On The Media Seeks Senator Who Killed Whistleblower Bill
from the seek-and-you-shall-find? dept
At the beginning of the year, we wondered if a “whistleblower” might reveal the anonymous Senator who killed the whistleblower protection bill that was making its way through Congress (and had already been approved by the Senate earlier). Now, to be clear, there were many complaints about the bill, and some people claimed it was worse than what came before. However, it did seem somewhat ironic that a Senator would choose to use an anonymous hold on a bill about whistleblowing. The folks at WNYC’s On The Media program are attempting to find out which Senator put the hold on by having volunteers ask their Senators and report back. As of this writing, there are a bunch of “No” answers, but still a lot of blanks.
Filed Under: senators, whistleblower
Comments on “On The Media Seeks Senator Who Killed Whistleblower Bill”
I don't understand...
.. how a US Senator could or even should be allowed to do anything anonymously if it involves a vote or any other official action.
Re: I don't understand...
It’s easy. Congress makes the rules for congress to follow. Congressmen (and women) have one real job, stay in power as long as possible. Hiding things from the people that elected them can sometimes help them get re-elected. Congress makes the rules to let them stay in power the longest, so Senators can be anonymous asses because they say they can be.
Re: Re: I don't understand...
Bingo – Senators are self-serving assholes.
because
He holds a copyright on anonymous ironic decisions and finding out who he is would be infringement?
It’d be funny if it wasn’t actually within the bounds of possibility….
Obviously if they killed it anonymously, they aren’t going to answer a constituent email that they were the ones that did it. And unless the word comes straight from that particular senator’s mouth, no one in his office or any dept. they belong to (aka DHS) are going to know they did it either. My guess would be Lieberman but given all his bravado and bluster of late, it would be highly amusing if he hid behind anonymity to kill this.
normally, the ones that shout the loudest, have the most to hide and the most to lose. this could be why those such as Lieberman and the like are being as vociferous as they are (eg, against Wikileaks). in this case, admitting to wanting to stop whistle blowing could lead to being voted out of a job. hence staying anonymous. does prove one thing. shouldn’t be in the job in the first place as is not defending freedom of speech etc, not concerned about those he represents and got no guts!
this type of hold doesnt make it permanently gone. its pretty much the same thing as a filibuster since a hold can be pretty much overridden by cloture. you just have to have enough people who want the bill to pass and it does add on a bunch of time.
besides i think there is something about after a week whoever used the hold has to be entered into the senate records or give up that hold (but someone else could try to hold it the same way the next time and then you are just playing pea in the shell games trying to find out whos doing it).
Are you sure it wasn't voinovich?
Ohioans had a long serving, very powerful Republican senator in office at that time. He left office on 3 January 2011. I assume for several reasons that once a public servant of high stature leaves office, that person is not held accountable for what he or she did in office. How can we find out whether Senator Voinovich put the anonymous hold on the legislation?