Michigan Lawmaker Flees Twitter After Reports Highlight She Helped AT&T Push Anti-Competition Broadband Law

Authored by techdirt.com and submitted by mvea

Last week we noted how Freshman Michigan Representative Michele Hoitenga has been pushing a broadband competition-killing bill she clearly neither wrote nor understands. The industry-backed bill, HB 5099 (pdf), would ban Michigan towns and cities from using taxpayer funds to build or operate community broadband networks, and would hamstring these communities' abilities to strike public/private partnerships. The bill is just the latest example of broadband industry protectionist laws ISPs ghost write, then shovel unobstructed through the corrupt state legislative process.

ISPs want to have their cake and to eat it too; they don't want to upgrade or deploy broadband into low ROI areas, but they don't want others to either. And they certainly don't want added outside pressure disrupting the good thing (read: duopoly regulatory capture resulting in no competition and higher rates) they've enjoyed for fifteen years. While companies like AT&T could deter towns and cities from looking for creative alternatives by offering better, cheaper service, it's much less expensive to throw money at lawmakers who, with the help of groups like ALEC, craft and pass laws protecting the duopoly status quo.

And while this process has played out in dozens of states repeatedly over the last fifteen years (more than twenty states have let ISPs write similar state laws), Hoitenga's lack of experience provided a closer look at the often-grotesque process. As we noted last week, Hoitenga doesn't appear to even remotely understand how the broadband industry works, from her belief that Michigan residents had 37 different ISPs to choose from, to her argument that letting giant ISPs dictate what locals can do in their own communities somehow...helps the little guy.

As the press began to politely highlight how Hoitenga should probably actually understand the industry she's legislating and the bill she's supporting, the lawmaker refused to comment -- and instead chose to flee Twitter:

The Michigan lawmaker who is trying to ban municipal broadband doesn't seem to enjoy Twitter so much anymore https://t.co/M3CqqXQFps pic.twitter.com/Jr7s1odfhk — Jorb S. Pumpkins (@jbrodkin) October 21, 2017

For added protection, she blocked my account specifically from following her whatsoever:

That should certainly fix the problem, right? While it's unclear which giant ISP wrote the bill Hoitenga couldn't bother to understand, AT&T has been particularly active on this front over the last decade and is the most likely culprit. And based on a quick look at campaign financing and lobbying disclosures, Hoitenga's fealty to the status quo appears to have come relatively cheap for the multi-billion dollar media, television and telecom conglomerate:

Campaign finance records reviewed by IBT show that two of her largest campaign contributors are AT&T Michigan and the Telecommunications Association of Michigan (TAM): AT&T gave her campaign $1,500 while TAM provided her with $3,500 — large amounts for a first term state representative. The Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association — a separate entity from TAM — gave Hoitenga’s campaign $1,000. According to state lobbying records reviewed by IBT, Hoitenga met and dined with TAM lobbyists during the first half of the year. Michigan’s lobbying disclosures are filed every six months, so it is currently unknown if TAM lobbyists has met with Hoitenga since June. The $142.82 spent to take Hoitenga out for a meal appears to be the only food and beverage expense TAM has disclosed in conjunction with its lobbying since 2001 , as far back as online lobbying records go.

Again, why bother to offer better and cheaper broadband service when you can quite literally buy protectionist state law for a few thousand dollars and some duck a l'orange?

MadMaxMercer on October 24th, 2017 at 15:16 UTC »

Oh this is great news, Ive been blocked on multiple accounts for posting her campaign contributions from the telecommunications PAC. She just reads my message, deletes my comment, and blocks me. I'm quite pleased that she's getting this much attention, hopefully she makes a post on her page about harrassment or some shit.

Edit: She's now claiming that she shut it down and blocked profiles because she "Had to capture profiles who were threatening me and my family and the horrific vulgarity being used. I'll have a statement in a bit. The safety of me and my family comes first." Are links to campaign funding pages a threat now?

Edit 2: Her office contacted me and unblocked me after sending the articles people posted here, great job team!

spacegirlmcmillan on October 24th, 2017 at 13:28 UTC »

At&t? The company that is undergoing layoffs?

beef-o-lipso on October 24th, 2017 at 12:54 UTC »

I know what's going on my Christmas list. It costs so little to buy a politician my wife could buy me two!