Sponsored by: Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

Oh, I'm sure it will be a forward-thinking, carefully crafted plan to encourage a free marketplace that emphasizes innovation and the triumph of the American ingenuity that helped develop the internet.

And I'm sure it won't be some fat pig corruption for the good-ole-boy network that absolutely guarantees massive kickbacks for every rural republican congressman, while rural communities suffer under the worst internet this country can guarantee monopolies for.

Need to stop letting these rednecks decide anything that requires reading skills.

edit: Nvm, this is absolutely the man to lead us into the 21st century technology landscape!:

Carter graduated in 1975 from Robert W. Groves High School in Garden City, Georgia. He earned an associate degree from Young Harris College in 1977 and a Bachelor of Science in pharmacy from the University of Georgia in 1980. Carter is a Methodist.[3]

In March 2014, a controversy emerged regarding S.B. 408, a bill authored by Carter that would increase reimbursement rates for pharmacies in Georgia. As he is the owner of three pharmacies that would see increased profits as a result of the bill, many considered his vote in violation of the Senate's ethical guidelines. "Obviously, it's borderline," he admitted.[4]

In May 2023, Carter listed a property in Camden County, Georgia, for sale for $4.25 million after having purchased it in 2018 for $2.05 million.[10] He had not listed the property in his Congressional financial disclosures and instead said he had not bought the property as an investment. Shortly after purchasing the property he urged the FAA to issue Camden a launch site operator's license, which would have increased the value of his property tremendously, but he did not disclose that he owned nearby property in his letter.

In December 2020, Carter was one of 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives to sign an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, in which Joe Biden defeated[37] Trump. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of an election held by another state.[38][39][40] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that called signing the amicus brief an act of "election subversion."[41][42]