Toomey discusses Protect IP, economy

This is the fifth installment of an interview conducted with U.S. Senator Pat Toomey. In this line of questioning, Toomey was asked his view regarding Protect IP and what led to the current state of the economy.

Do you support Protect IP?
There is a version in the Senate that I am unlikely to support. But, I’m working on a bill right now, a data security bill with Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) who is the chairman of the subcommittee, I’m the ranking member. And, he and I are hoping we’re going to have an agreement, I hope, in time to have something done this year. And that’s strictly data security.

The controversy surrounding Protect IP is it seems that the majority of the bills that are circulating around right now all kind of center around someone’s ability to shut down a website for having some sort of objectionable content, framed as intellectual property law. For example, if a website expresses an opinion that is unpopular with whoever has control over the Protect IP organization, the federal government can order those who link to that website to stop.
That’s pretty disturbing. My bill has nothing to do with that. The Data Security Bill is a bill that has certain requirements, for instance, on a corporation to safeguard and protect personal data that it has in its database. So, if you’re AMEX, and you have all kinds of information about your cardholders, what do you do if security’s been breached? What kind of precautions and safeguards do you have to have in place to minimize the risk of a breach?
My legislative effort is to deal with that kind. It has nothing to do with people who compile information, news and opinion things. That’s totally unrelated.

There is no provision included for shutting down a person’s website for having content that may be objectionable?
Absolutely not. It’s about what are our companies’ responsibility to customers, consumers and others with respect to preserving your privacy of your data in transactions.

This is aimed more at the hacking of credit card numbers?
That’s right. And can we establish a uniform nation standard that uses best practices that minimize the risk of these kind of breaches and what do we do in the event there is a breach.

As someone who comes from a currency derivative background, what do you think Wall Street’s effect on the current state of the economy has been and how does that serve Wayne County?
Well, I think the federal government created an environment where the housing bubble took off, went to extraordinary levels, then blew up. A lot of firms on Wall Street were only too happy to go along with this ride, you know, this is the nature of a bubble. While it’s expanding, everybody’s happy. But, bubbles eventually pop. But, it was the feds that kept interest rates too low for to long that started this. It was Congress that actually mandated that Fanny May and Freddie Mac lend ever more money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. But, there was a noble and understandable interest in expanding home ownership. The problem is, it went way too far. I’m in favor of expanding home ownership, but not if it involves having people take a mortgage they can’t afford. And, that’s what we did.

Do you think the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act had anything to do with it?
I really don’t think so. If you look at what caused the problem it was residential mortgages. That was where the problem is, it really is. That was the vast majority of the problem. That’s what exploded, that’s what expanded and that’s what dominated the books of Fanny and Freddie. It was mortgage backed securities that were wildly mis-priced. There was no question, there was a lot of imprudence and wildly excessive leverage in the private sector in the part of banks and investment banks that contributed to all this. They were operating in this environment, I would argue was really created by the federal government. I really think the federal government deserves more blame here than any other institution. And then it all came tumbling down, and there’s a lot of blame to go around.

What’s your take on the Citizens United ruling?
I have always been of the view that we ought to be willing to give freedom a chance here. I’m a big believer that the voters are smarter then most people give them credit for.

They can discern a message and they can figure out what is right for them. You look at the Super PACs, which is the big controversy now. The reason we have Super PACs is because we put a limit on what people can contribute to an individual candidate. If you took that limit off, then candidates wouldn’t be able to hide behind this idea that, ‘Well I don’t know who’s running that.’ Mitt Romney, this was Saturday’s debate, Newt Gingrich was very critical of Romney’s Super PAC, the PAC that’s supporting him for his attacks on him. And, Romney can say quite truthfully, that by law, I’m not permitted to have any oversight of their message. I don’t know the ads before they go up, I can’t know them and I can’t control the process. So, the problem with that is he can’t be held accountable for this message. If you eliminated limits on contribution, which of course we have in Pennsylvania, you can run for state office and there is no limit to a contribution someone can give. And, Pennsylvania’s not the only state. If we did that on the federal level, then a candidate would get those contributions and would then be held accountable for the message. And, voters could decide.

I think you should require disclosure. And, I’d be okay with making it virtually immediate. Forty-eight hours and it’s reported on the internet so that everybody knows who’s given you money and let voters decide. But I think that’d be a better mechanism.

The amount of money being spent is astonishing.
I think the idea that we can prevent money from being spent to try and influence votes is a mistake in notion. It’s not going to happen. Especially when we have a government as big as it is, involved in every aspect of our economy, having so much power.  It is absolutely unavoidable that people are going to try to influence the outcome of elections. They’re going to do that. If government were smaller, there’d be a little less incentive but they’d still do it. So I think we should accept it and insist on more transparency and more accountability.