I was planning to write a piece on banking issues today, but with three surprise retirements of Democratic incumbents in statewide positions yesterday (Dorgan and Dodd in the Senate, Gov. Ritter in Colorado) I have to comment on that situation. Fortunately, the two things are pretty closely linked.
Look, I have no doubt that personal considerations entered into all three of these decisions, and we don't want to overdraw our conclusions here. Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd have both been in the Senate a very long time, and are both getting to the age where retirement is an understandable option. There are all kinds of rumors about Ritter's more surprising news, but again there are likely very personal reasons for him wanting to not run for re-election.
Having said all that, though, there is very little doubt that a tough-looking 2010 for Democrats weighed into the decision-making here. Base enthusiasm is lagging, Obama's approval rating is sinking, unemployment isn't going down: political professionals are looking at all these factors and getting very nervous. Anyone who was considering retiring already has to be thinking that the 2010 election trends make the decision to get out while the getting is good a pretty smart one.
I'm not going to sugarcoat anything here: anytime you have a bunch of incumbents retiring, it's not a good sign for what people think of the party's chances in the fall. However, there is one really important silver lining: in a year when voters are in this foul a mood, non-incumbents and anti-establishment candidates have some significant advantages over incumbents. In 2006 and 2008, in many of the big primary races the anti-establishment insurgent won, including that 2008 Presidential race you might remember.
Which brings me to the banking issue. The biggest single mistake President Obama has made politically and economically was the one he made in the very earliest days of the transition, which was to signal he wasn't going to take on the big banks aggressively. Swing voters, Democratic base voters, and Democratic activists are all united on one key point: they hate the big banks on Wall Street, and are angry that politicians are not being far tougher on them. In order to survive and win elections in 2010, Democrats are going to have to separate themselves from Bob Rubin-style economic policies and be far more aggressive and populist in their campaigns. Doing that as a non-incumbent will be easier in many cases than trying to do it as an incumbent.
The movement against the banks is building and growing. On May 6th of last year, I wrote a piece about what would need to happen to take on the power of the big banks. I listed six ideas, the first of which- creating a new coalition to take on financial reform issues- happened in the weeks after my article with the formation of Americans for Financial Reform. The middle four ideas are all being worked on to one degree or another- progressives coming up with an economic Plan B to the one we care on now, working to get public financing of campaigns passed, encouraging investigative journalism in the banking arena, progressives forming more alliances with independent community bankers. The sixth idea, starting a nationwide movement to switch over money from the big banks and credit unions, got a huge burst of momentum with the launch of the Move Your Money campaign. Inspired by a dinner one night with Arianna Huffington and a group of top flight political and media strategists (and, no doubt, by the one line in my seven-month-old post- I'm sure everyone there has great memories about my blog posts), a new campaign was launched to encourage people to move their money from the too-big-to-fail banks which wrecked our economy into smaller independent community banks. Read about it here, and join the action.
Bailing out and coddling the big banks is the number one reason that swing voters, Democratic base votes, and Democratic activists have gotten angry at the establishment and less inclined to support Obama. If Democratic candidates on the ballot this year take up the anti-big bank banner, they will reap big benefits, because the anti-Wall Street movement is gaining momentum. And if the rest of us start challenging Wall Street's power in other ways, we might really begin to change America in a serious way.
Two Democratic senators unexpectedly announced their resignations on Tuesday. Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) announced that they would not seek reelection when their terms expire in 2010. Hopefully, health care reform will already have passed by then, but the departure of these senators will have implications for health care policy.
As far as the Democratic majority in the Senate is concerned, the two resignations probably cancel each other out. As a relatively conservative 30-year incumbent, Dorgan was thought to be the only Democrat who could win a seat in conservative North Dakota. Dodd, on the other hand, is deeply unpopular for his role in the financial crisis, but hails from a deep blue state, so it should be easy to replace him with another Democrat. In fact, as Eric Kleefeld reports for Talking Points Memo, Dodd's resignation improves the Democrats' chances of holding that seat.
As Jodi Jacobson explains in RH Reality Check, losing Dorgan would be a setback for reproductive rights. While Dorgan has a mixed record on choice, "Given his state, Dorgan's voting record is pretty progressive on at least some issues otherwise driven completely by ideology," Jacobson writes.
