Now listen to Palin resonating her centeredness all over a caller she think is French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

Palin was, of course, pranked by a couple of Canadian radio personalities. Anybody can get pranked but can you believe that Peter Roskam and John McCain want us to trust this person to run our foreign policy. She thought this was the President of France calling and still she behaved this way. Do we really want her representing, and, potentially leading, our country? Apparently Peter Roskam does. Or did.

That’s right. Despite all his high praise for John McCain and Sarah Palin who has Roskam adopted as his new running mate? Yes, Barack Obama. We don’t know who he is and we can’t trust him but Roskam doesn’t care. Demonstrating his total lack of character, Roskam has chosen to grab onto Obama’s coattails because he thinks it will help him win. This despite Roskam being opposed to pretty much everything Obama stands for and despite his service in the leadership of the the McCain-Palin Campaign.

Roskam will say or do anything to get re-elected. He has no scruples. He has run a campaign of lies and smears against his opponent, Jill Morgenthaler, just as he did 2 years ago against Tammy Duckworth. He appears to have abused his franking privilege to send out campaign materials. He has lied to his constituents about his record. And now he is trying to deceive them into think he represents the same positions and values as Barack Obama. He most certainly does not.

So it’s up to you now 6th district voters. Are you going to send this jerk back to Washington for another two years?

Fortunately, we have a good alternative in Jill Morgenthaler. Watch her below in this clip from a CBS News story on Iraq Vets running for Congress (again, thanks to Progress Illinois). Then check out her website.

Roskam has been able to vastly overspend Morgenthaler thanks to the special interests who are paying for his vote (and yet he his begging constituents almost daily for more money via email). But still, a quick survey of yard signs between home and downtown Elmhurst on Saturday revealed a strength of support for Morgenthaler suprising in this Republican town. Good luck, Jill!

“I hope for peace and sanity—it’s the same thing.”

Obit from Tribune is here.

Peter Roskam, who is diametrically opposed to almost everything that Barack Obama stands for and is a member of the McCain leadership team, has been trying to peel off Obama voters. But, Obama supports Jill Morgenthaler for Congress in Illinois 6th District.

“While we’re pleased that Barack Obama continues to attract support from across party lines because of his long record of working with Republicans and independents to bring change, he believes Congressman Roskam would continue President Bush’s failed policies and is supporting Jill Morgenthaler for Congress.”

Justin DeJong, Illinois Director of Communications for Obama for America

Jill Morgenthaler’s press release is here.

This, of course, raises all kinds of new troubling questions about the ethically challenged Peter Roskam and his fitness for office:

Does Peter Roskam approve of  Barack Obama’s plan to take your money and redistribute it to poor black people? Is Peter Roskam a Communist? Why does he hate America?

Does Peter Roskam know Bill Ayers and did Ayers help Roskam with his campaign? Does Peter Roskam pal around with terrorists? What is the nature of Roskam’s association with Jeremiah Wright?

Is Peter Roskam a member of ACORN? Is Roskam involved in voter fraud?

Is Peter Roskam an Arab terrorist too? What’s HIS middle name?  Is he friendly with Osama Bin Laden?

How much do we really know about Peter Roskam?

Re-electing Roskam to Congress would be just too dangerous.  That’s why I’m voting for Jill Morgenthaler.

Public Citizen has been a powerful and persistent voice for cleaning up our campaign finance system which has corrupted our legislative process and distorted government policies. The group continues to fight for average citizens whose voices are muted by the monied special interests.

And here’s what Public  Citizen has to say about Peter Roskam:

U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) appears to have abused his franking privileges and violated U.S. House of Representative rules against using taxpayer funds to pay for political mailers promoting himself within 90 days of the general election, Public Citizen charged today in a complaint filed with the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards.

Members of Congress are allowed to distribute mass mailings to their constituents at taxpayer expense touting their legislative records (“franked” mail), but not within 90 days of an election. A bipartisan Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, known as the “Franking Commission,” is responsible for oversight and regulation of the franking privilege in the House of Representatives.

“Right up into October, just weeks before the election, voters have been receiving two-page color mailers paid for by taxpayers, with Peter Roskam’s name splashed all over them,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “Taxpayers should not be footing the bill to advertise Roskam’s candidacy for Congress.”

