Congressman Mike Simpson Didn't Vote For My (our) Privacy

Last edited on April 6, 2017

What side of history does U.S. Congressman Mike Simpson from Idaho's Second Congressional District want to be on when it come to helping protect our privacy? He was either too apathetic and unprepared or too scared to vote on an issue called“Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.” Apparently, Simpson wants to fall on the historical side where he doesn't want or need to explain.

Selling your privacy is their wish.

The Bill Wording, The Vote, And The Ask


  • Senate Joint Resolution 34
  • Vote: 28-Mar-2017
  • Question: On Passage
  • Bill Title: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”


How did U.S. Congressman Mike Simpson from Idaho's Second Congressional District Vote? He didn't vote on S J Res 34 or what is officially referred to as a "Not Voting."

U.S. Congressman Simpson Absolutely Not Representing This Idaho Citizen

In an email to Simpson, I asked a simple "why didn't you protect our privacy" question. After all, privacy might be important to some people. It is my belief that our elected officials should explain why or why not they think our privacy is so unimportant they thought it best to vote on the issue. That vote determined if internet service providers could legally sell your browsing history information to the highest, or in this case, any bidder.

"Voting or not voting to obstruct, because of fear or just plain old apathy is not a trait or the behavior of true leaders. So why do we need Congressman Simpson when any slacker will do." - Tim Bondy

Email I Sent To Congressman Simpson On March 29, 2017

"Privacy is important to everyone. Please explain why you did not vote on "SJ Res 34: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services,”" on March 28, 2017.

I will only wait until April 10, 2017, for a response before blogging about your "Not Voting" on this issue. It's that important.


I am disappointed.





"Congressman Simpson decided not to answer my question as shown below. Not voting and then not answering a constituent's question, all in a six day periods is weak."

The Congressman Mike Simpson Response:


April 3, 2017

Mr. Timothy Bondy
1350 Amber Dr
Mountain Home, ID 83647-1934


Dear Mr. Bondy:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S.J. RES. 34. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced S.J. RES. 34 on March 7, 2017. This resolution would provide for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." S.J. RES. 34 passed in the Senate on March 23, 2017 and in the House of Representatives on March 28, 2017 by a vote of 215-205.  This bill is expected to be signed into law by the President.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue.  As your representative in Congress, it is important to me to know your thoughts and opinions about issues affecting our nation today.  I also encourage you to visit my website, www.simpson.house.gov, to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.


Sincerely,


Mike Simpson
Member of Congress
 



Who Could Possibly ...

Who could possibly disapprove, dislike or find the following words offensive:
“Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”

Maybe someone who is getting paid to disagree? U.S. Congressman Labrador, for example ...
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

Maybe someone who didn't want to show some backbone or didn't want to be seen breaking from party lines?
http://simpson.house.gov/

Maybe 215 of the 230 Republican U.S. Congressmen who decided your privacy is not important but ISP profits that enrich these law'breakers are?
Link: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

Learn A Little More:
Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-internet-privacy-rules-203759760.html


"The 2017 Republican led U.S. government ... It's an embarrassment." - Peyton Randolph on May 10, 1775, during the Continental Congress convention.

Call To Action

If you liked this story, please consider sharing the post with your friends and family. You can also provide other feedback by simply clicking a "Reactions" checkbox at the bottom of this story or commenting. Go ahead ... do it.

Originally published on April 6, 2017.

Thanks,



Tim Bondy
Freelance Writer & Citizen Journalist

I am currently a proud citizen journalist, aka "enemy of the American People!"
.

Bondy's Most Recent Musing

Local Political Forum Was About What Was Left Out

The October 17, 2017, Political Forum in Mountain Home, Idaho was interesting. Here's my opinion on that event. The 2017 Mountain Ho...

My Most Popular Stories