Dodd is reliably pro-choice, but the pro-choice credentials of the candidate favored to take his place, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, are even more distinguished.
Last year, Blumenthal sued the Bush administration over so-called "conscience clauses" for the Department of Health and Human Services which would have given employees more latitude to refuse to provide medical care that they disapproved of on religious grounds. (The Obama administration later reversed the rule.) In 1995, Blumenthal and the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against two anti-abortion protesters under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. "Our goal was to defuse a volatile situation before it escalated into a bloodbath, such as the fatal shootings in Brookline, Massachusetts," Blumenthal explained at the time. Blumenthal and DOJ prevailed in court in 1997.
In other health care news, an unnamed Senate aide told the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog that the Democrats are planning to streamline the passage of the health care reform bill by skipping the conference committee. Normally, the House and Senate versions of a bill are combined in conference. This time, Democrats may skip that step by hammering out a deal that is acceptable to the Senate, having the House pass that bill, and then having the Senate pass the same legislation. That way, Democrats can circumvent some procedural hurdles in the Senate.
According to Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, skipping conference has become routine for big Democratic bills. These days, thanks to stricter rules about what can be added in conference, the House and the Senate are more likely to reconcile big bills through the aforementioned "ping pong" process.
John Nichols of The Nation argues that skipping conference will leave progressives out in the cold. Until now, a lot of progressive energy has been focused on strengthening certain provisions of the Senate bill in conference. If the Democrats decide to skip conference, that means that all the power will be in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and a handful of their closest allies.
Finally, Monica Potts of TAPPED discusses a new study that purports to show that the so-called "g-spot" doesn't exist. Headlines are proclaiming that the g-spot is a myth. The results of the study have been misinterpreted in the general rush to proclaim that science has proven women wrong about their bodies. What the study really showed is that genes have little to do with whether a woman thinks she has one.
These results suggest that the g-spot isn't a unique organ encoded in our genetic plan, like a spleen or a kidney, but that there's no doubt that the front wall of the vagina exists, nor that some women report orgasms from stimulating that area. What other anatomical questions are investigated with surveys? Do you have a pancreas? Chances are you've never directly observed your pancreas. Whether you say "yes" depends whether you've read that humans have them.
Whether women agreed that they had g-spots had more to do with their age. Younger women, raised in an era where women's magazines assert that g-spots are a standard part of female anatomy, were more likely to believe they had them. What this study was really measuring was a general belief in the existence of g-spots, which has no genetic component. Belief in the pancreas has no genetic component either, but it doesn't follow that these organs are mythical.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The net effect of Byron Dorgan's and Chris Dodd's retirements on the Senate picture is that Democrats will now lose North Dakota instead of Connecticut.
Losing North Dakota In North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan's retirement is a real blow. North Dakota is a pretty red state (Cook PVI R+10), the national environment is pretty favorable to Republicans right now, and Republican Governor Jim Hoeven--who is likely to run--is a very popular figure.
This is made worse given that Byron Dorgan is about the most progressive figure we could have hoped for in North Dakota. While Ed Schultz is a clear exception, even he probably can't beat Hoeven this year. Schultz is unlikely to run, anyway.
All of this makes it extremely difficult--almost impossible, really--to hold the seat this year. A right-winger is now very likely to replace a pretty good Senator in Byron Dorgan.
Gaining Connecticut Chris Dodd was all but toast in Connecticut. He trailed well known Republican Bob Simmons by 10%, and also trailed little-known Linda McMahon. It is not impossible that Dodd could have held the seat, especially if, as was seemingly likely, Linda McMahon won the primary. However, his retirement improves Democratic odds to hold the seat dramatically.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is now the likely Democratic nominee in Connecticut. Blumenthal will announce that he is running at 2:30 p.m., a couple hours after Dodd officially announces his retirement. In the mid-November Quinnipiac poll of Connecticut, Blumenthal sported a gaudy 78%-13% approval disapproval rating. Public Policy Polling, which just completed a Connecticut poll that included numbers on Blumenthal versus Simmons and McMahon, writes "Democrats will keep the Senate seat in Connecticut now."