“Using tax dollars to pay for campaign literature is a clear violation of the franking laws,” said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “The mailers are campaign advertisements, plain and simple. They promote Roskam for things like ‘Protecting Children from Poison’ and ‘Securing Our Borders.’ ”

Roskam consistently has tapped taxpayers to pay for mass mailings to his congressional district, amounting to almost $200,000 in legitimate franked mail from January 2007 through June 2008. The franking rules bar sending mass mailings to constituents after Aug. 6.

If the commission finds a violation, it will refer the matter to the House ethics committee for enforcement. The ethics committee has wide latitude in all its enforcement actions, ranging from a private letter of reprimand, to civil penalty, to removal from office. This issue likely would result in a letter of reprimand and a requirement that the campaign reimburse taxpayers for the franked mail.

“We urge the ethics committee to severely reprimand Roskam and require him to pay a civil penalty and pay back the taxpayers for any franked mail sent out since early August,” said Craig Holman, campaign finance lobbyist for Public Citizen.

The  text of the complaint aginst Roskam can be found here.

The complaint against Roskam is, on one hand, hardly surprising because Roskam has not been a supporter of Congressional ethics reform and has shown himself, both in this election campaign and his last, to be willing to say or do just about anything to win.  And Roskam’s coziness with Washington lobbyists has provided further evidence of his lack of concern for occupying the ethical high ground. But one wonders why Roskam would need to use taxpayer money to promote his candidacy when he is so flush with cash from his corporate sponsors. I guess Peter just likes playing with a stacked deck.

More video here. Thanks bilco5 for the heads up. I hadn’t seen these.

I haven’t found much time for blogging lately. I’m transitioning to a new role at work and when I haven’t been working I’ve been transfixed by the Presidential contest and our rapid descent into recession or worse. But when I saw this little ad on the Huffington Post today it shocked me into activity. Yes, Peter Roskam, desperate for your vote in what appears will be a Democratic landslide year, is attempting to ride Obama’s coat tails into a second term. And yes, this is the same Peter Roskam who is serves on John McCain’s Illinois leadership team. I nearly aspirated my Diet Pepsi when I saw this.

Apparently Roskam is not sure his nasty campaign of of character assaults against Jill Morgenthaler is going to fail in much the same way that John McCain’s nasty campaign against Obama is failing. Roskam would like you to believe that voting for both Barack Obama and himself would be a reasonable thing to do. It would not. Here’s my “voter guide” to explain why.

1. Roskam is helping to lead John McCain’s campaign in Illinois. He wants John McCain to become President. He wants this because he and John want to do very different things than Barack Obama. They would like to see less rather than more regulation of the financial institutions that got us into such trouble during the “anything goes” Bush years. They want to privatize Social Security, turning what’s left of your retirement funds over to Wall Street, not because it’s good for you, but because its good for Wall Street. They want to abolish the minimum wage and regulations providing equal pay for equal work. They don’t like government regulation generally and would work against rules protecting workers from hazards in the workplace or protecting our environment for our children and our  children’s children. They want to continue the trend of redistribution of wealth that has taken place during the Bush years - taking more and more from the middle class and transferring it to the very wealthy. They will do this through regressive taxation - relieving large corporations and wealthy individuals of the obligation to pay their fair share, transferring that burden to the rest of us. They continue to embrace the failed “trickle down” theory of Ronald Reagan in spite of it’s obvious failure. They want to appoint extremist judges to the Supreme Court and take away every woman’s right to chose, banning abortion even when the life of the mother is at stake (you heard McCain say it in the last debate). They want to continue to undermine the religious freedom that we enjoy in this country by further eroding the wall of separation that has existed between Church and State since the foundation of our nation. They want to continue to allow big oil companies to grow richer at our expense by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels rather than implement strategies to conserve and develop alternative sources. And they would continue the Bush pattern of military aggression aimed at controlling the world’s scarce resources rather than engaging in cooperative action with other nations to solve the serious problems the world faces.
2. Peter Roskam has not raised a single objection to all the many abuses of the Bush administration: the lies that were told to justify the ridiculous war against Iraq, the torture and illegal detention of prisoners, the illegal domestic spying, the outing of Valerie Plame, the politicization of the Justice Department, the Abramoff scandal, the looting by government contractors in Iraq, and on and on. By his silence, Roskam bears moral responsibility for all of them. Roskam is without a moral compass.
3. Peter Roskam has done nothing in Congress except obstruct the efforts of the majority to tackle our problems. He has consistently used his vote to set up roadblocks to Democratic eforts to tackle problems such as the health insurance crisis, high energy prices, global warming, the shrinking middle class, and the plight of the poor. In order to succeed in office, President Obama will need legislator who will work cooperatively with him. Hyper-partisan Peter Roskam is not such a person.
4. Roskam is insensitive to the needs of the poor and the middle class. He has consistently used his vote to aid the wealthiest americans and large corporations at the expense of the rest of us. On the basis of his voting record, Roskam was awarded the grade of F by themiddlelass.org and the grade of D by the Sargeant Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.
5. Rather than use his vote to address the needs of his constituents, Roskam consitently votes for the benefit of large corporations. He has vote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position 100% of the time. In return the the Chamber is running false adds, like the one below, claiming that Roskam is fighting for better health care. In fact, Roskam has voted multiple time against the expansion of the Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program and against parity in mental health benefits. Peter Roskam is an enemy of efforts to provide better healthcare to all Americans. He has demonstrated by his votes that he is only interested in protecting the pocketbooks of his corporate sponsors.

