Explaining Verizon's Actions
Matt Stoller finds something that explains why Verizon initially thought reject NARAL was a good idea:
So what kind of person thinks that a pro-choice advocacy message is 'unsavory'? What kind of word choice is that? It's a good question, and goes right to the heart of this problem.
I wrote about Verizon policy chief Tom Tauke's lack of ethics last year in October, when he wrote that Verizon would use any means necessary to accomplish their deregulatory goal. Howie Klein noted something significant. Tauke was a right-wing anti-choice Congressman from Iowa until 1990, when NARAL spent $100,000 to successfully defeat him as he tried to jump to the Senate.
Interesting, that the very group that helped defeat Tauke's bid for the Senate, is the same group rejected by him, over the use of text messages.
Is Verizon management going to take action against Tauke using his position to advance his personal vendetta against Verizon customers?
Technorati tags:
Censorship, NARAL, Tom Tauke, Verizon
|