In the same way that defeating Hoeven is virtually impossible in North Dakota, defeating Blumenthal is virtually impossible in Connecticut.
*****
For the Senate, the net result is that Democrats will now lose North Dakota instead of Connecticut. It is not a disastrous trade, though not a great one, either. A loss in Connecticut would have been easier to reverse in 2016 than a loss in North Dakota. Further, as I already mentioned, Byron Dorgan is pretty progressive for a red state like North Dakota. Short of Ed Schultz becoming a Senator, it will be difficult to get a progressive in that seat anytime soon.
Perhaps worst of all, Blumenthal was a lock to defeat Joe Lieberman in 2012. Back in Februrary, Blumethal led Holy Joe 58%-30% in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Now, Democrats are going to have to find someone else to dump Lieberman in 2012. Whoever else they find will simply not have as good a chance as Blumenthal.
On net, the Senate forecast remains the same. Democrats are expected to lose five seats in November, resulting in a 55-45 Senate. The Governor's races will be looked at in another post.
Blumenthal leads Rob Simmons 59-28, Linda McMahon 60-28, and Peter Schiff 63-23. It would take an epic collapse for him not to be Connecticut's next Senator.
Barring something truly shocking, Richard Blumenthal will be the next Senator from Connecticut. Now, we just need someone to dump Lieberman in 2012.
As Schultz pointed out on his show last night, North Dakota requires that candidates maintain residency in the state for five years prior to running for the Senate, and he has lived in Minnesota for the past two years -- meaning he is not eligible for the position.
So, this really does appear to be a Connecticut for North Dakota swap.
Update 3--Schultz is eligible: It appears that states cannot actually set requirements about who runs for US Senate--only the Constitution can. This means that Schultz is eligible to run for Senate.
On the off-chance that Hoeven does not run, and Schultz does, it would be pretty awesome for Dems and Progs alike.
Byron Dorgan is my favorite Senator. He is one of the only senators who is willing to directly oppose powerful financial interests in order to advocate for Main Street Americans, and he does this across multiple issues, despite being elected in a very Republican state. When the bulk of our party is selling out to big corporate interests, as they all too frequently do, usually only a few senators will publicly try to stop them, and Dorgan is very often that man. He's a truly important Senator and we need him in DC fighting the sellouts that Schumer or Emanuel are so often tempted towards. Not to mention that we need his seat if we hope to hold our 60 votes, and right now he looks like the only one who can hold it in November.
A Natasha Chart Golden Oldie
From Wed Jan 28, 2009. Original HERE.
Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24 year old Green Beret, died in Iraq last January in a military base bathroom, of electrocution. He's one of 13 soldiers to die because of faulty electrical work. Press reports at the time mentioned what was known of contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root's (KBR) role:
... Army documents obtained by CNN show that U.S.-paid contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) inspected the building and found serious electrical problems a full 11 months before Maseth was electrocuted.
KBR noted "several safety issues concerning the improper grounding of electrical devices." But KBR's contract did not cover "fixing potential hazards." It covered repairing items only after they broke down. ...
Based on the testimony given at a Senate hearing on the matter, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Bob Casey (D-PA) asked the Army to investigate. The results are in and the Army has changed Maseth's cause of death from "accidental" to "negligent homicide". And while this raises the possibility of criminal action against KBR, there's plenty of blame to go around.
Last week, President Barack Obama released key legislation designed to fight the banking industry's too-big-to-fail problem. But Obama's plan doesn't actually address too-big-to-fail at all. It reinforces a broken system in which economically dangerous companies are bailed out whenever they drive themselves to the brink of failure.
If we want the economy to support all people, we have to break up the big banks and start treating the creation of good jobs as an economic priority on par with Wall Street rescues.
The editors of The Nation break the political debate over banking into three camps:
The first camp is composed of bank lobbyists, Republicans and conservative Democrats and wants to do nothing.
Camp two, endorsed by the White House and influential Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would impose tougher regulations on too-big-to-fail banks to keep them from getting out of control.
