Recuse Yourselves!

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”          Upton Sinclair

In the legal system, when judges find themselves in the awkward position of potential conflict of interest, they are expected to recuse themselves. Yet, when state legislators sitting on committees where unbiased judgment is essential but their personal financial interests are involved, they stay the course.

In 2016, two bills (SB1134, HB 1303) were introduced that would bring broadband and high speed internet to Tennessee's rural communities by allowing municipal electric utilities to offer those services beyond their current customer base.

On the surface, this would seem like a no-brainer. There's already a law permitting MEUs to provide broadband services to their customers. And, there's ample proof that the utilities that offer them have experienced success beyond their wildest imaginations: existing businesses grew, new businesses set up shop, business incubators opened; public schools broadened their teaching methods; hospitals and clinics expanded their reach in rural communities with telemedicine.

Now that the case has been made that broadband is an essential new public utility, the legacy carriers like AT&T, Comcast, Charter and others are feeling the pressure resulting from decades of neglecting to invest. So, they turn to the state legislature to protect their monopolies.

Herein lies the rub: a major conflict of interest between the legislators entrusted to decide the bills' fates and the campaign donations those legislators receive from the carriers.

Consider this:

Of the nine members of the Senate committee passing judgment on the senate version of the bill, all have received donations from AT&T and/or Comcast and others, some more than others, totalling some $200,000. The same holds true for the eighteen members of the House committee, whose members received an aggregate $170,000 plus. 

As I write, lobbyists for the legacy carriers are visiting legislators in large numbers, asking for their support. Some lawmakers who earlier expressed support for the bills have withdrawn it. When I inquired about this change of heart, I was told that lobbyists paid visits to the legislators, saying in effect, if they withdraw their support, the lobbyists will be sure to visit their next fundraisers.

It's one thing when some officials have accepted campaign donations from the same special interests. It's another when all all the members of a committee are recipients of a common donor's largesse.

It's one thing when the donation is low, $500 or so. It's quite another when donations are in the thousands or tens of thousands, and that's most of the members of both committees. And, the leadership that appointed them to the committees, the Speaker of the House and the Lt. Governor, are recipients of even greater donations.

Bills such as these, with the powerful, positive potential impact on our entire state in so many ways, (business, education, medicine, sustainability) are too important to be considered and passed on by legislators whose campaign coffers are also impacted by their decisions.

I urge the committee members of both houses with such obvious conflicts to recuse themselves from action on these bills.

Joe Malgeri

576 Joshua Drive

Dandridge, TN 37725