Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's 1952! (JM)

Wellity, wellity, wellity, wellity. Let it never be said that the telecom industry doesn't return favors. I don't exactly who will be hosting this party, but you can be that the likely suspects include our good buddy Sen. Jay Rockefeller and long time personal favorite of mine, Sen. Claire "Oh, won't someone please think of the telecoms!" McCaskill. Well even if we don't have the ability to sue telecom companies for wiretapping, at least the Blue Dogs will have a kickin' party. Please don't discuss politics, it makes them uncomfortable.

Snark aside, there's a bigger issue here. Despite the Obama campaign's unwillingness to take corporate or PAC money in to his campaign, certain campaign events (and many parts of the convention) are sponsored by this money. It certainly raises the question of whether or not we can ever have an electoral system that doesn't have corporate influence. I have always thought that publically-funded elections with a complete ban on private funding, were the solution. In the end, however, I wonder if this wouldn't just marginalize corporate money in to other, less-trackable areas of the political playing field. I am aware that this is a criticism that has been leveled before, but it's one that has become clearer and clearer in this election. As political campaigns get bigger, the terrain more expansive and the methods of campaign far more diverse it is becoming tougher and tougher to hold the floodgates of corporate money closed. But that doesn't mean that's not a fight worth having.

Hat Tip: Matt Stoller

Political Horse Trading and FISA (JM)

As frequent readers of AOTG may know FISA and telecom immunity is something of deep irritation of mine. I deplore the Dems who chose to stand by in the Senate and let the GOP dictate the terms of the deal, all the while threatening to monger fear in their direction should they not pass a new FISA bill.

Now, as it transpires, House Democrats seem like they're about to back down on telecom immunity. Why? So that they can get "exclusivity". What is "exclusivity" you ask? It is the guarantee that FISA is the only means by which the government wiretaps and collects foreign intelligence. In other words, it is a guarantee that the government doesn't keep a secret wiretapping program going along side FISA. This is just so completely insane that I am at a loss for words.

I get that horse trading is part of the political process. It is often necessary to make some concessions in order to get broader support on larger policies. However, the problem is (and always has been for that matter) that the Republican positions are so extreme, so far away from anything resembling moderate compromise, that in order to negotiate the Democrats often have to accept wretchedly horrible policies. FISA is the ideal example. House Democrats are willing to give in to one of the GOP's absurdist policies, telecom immunity, in order to guarantee that they get "exclusivity", something they absolutely ought to have been guaranteed in the first place.

Perhaps, it is time for the party to be slightly less reasonable. The Republicans are the ones who are totally unwilling to sign an extension of FISA in the first place. Basically, they are willing to go nuclear and paint the Dems as soft on security unless the Democrats are willing to accept a false compromise in the first place. It's really time for the Democrats to stand up and say, "This is totally absurd, there is no way we are bargaining telecom immunity to guarantee that this is the only method of surveillance. The American people expect and deserve both and we're going to give it to them." It's unfortunate when we live in a world where compromise is impossible, but when you're facing a party that uses compromise as an opportunity to, for all intents and purposes, hold a gun to your head, you have to push back.

Despite my tirades to the otherwise we can pretty much bet this compromise will happen. These types of compromises will continue and we will watch our rights slowly, but surely, get eroded until we recognize that Republicans will fight to the death and the only way to beat them is to do the same. I've, for the first time in my life, sent e-mails to my congressman and Senators (because I am pretty sure Hillary has a lot of free time to read my e-mails right now) and I encourage you to do the same. This is a battle worth winning, as is any battle at this point. Trading is part of the political world, but when one side makes absurd demands and expects you to choose between them, sometimes it's worth standing up and walking away.

One further quick note on this. It is a larger problem that the stubborn party is the one the eschews most forms of regulation to begin with. This is especially an issue with the confirmation of Bush administration appointees. Bush would love to see his nominees appointed by the Senate, but he seems equally okay with organizations like the FEC and several industry regulatory commission just not doing anything. Thus, we are left with the unenviable and false choice between appointing someone who will do nothing or simply doing nothing. These are large problems, that take complex political skills, but the first step in the battle is to get out in front and let the public know what the GOP is doing. That is a job that has been poorly done by the Democratic congress, and it shows in their approval ratings. It's time for real action on the part of the Senate, and my only hope is that either candidate who fails to get the nomination will go back to the Senate and be a real leader in the fight against the GOP, because even if we pick up my congressional seats, nothing changes unless we change our willingness to fight.