The third camp wants to go even further: If a bank is too-big-to-fail, it is also too-big-to-regulate. Companies that pose a danger to the economy have to be split up into smaller firms that cannot induce economic ruin.
The Nation editors rightly see the third strategy as the most sensible. While the "break-up-the-banks" policy is being portrayed as a left-wing pipe dream by cable news networks, the policy actually relies on an age-old observation of conservative economists. Regulators make mistakes, and they often get co-opted by the very industries they are supposed to be supervising.
The practical policy is to impose structural limits on what activities banks can participate in and how big they can get. Just look at the list of high-profile supporters: former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, former Citigroup Chairman John Reed, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King. I don't remember seeing any of those guys at the Iraq War protests.
Many of the regulatory blind spots that brought down the economy were obvious to some policymakers for years. Back in 1994, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) wrote an article for The Washington Monthly warning that derivatives trading was putting the economy in grave danger. Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born tried to take action on these derivatives, but was overruled by other regulators, including then-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, and then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, now the top economic adviser to President Obama. Summers and Greenspan even convinced Congress to pass a law banning the regulation of key derivatives, including credit default swaps, which ultimately brought down insurance giant AIG.
Fifteen years after Dorgan's article first ran, The Washington Monthly is featuring it again, along with a recent speech by Dorgan that details massive failures in Wall Street and Washington.
"We had regulators come to town in recent years and willfully boasted that they wanted to be blind as regulators," Dorgan says.
There are good elements of Obama's plan to deal with too-big-to-fail. It gives policymakers the option of putting a too-big-to-fail institution through a special bankruptcy process administered by the executive branch, thus avoiding the problems created in bankruptcy court when Lehman Brothers failed. But the bad part is really bad: Officials would also have the option to provide unlimited bailouts to Big Finance via loans, guarantees and even asset purchases.
As Mike Lillis notes for The Washington Independent, some responsible Democrats like Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) have been objecting to this aspect of the legislation for months. Sherman, in fact, calls it "TARP on steroids," noting that the bank bailout at least came with some meager oversight and a limit on the program's actual size.
The bank lobby is spending money like mad to maintain their stranglehold on the economy. Neither Congress or the administration will change course without intense public pressure. So it was very reassuring last week to see thousands of people protesting the annual meeting of top bank lobby group, the American Bankers Association. David Moberg chronicles the protest in a blog post for Working In These Times that covers speeches by both key union leaders and ordinary people facing foreclosure after watching their tax dollars go to the very bankers who wrecked the economy.
"There was broad agreement on anger at the banks for providing so little, if any, public benefit for the massive bail-out, and for so quickly returning to the greed and abuse that precipitated the crisis," Moberg writes.
Laura Flanders covers the protests for GRITtv, including video of protesters chanting "Bust up big banks!" In a roundtable discussion with Christina Clausen of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, George Goehl of National People's Action and Rob Robertson of the Right To The City Alliance, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi explains the overriding impotence of the regulations Congress is about to approve. Regulators will not be able to crack down on abusive derivatives, a full 8,000 of 8,200 banks will be exempt from Consumer Financial Protection Agency oversight, while the same agencies that screwed up heading into this crisis will be charged with preventing the next one.
"They've had sweeping powers to do whatever they wanted," Taibbi says. "They've had this regulatory power all along."
What we need are good jobs, and lots of them. Obama's economic stimulus package has made tangible economic progress. It's saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, and is clearly responsible for the turnaround in gross domestic product (GDP) we saw in the third quarter. But a full 17% of the workforce remains unable to find full-time work, as Julianne Malveux explains for The Progressive.
When Wall Street crashed in 1929 and unleashed the Great Depression, the government eventually stepped in as an employer-of-last-resort. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). built schools, parks, roads and bridges which still serve our communities today. Both the WPA and the CCC employed literally millions of people-in the 1930s. It's a model that could work very well today.
As the current recession makes clear, ending too-big-to-fail and guaranteeing a good job for everyone in our society who wants one are the two most critical structural reforms our economy needs. Don't let lawmakers forget it.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
In the effort to pass a public health care option, state blogs are going to be key. Today, North Decoder, a great state blog out of North Dakota, shows why.