I urge Obama voters who might seriously consider voting to re-elect Roskam to take a close look at his voting record. There’s lots of links here that can help you do that.Even the solidly Republican Chicago Tribune has endorsed Roskam’s opponent. Roskam has used his office to serve special interests rather than to serve the majority of his constituents. He does not deserve to be returned to Washington.

On July 1st 2008, physicians participating in the Medicare program were scheduled to receive a 10 percent cut in reimbursement. An additional 5 percent cut was to take place in 2009. These cuts, if enacted, could have been devastating to both physicians, who are struggling to maintain the solvency of their practices in the face of reimbursement reductions by state, federal and private payers, and to Medicare recipients, who are faced with increasing difficulty in finding physicans willing to treat Medicare patients. According to the American Medical Association, as many as 60% of physicians would have been forced to limit their services to Medicare recipients under the proposed cuts.

In an effort to prevent these cuts from taking place, Democrats in the House, led by Rep. Charles Rangel, introduced H.R. 6331. In addition to to stopping the physician pay cuts, the bill provided for a number of modest improvements to the Medicare program to aid beneficiaries including:

• Coverage of additional preventive services
• Elimination of late enrollment penalties for the part D drug benefit
• Coverage of pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation
• Elimination of higher co-payments for mental health services

Prior to the vote, President Bush threatened to veto the bill because it would have reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans - private health insurance plans that offer alternatives to traditional Medicare under contract with CMS. Such plans currently receive, on average, about 12% more than the cost of services for recipients in traditional Medicare. Outside the Administration, there is widespread feeling that these plans, which are supposed to reduce costs through careful medical management, should be receiving reimbursements at a level lower than the costs of traditional Medicare, although insurance companies argue that the cuts will increase out-of-pocket costs and decrease options for Medicare Advantage recipients.

When the bill came to a vote on June 24, Peter Roskam voted no, siding with the Bush administration in its desire to allow the pay cuts to take effect. The bill passed but was vetoed by the President on July 15. That veto was quickly overridden by the House and Senate and has become law.

Physicians and Medicare recipients in the 6th district should ask Peter Roskam why he voted to support pay cuts for Medicare physicians. Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Last fall, Peter Roskam got together with a bunch of fellow Republican extremists who were feeling desperate about their party’s chances in the upcoming 2008 elections after 7 horrible years of mismanagement, malfeasance, and downright criminality by their President, George W. Bush. They decided the only answer was to bring back Ronald Reagan from the dead and so they founded a kind of Ronald Regan resurrection club.

They called their club “Reagan 21” . This is what they had to say about their club:

Republicans have a proud tradition of upholding Ronald Reagan’s principles of liberty and a vision for the 21st Century. That vision is an America that espouses individual freedom, free enterprise, and common-sense values. Americans are crying out for leadership with courage, principle, and integrity. Reagan 21, a new conservative group uniting Republican leaders from both chambers of Congress, was formed to fill this leadership void. Reagan21 presents a positive alternative to the current majority in Congress.