Lest We Forget Who Our Current President Is, a Telecom Press Conference (JM)

I know we’re all wrapped up in choosing who our next president will be that sometimes it’s easy to forget who our current president is… And he was out today giving a delightful press conference on how we’re all going to die if the Democrats don’t pass FISA with telecom immunity. Let’s take a look, shall we?

QUESTION: ... if you can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've been caught up in this.

QUESTION: I know it's unintended to spy on Americans, but in the collection process information about everybody gets swept up and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don't have any recourse, are you just telling them when it comes to their privacy to suck it up?

Wow, this is seriously one of the best questions I have ever seen from a presidential press conference. Are you telling the American public to “suck it up”? Great stuff, given that this is precisely what the Bush administration has been advocating the American people do for years (though I have to admit, I’d be more entertained if the questioner had went Fonzie on us and used “sit on it” instead of “suck it up”.

BUSH: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you -- in public. You've been around long enough.
Anyway, people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected.

There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect.

“I wouldn’t put it that way, if I were you – in public…” Seriously, this is something the President of the United States just said. How creepy and Goodfellasesque does that sound? Also when “people who analyze the program” are members of the Bush/Cheney administration I am not so sure I am going to be happy with the definition of “respect”. Also I like that Bush’s standard for appropriate treatment of civil liberties is the nebulous concept of “respect”, not say some sort of constitutional standard or something.

BUSH: And that's what I want, and that's what most Americans -- all Americans want.
Now, let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone companies to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued. I mean, it is -- these people are responsible for shareholders. They're private companies.

Telecom companies would never be sued if we had a reasonable, constitutionally-viable FISA law.

The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it's legal. It's in our national interest because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.

It was legal. And now all of a sudden plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. It's unfair. It is patently unfair.

Gee… yes, it must be those damned plaintiffs attorneys. Always trying to scam companies with their frivolous lawsuits about massive rights violations. Also just because you’re the Decider, doesn’t mean you get to determine what is and is not legal. In fact, for all the complaints about the Bush administration, it seems clear to me that the bizarre use of executive power to interpret the legality and constitutionality of particular laws and regulations is absolutely the worst. The creeping spread of executive authority during his administration is downright frightening. What’s worse is, that no matter who we elect next, it’s hard to imagine them ceding many of these so-called authorities Bush and Cheney cooked up for themselves.

And, secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will -- whose help we need.

BUSH: I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling in to the United States with information that could cause us great harm.

We have perfectly reasonable legislation on the books that allows for foreign surveillance. There has not been one hindrance in foreign intelligence collecting since FISA expired. This is just a flat out, disgusting lie.

So on the one hand the civil liberties of our citizens are guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system, scrutinized by the United States Congress.

You cannot count that hand if you want them to sign a bill giving away those powers. It’s not a check if the check decides not to check… you see what I am saying?

And, secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the Congress solve this problem.
The Senate has solved the problem. And people say, "Would you ever compromise on the issue?" The Senate bill is a compromise. And there's enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill. It's a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need to put it on the floor and let the will of the housework.
My judgment happens to be the will of the people, to give the professionals the tools they need to protect the country....

Congress tried! The Democrats offered to extend FISA again. You and the GOP kept it from happening because you want your precious telecom immunity and provisions in the bill to give the executive branch absolute authority and no transparency. Your position of this is nearly farcical.

QUESTION: Mr. President, on FISA, do you worry that perhaps some House Democratic leaders are playing a high-stakes game of wait-and- see in terms of if we get attacked, we all lose, if we don't get attacked, then maybe that makes the case that you don't need all the powers in FISA?

Who asked this. Is that Dick Cheney sitting in the back wearing a fake nose and glasses set?

BUSH: No, I don't think so.

I mean, I think that's -- that would be ascribing, you know, motives that are just -- I just don't think they're the motives of the House leaders to do that.

I think -- look, I think they're really wrestling with providing liability protection to phone companies. I don't think they're that cynical or devious. That's -- it's just too risky. A lot of these leaders understand that there's an enemy that wants to attack.

The caucus, evidently, in the House is -- the Democratic caucus, is -- you know, is concerned about exactly Plante's question, you know. And I just can't tell you how important it is to not alienate or not discourage these phone companies.

We must never alienate or discourage phone companies. Sigh… if the FISA law you wanted didn’t have so many clearly rights violations there would never be any concern. Phone companies turn over information all the time in criminal investigations. They are not held harmless from liability, instead they know such charges would never stand up in court because of appropriate procedures to protect the rights of individuals. There are so many ways this could be done, it’s patently absurd.

BUSH: How can you listen to the enemy if the phone companies aren't going to participate with you? And they're not going to participate if they get sued.