Elected officials are very responsive to local media. As such, North Decoder has been pressing the state's two Democratic Senators to make a public statement on the public option. Entering today, Stand with Dr. Dean listed both Senators Conrad and Dorgan as "unknowns" on the public option. However, due to the efforts of North Decdorer to push Conrad and Dorgan to provide answers, we can now put Byron Dorgan in the "yes" column.
In the extended entry, you can read the answers that Senator Dorgan's office provided on the public option, in response to North Decoder's queries. I believe it is the first time Senator Dorgan has gone on record in favor of a public option.
Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24 year old Green Beret, died in Iraq last January in a military base bathroom, of electrocution. He's one of 13 soldiers to die because of faulty electrical work. Press reports at the time mentioned what was known of contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root's (KBR) role:
... Army documents obtained by CNN show that U.S.-paid contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) inspected the building and found serious electrical problems a full 11 months before Maseth was electrocuted.
KBR noted "several safety issues concerning the improper grounding of electrical devices." But KBR's contract did not cover "fixing potential hazards." It covered repairing items only after they broke down. ...
Based on the testimony given at a Senate hearing on the matter, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Bob Casey (D-PA) asked the Army to investigate. The results are in and the Army has changed Maseth's cause of death from "accidental" to "negligent homicide". And while this raises the possibility of criminal action against KBR, there's plenty of blame to go around.
About an hour ago I had a chance to speak with Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who sits in the Banking committee. I asked Senator Brown that, in light of HR 384 ready to pass the House, would he help push Senator Dorgan's S 195, which has been referred to the banking committee and which places similar oversight and transparency requirements on the Wall Street bailout money. His response was both clear and positive: yes, he would try to push S 195 out of committee, and that "we" (I assume he meant himself and other banking committee Senators) would speak to, and work with, Chairman Dodd in an attempt order to make it happen.
This is news gives real hope that additional legal restrictions will be placed on the second $350 billion in TARP funds, and that the House's effort to pass HR 384 will not be in vain. I will try to follow-up with Senator Brown's office on this matter later in the week, checking in and progress and looking for ways that we can assist in his efforts.
Further, I also was able to speak to Senator Byron Dorgan. I told him that the Open Left community was ready to help pass S 195, and that we appreciated his efforts in introducing the bill. He thanked us for our support. Thank you, Senators Dorgan and Brown.
In response to my post from earlier today about Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd not introducing mirror legislation to House Finance Chair Barney Frank's bill to place conditions on how bailout money is spent, I was contacted by a Senate staff member for the banking committee. To help provide reassurances that Senator Dodd will be conducting oversight of the second half of the bailout, I was pointed to a recent NPR interview Senator Dodd gave on this subject. Natasha and I transcribed what we believed to be the relevant section (emphasis mine, more in the extended entry):
So it's a lazy Sunday, and the Presidential race looks like it'll come down to environmental factors. I put up a post about four months ago (can't find it now) in which I basically echoed the thesis that Obama would win if the economy melted down prior to the election, but would only probably win if it didn't. I'm not good at predicting electoral outcomes, and despite giving out mounds of advice, I don't believe in backseat strategizing. I think you execute based on what you know, and that the Obama team has done. Given the financial crisis, this strategy is doing just fine - the country wants a steady centrist hand on the tiller. And now the 60 vote threshold in the Senate is possible, with Liddy Dole 'certain' to lose according to McCain officials and McConnell getting pounded in the polls.
So what does this mean? Well, I don't really know, but I'm going to assume that the Senate, as the most conservative institution on our Federal level, will be a major breeze to the right in terms of health care, trade agreements, civil liberties, economic justice, etc. Let's then examine the playing field for 2010; the environment for 2010 is unpredictable and probably chaotic, with a sharp recession on its way and a credit crisis here now.
I'm particularly interested in possible primaries to the Democrats, the party that the lobbyists are going to fete repeatedly and intensely in 2009 and 2010, much to our chagrin. I'm sure there will be retirements, but here's the list of Democrats up for reelection.
Krugman explains that the executive branch had to originate this complex financial rescue because Congress couldn't. And Paulson screwed it up, but something had to be done, and the bill became 'better than nothing, but not good'.
