Matthew Yglesias (June 20, 2008) - FISA Nos (Foreign Policy)

So goddamn what? If they wanted better leadership they'd vote for that. A minority of no votes (or a "majority of the Democrats," if you like) in this situation are just to appease us plebs.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 20, 2008 5:47 PM

it's worth noting that more House Democrats voted no (128) than voted yea (105)

Whoopie doopie.

First, it was the leadership that had the ability to control this, so it's entirely the location I place the blame. Particularly Reid and Pelosi, since despite his megaphone Obama's still a back-bencher. (that said, the megaphone would certainly have come in handy this week, and I'm bitterly disappointed that he embraced the dark side on this).

Second, I'm hardly cheered that the party that is supposedly representing the defense of the Constitution -- the party that was voted into power in '06 largely due to these types of abuses -- could only muster a whopping 55% vote in favor of upholding the Constitution.

Feh. I was going to give Obama some more money this payday, but I'm gonna hold off till I stop being pissed about this.

Posted by ResumeMan | June 20, 2008 5:51 PM

The only thing that could make me happy about this bill at this point would be if it were used against all the "yea" voters by a possible future Obama administration. For instance, if Hoyer has an AT&T account and someone in the future Obama White House were to distribute interesting recordings of him with a note saying it was legal to freely publish them. Then, and only then, would I be able to smile about this vote.

Posted by Hardrada | June 20, 2008 5:59 PM

I guess people want to blame "the Democrats" because the Democrats control Congress. And so the Democrats should be blamed for this as a party. Just as they should be blamed for enabling the worst aspects of Bushism over the past 7 years.

Posted by jim | June 20, 2008 6:04 PM

The money I had set aside to donate to Obama's campaign is now going to Greenwald's Retribution Crusade against Hoyer et al. I'm going to encourage them to target Obama as well.

Matt, I'm disappointed that you are defending this disgrace.

Posted by HipHopLawyer | June 20, 2008 6:09 PM

Other things which were pushed through the House with a great majority of Republican support and a minority of Democrats: The Iraq War and NAFTA for two.

Posted by El Cid | June 20, 2008 6:09 PM

If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way.

Voting 'No' isn't opening the can of worms. Resigning is opening the can of worms. Filibustering is opening the can of worms. Taking seriously your oath to uphold the Constitution is opening the can of worms. 'No' without some fight behind it is worse then 'Yes'. 'Yes' has some craven logic behind it. 'No' without a fight means you suck.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 20, 2008 6:38 PM

Good to see my Rep Mike Doyle on the right side of this issue.

Posted by Mike T | June 20, 2008 6:46 PM

The Republican leadership would never have moved a bill that didn't have the support of the majority of their caucus. Never.

There's no excuse for this.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 6:55 PM

The Republican leadership would never have moved a bill that didn't have the support of the majority of their caucus. Never.

There's no excuse for this.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 6:58 PM

Well, my current congressman (Chaka Fattah) and previous congressman (Chris Van Hollen) both voted no, so that's good. Otherwise, this is just dismal. This feels like an unforced error. We can't blame the Republicans for this - the Democratic leadership seems entirely to blame.

I really can't figure out what the hell this is about. Why the need to do this today?

Posted by John | June 20, 2008 7:00 PM

Among liberal bloggers and liberal blog commenters, "lots of folks are upset" about the Democrats' (and Obama's) stance on FISA.

Outside of that small and not particularly influential world, however, I doubt that many people are particularly upset. That's why the main Democratic presidential candidates didn't seem eager to take a strong stand on FISA even during the primary, when the political importance of leftist ideologues and activists is at its height. Why would anyone be surprised by their indifference to the issue following a switch to general election mode?

I suppose that "the Democrats are spineless cowards" is a more satisfying declaration than "the Democrats are insufficiently committed to the priorities of my small and fairly irrelevant segment of the electorate." From the perspective of any pragmatic politician, though, that second message is the more meaningful one.

Posted by N | June 20, 2008 7:05 PM

So the Democratic Party pushed and passed a bill that a majority of their caucus opposed.

What does that say?

I think you have to identify "Democratic Party" with their leadership, because that's who has the power.

Again, I don't see how you can say that this isn't a Democratic Party bill.