Let me rephrase it: less likely to participate.

And they're facing billions of dollars of lawsuits. And they have a responsibility to their shareholders. And yet they were told what they were going do is legal.

Doesn’t that say something? Really and truly it does. Corporations just simply do not trust the word of the Bush administration that their actions are legal. Trust me, if these actions were totally legitimate there would be no problem. But these companies are terrified that they are going to lose in court and that’s because they know there is a legitimate possibility that the administration lied and these actions were totally illegal.

And, anyway, I'm going to keep talking about the issue. This is an important issue for the American people to understand, and it's important for them to understand that no renewal of the Patriot Act -- I mean, the Protect America Act -- is dangerous for the security of the country. Just dangerous.

I'm sure people, if they really pay attention to the details of this debate, wonder why it was OK to pass the Protect America Act last summer, late last summer, and all of a sudden it's not OK to pass it now.
And so I will keep -- keep talking about the issue and talking about the issue.

It was never okay. The Democrats, especially red-staters are just totally fearful and it is painful to watch. I want telecom companies to be afraid to act unless they are sure their actions are lawful. I want the presumption of any major corporation that controls private information to be that giving said information to the government is probably not okay unless they are compelled to do so. I want a system of warrants, checks and balances to guide this sort of data collection. Not just the say so of GWB. It’s sad that this is even a battle. I am baffled that the Democrats are not just throwing this right back in the face of the administration. Here’s the truth, the Democrats will never wrest power from the hands of the GOP until they are unafraid to challenge the politics of fear. They need to start talking about the core of our values and not trading them away because shadows and bogeymen, because in the end that is a battle the GOP will always win. Let’s go back to being a party of real values, instead of being weak-kneed at the idea of appearing week-kneed.

(Hat tip: Paul Kiel at TPM for the transcript)

Fear the Telecoms, Hate the Red State Dems! (JM)

For those of you not aware the Senate today voted on amendments to the new FISA bill to strip the bill of the provision to give telecom companies immunity. In other words, these companies handed over private information and communications they should not have, and Congress has seen fit to grant them a free pass from liability. For all the talk of a Democratic Congress, it seems pretty useless to have a majority, when the majority does asinine things like vote down three consecutive amendments to hold companies accountable for rights violations in which they might engage.

The Democratic senators who voted nay on this proposition are as follows: Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Note the sheer number of red state Dems who voted against this, and have many other times been impediments to actually real change coming out of the Democratic legislature. It saddens me a lot that most of these senators are far more concerned with getting elected than doing anything once they get there. The funny thing is the GOP doesn't act this way, and is often successful as a result. Swing state GOP members fight for legislation they consider important (occasionally they reach across the aisle, like in the case of Arlen Specter (R-PA)) and they continue to get reelected. The truth is one Arlen Specter is worth 32171283702713 Claire McCaskills. Actually, Claire McCaskill has roughly the same value as the peso these days.

The bigger point is this: What the hell are these politicians afraid of on the issue? Are they worried that they'll be painted as soft on telecom immunity? Seriously, imagine the commercial:

Voiceover: Claire McCaskill says she cares about our nation's telecom companies, but she voted not to give them immunity...

::cut to scene, with giant cartoon telephone, who is crying, and a little boy::

Jimmy: What's wrong Telly?!

Telly the Telecom Telephone: That mean Claire McCaskill voted to take away my immunity. People want to sue me just because I gave personal information about their private conversations to the nice Mr. Cheney.

Jimmy: What?! I won't stand for it! How dare Claire McCaskill hurt you!

Telly the Telecom Telephone: I know... I try so hard sometimes, we'll just have to let her know the people care about cartoon telephone mascots.

Voiceover: Let Claire McCaskill know you won't stand for her anti-cartoon telephone pandering. Vote Goppy McCuttaxes for Senator!

Goppy McCuttaxes: I'm Goppy McCuttaxes and I approve this message.

The truth is that this isn't about telecom immunity at all. It's about corporate financing. These senators are afraid that corporations will no longer loosen the purse strings if they even dream of holding the liable for some of the ridiculously bad crap they do. This is why we need campaign finance reform. This is also why we need to demand more from red state Dems, getting elected in front of a donkey is just not good enough. The funny thing is that we are totally willing to fight this fight in states we know we can win. See Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman. But instead we hold people like Claire McCaskill up as a party standard-bearer instead of holding her accountable for her actions. If you want to see a good example of a red state Democrat look to Jon Tester from Montana who is consistently on the right side of most legislation. Voters are not dumb, they vote for people who take real stands and people they respect and it's time the Democratic Party started rewarding that as well.