So am I for the bill? Yuk, phooey, I guess so. And I'm very angry at Paulson for putting us in this position.
What did he expect? Paulson is a Bush administration official.
Jim Webb pulled his usual 'I'm a populist and don't like Wall Street' line earlier in the debate, and then voted for a piece of reactionary legislation. A bunch of Rs said no to this bailout, truly an odd bunch. On the bright side, Dorgan, Feingold, Wyden, Tester, Cantwell, and Sanders voted no.
Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission relaxed rules preventing TV stations and newspapers from owning each other in local markets. This was a very bad thing. Tonight, the Senate passed by a near universal voice vote a resolution of disapproval that would nullify this rule. It's in the House as well, and while the President will veto it, the next President will not.
If I were a media executive at a big outlet, I'd be getting very nervous about what a Democratic administration and a new progressive Congress will bring. The Pentagon Pundits scandal is the smoking gun, with the WGA strike big media lost its labor allies, and it's clear that the media executives don't get how much legitimacy they have lost. It's as if they have rerun the Quiz Show scandal, only this time with bullets and trillions of dollar.
Republican Kevin Martin, the current head of the FCC and a presumptive North Carolina politician, was shown as politically incompetent tonight. Less than 1% of the public comments supported his move to allow more media consolidation, and now the Senate is mad. A rule of thumb, Kevin, in case you're reading. You shouldn't make the Senate angry. You won't like them when they're angry.
Byron Dorgan gave a barnburner of a speech on our broken fiscal policy, trade policy, and regulatory crisis. He went after hedge funds and called our fiscal policy reckless, and then added the following: "The world see it. The markets see it. We're acting like a drunk who pretends that no one sees him drink."
More Byron! Incidentally, Dorgan is the bulldog who championed net neutrality from 2005-2006, and he along with Ron Wyden advanced our goals substantially. He also has a book out titled 'Take this Job and Ship It'.
Sherrod Brown then spoke, and he talked about how more progressives in the Senate are auguring a new progressive era. He's intensely focused on the middle class and plant closings, continuing on the theme from his election campaign.
Schumer also spoke, and discussed how the Reaganite era is dead. In 1980, people felt they could do it on their own, and Reagan, backed by very wealthy 'economic royalists', convinced them he was their leader to get the government off their back. Today they no longer believe this, so the Reagan model of eliminating government no longer has popular support. A lot of people don't realize that Schumer is a Reaganite Senator, whose thinking is organized around the 1980 and 1982 class of Democrats who were elected in spite of a severe anti-liberal tide.
Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the incidents involving several companies, including Comcast Corp., Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc., have raised serious concerns over the companies' "power to discriminate against content."
They want the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to investigate whether such incidents were based on legitimate business policies or unfair and anticompetitive practices and if more federal regulation is needed.
Senator Dorgan already features Net Neutrality on his website, but an investigation could be a signficant step forward.
Saying it had the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's mobile network available for a text-message program.
The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.
Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.
But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.
The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of "net neutrality" - whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.
"This is right at the heart of the problem," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. "The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling."
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation's two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it "does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs - only basic, general politician-related campaigns (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.)." Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.
Nancy Keenan, Naral's president, said Verizon's decision interfered with political speech and advocacy.
"No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them," Ms. Keenan said. "Regardless of people's political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?"
A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson, said. "It is the topic itself" - abortion - "that has been on our list."
Mr. Nelson suggested that Verizon may be rethinking its position. "As text messaging and multimedia services become more and more mainstream," he said, "we are continuing to review our content standards." The review will be made, he said, "with an eye toward making more information available across ideological and political views."
Naral provided an example of a recent text message that it had sent to supporters: "End Bush's global gag rule against birth control for world's poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice."...
Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to find analogies to Verizon's decision abroad. "Another entity that controls mass text messages is the Chinese government," Professor Wu said.
This is a direct attack on the right of assembly and the right to free speech. I know of several companies that sell mass texting services, and none of them will go on the record about carriers because they are afraid of them. And keep in mind, these telecom companies want retroactive immunity for breaking the law and spying on Americans.