It was entirely at their option. They chose to push for it - they chose to pass it.

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 7:06 PM

more House Democrats voted no (128) than voted yea (105)

The Democrats - only 45% in favor suspending the law's application to the telecoms in services of the security state!

The elements of the Democratic base that write this off with a "Well, they're marginally better than the Republicans." are the ones that are enabling this behavior. If all you demand of them is that they're marginally better than the R's on this stuff, that's all you're going to get.

Posted by MattXIV | June 20, 2008 7:15 PM

I suppose that "the Democrats are spineless cowards" is a more satisfying declaration than "the Democrats are insufficiently committed to the priorities of my small and fairly irrelevant segment of the electorate." From the perspective of any pragmatic politician, though, that second message is the more meaningful one.

N. - you nailed it.

The problem appears to be that people are confused and don't realize that Democrats don't share their priorities.

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 7:16 PM

My guess for Pelosi/Hoyer's decision to push this forward?

They've been shown some of the FISA intercepts -- and it's been made clear to them that the blackmail tapes would be made public if they didn't push the bill forward.

Posted by The Confidence Man | June 20, 2008 7:23 PM

No conspiracy theory painting them as reluctant.

They like the idea and feel that those who care about civil rights won't vote for McCain.

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 7:27 PM

N said:

Outside of that small and not particularly influential world, however, I doubt that many people are particularly upset.

Bully for the many. 'Way back when Newt was reshaping Congress, we had the likes of Helen Chenoweth openly grilling Federal officials about "black helicopters". Now that we're dealing with the reality of "black briefcases"... well, they must be doing the right thing, because they're rich corporate executives.

Posted by cmholm | June 20, 2008 7:29 PM

I was going to give Obama some more money this payday, but I'm gonna hold off till I stop being pissed about this.

This is the first election in which I've actually held a job and it's the first year I've contributed a decent amount to candidates (first to Dodd, which I don't regret, then Obama, then the DNC). Not a cent more--right now I feel like I've bought a lemon. I also don't really give a shit whether this was politically savvy for the leaders, or whether Obama looks good with his tail between his legs. I expect my leaders to value principles when the principles are important enough (like, say, protection of citizens' fourth amendment rights, and meaningful checks on executive power).

Any money I donate is going
here for the rest of this cycle.

Posted by NSinNY | June 20, 2008 7:33 PM

"the Democrats are insufficiently committed to the priorities of my small and fairly irrelevant segment of the electorate."

Uh, how about "The Democrats are insufficiently committed to a minor and fairly irrelevant thing known as the Constitution." That's more important than any particular segment of the electorate, large or small.

But the problem was succinctly stated upthread, that this just reveals that the national Democratic party is not particularly interested in upholding the Constitution. They haven't ever been. They weren't fooled or rolled over, the leadership and a large minority of the caucus thought this was a good idea.

And it stinks.

And what's even more annoying is that the forces for good had beat this back several times already. Just had to hold on a few more months; I really doubt that a President Obama would have had the nerve to negotiate what got passed today. Immunity would've been a dead letter if it could have got put off till after the election (assuming, you know, the good guys win).

Posted by ResumeMan | June 20, 2008 7:44 PM

I unsubscribed from Obama's site - and gave his stance on FISA as my reasoning.

Perhaps if a slew of people do the same, he'd take note.

I won't donate to Obama - I'll also donate to the effort to fight Bush enablers.

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 7:49 PM

It is good to see my newly elected Congressman, Bill Foster voted the right way. It is still pretty surreal that a Democrat is holding this seat.

Posted by Alex | June 20, 2008 7:50 PM

There may not be a large percentage of democrats (or voters in general) who are deeply against this bill. But I would be willing to bet that the percentage of voters that are deeply in favor of this bill is much smaller. And most of those folks wouldn't vote democratic anyway.

I know the Democrats don't share all my priorities. But that also means they may not always get my vote.

Posted by Giovanni da Procida | June 20, 2008 7:52 PM

Democrats always leave me in a bind. In my opinion, they're only about 65% right, 25% mistaken in good faith, and 10% cravenly pandering. Now compared to Republicans, who are about 75% cravenly pandering and 24% simply mistaken, a solid 65% Democrat is like my new best friend, well worth banking phones and writing checks for.

