Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Technology, Telecom and Defense Companies Support CISPA Over Other Cyber Security Bills Despite Privacy Concerns

Congress is considering a number of cybersecurity bills in late April, with the House's H.R. 3523 - Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bill that would make it easier for companies and the government to share information about cyber threats, receiving the most attention. The House Rules Committee hasset a Tuesday deadline for House members to submit amendments to CISPA and floor action is expected later this week.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Center for Democracy & Technology are spearheading a campaign in opposition to the bill, which they say contains overly broad language that may infringe on privacy rights and allow the government to obtain information for criminal prosecutions otherwise requiring a warrant. Supporters of the bill emphasize that information sharing is voluntary under CISPA and say current laws leave them vulnerable both to cyber threats and to lawsuits stemming from breaches of privacy and antitrust laws. 

CISPA sponsors Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) have made changes to the bill that they say will address the concerns of privacy groups. However, some lawmakers have been offering alternative cybersecurity bills, such asH.R. 3674 from Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), S. 2151 from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and S. 2105 from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The Center for Democracy & Technology has compiled a chart comparing the competing bills according to their implications for privacy law.

MapLight has conducted an analysis of campaign contributions to members of Congress from interest groups that have stated explicit support or opposition to CISPA.

House of Representatives

Between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011, interest groups that support CISPA, including Defense aerospace contractorsCable & satellite TV production & distributionComputer softwareCellular systems and equipment, and Online computer services, have given a total of $31,505,583 to current members of the House of Representatives. This amount is 12 times as much as Democratic/LiberalMuseums, art galleries, librariesHuman RightsConsumer groups; and other interests that oppose the bill gave in the same time period ($2,542,599).

Companies Supporting CISPA

MapLight has conducted an analysis of selected companies supporting CISPA and their contributions to members of Congress. The listed organizations are amongst the top contributors to the campaigns of elected members of Congress since 2007. For more detailed information, go to MapLight's Company pages by clicking on the name of the company. All contribution figures below are from January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2011, and include contributions from the companies and their employees to elected members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

METHODOLOGY: Includes reported contributions to the congressional campaigns of House members in office during the 112th U.S. Congress from interest groups taking a position on H.R. 3523 , according to MapLight, July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011. Individual company contribution totals are to elected members of Congress from January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2011. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org.

Submitted by Chris Gorin

© Copyright 2013 MapLight

About the Author

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal.

MapLight connects data on campaign contributions, politicians, votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence that could never be seen before. 

We currently research money and influence in the...

510-868-0894

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.