Now I could fill a book about Reagan’s “common-sense values“ (remember Iran-Contra, Reagan’s brutal war in Central America, his opposition to gay rights, his indifference to the poor and to persons with AIDS?) but that is not the point here. The Reagan 21 club proclaimed its emphasis on Integrity and Ethics, presumably because the Jack Abramoff model of the previous few years wasn’t working for them anymore:

Americans deserve to have elected officials who represent them, including Members of Congress, abide by the highest possible standards of professional conduct and personal ethics. No Member of Congress should engage in any activity in which there is or could be a conflict of interest between his or her official duties or activities on behalf of his constituents and any personnel interest of that Member. This duty to avoid conflicts of interest is critical to public confidence in the integrity of our nation’s government. To effectuate this duty, Members must not only aggressively avoid any conflict of interest but also any activity in which there could be even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

One of the ways the Reagan 21 club proposed to promote ethics and integrity in Congress was to end the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are Congress’s way of bypassing the executive branch agencies and allocating funds directly to specific favored pet projects. Earmarks in an appropriation bill are often called “pork”. Citizen’s Against Government Waste, an advocacy group formed to “eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government”, identified 7 criteria for identifying pork:

• Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
• Not specifically authorized;
• Not competitively awarded;
• Not requested by the President;
• Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
• Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
• Serves only a local or special interest.

Senators and Congressmen often rail against pork spending but tend to like it because it can be a way of making themselves popular in their home district, effectively buying votes with highly visible projects that would not other wise be funded.

Here’s what the Reagan 21 club has to say about earmarks:

Recognizing this critical duty, House Republicans in 1994 pledged to “re-establish the bonds of trust between the United States Congress and the American people.” Regrettably, we failed to achieve and maintain this goal. Now Congress must reinvigorate its efforts to reestablish those bonds of trust and hold every Member to a zero tolerance standard in which no self-dealing or appearance of impropriety whatsoever will be tolerated.

One of the main culprits of self-dealing is the practice of “earmarking.” The 1981 transportation bill contained only 10 earmarks. President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 that contained 121 earmarks, saying, ‘I haven’t seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.’ In 2005, Congress passed a transportation bill that included an astonishing 6,371 earmarks at a cost of $27.3 billion.

The year before Republicans took the majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, there were 1,400 earmarks. Last year, there were more than 14,000.

So we see that, while most Republican complain about pork and try to blame it on the Democrats, they have been, in actuality, big pork fans. But the Reagan 21 Republicans said that all was going to change. They were going to end earmarks. Yes that’s right, Roskam signed on to a group that declared its intent to pursue a full ban on earmarks, whose members subscribed to a set of core values that included ending all earmarks.

So. How’s Roskam doing in his quest to bring integrity back to Washington by ending the practice of earmarks. Sad to say, not so good. As of today, Roskam’s house website lists a whopping $163, 086, 569 in earmarks for FY ‘08 and FY ‘09. Mr. Roskam really does like his pork, all his pretensions about being a fiscal conservative to the contrary.

I can only speak for myself but this kind of pisses me off. I’m sure there are many worthwhile projects included in Roskam’s long list of earmarks but we have been listening to Roskam lecture the Democrats in Congress on wasteful spending every time they try to do something to help folks who are truly suffering and all the while Roskam is buying votes back home with these projects that bypass the normal appropriations process.

If it makes you mad too, I’d suggest you give Roskam a call and ask him “what’s with all the pork?” Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

]]> http://rubberstamproskam.com/2008/08/01/peter-roskams-163-million-in-earmarks/feed/ http://rubberstamproskam.com/2008/08/01/peter-roskams-163-million-in-earmarks/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Rubberstamproskamcom/~3/353168833/ http://rubberstamproskam.com/2008/08/01/peter-roskam-continues-to-anger-constituents-with-annoying-robo-calls/#comments Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:41:43 +0000 David http://rubberstamproskam.com/?p=144 I’ve written about it before, but I’m seeing an increasing number of hits on this website from residents of the 6th Congressional District who are seeking to bring an end to the annoying onslaught of robo calls from their Congressman, Peter Roskam. Roskam, who is obviously concerned about his re-election chances this fall, is using the calls to promote his plan to exploit the current crisis in fuel prices as an opportunity to help the big oil companies that play a significant role in funding his campaigns. These calls, while pretty clearly designed to aid his campaign, appear to be originating from his Congressional office as they don’t bear any funding message. I can only presume they are being paid for by the taxpayers. I am not knowledgeable about the legal or ethical implications of the use of government resources for such a purpose.

