest assault on Internet freedom"; that "CISPA is Big Brother writ large." CISPA would permit, but not require, Internet companies to hand over confidential customer records to federal agencies. What sparked the privacy worries--including opposition from the ACLU and the Republican Liberty Caucus--is the section of CISPA that says "notwithstanding any other provision of law." By including the word "notwithstanding," CISPA's drafters intended to make their legislation trump all existing laws. It would render irrelevant wiretap laws, Web companies' privacy policies, and more.
- Rep. LOFGREN: CISPA could allow any private company to share vast amounts of sensitive, private data about its customers with the government. CISPA would override all other privacy laws, and allow a private company to share nearly anything--from the contents of private emails to medical records--as long as it "directly pertains to" a broadly defined "cyber threat."
Voted NO on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Congressional Summary: To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content, including:
- broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast
Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created in 1967. Today, we have multiple listening choices; NPR [has become an] absurd anachronism. It is time to move forward and to let National Public Radio spread its wings and support itself.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
Reference: Prohibit Federal Funds for NPR;
; vote number 11-HV192
on Mar 17, 2011
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill will cripple National Public Radio, public radio stations, and programming that is vital to over 27 million Americans. We are now voting to deny the public access to one of our Nation's most credible sources of news coverage. This bill does not save a penny. This legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose, but it does serve an ugly ideological one. This legislation is not about reforming NPR. It is about punishing NPR. It is vindictive, it is mean-spirited, it is going to hit the smallest stations in rural areas particularly hard. Public radio is indispensable for access to news that's hard to get, especially where broadband service is limited.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Proponents argument for voting YEA: Rep. ETHERIDGE. This bipartisan bill provides the critical tools that our intelligence community needs to ensure the safety of our Nation--to authorize surveillance in the case of an emergency situation, provided that they return to the FISA court within 7 days to apply for a warrant.
Rep. LANGEVIN. One issue that has been repeatedly addressed is whether telecommunications companies should be granted immunity against pending lawsuits for their involvement in the earlier surveillance program. This legislation preserves a role for the U.S. court system to decide independently whether the telecommunications companies acted in good faith. Only after that review would the courts decide whether the telecommunications companies deserve any form of liability protection.
Opponents argument for voting NAY: Rep. LEVIN. I oppose this bill because of the provisions that would confer retroactive immunity on the telecommunications
companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. It sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to approve a law that dismisses ongoing court cases simply on the basis that the companies can show that the administration told them that its warrantless surveillance program was legal. A program is not legal just because the administration claims that it is.
Rep. NADLER. The House must decide today whether to uphold the rule of law & the supremacy of the Constitution or whether to protect & reward the lawless behavior of the administration and of the telecommunications companies that participated in its clearly illegal program of spying on innocent Americans. The bill is a fig-leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for illegal acts. It denies people whose rights were violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people their right to have the actions of the administration subjected to fair & independent scrutiny.
Reference: FISA Amendments Act;
; vote number 2008-437
on Jun 20, 2008
Voted YES on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
An amendment, sponsored by Rep Markey (D, MA) which establishes "network neutrality" by requiring that broadband network service providers have the following duties:
Proponents say that network neutrality ensures that everybody is treated alike with regard to use of the Internet,
which has been a principle applied to Internet use since it was first originated. Proponents say that without network neutrality, large corporations will pay for exclusive preferential service and hence small websites will be relegated to a second tier of inferior service. Opponents say that the Markey amendment forsakes the free market in favor of government price controls, and would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new broadband services, and would reduce choice for internet users. Voting YES favors the network neutrality viewpoint over the price control viewpoint.
