Yeah, wha up anon. I dish you what ya need, just hit me up.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years. The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business – to let any communications business compete in any market against any other. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has the potential to change the way we work, live and learn. It will affect telephone service – local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools. The Federal Communications Commission has a tremendous role to play in creating fair rules for this new era of competition.
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996
Ralph Nader
The level of public outrage would be high if the government wrote a $70 billion check to the broadcast industry – but that is effectively what happened when the Federal Communications Commission, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, handed over the digital television spectrum to existing broadcasters.
With stealth government giveaways of public assets, such as the internet naming rights discussed below, accelerating, there is an urgent need for the adoption of procedural and substantive protections to prevent the looting of the commonwealth.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204172344/https://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html
What happened to ICANN?
Probably deleted once we found this info on it at
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204172344/https://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html
CONCLUSION
With corporate welfare so pervasive at all levels of government and so deeply entrenched thanks to the political maneuvering of beneficiary corporations and allied bureaucracies and legislators, the campaign against corporate welfare must be strategically savvy, multi-pronged and able to both create momentum and to take advantage of external events. Nurturing this kind of agility requires a broad legislative agenda, with numerous bills introduced to accomplish different ends. After all, the looting of Uncle Sam is an ever-growing Big Business.
Corporate welfare opponents in Congress should look to introduce: simple, bold and far-reaching legislation to galvanize public support; legislation that empowers citizens to mobilize in opposition to corporate welfare; proposals that guarantee procedural fairness in decisions to provide and continue corporate welfare benefits; legislation that requires ongoing review of corporate welfare programs; proposals that emphasize the obligations of the corporate beneficiaries of government largesse to pay back the taxpayers in monetary and non-monetary terms; disclosure-oriented requirements to present taxpayers with the costs and beneficiaries of corporate subsidies; and narrow and precise bills that address particular corporate welfare abuses and which may be valuable later as amendments or to capitalize on suddenly potent issues.
These are matters calling for creative thinking and approaches not only from Members of Congress, but from law schools, political scientists and economists. Unfortunately, a survey of law reviews and recent Ph.D. dissertations that we made reveals a remarkable paucity of academic attention to the issue of corporate welfare. And few philanthropic foundations are interested in funding research into the issues. But more attention from Congress and the public will help jar academia awake.
For now, here is a beginning set of overlapping proposals for discussion and reform. This list focuses on structural approaches, rather than itemizing programs that should be eliminated. The first set of proposals applies generally to corporate welfare, with the second oriented around the categorization of corporate welfare benefits offered in this testimony. In the spirit of trying to spark a flexible, pluri-centered campaign against corporate welfare, some of the proposals are redundant – different approaches may appeal to different Members, and different proposals may fit different political moments. In the same spirit, these proposals are intended to be provocative and are certainly open to criticism and refinement. Their purpose is to jumpstart creative thinking and debate about procedural and substantive remedies to an expanding corporate welfare claim on taxpayer monies and assets.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204172344/https://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html
Dig for pendant
Inside LA’s most exclusive sex party
At a swanky party in a Beverly Hills, Calif., mansion last Saturday, I spot Bill Maher in a sea of beautiful young women and make my approach.
“Are you a Leo?” I ask the host of HBO’s “Real Time,” while eyeing a
lion pendant around his neck.
“No, they make me wear this stupid thing because I’m a member,” he replies, stroking the back of his date, a pretty younger woman in a short black leather dress.
https://nypost.com/2017/02/01/inside-las-most-exclusive-sex-party/