How Chicago-style politics trumped independence in Internet regulation

Last week, a Republican Senate investigative report released by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee concluded that President Obama employed “undue influence” to lean on the independent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to go beyond net neutrality and adopt tough new rules that put broadband providers in the same legal category as tightly regulated monopoly telephone companies.

“It should be highly concerning that an independent agency like the FCC could be so unduly influenced by the White House, particularly on an issue that touches the lives of so many Americans and has such a significant impact on a critical sector of the United States economy,” the report said.

{mosads}Obama’s unusually public role in the net neutrality debate is well known, but what about the “undue influence” the progressive left wielded over the independent agency while quietly acting in coordination with the White House?

A look back at the events leading up to the FCC implementing Obama’s Internet plan shows a well-coordinated and well-funded campaign to hijack U.S. regulatory policy and influence commerce and public discourse on the Internet for decades to come.

White House visitor logs show that back in September 2014, R. David Edelman, special assistant to the President for Economic and Technology Policy at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) held a meeting with thirty netroots activist groups, including Free Press, Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, Daily Kos, and Public Knowledge as well as multiple liberal PR and campaign strategists that together have received more than $2 million from the Ford Foundation to develop strategy on net neutrality since 2009.

A few weeks after the White House meeting, the net neutrality pressure groups led a “national day of protest” in response to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s rumored plans to continue the FCC’s light-touch Internet policy and implement a narrowly crafted net neutrality rule.  Days later, on November 10, some of the same individuals who attended the White House coordination meeting blocked Wheeler’s driveway to prevent him from leaving his home.  On the same day, Obama released his video telling the FCC “to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.” He then, of course, footnoted, “The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.”  

The next day, a Fight for the Future email to activists claimed that grassroots pressure on the White House persuaded Obama to endorse the tough Internet rules and that the president’s statement “has this movement’s fingerprints all over it.” Indeed. The video of the president’s announcement even included a “video buffering” gag developed by the netroots activists as part of their PR effort.

The White House activists continued their high-pressure “occupy-style” protests until the Commission relented and adopted the most sweeping regulations for the Internet “ever proposed by the FCC” in February 2015.

To most Americans, this peek behind the curtain at “independent” rule making is shocking.  But to the White House and its hardcore activists, it’s simply another example of the Chicago-style, gloves-off power grab this administration is known for. The question now is, energized by their success, who do they target next with only one year left?

Henry is public advocate for Protect Internet Freedom, a grassroots, nonprofit organization of 1.6 million supporters dedicated to defending a truly free and open Internet, and preserving it as a tool for democratic distribution of information, societal change, and technological innovation.