The following represents a first impression view; further elaboration would require legal research.  I believe that the amnesty provision tucked in the telecommunications bill is unconstitutional.  Depriving a cause of action (a transferable asset) without remedy represents a government "taking" and also represents ex post facto legislation.  Inmunity, unlike a pardon, is a temporary resolution that can easily be undone. The current bill may prevent a court from hearing a case based on jurisdictional federal law (power of the purse), nevertheless, constitutional issues  are not subject to such limitation.  The next president may, by fiat, allow criminal prosecutions that cannot be subjected to amnesty without the consent of the sovereign (the president). In other words, amnesty is no pardon which requires conviction and action by the executive. To be sure, the current lawsuits are civil lawsuits subject to regulation.  Now, I know this post scattershots the issue. The point is that the next president will have options concerning the issue despite current legislation. Congress's ability to meddle on jurisdictional/constitutional matters is overstated. Let's put it anothert way; if I burn my neighbor's house, a legislature cannot prevent me from pursuing redress.      

There's more...

Cory Doctorow posted on net neutrality yesterday.  Net neutrality is the provision that says all speech on the internet must be treated equally, and no data packets get favored just because the data is traveling over different pipes.  It's the first amendment transferred to the internet.  

The telcos want to end net neutrality.  They want to turn the internet into another TV where those who pay a lot have the ability to broadcast, and those that don't get inferior degraded service.  It's dressed up in a lot of spin with Clinton hacks like Mike McCurry working for the telcos, but that's the basic dynamic.  

Joe Barton has a bill in the House that's going to allow telecom companies to do this, and Ed Markey's provision to strengthen net neutrality provisions was struck down in the the House Telecom Subcommittee.  It's going to move to the full Committee, the full House, and then the Senate.

One political problem we face is that the telcos have bought off a lot of people and political organizations. Another problem is that natural opponents of the cartelization of the internet like Cory don't have an answer for what to do about the issue, except to rail against big 'ole mean AT&T and encourage people to switch internet service providers.  

The libertarians in the tech world believe the market will take care of the problem, yet only 53% of the public has a choice in broadband options between DSL and cable.  This is by design.  You see, the telecommunications companies have consistently been undermining a free market in telecommunications services through mergers, regulation, and lawsuits.

We've gotten to this point in net neutrality because we've allowed cartels to destroy our free markets.  We need to reverse this and get more options in the market, and allow more job creation and entrepreneurialism in the telecom space.  But first things first.  The libertarians need to wake up and realize that if they want free markets, they are going to have to fight for them.

There's more...