Reference: Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act;
Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987
; vote number 2006-239
on Jun 8, 2006
- not to block or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access the Internet;
- to operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content and services over the broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation;
- if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005: Expresses the sense of Congress that broadcast television station licensees should reinstitute a family viewing policy for broadcasters. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that for violators of any Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, if a violator is determined by the FCC to have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane material, the amount of forfeiture penalty shall not exceed $500,000 for each violation. Sets forth:
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton [R, MI-6];
; vote number 2005-035
on Feb 16, 2005
- additional factors for determining indecency penalties;
- indecency penalties for non-licensees;
- deadlines for actions on complaints;
- additional remedies for indecent broadcasts; and
- provisions for license disqualification, revocation, or renewal consideration for violations of indecency prohibitions.
Voted NO on promoting commercial human space flight industry.
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004: States that Congress finds that:
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46];
; vote number 2004-541
on Nov 20, 2004
- the goal of safely opening space to the American people and to their private commercial enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies, and regulations;
- private industry has begun to develop commercial launch vehicles capable of carrying human beings into space;
- greater private investment in these efforts will stimulate the commercial space transportation industry;
- space transportation is inherently risky, and the future of the commercial human space flight industry will depend on its ability to continually improve its safety performance; and
- the regulatory standards governing human space flight must evolve as the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle technology development nor expose crew or space flight participants to avoidable risks as the public comes to expect greater safety for crew and space flight participants from the industry.
Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Internet Gambling Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit credit card companies and other financial institutions from processing Internet gambling transactions. Exempt from the ban would be state regulated or licensed transactions.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Spencer, R-AL;
Bill HR 2143
; vote number 2003-255
on Jun 10, 2003
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would allow the four regional Bell telephone companies to enter the high-speed Internet access market via their long-distance connections whether or not they have allowed competitors into their local markets as required under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The bill would allow the Bells to increase the fees they charge competitors for lines upgraded for broadband services from "wholesale rates" to "just and reasonable rates." It also would also allow the Bells to charge for giving competitors access to certain rights-of-way for broadband access. Certain FCC regulatory oversight would be maintained although the phone companies' high speed services would be exempted from regulation by the states.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Tauzin, R-LA;
Bill HR 1542
; vote number 2002-45
on Feb 27, 2002
Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus.
Pelosi is a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus:
Founded in the spring of 1996, the Congressional Internet Caucus is a bipartisan group of over 150 members of the House and Senate working to educate their colleagues about the promise and potential of the Internet. The Caucus also encourages Members to utilize the Internet in communications with constituents and supports efforts to put more government documents online. The Internet Caucus Advisory Committee and the Internet Education Foundation host regular events and forums for policymakers, the press, and the public to discuss important Internet-related policy issues.
Membership in the Congressional Internet Caucus is open to any Member of Congress who pledges support for the following goals:
Source: Congressional Internet Caucus web site, NetCaucus.org 01-CIC1 on Jan 1, 2001
- Promoting growth and advancement of the Internet
- Providing a bicameral, bipartisan forum for Internet concerns to be raised
- Promoting the education of Members of Congress and their staffs about the Internet
- Promoting commerce and free flow of information on the Internet
- Advancing the United States' world leadership in the digital world
- Maximizing the openness of and participation in government by the people.
Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming.
Pelosi co-sponsored the Anti-Spamming Act:
Title: To protect individuals, families, and Internet service providers from unsolicited and unwanted electronic mail.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR718 on Feb 14, 2001
- Amends the Federal criminal code to provide criminal penalties for intentionally transmitting ten or more unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages to one or more protected computers in the United States, with the knowledge that such messages are accompanied by or contain materially false or misleading information as to the identity of the initiator.
- Allows a provider of Internet access service to bring an action against a person using such service to commit a violation of this Act.
- Allows certain statutory damages under such an action.
- Prescribe marks or notices to be included in electronic mail that contains a sexually oriented advertisement in order to inform the recipient of such fact.
- Provides penalties for not including such marks or notices.
- Requires the Attorney General to submit to Congress a detailed analysis of the effectiveness and enforcement, and need for modification, of this Act.
Page last updated: Jun 07, 2020