But 65% still kind of sucks.

Posted by aatos | June 20, 2008 8:05 PM

The page that NSinNY and jackifus link to - a donation campaign to punish Dems who support telecom immunity - provides some indication of what I'm talking about. The first thing that sticks out is the page text, which includes grammatical errors and a misspelling of "Gephardt." The fact that it's never been edited seems pretty bush league.

More to the point, even though this campaign has been apparently around for over three months, it's currently attracted less than 5,000 donors. I imagine that it'll get a big spike over the next few days, but still - compare those numbers to MoveOn.org, whose website claims over 300,000 donors for the 2004 election. Barack Obama has more than 1.5 million donors.

So far, it's not exactly an impressive display of the wrath of the mighty liberal netroots.

Posted by N | June 20, 2008 8:17 PM

N. - I like your point - however, the spelling mistake doesn't expose a bush league nature.

Check out the tangible results here on Glenn Greenwald's site.

and note Donna Edward's win over 8 termer Al Wynn.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/30/al-wynn-d-md-blames-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-in-primary-challenge/

This stuff can work.

rgds,

Jack

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 8:38 PM

Uh, Matt. Of course lefties aren't mad at the Democrats who voted "no". But when your supposedly liberal Democratic Speaker of the House and supposedly liberal Democratic nominee for the presidency both support the bill, that naturally reflects poorly on the Democrats as a whole.

Posted by The Fool | June 20, 2008 8:38 PM

THOSE 105 Congressmen and women along with the rest voting THIS Legislation in today broke the oath of their office and to the country.
They SWORE to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. They have become the enemy of the Constitution and need to be held accountable. They have taken the 4th amendment and made it nothing. They have shown us that THEY believe we, as citizens, have no worth and no value and deserve no rights or liberties.
PELOSI should resign. She is a disgrace to her office and her gender. She was the 1st woman to break the ceiling only to become the worst person for the job; Steny Hoyer? Needs to go play with his blood-sucking masters in the White House...Renfield has been replaced....

Posted by Cosmic Surfer | June 20, 2008 8:42 PM

I'm holding out the slim, slim hope that the Senate bill will be markedly different. Kinda like how Turkey held out hope that they could score with a minute left in Extra time today. Doubtful? sure, but anything can happen

Posted by Andrew Fly | June 20, 2008 8:56 PM

even though this campaign has been apparently around for over three months

Hey N, for most of that time there was no FISA legislation, and the PAC was inoperative.

Just in the last 2 days or so, the campaign has raised $200,000 from about 4,000 donors.

That's roughly a third of what McCain raised over that time period. So it's actually a much bigger deal than you make of it.

Posted by theo | June 20, 2008 9:41 PM

"The problem appears to be that people are confused and don't realize that Democrats don't share their priorities."

No confusion here. The fact that the dems are so brazenly corrupt that they throw away a killer political issue--Bush, McCain, and the GOP care more about telecom profits than the constitution; they care more about telecom profits than protecting America (by their own admission!)--that is also not just right (the whole I believe upholding the constitiion is a good idea thing), but if played correctly will damage a loyal GOP industry, is political malpractice on an umimaginable scale. And evil. Reeeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllllllllyyyy evil.

That I don't have a choice in our so-called democracy is rather depressing. So the slogan, 55% less evil that the GOP*, isn't exactly thrilling.

*Note: completely incapable of getting anything done...unless the minority party decides it's a priority! Then we'll play with ourselves for six months and then give them everything they want!

Posted by Client #11 | June 20, 2008 9:42 PM

Tell me again how the Democrats have your privacy back! Suckers!

Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government
http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2571

Money Quotes:

Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.

Call Congress and Tell Them to Oppose The eBay Reporting Provision in the Housing Bill: 1-866-928-3035

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking."

"Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers.

"At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications."

From the Senate Bill Summary:

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 11:48 PM

I think that Obama decided that opposing the bill would be giving a hostage to fortune. If it came out that there was some intercept that had something to do with a terror plot, or could be spun that way, then Obama could be toast. All the signs for him are so good right now that he refused to take that chance.

I am one of those who've donated to him, and will hold off until I am over my disappointment. I guess I just have to place my faith in the man, rather than the policies. Obama does seem to understand civil liberties, which is more than I would say about McCain. But it's far from ideal.