I have been seeing a notable increase in hits from persons in the area using search strings like “stop peter roskam robo phone calls’, “stop peter roskam phone calls”, and “peter roskam phone calls at home”. I too have been the recipient of these phone calls, most recently just a couple of days ago, and I too find them objectionable. Sadly, this site has no solution to offer. I can only prevail on Representative Roskam once again to set up a registry to exclude those of us who do not wish to receive his automatic messaging. This seems only fair since we appear to be paying for them. I would be very happy to use this site to help him promote such an option, free of charge.

Back on June 24, Democrats in Congress brought to a vote H.R. 6346: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, who in his role on that committee has been working for a long time to bring real relief to consumers, unlike Roskam who has merely trotted out his energy independence dog and pony show in a desperate attempt to win votes this fall. You can see Stupak going head-to-head on price gouging last year with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto who must be getting large checks from Exxon-Mobil to argue so strenuously on the oil companies behalf. (The gas prices on the sign behind Stupak at the beginning of the clip made me weep with nostalgia).

Stupak’s bill would have allowed the President to issue renewable declarations of energy emergency of up to 30 days duration, either generally or for specific geographic areas. During these periods, those who engage in price gouging could be subject to criminal penalties. The FTC and the state attorneys general are empowered to enforce with civil and or criminal actions. Fines and penalties recovered would be required to be put in trust to provide assistance to low-income individuals and families with energy costs under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) Program.

Seems pretty straight forward. Price gouging in periods of emergency is wrong. This bill makes it illegal and those most vulnerable to high energy costs reap the rewards of its enforcement.

Sadly, the Roskam and his Republican colleagues in Congress blocked the measure, as they have done with virtually everything else the Democrats have attempted to cope with the energy crisis and promote energy independence. The day of the vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent out instructions to its minions on the Republican side of the House to defeat the measure and they blindly obeyed. Roskam consistently votes in accordance with the Chamber’s wishes, regardless of the impact on his constituents. The over $100,000 in campaign contributions he has received from the oil and gas industry probably helped also to ensure his “nay” vote on the bill.

If only we had a Congressman with the integrity and concern for consumers that Rep. Stupak has demonstrated. Perhaps we will yet. I remain optimistic about Jill Morgenthaler’s chances this fall. Roskam has blatantly voted against the best interests of his constituency at almost every opportunity and I think people are beginning to wake up to that fact.

Roskam, who has attempted to block House Democrats at every turn in their efforts to develop a sound energy policy based in heavy emphasis on alternative, renewable sources of energy and increase energy efficiencies, now wants to implement a plan that he says will end our dependence on foreign oil in 15 years. Roskam’s plan emphasizes drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in currently protected areas of the outer continental shelf (OCS), which he says will ultimately yield a combined total of 3.9 million barrels per day.

This past Thursday Democrats gave Roskam a chance to put his money where his mouth is by bringing H.R. 6515: Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 to the House for a vote. Instead, Roskam and his Republican colleagues blocked the measure.

Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made the following statement about the legislation defeated by Roskam and his colleagues:

Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands. With Americans being pummeled by $4 a gallon gas, it is high time America did just that,” stated Rep. Hoyer. “However, after months of suggesting that the only answer to bring down gas prices is more drilling, House Republicans today showed their true colors by blocking the DRILL Act – a bill which would have decisively and responsibly increased domestic oil production.”

Specifically, the DRILL Act would speed up the leasing process of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), an area of land west of the federally-protected Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that contains an estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil to ANWR’s 10.4 billion. The bill also incorporates the ‘Use It or Lose It’ legislation, which simply requires oil producers to drill on the leases they already have or relinquish them so that another company can produce the oil there. Finally, it would call on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of Alaskan oil and gas pipelines, so products will get to market sooner, and it ensures that Alaskan oil will fill American gas tanks, not be exported to other countries.

“In addition to promoting responsible drilling, this bill tells the oil companies to drill on the leases they have, or let somebody else do it - but don’t just sit on them while Americans are paying $4 a gallon,” stated Hoyer. “I see no reason to give even more handouts of public land to companies enjoying record profits and billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let them start on the land they already have, which will bring oil to the market more quickly.”

Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and the Outer Continental Shelf on which they are not producing oil and gas. Eighty-one percent of estimated oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters are already available for development – 311 million acres. These reserves are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption (7.5 billion barrels per year).

Roskam instead proposes a plan that:

• Allows oil companies to sit indefinitely on their existing leases without drilling while prices climb even higher allowing them to increase their future profits
• Puts highly sensitive ecosystems at risk of irreversible damage
• Makes no assurance that oil ultimately produced will make it into gas tanks in this country
• Relies on questionable math in its calculations regarding future energy independence

It is clear that there will be real action taken regarding the nation’s energy crisis until we elect a Democratic president this fall and increase the Democratic majority in Congress. Roskam and the Republicans are in Big Oil’s pocket and can be counted on to do absolutely nothing to help Americans who are suffering through this crisis.

Now just as things were beginning to look bleak for Big Oil, our own Congressman, Peter Roskam, has unveiled a plan to help the oil companies weather these difficult times. Disguised as a plan to address the high fuel prices that consumers so unfairly complain about, the Roskam plan cleverly nips all talk of renewable, clean, alternative energy sources in the bud, and secures our dependence on fossil fuels into the distant future.

The Roskam plan is stunning in it’s simplicity. It focuses on two major actions: tax breaks to the wealthy and unrestrained domestic drilling.

Under the Roskam plan, residents of the 6th district who are suffering hardship from high gasoline prices will be able to receive a substantial tax credit for trading in their Hummer or Escalade for a smaller, more sensible Lexus or Mercedes. Who said Roskam was insensitive to the needs of the disadvantaged?

For many years now, Democrats and other communists in the environmental movement have successfully thwarted Big Oil from drilling in protected areas offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in the name of protecting the environment. Well screw the environment! Peter Roskam’s energy plan tells these tree-hugging pansies who’s boss. Why drilling in ANWR alone will knock 4 cents off the cost of a gallon of gasoline within 20 years and supply a whopping 3 percent of our nation’s energy consumption no later than 2027. Democrats in Congress have tried to insist that the oil companies must first pursue drilling in the 5,500 oil leases that they currently possess. Roskam won’t rest until Big Oil has it all, tourists and pelicans be damned.

But Peter Roskam is no Johnny-Come-Lately to the cause of Big Oil. Since coming to Congress, Roskam has consistently used his votes to advance the interests of the Oil Companies and ward of threats posed by alternative energy technologies and increased fuel-efficiency standards.

Thank God, in these harrowing times, the oil companies have a friend like Peter Roskam. Remember that when you vote this fall.

Addendum: the pinkos over at Progress Illinois have a post questioning the math Roskam is using to promote his plan. Imagine. Suggesting that a sitting Congressman running for re-election might somehow use fuzzy math to his own political advantage. It boggles the mind.

The vote came on 6/20. The bill was H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This so-called “compromise” on FISA allows the federal government to conduct mass untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into or going out of the country without any need to seek court approval, even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. In those circumstances where court review is required, where there is a specific target, a prior court order is not required and the courts are not allowed to know who is being targeted. They may only review general procedures for establishing targets. When a court rules against the government it will be allowed to continue spying while it exhausts all appeals. The measure allows no effective check to the power of the government to spy on Americans and no effective oversight regarding the manner in which it applies that power.

The gift to the telephone companies contained in the bill is the assurance it provides that all lawsuits pending from the companies’ illegal activities in support of the Bush spying program will be dismissed. It does this by changing the standard so that the companies are not required to have received a legal order - any order is fine. ATT, one of Peter Roskam’s largest campaign contributors, and Verizon, who’s lobbyist’s Jason Roe and Kirsten Mork have close ties to Roskam, are no doubt pleased by this provision. Maplight.org, a campaign finance watchdog group , found that those lawmakers who voted for the bill received, on average, twice the amount in donations from large telephone companies.

Roskam’s vote is just one more example of his consistent pattern of giving a “rubber stamp” of approval to the worst abuses of the Bush administration and of placing corporate interests over the interests of his constituents. Voters who care about civil liberties should contact Roskam to protest his vote. Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Before the FISA amendment becomes a law, it faces a vote in the Senate. That vote has been delayed until next month. Concerned voters should also contact Senators Durbin and Obama to pressure them to do the right thing and protect our civil liberties and deny immunity to the telephone companies that have broken the law.