Lawmakers Reach Deal To Expand Surveillance

[Balta1701]

Does he have enough votes to do it?

If BO came out and said "Filibuster this thing and let them come after me over it" I think he'd pull it off.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Dodd And Feingold Will Filibuster Telecom Immunity

 

 

[bmags]

god bless em, true V.I.P.'s to me. EVERYONE MAKE A FUSS TO THEIR SENATORS SO THEY CAN'T GET 60 TO CLOTURE

[whitesoxfan101]

Is there any reason so many democrats agreed to this deal? I am honestly baffled at this turn of events. Is it just to look good in regards to security or what?

[bmags]

Because they have no backbone. They probably see that this can be turned around on them as "look they don't want to protect you from terrorists", and for some reason, they feel they can't win the argument over following the law and the constitution with the American people. And maybe they can't, but I don't know how they can stand themselves in 30 years and realize they were the one's that were responsible for warrantless wiretaps. I'm ALL FOR wiretapping terrorists and potential terrorists, but the courts were already passing these out easily anyways. Why completely circumvent an obstacle set in place to prevent gross abuse in the future? If FISA courts are taking too long, see to it that they can process the warrants faster, don't just make it legal for no warrants. And don't just give a free pass to companies to do whatever they want as long as the president said it was okay. This is not our country.

[Balta1701]

Because they have no backbone. They probably see that this can be turned around on them as "look they don't want to protect you from terrorists", and for some reason, they feel they can't win the argument over following the law and the constitution with the American people. And maybe they can't, but I don't know how they can stand themselves in 30 years and realize they were the one's that were responsible for warrantless wiretaps. I'm ALL FOR wiretapping terrorists and potential terrorists, but the courts were already passing these out easily anyways. Why completely circumvent an obstacle set in place to prevent gross abuse in the future? If FISA courts are taking too long, see to it that they can process the warrants faster, don't just make it legal for no warrants. And don't just give a free pass to companies to do whatever they want as long as the president said it was okay. This is not our country.

There's one other reason you're missing. Numbers via Glenn Greenwald.

Just in the first three months of 2008, recent lobbyist disclosure statements reveal that AT&T spent $5.2 million in lobbyist fees (putting it well ahead of its 2007 pace, when it spent just over $17 million). In the first quarter of 2008, Verizon spent $4.8 million on lobbyist fees, while Comcast spent $2.6 million. So in the first three months of this year, those three telecoms -- which would be among the biggest beneficiaries of telecom amnesty (right after the White House) -- spent a combined total of almost $13 million on lobbyists. They're on pace to spend more than $50 million on lobbying this year -- just those three companies.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There's one other reason you're missing. Numbers via Glenn Greenwald.

:o

[Balta1701]

:o

Until we build a legitimate public campaign financing system (1 week in Iraq would finance every Federal election in the country for this year), then this is how it's going to be.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Until we build a legitimate public campaign financing system (1 week in Iraq would finance every Federal election in the country for this year), then this is how it's going to be.

I am more inclined to find a way to kick lobbyists out of washington, but that is a debate for another day.

[southsider2k5]

Until we build a legitimate public campaign financing system (1 week in Iraq would finance every Federal election in the country for this year), then this is how it's going to be.

 

Or at least one that is constitutional...

[kapkomet]

Or at least one that is constitutional...

Exactly.

[lostfan]

Seriously, I'm hoping that Obama's not-so-slick backing out of public financing torpedoes the current public financing system so that they have to do it all over again, and hopefully get it right.

[Balta1701]

Or at least one that is constitutional...

As far as I can tell, there's nothing unconstitutional about having the government pay for the entire campaign of anyone who wants them to. The thing that is unconstitutional is preventing other people from spending money through outside groups if they choose to (Although it can be regulated). In other words, you can't stop a candidate from opting out or from self financing, and if your system breaks, as it is now, that becomes a reasonable maneuver, but the fact that you can't stop outside groups from spending their money doesn't mean that we can't take steps to prevent those groups from using their money to get direct access to the politicians themselves.

[southsider2k5]

Exactly.

 

Personally I don't agree with dollar vote equaling free speech, but that is the way the Supreme Court has ruled for a long time now, and I don't see how they can change that.

[southsider2k5]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing unconstitutional about having the government pay for the entire campaign of anyone who wants them to. The thing that is unconstitutional is preventing other people from spending money through outside groups if they choose to (Although it can be regulated). In other words, you can't stop a candidate from opting out or from self financing, and if your system breaks, as it is now, that becomes a reasonable maneuver, but the fact that you can't stop outside groups from spending their money doesn't mean that we can't take steps to prevent those groups from using their money to get direct access to the politicians themselves.

 

Then you will never have a legitimate public campaign system. The two things aren't compatible.

[Balta1701]

Then you will never have a legitimate public campaign system. The two things aren't compatible.

The key thing to me is that I want a situation where no politician ever has to hold a fundraiser or deal with a lobbyist again (although they still will because they're too lazy to write their own bills). That's the thing I'm hoping for, and I think that can still be done. You don't exactly see Senator Obama or McCain holding fundraisers for Moveon.org or the NRA do you? They may speak to audiences from those communities but they are barred from coordination with them.

[southsider2k5]

The key thing to me is that I want a situation where no politician ever has to hold a fundraiser or deal with a lobbyist again (although they still will because they're too lazy to write their own bills). That's the thing I'm hoping for, and I think that can still be done. You don't exactly see Senator Obama or McCain holding fundraisers for Moveon.org or the NRA do you? They may speak to audiences from those communities but they are barred from coordination with them.

 

I don't believe that actually happens for a second, from either party.