Posted by Hal | June 21, 2008 12:24 AM

Telecom immunity is particularly important to the technolibertarian contingent that spans both the online left and center-right, but it's not particularly important to anyone else. Practically, it's virtually irrelevant, for the following reasons:

(1) It's impossible to get standing to sue for FISA violations, because under recent, tangentially related Supreme Court decisions, a complaint has to include specific evidence of the violation alleged in order to procede to discovery.

(2) FISA is not likely to be found to create a private right of action, anyway.

(3) Even at the discovery stage, evidence of violations is likely to be indiscoverable because of the expansive view of national security privilege taken by modern courts.

(4) Past the discovery stage, the telecoms' specific agreements with the government likely indemnify them against any civil suit.

(5) This brings us to the federal government as the potential defendant. Sovereign immunity is likely to protect the feds against civil suit.

Even without specific immunity, the telecoms are likely to have ironclad protection against a suit: first, you have to determine whose rights have been violated, then demonstrate the facts, then deflect a challenge to the national security importance of the damage done, then bypass the telecoms' contract with the government and finally overcome sovereign immunity. Then you have to prove damages, which -- if there wasn't a criminal prosecution -- are likely to be nominal.

This is the worst lawsuit possible, and even if successful, won't cost the telecoms a dime. It would be much easier to go after the people actually responsible for criminal violations of FISA.

-- ACS

Posted by ACS | June 21, 2008 3:33 AM

I agree ACS, this fight is really over the principle against the odiousness of retroactive immunity and the bitter fact that there are no other avenues open to pursue. But in an ideal world congress would be prosecuting the president over breaking the law.

Posted by miguel | June 21, 2008 7:23 AM

They're in the firking majority, this excuse doesn't cut it anymore.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 21, 2008 8:24 AM

ACS, Pelosi claimed that the most important facet of dem control of congress was subpeona power. That was a lie. Nonetheless, congress is perfectly capable of investigating wrongdoing, and under a new president that wouldn't just say fuck off and ignore subpoenas, something could indeed be discovered. Considering how obvious it is that seeral laws were deliberately broken, I think the odds are strong that a good faith investigation would be fruitful in uncovering wrongdoing. And as always, if the telecoms did nothing wrong and/or there is insufficient proof of wrongdoing to be dispositive in a court of law, then there is no need to do anything. That there is so much effort to create a law that you claim to be meaningless makes me think you have no idea how politicians respond to incentives.

It should also be noted that the main immunity that is deplorable is the immunity given to politicans and executive officials that deliberately broke the law. My guess is that they did so for a (few) reason(s). When you think about how the fisa court let the administration do whatever the fuck it wanted to, there must have been serious improprieties if the admin thought that even a rubberstamp court was too constraining.

Posted by Client #11 | June 21, 2008 8:51 AM

It is still true that we need to elect more and better democrats. Since the primaries are over it is too late to punish the bad apples, but we should reward the good democrats we have now. 538 has a list of dems in competitive districts and how they voted, and those that stayed on the side of the angels despite facing a tough election ahead deserve support:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Posted by l e o | June 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Back when I was living in Oak Park, some very progressive people got me interested in and enthusiastic about the senate campaign of some guy I hadn't heard of named Obama. At the time, I wouldn't have self identified as a liberal, although my Bush era malaise was well in gear. As you all know at this point, that unknown running for Senate spoke at the Democratic convention and became a superstar.

And then we had several years of nothing. Despite his stardom, despite his charisma, issue after important issue came up and slid on by without him making a ripple. He voted against some bad stuff and for some iffy stuff, and stayed out of sight. When my other senator, Durbin spent an entire week getting crucified for basically saying 'Hey guys, this stuff we're doing sounds like thug shit the nazis or the commies used to do', his whole party, including the junior senator, left him hanging in the wind to the brutal right wing noise.

So when Obama launched his campaign for president, I knew what to expect. He's cautious. He's good at making independants and progressives both feel like he's on their side. But he's basically just on his side. After weighing Hillary's history of DLC friendly frag from the right, and Obama's opportunism, I threw my support, such little as it was, behind Edwards, who at least rejected the idea that admitting you made a mistake is a sign of weakness.

I suspect Matt's right. Obama's quite comfortable with infinite spying power being given to him on a silver platter by the republicans. And as digby pointed out, the fact that he wants that power is as good a reason as any not to give it to him.

Who knows. Maybe this will save the soul of the republican party. Maybe a few years of wiretapping being used to hurt corporations, hurt criminal lobbying agencies, hurt republican coruption operations, will turn them back into civil libertarians on spying. I don't know. All I do know, to borrow a Transmetropolitan reference, is that it's getting a little 'Smiler' up in here.

Posted by Mhoram | June 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Melenkurion abatha, Mhoram! How ironic is it that you call Obama opportunistic, and then say you supported Edwards. The guy spent much of the primary running against his own record.

Posted by Bannor | June 21, 2008 10:51 AM

Oops! Closing italics...

Posted by Bannor | June 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Bannor-
I direct you to the subordinate clause of the sentence you're refering to.

Edwards running against the Edwards record was better in my mind that DLC in sheeps clothing or Obama who had freshly established track record as an empty suit on issues.

Posted by Mhoram | June 21, 2008 11:10 AM

Bannor-
I direct you to the subordinate clause of the sentence you're refering to.

Edwards running against the Edwards record was better in my mind than another DLC in populist clothing or Obama who had freshly established track record as an empty suit on issues.

Also, during the end of the Clinton years I realized that the steady litany of middle-class this and middle-class that coming out of every politicians' mouth omitted at least one, rather vulnerable group. I didn't have the political history at that point to know that Regan had made the poor radioactive to talk about. And I profoundly respected that Edwards in fact seemed willing to engage the issues of poverty in America.

Posted by Mhoram | June 21, 2008 11:13 AM

It's not "the Democrats," it's just nearly half of the Democrats, their Congressional leadership, and their Presidential candidate who support this shredding of the Constitution?

Well okay then! More and better Democrats! And a winning lotto ticket! Ponies! Free sex!

What the fuck ever. This is the Democrats, or "the Democrats" if you prefer, all the fucking way. The spin by smart liberal bloggers is pathetic with desperation to dress up this pigs' breakfast.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | June 21, 2008 11:26 AM

This is not a thing to be proud of. Playing the glass is half full game because some democrats voted the right way is unacceptable. No pride here. It is not the job of journalist' and bloggers to try and avoid painful truths about one's party and cover for the powerful.

This is a big deal. Half of our party does not follow the constitution as it concerns a citizen's right to privacy from government intrusion and the the protection of dissent.

Martin Luther king, anybody? Shameful shit.

Posted by jeff | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Among liberal bloggers and liberal blog commenters, "lots of folks are upset" about the Democrats' (and Obama's) stance on FISA.

Outside of that small and not particularly influential world, however, I doubt that many people are particularly upset.

Yeah, that explains Congress's 11% approval rating.

Posted by Thers | June 21, 2008 1:07 PM

I suppose they could have tried to obfuscate and hold out until Obama is sworn in, but what could they have done that wouldn't have shut down government for the next 6 months?

Posted by TH | June 21, 2008 3:12 PM

"what could they have done that wouldn't have shut down government for the next 6 months"

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 21, 2008 8:45 PM

Geez, guys, you don't have to work too hard to figure this one out. Congressional leadership positions go to those who help their constituents (read: other representatives) keep their jobs.

"For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it.

[this is from the Time article quoted by Greenwald]

The Democratic leadership is just maximizing their benefit, and with precious little risk. Sure, I'm upset that few in Congress believe in something so basic and important as civil rights, but they're politicians, not normal ethical humans. For the most part they're cynical calculating opportunists, and it's our responsibility to push them to do the right thing by increasing the price they pay for doing the wrong thing. That's what the actblue FISA initiative is all about. So get over your disappointment, give money, write and call your congresscritter.

Posted by Jay | June 22, 2008 11:21 AM

So, a couple days after I noted that the anti-telco immunity campaign had attracted just under 5,000 donors, it currently has... 5,272. Still a pretty weak showing.

If the "netroots" want to maintain their delusions of extreme importance, they should probably focus on issues that actually have widespread resonance outside of the internet.

Posted by N | June 22, 2008 6:22 PM

FISA Nos

Comments (50)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories