With the Daily Digest turning a year old (and starting to get pretty portly on a regular basis), we thought we’d experiment with splitting it into two parts. This may not happen every day, just on an as-needed basis. But with the campaign season really heating up, we may need to do this a lot! Without further ado:
NY-Gov: Gov. David Paterson’s free-fall is so spectacular that it’s actually interfering with AG Andrew Cuomo’s investigation of Paterson’s alleged interference in the abuse case against his top aide. Apparently, aides are so eager to brandish their knives in the press that various accounts are coming out publicly before Cuomo’s team can conduct proper interviews, making it hard to get the straight story. Talk about perverse luck for Paterson – though I’m sure it won’t make a difference in the long run.
AL-02: State Board of Education member Stephanie Bell has officially entered the Republican primary for Alabama’s 2nd CD. She’ll face off against NRCC Young Gun Martha Roby and teabagging businessman Rick “The Barber” Barber.
GA-07: As expected, state Rep. Clay Cox has jumped into the race to succeed John Linder. Cox says he’s a teabagger, loud and proud. Since most ‘baggers tend to be of the Some Dude variety (at best), this has to count as a pretty good get for the tea partiers. (TheUnknown has further updates on the race and the downballot implications.)
NY-24: Mike Arcuri has decided to employ the John Kerry strategy: Even though he already voted for healthcare the first time around, now he’s saying he might vote against it. What a profile in courage. Arcuri’s complaints sound like a laundry-list of right-wing talking points. Who’s advising this guy, Lanny Davis and Al From?
NY-29: “Shotgun” Randy Kuhl, the man Eric Massa beat in 2008, says he is weighing a comeback. Ex-Corning Mayor Tom Reed has been in the race for a while, but hasn’t raised much and is probably considered shoveable-asidable by bigger players. Some other names in the mix for the GOP include Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks, state Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, and state Sens. Cathy Young and George Winner (R). (Remember the last time we ran against the Assembly minority leader in upstate NY?)
The Dem bench, as Crisitunity noted, is hella thin in these parts, but apparently Assemblyman David Koon is putting out feelers. Hornell (pop. 9K) Mayor Shawn Hogan has also been mentioned as a possibility.
Also of note, several outfits now report that Massa informed Steny Hoyer about the sexual harassment allegations against him a few weeks ago. Yet before anyone jumps to conclusions, this is no Mark Foley scandal. Hoyer told Massa to report himself to the Ethics Committee, and Massa did just that.
Minnesota: In order to comply with a new federal law mandating that overseas voters have sufficient time to mail in their ballots, Gov. Tim Pawlenty finally signed a bill into law which changes MN’s primary from Sep. 14 to Aug. 10. This makes Minnesota the first state with a late primary to resolve this problem – quite a few others will likely need to make similar arrangements.
Texas: Get a load of this: Former GOP state Rep. Rick Green was ousted by Dem Patrick Rose in 2002. Four years later, he punched Rose in the face at a polling location. Now, this bag of dicks is in a run-off for the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil court. Kath Haenschen wants to know: “If Rick Green loses the run-off, will he punch Debra Lehrmann in the face?”
Given the absurd number of races on the ballot in Texas, I’m sure Green wasn’t the only maniac to do well last night. In fact, Dems have at least one problem of their own: Kesha Rogers, a LaRouchie who won the nomination in TX-22 (Nick Lampson’s old seat) on a platform of impeaching President Obama. Says Rogers’ website:
The victory in the 22nd Congressional District yesterday by LaRouche Democrat Kesha Rogers sent an unmistakable message to the White House, and its British imperial controllers: Your days are numbered.
Fortunately, a spokesperson for the Texas Democratic Party said, “LaRouche members are not Democrats. I guarantee her campaign will not receive a single dollar from anyone on our staff.” Or pounds sterling.
Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is finished with Congress after a single term, he plans to announce in a press conference call today, sources confirm to Hotline OnCall.
Massa, a former top aide on the House Armed Services Committee and aide to ret. Gen. Wes Clark, will cite health reasons in his announcement, the New York Daily News, which broke the story, reported today, though Massa warned a source for the paper about “hearing things that aren’t true,” a seemingly veiled reference to embarrassing information that may emerge.
Massa has been consistently marching to the beat of his own drummer in his year in Congress (since narrowly taking out incumbent GOP Rep. Randy Kuhl in 2008)… voting against health care reform, ostensibly from the left, and against foreclosure reform. So, bailing on his seat (especially after his cryptic will-he-won’t-he re-election announcement several months ago) doesn’t seem that out of character.
As much as replacing Massa with someone more consistent would be nice, an open seat throws the DCCC for one more loop. The mostly rural district centered on Elmira is an R+5 district, possibly the toughest in New York, and Corning mayor Tom Reed is a reasonably strong Republican opponent, touted by the NRCC (although he certainly hasn’t set the world on fire with his fundraising), and, as one of the few loud-and-proud moderates running this cycle for the GOP, may be poised to follow in the footsteps of the district’s beloved ex-Rep. Amo Houghton.
UPDATE: Massa’s spokesperson says he’s leaving because of a recurrence of cancer. Best wishes to Massa as he focuses on his health.
UPDATE: Looking at state legislative maps, this looks like a real dead zone in terms of a Dem bench… nothing in the state Senate, thanks to the hegemony of the GOP old-timers staying on. In the state Assembly, looks like David Koon in Perriton overlaps a bit in the Rochester suburbs. We may want to go the Scott Murphy/Bill Owens charismatic guy-with-money approach anyway.
LATER UPDATE (James): Yikes. The Politico has a dramatically different take on why Massa is retiring, citing allegations that he sexually harassed a male staffer. They also cite a few new potential Republican candidates: Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks, state Assemblyman Brian Kolb and state Senator Kathy Young.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Sources are now saying that Massa plans to resign today, which would further complicate the health care reform vote in the House. (Wait… or does it? He voted against it the first time, and since he voted against it from the left doesn’t seem likely to have budged.)
STILL MORE: No, it sounds like he’s retiring at the end of his term… although his prognosis doesn’t sound good, as he said he’ll be “entering the final phase of his life at a controlled pace.”
• CO-Sen, CO-07: An interesting move in Colorado, where Aurora city councilor Ryan Frazier dropped his Senate bid (which was plausible when other Republicans weren’t interested in the race, but relegated to longshot status when his fundraising stalled and ex-Lt. Gov. Jane Norton got into the field). Instead, he’ll be getting into the CO-07 race against sophomore Dem Rep. Ed Perlmutter. In some ways, that’ll be a harder general election — at D+4, the 7th is more Democratic than the state as a whole, and Perlmutter got 63% in his 2008 re-election — but this way he’ll at least make it into the general election, which will help raise the 32-year-old Frazier’s profile for future efforts.
• CT-Sen: How sadly transparent a play to the party’s base is this? Ex-Rep. Rob Simmons, who in the two years prior to his 2006 defeat was the 5th most liberal Republican in the House, is now a teabagger. He says he’s attached an actual bag of tea to his pocket copy of the Constitution.
• FL-Sen: In an effort to have no more George LeMieuxs, there’s a bipartisan effort afoot in the Florida state legislature to change the law so that Senate vacancies in Florida will be filled by fast special election rather than by appointment. State Sen. Paula Dockery, who may be running for Governor soon, is the Republican co-sponsor.
• IL-Sen: David Hoffman, the former Inspector General of Chicago (and frequent monkeywrench in that city’s machine), has released an internal poll showing that state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, while starting with a sizable lead, doesn’t have a mortal lock on the Democratic Senate nomination. Hoffman’s poll finds Giannoulias at 26%, with former Chicago Urban League head Cheryle Jackson at 12 and Hoffman at 7, leaving 55% undecided. On the GOP side of the aisle, Mark Kirk continues to shuffle to the right as he faces some competition in his own primary: he continues to defend his flip-flop on the cap-and-trade vote that he voted for in the House and would vote against in the Senate, but also says that he’d keep in place the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, saying “Keeping that all out of the workplace makes common sense.”
• MA-Sen: In case there was any doubt AG Martha Coakley was running under the mantle of the establishment’s candidate, she unleashed a torrent of endorsements yesterday, including about half of the state legislature (78 representatives and 16 senators, including both chambers’ leaders), as well as many mayors and labor unions.
• MO-Sen: Joe Biden continues to ramp up his fundraising efforts on behalf of 2010 candidates; he’ll be appearing at a Robin Carnahan fundraiser in St. Louis tomorrow. And on Friday, he’ll appear in Nevada with Harry Reid to tout the stimulus.
• NV-Sen, Gov: On the off chance that John Ensign decides to spare us all the embarrassment and resign before 2010, Gov. Jim Gibbons says that he wouldn’t appoint former AG Brian Sandoval to the job (despite that getting Sandoval out of the way would make his own chances of surviving the gubernatorial primary somewhat better). Gibbons also says he wouldn’t appoint himself (since that would just mean likely defeat in the primary in the ensuing 2010 special election).
• OH-Sen: Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher picked up an endorsement from Rep. John Boccieri of the Canton-area 16th District today. Boccieri joins Tim Ryan, Zack Space, and Charlie Wilson in endorsing Fisher in the Dem primary; the remaining six Dems in the state’s delegation haven’t picked sides yet.
• OR-Gov: Not one but three possible new entrants in the Oregon gubernatorial race, although I can’t see any of them getting anywhere. On the Dem side, former Hewlett-Packard executive Steve Shields says he’ll announce on Thursday that he’s getting into the Democratic primary field. He wasn’t at the Carly Fiorina levels of management (which, uh, may actually be a good thing) and doesn’t bring a personal fortune to the race, but he has hired some pricey staffers already. On the GOP side, very large, very slow, very white former Portland Trail Blazers center Chris Dudley is interested in the race (after having declined the NRCC to run in OR-05). No one is sure where exactly he fits in ideologically in the GOP; at any rate, here’s hoping he’s a better campaigner than he was a free throw shooter. And out on the left, Jerry Wilson, the founder of Soloflex, is going to run under the Oregon Progressive Party banner. If the general were likely to be closer, a third-party lefty with his own money would seem threatening, but so far, with John Kitzhaber in, the race isn’t shaping up to be close.
• VA-Gov: Al Gore will be appearing on Creigh Deeds’ behalf on Friday, although it’ll be at a private fundraiser and not a public appearance.
• FL-08: With the surprising decision of former state Sen. Daniel Webster to beg off from facing Rep. Alan Grayson, all of a sudden the floodgates have opened — and not in the way you’d expect. Prospective candidates are now actively running away from the race, starting with state Rep. Steve Precourt, who was supposed to be Plan D but said he won’t run and will go for re-election to his state House seat instead. This was followed by wealthy businessman Jerry Pierce, who had previously gotten into the race and promised to spend $200,000 of his own money, but then mysteriously dropped out yesterday. Another rumored rich guy, Tim Seneff, already begged off last week — which means that 28-year-old real estate developer and South Florida transplant Armando Gutierrez Jr. may be the last GOPer standing — and even he sounds like he’s having problems launching his campaign. What kind of mysterious powers does Alan Grayson have here? (Well, other than many millions of his own money and a willingness to spend it…)
• FL-19: It’s been revealed that Rep. Robert Wexler’s new job will not be in the Obama administration, but rather as president of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. The special election date won’t be set until Wexler’s resignation has been made official, though.
• IN-02: It’s official: state Rep. “Wacky” Jackie Walorski will be taking on Rep. Joe Donnelly in the 2nd, bringing the full might of the teabaggers’ movement down upon him.
• IN-08: Also in Indiana, the Republicans lined up a challenger to Rep. Brad Ellsworth, who’s gotten more than 60% of the vote in both his elections in this Republican-leaning seat. Larry Bucshon, a surgeon, is a political novice, but would seem to bring his own money to the race.
• NV-03: In Nevada’s 3rd, it looks like former state Sen. Joe Heck won’t have the Republican primary field to himself. Real estate investor Rob Lauer is getting in the race and says he’ll invest $100K of his own money in the campaign.
• NY-23: Politico has some encouraging dirt on the special election in the 23rd: Republican Dede Scozzafava is dangerously low on cash, and that’s largely because the RNC has declined to get involved in the race. Scozzafava has spent only $26K on TV ads and recently had to pull down an ad in the Syracuse market; by contrast, Dem Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman have spent $303K and $124K on TV, respectively. (Discussion underway in conspiracy‘s diary.) Adding further fuel to the GOP/Conservative split is that Mike Huckabee will be appearing in Syracuse to address the NY Conservative Party. Huckabee hasn’t actually endorsed Hoffman, but the timing can’t exactly be a coincidence.
• NY-29: This slipped through the cracks over the weekend; after a cryptic e-mail that led to some hyperventilating about whether Eric Massa wouldn’t run for re-election, he announced at a press conference on the 10th that, yes, in fact, he will be back. Massa faces a challenge in 2010 from Corning mayor Tom Reed.
• ME-Init: A poll from PanAtlantic SMS points to the anti-gay marriage Question 1 in Maine going down to defeat (meaning that gay marriage would survive). With gay advocacy groups learning from their California mistakes last year and going on the offensive with ads this time, the poll finds the proposition losing 52-43.
• Legislatures: Democrats lost two legislative seats in special elections last night, a state House seat in Tennessee and a state House seat in Oklahoma. It’s a bigger deal in Tennessee, where Dem Ty Cobb widely lost to GOPer Pat Marsh in his effort to succeed his brother (losing 4,931 to 3,663); the GOP now holds a 51-48 numeric edge in the House, although it sounds like the Dems will keep controlling the chamber for now. In Oklahoma, Republican Todd Russ won with 56% en route to picking up a seat left vacant by a Democratic resignation, moving the GOP’s edge in the state House to 61-39. Both were rural districts with Democratic registration edges but extremely Republican tilts as of late, where historic Democratic downballot advantages are drying up.
• NYC: After looking kind of vulnerable in the previous SurveyUSA poll, mayor Michael Bloomberg bounced back in yesterday’s poll. He leads Democratic city comptroller William Thompson, 55-38.
• King Co. Exec: Also from SurveyUSA, a troubling look at the King County Executive Race, where the stealth Republican candidate Susan Hutchison leads Democratic county councilor Dow Constantine, 47-42. This is the first time county executive has been a nonpartisan race, and you’ve gotta wonder how many people are unaware of Hutchison’s Republican past (for her to be polling this well in such a blue county, it would seem that she picked up a fair number of votes from suburban moderate Dems who voted for state Sen. Fred Jarrett or state Rep. Ross Hunter in the primary and who may be loath to see another Seattlite like Constantine get the job). This race, to be decided in November, may be something of a canary in the coal mine, as it puts to the test the seemingly new Republican strategy of running blonde 50-something women with little partisan track record, having them steer clear of social conservatism and mostly focus on anti-tax platitudes (as seen in NV-Sen and CO-Sen, and NH-Sen as well if you disregard the “blonde” part).
• IA-Sen: Check out the nosedive in Chuck Grassley’s approvals, polled by SurveyUSA but helpfully arranged in an easy-to-view downward trajectory by Senate Guru. He’s down from 71/22 in January to 50/40 in September. Was his bad faith negotiating on health care so transparent that it moved his numbers this much? At any rate, this ought to provide some encouragement to high (or at least medium) profile Dems still considering the race.
• NC-Sen: Not much change in the newest PPP look at the North Carolina Senate race, although Richard Burr might be benefitting a bit from broader Republican momentum. Burr’s approval is still a paltry 36/35, but he’s beating Generic Dem by 45-34 now (he lost that race 41-38 in June). He beats named Democratic opponents by at least 10 points, including Rep. Bob Etheridge 44-33 and SoS Elaine Marshall 44-32.
• NV-Sen: This is not the headline you want for the launch of your campaign in Nevada, where support of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump is something akin to support for syphilis: “Yucca Dump Backer Runs for Senate.” The dump backer in question is Sue Lowden.
• KS-Gov, Sen: Nowhere is a bigger recruiting disaster for the Dems than Kansas, where they don’t have anybody lined up for the open seats for either Senate or Governor. However, it now sounds like state Dem party chair Larry Gates is expected to enter the gubernatorial race. The Senate race is a bigger question mark, although state Treasurer Dennis McKinney hasn’t exactly ruled it out.
• MD-Gov: Bill Clinton is doing some fundraising for someone not named Kendrick Meek. He’ll headline a fundraiser this week for Gov. Martin O’Malley (a Hillary endorser in 2008). O’Malley has yet to draw a noteworthy opponent for 2010.
• FL-08: Although the GOP is waiting around for state Sen. Daniel Webster to make up his mind on a run, another less-known Republican figure is charging straight into the race: 30-something real estate developer Armando Gutierrez Jr., who’s expected to announce his candidacy today. Gutierrez, via his father (who was spokesman for the Elian Gonzalez family during that bit of nastiness), is well-connected in the Cuban community. (Although, with the exception of ex-Sen. Mel Martinez, there’s not much of a Cuban political community in the Orlando area.)
• HI-01: State Sen. Colleen Hanabusa got a boost today, with an endorsement from EMILY’s List. This will give the progessive Hanabusa a nationwide fundraising profile to go against moderate ex-Rep. Ed Case in the open seat primary.
• MN-01: GOP State Sen. Julie Rosen is considering a race against Rep. Tim Walz in the rural 1st District. Rosen, however, is a prominent moderate, and she might be on the losing end of a GOP intramural fight, much as happened to state Sen. Dick Day in the 2008 primary.
• NY-15, Gov: Weird rumors were going around last week that the dual dilemmas of David Paterson and Charlie Rangel would be solved by Rangel stepping down and Paterson being given the Democratic nomination by party bosses in the ensuing special election, giving him a nice permanent job in NY-15 to pry him out of the Governor’s Mansion. Well, yesterday Paterson said thanks but no thanks.
• NY-29: This is kind of cryptic: Rep. Eric Massa says he’ll be making an important annoucement on the 10th. It may just be an announcement of his re-election, but it’s strangely worded; I’ll leave it to you to parse the verbiage.
• MT-St. Sen.: Legal trouble for the Montana state Senator who was behind the wheel in the drunk boating accident that injured Rep. Denny Rehberg and several others. Greg Barkus was hit with three felony charges for his role in the accident.
• CO-Sen: The NRSC got its sort-of-top-tier challenger to Michael Bennet in the Colorado Senate race: former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton filed to form an exploratory committee and launched her campaign website, suggesting that the exploratory period will be a brief one. Norton’s never been elected on her own (just while joined to popular Gov. Bill Owens), but, unlike the rest of the GOP field, she’s at least known statewide.
• CT-Sen, AR-Sen: Chris Dodd finally made his decision about which Senate committee to chair, and he opted to return to Banking, instead of continuing at HELP where he shepherded through health care reform legislation in Ted Kennedy’s absence. He still has a lot on his plate; he’ll be focusing on bolstering financial services regulations and creating a new banking consumer protection agency (all stuff that would seem less likely to happen if Tim Johnson took over Banking). The WaPo says that all signs point to Tom Harkin of Iowa, #2 on HELP, ditching his coveted Agriculture chair to take over HELP. This means the Agriculture chair is likely to fall to Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (bypassing a few other more senior Senators with better chairs), who, while not from a big farm state, is facing a difficult re-election and will benefit from the profile and money that come from a chair.
• LA-Sen: The Charlie Melancon campaign released an internal poll taken by Anzalone Liszt that’s getting a little stale (taken in mid-May, long before Melancon announced), but that shows Melancon in striking distance. The head-to-head has David Vitter beating Melancon 47-37 (and Melancon winning the bogus “after hearing positive info” vote 49-41). The good news is that Vitter’s re-elect number is down to 39%, with 45% preferring someone new. Melancon has 35/13 favorables.
• TX-Sen: Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst sent a letter to supporters that he’s running for re-election in 2010. While he may be the initial odds-on favorite to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate, I wouldn’t take this to mean he’s not running in the Senate special election — since he doesn’t need to give up his seat to run and he’d probably like to keep being Lt. Gov. if he loses the election, and there’s also still a possibility that KBH doesn’t resign after all, if she senses the gubernatorial primary heading south on her. (H/t DTM,B!)
• AK-Gov: No surprise here, but Democratic former state House minority leader and 2008 House candidate Ethan Berkowitz filed his candidacy papers today. He’ll likely face off against Sean Parnell, who inherited the office after Sarah Palin’s re$ignation, but first he’ll need to survive a primary against state Sen. Hollis French and Bob Poe. (Parnell will also need to survive a primary against state Rep. John Harris.)
• MA-Gov: Tim Cahill picked a strange day to make his announcement, on a day when everyone is fixated on the Massachusetts Senate race instead, but today he made official what has long been suspected: he’s running for Governor. The Dem-turned-Independent state Treasurer has a $3 million warchest, giving him a big edge over incumbent Dem Deval Patrick, who has $464K (of course, if Christy Mihos wins the GOP primary, he can put all his expenses on his own tab). Polls that have included Cahill have shown him running neck-and-neck with Patrick, although Cahill is running against tradition — there has apparently never been an Independent elected to statewide office in Massachusetts.
• MN-Gov: I’ve completely lost track of how many people are now running for Minnesota Governor — let’s just say it’s a number somewhere between 10 and 800 — but one more guy got in the race on Labor Day: state Rep. Tom Rukavina, for the DFL. Rukavina is from the town of Virginia in the rural but very pro-union Iron Range.
• OR-Gov: While the Dem side of the Oregon Governor’s race is narrowing, the GOP side keeps growing: former state Senator John Lim from Portland’s eastern suburbs said he’d get in. Lim is best-known for losing the 1998 Senate race to Ron Wyden (with a whopping 34% of the vote).
• SC-Gov: While it’s unclear whether “calls for resignation” on Mark Sanford’s part will ever turn into a tangible move for impeachment or just some pre-emptive ass-covering by state Republicans so it looked like they tried, those calls are getting louder. The state’s House Speaker, Bobby Harrell, made the call yesterday, and now there’s talk of a letter with the signatures of at least 60 House GOPers (out of 72, and almost half the entire House) calling on Sanford to step down.
• VT-Gov: As we reported yesterday, Vermont Auditor Tom Salmon did in fact follow through on his decision to switch to from the Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Salmon sounds likely to run again for Auditor, saying there’s a “10% chance” he’ll run for Governor instead. Salmon said that he’d support Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie if Dubie were to run for Governor, and wouldn’t challenge him in a primary. There’s been no word from Dubie, though, on what he plans to do.
• FL-08: Rep. Alan Grayson… well, let me try to be kind here and say that he courageously ignores all that conventional wisdom about who and who not to piss off. He’s picking a fight with his hometown paper, the Orlando Sentinel, referring to them in a fundraising e-mail as “a trashy tabloid that dresses up bias and gossip as news.”
• FL-24: Former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz may have decided against a run in his current home district, the 24th, but he’s holding a fundraiser on behalf of Winter Park city councilor Karen Diebel, one of the three GOPers seeking the nod to go against Rep. Suzanne Kosmas in this R+4 district.
• IL-10: Bob Dold is running for the GOP nomination in the 10th District, joining state Rep. Beth Coulson and rich guys Dick Green and Bill Cadigan. Bob Dold is a lawyer who also owns a pest control business. In keeping with district’s lean, Bob Dold says that Bob Dold is fiscally conservative and socially moderate.
• NE-02: Jim Esch, who’s coming off two back-to-back losses to GOP Rep. Lee Terry, switched his party affiliation to “independent” last week, but said yesterday that he has no plans to seek elected office at any level in the future. Esch defended his decision to the Omaha World-Herald: “I feel a little hypocritical when I go to Democratic parties and say, ‘I’m a Democrat’ when I don’t believe in the party.” (J)
Meanwhile, across town, state Sen. Tom White (who’s apparently still a Democrat) officially launched his campaign against Terry today.
• PA-03: Suddenly there’s a backlog of challengers to Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, the Dem freshman in this R+3 district. Republican Meadville businessman Paul Huber, who ran a heating equipment company and served on a local medical center board, filed campaign paperwork. AG’s office investigator Elaine Surma is already in the race for the GOP, and former Erie County Solicitor John Onorato sounds likely to run.
• PA-06: Here’s a likely minor, but certainly interesting, challenge to Doug Pike (who seems to have the establishment support locked down) in the Democratic primary in the open seat race in the 6th. Manan Trivedi is a Reading native born to Indian immigrants; he is an Iraq vet and a primary care physician. He formally announced his campaign yesterday.
• Redistricting: Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has gone off the deep end in anticipation of the next round of redistricting in Indiana: he wants to make it a felony to consider politics in the redistricting process. Um… considering that Rokita is a Republican and that Republicans are likely to control the redistricting process post-2010, I don’t quite get it. (And neither do Republican legislators, who are telling him to shut up.)
• Votes: The Hill compiles a list of 23 Democrats who have indicated opposition to “the health care plan moving through the House.” (Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose up to 38 votes.) It’s unclear what “opposition” means, and the rationale isn’t always the same (Eric Massa, for instance, opposes it, but only because he’s stuck in single-payer mode), but it’s an interesting list, generally of the vulnerable and/or the hardcore Blue Doggish (although New Jersey’s John Adler strangely stands out like a sore thumb).
• AR-Sen: Blanche Lincoln is getting yet another challenger, except this time it’s a Democrat: Bob Johnson (no, not thatBob Johnson… he’s the Arkansas Senate President, and former Arkansas House Speaker). Surely the netroots will rejoice that conservadem Lincoln, known for her foot-dragging on EFCA, is getting a primary challenge. Um, except there’s the small fact that Johnson would be running against Lincoln from the right. (Johnson held a fundraiser for Republican state Senator Gilbert Baker last fall, who may well be the Republican Senate nominee.)
• FL-Sen: One more fossil got unearthed by Charlie Crist as he seeks applications for potential Senate replacements for Mel Martinez: former Representative Lou Frey, a 75-year-old who served in the House from the Orlando area from 1968 to 1978. Crist is still planning to interview current Rep. Bill Young, as well as former Reps. Clay Shaw and Mike Bilirakis. Follow the link to see all 10 current possible replacements.
• IL-Sen: With the Democratic Senate field suddenly down to two candidates, Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and local Urban League president Cheryle Jackson, there’s still some of the inevitable casting-about for someone else going on. An unnamed “top Dem” is reportedly encouraging Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart to make the race. Dart is a former state legislator who made big news recently for suspending foreclosure evictions.
• MO-Sen: Michael Steele just referred to Roy Blunt as crap. Well, not in the most literal sense. There was an extended toilet metaphor on a conservative radio talk show and Steele went along with the host’s anti-Blunt anti-insider arguments. Still, the Carnahan ads write themselves.
• NY-Sen-B: Kirsten Gillibrand got yet another endorsement from her House colleagues, from freshman Rep. Eric Massa. Siena is also out with a new New York poll. Gillibrand trails the unlikely-to-run ex-Gov. George Pataki in a hypothetical head-to-head, 42-39 while whomping the only slightly-less-likely-to-run Rep. Peter King, 46-24. (They didn’t poll the Dem primary, where Jonathan Tasini is Gillibrand’s last challenger standing.)
• CA-Gov: Meg Whitman’s campaign strategy seems to be to duck debates and let her money do her talking for her instead. Here’s another eyebrow-raising development, that’s potentially a good line of attack for Dems (or her primary challengers): Whitman didn’t register to vote in California til 2002 (or as a Republican until 2007), and has missed voting in more than half the elections since then, including the 2003 recall.
• MA-Gov: Rasmussen looks at the Massachusetts Governor’s race, and finds I-turned-R Christy Mihos leading incumbent Dem Deval Patrick 40-35, up from a 41-40 lead in June. Patrick leads Republican Charlie Baker 40-39. The utility of this poll is close to zero, though, seeing as how it leaves out likely D-turned-I candidate Tim Cahill, whom polls have found either absorbing enough anti-Patrick votes to let Patrick squeak through, or else winning outright.
• NY-Gov: There’s a certain role about holes, shovels, and not digging that David Paterson seems to be forgetting. He lashed out at critics saying he should stand down for re-election, accusing them of racial bias, and even launched into the media for their coverage (which I don’t think has ever ended well for a politician). The aforementioned Siena poll finds Paterson losing the Dem primary to Andrew Cuomo 65-23, and the general to Rudy Giuliani 56-33 (although he does beat Rick Lazio, 38-37). Cuomo beats Giuliani 53-40, and beats Lazio by a hilarious 66-16 (OK, that’s not as hilarious as the GOP primary, where Giuliani beats Lazio 73-6, with 8 for Erie Co. Exec Chris Collins).
• SC-Gov: Cue up the “frequent flier” jokes. Turns out Mark Sanford, already known for his little jaunt to Argentina and his overeager use of state planes, has also failed to disclose at least 35 flights on private planes that should have been listed on ethics forms or campaign disclosures as ‘things of value.’
• IN-09: Could we really see Hill/Sodrel 5.0? American politics’ most repetitive rivalry may well continue on into 2010, as GOP ex-Rep. Mike Sodrel says he’ll weigh another bid against Rep. Baron Hill in the 9th as soon as he’s done with the book that he’s coloring writing.
• MI-13, 14: Detroiters are feeling surly about their Representatives, it seems. A poll by Deno Noor Polling finds both Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and John Conyers with negative re-elect numbers: 27/58 for Kilpatrick and 40/44 for Conyers. Not a surprise for Kilpatrick, whose son got bounced out as Detroit’s mayor and who barely survived a primary herself last year, but it’s a new development for Conyers, the second-longest-serving House member; assumedly, this has a lot to do with the conviction of his wife, ex-city councilor Monica Conyers, on bribery charges.
• OR-04: I’d be sad too if I was watching my once-promising House bid crash and burn more than a year out from the election. Republican Springfield mayor Sid Leiken teared up repeatedly during a news conference where he finally announced that he didn’t have documentation for the $2,000 in cash that somehow found its way from his campaign to his mother. He’ll repay the $2,000 out of pocket, he says, but the Sec. of State investigation continues.
• PA-07: Here’s a good photo op for Dem state Rep. Bryan Lentz, running to succeed Rep. Joe Sestak. He’s appearing at the White House to discuss energy policy with Obama administration officials and other energy policy leaders.
• VA-05: Conventional wisdom seems to be coalescing around state Sen. Robert Hurt as GOP nominee; one GOP operative says he’s “60% leaning toward the race.” His state Senate district overlaps about one-quarter of the 5th. State Del. Rob Bell, who was frequently mentioned earlier, seems hard-pressed to win his off-year re-election this year and turn around and take on Rep. Tom Perriello. Two other state Senators sound interested, Frank Ruff and Steve Newman, but sound likely to defer to Hurt if he gets in.
• Seattle Mayor: Primary elections in Seattle were last week, and in typical Washington fashion, ballots from the all-mail-in election are still being counted. In a serious surprise, two-term mayor Greg Nickels won’t be coming back, as he finished third in the top-two nonpartisan primary at 25%. No worries, as he’ll be replaced by someone just as, if not more so, liberal, although someone who’s never held elective office before: the top 2 are local Sierra Club president Mike McGinn (at 28%) and T-Mobile VP and big-time Obama bundler Joe Mallahan (at 27%).
Meanwhile, the King Co. Executive race is down to two. It’s the first time it’s been an officially nonpartisan position (after a GOP-led initiative to change it to nonpartisan passed, as this is the only way a Republican will ever get elected), but everyone still knows that former news anchor Susan Hutchison (who got 37%) is the Republican and county councilor Dow Constantine (who got 22%) is the Democrat. That looks daunting at first, but there were no other major Republicans and three other top-tier Dems in the race (county councilor Larry Phillips, state Sen. Fred Jarrett, and state Rep. Ross Hunter). The four Dems put together got 56%, so, no, King County isn’t going to elect a Republican in November.
• Polltopia: Where should PPP poll next: New Jersey or Virginia? You decide. (Tom Jensen says they’d planned to do New Jersey but skipped it to do Arkansas this week, where he hints at some blood-curdling numbers.)
• CT-Sen: Economist/talking head Peter Schiff, who’s been talking himself up for Chris Dodd’s Senate seat, released an internal poll taken for him by Wilson Research Strategies. Schiff, from the Paulist wing of the party, loses the general to Dodd, 42-38; the bad news here is that, despite the AIG imbroglio falling down the memory hole, Dodd is still significantly behind ex-Rep. Rob Simmons, 47-38. One thing the poll doesn’t test (or at least release publicly): results in the GOP primary.
• OH-Sen: Car dealer Tom Ganley announced his candidacy for the GOP primary for the open Senate seat. (I thought he’d already announced on April 2, but I guess he needed to remind the media of his existence.) Ganley owns 38 dealerships, so he’s not just your average used car dealer; he vows to self-fund significantly in his uphill fight against Rob Portman.
• MN-Gov: Minnesota’s Independence Party seems determined to field a major candidate in 2010’s ultra-confusing gubernatorial race, and at the top of their wish list is ex-Rep. Jim Ramstad. Ramstad’s name has occasionally been linked to the race as a Republican, but he may be too moderate to make it out of the activist-dominated nominating process. Ramstad’s popularity would make him one to watch in the general, but he’d be laboring under the IP label, whose candidates (including moderate Dem ex-Rep. Tim Penny, who ran for Governor in 2002) have had trouble getting out of the 10-15% range this decade.
• NJ-Gov: Yet another poll of the New Jersey governor’s race, and while it still has Jon Corzine losing to Chris Christie, I’m going to file this in the “good news” column, as it has Corzine down by only 6, with Christie under 50%: 45-39. Interestingly, New Jerseyites seem to understand that the state has become fools gold to Republicans: despite their preferences, they still think Corzine will win, 46-38. Corzine also has a campaign appearance scheduled for July 16 with someone who’s actually maintaining a 62% approval rating in New Jersey (which would translate into about 105% approval in a normal state): Barack Obama. Which, I think, is the first in-the-flesh appearance Obama has made on behalf of any candidate since getting elected.
• NY-Gov: Maybe I’m feeling extra charitable today, but I’m also going to file yesterday’s Marist poll in the “good news” column, because it actually shows David Paterson beating someone: he tops feeble ex-Rep. Rick Lazio 41-40 in a potential matchup. Of course, he still loses to everyone else, whether Andrew Cuomo in a primary (69-24) or Rudy Giuliani in the general (54-37, although that’s also an improvement from May). In case you’re wondering how a Cuomo/Lazio matchup would go, Cuomo would win 68-22.
• SC-Gov: Well, maybe publicly proclaiming that your mistress is your “soulmate” and that you’ve had run-ins with other women (but never crossed “the sex line”) isn’t the best way to keep your job. After it looked like Mark Sanford was successfully digging in for the last few days, the tide seems to be turning: Columbia’s The State says that 12 (of 27) state Senate Republicans have signed a letter to Sanford asking him to resign (including state Sen. Larry Grooms, who’s running to replace Sanford and would suffer having to run against LG Andre Bauer as an incumbent), with 4 more on the record as supporting it but not signing it, or leaning in that direction; Jim DeMint also asked Sanford to pack it in. While the Columbia and Charleston papers haven’t called for resignation, the News in Greenville yesterday joined the Spartanburg Herald-Journal (the twin cities of the state’s bible belt) in publishing an editorial doing so.
• NY-23: Looks like moderate GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who has attracted the interest of both parties in the NY-23 special election, is going full-speed-ahead on the GOP side. She told supporters she’ll be “aggressively seeking her party’s nomination.”
• NY-29: Corning (pop. 11,000) mayor Tom Reed announced that he’ll run against freshman Rep. Eric Massa in 2010. Reed seems to be running as an out-and-proud moderate, with the Main Street Partnership expected to support him. The NRCC has identified him as a leading recruit but hasn’t endorsed him, with several other candidates reportedly still exploring the race. (For what it’s worth, Corning is the hometown of Amo Houghton, former Corning Glass CEO and popular GOP moderate who held this seat for decades.)
• PA-15: I’m starting to like Bethlehem mayor John Callahan more and more, as it’s come out that in 2005 he proved he can match Rahm Emanuel F-bomb-for-F-bomb. Callahan’s response to Emanuel’s needling that “Are you tired of being fucking mayor yet?” was “It’s better than being a fucking congressman.” (The only reason this is relevant today is that the NRCC is now using this incident to argue that he’s now disqualified from becoming a congressman.)
• TN-03: Former GOP state chair Robin Smith made it official, that she’s running to replace Zach Wamp in the 3rd. She had previously quit her party job to focus full-time on exploring the race, so no surprise here; Smith is the likely GOP frontrunner.
• NRCC: The NRCC wasted no time in launching ads to go after the potentially vulnerable House Dems who voted yes on cap-and-trade. Rep. Tom Perriello is the recipient of the dread TV ad this time, while they also took out radio spots and robocalls against Harry Teague, Rick Boucher, Bruce Braley, Betsy Markey, Vic Snyder, Baron Hill, Mary Jo Kilroy, Alan Grayson, Zack Space, Bart Gordon, Debbie Halvorson, John Boccieri, and Ike Skelton.
• Votes (pdf): The Hill has a handy scorecard arranged by district lean while showing how many times vulnerable Dem representatives have broken ranks on 15 important bills. The biggest defector, unsurprisingly, is Bobby Bright, who flipped 13 out of 15 times. (Compared with Chet Edwards, in an even more difficult district but who defected only twice.) The guy who stands out like a sore thumb, though, is Joe Donnelly, who defected 8 times in IN-02, a district that Obama actually won, 54-45.
• MS-St. House: Democrats held the line in a special election in Mississippi state House district 82, as Democrat Wilber Jones held the seat. This is an African-American majority seat, but attracted some attention because the GOP ran a credible African-American candidate, Bill Marcy… but he still went on to lose, 66-34. Dems hold the edge in the House, 75-47.
• MO-Sen: I’m not sure if Roy Blunt’s task just got easier or harder. Tom Schweich, a law professor and former ambassador, who started exploring the Missouri Senate race and landed some surprisingly hard blows on Blunt, yesterday decided not to run and instead endorsed Blunt. Schweich was a friend of moderate ex-Sen. John Danforth and was understood to be something of a Danforth proxy in the race. So Blunt should be happy to be free of that challenge, right? No, because he’s still likely to face a challenge from former Treasurer Sarah Steelman, who hasn’t formally announced her candidacy but has been stepping up her attacks on Blunt as an unprincipled insider. Without Schweich in there splitting the outsider anti-Blunt vote, Steelman becomes more viable.
• FL-Sen: Here’s an endorsement from a key player for Rep. Kendrick Meek: he was endorsed by Miami mayor Manny Diaz, who’s recently been associated with possibly running in FL-25 or for Lt. Gov. next year. Another interesting Meek tidbit that just came out: Meek has gotten more tobacco industry money than anyone else in the 2010 election cycle (more than, say, Jim Bunning or Richard Burr). Meek has close ties with the Tampa-based cigarmaking industry.
• OH-Gov: What’s that? An endorsement from a puny mortal like Manny Diaz? Screw that, because John Kasich just got an endorsement from Chuck Norris. (Which is odd, because I thought the fact was that Chuck Norris didn’t endorse politicians; politicians endorse Chuck Norris.) Ted Strickland was reportedly last seen running in terror on the shoulder of I-70, trying to get out of Ohio before sunset.
• CA-03: A second credible Dem has gotten into the race against the newly-vulnerable Rep. Dan Lungren in this R+6 district in the Sacramento suburbs. Bill Slaton, director of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (and overseer of the electrial grid for 1.5 million people), filed to enter the race, joining confusingly-named fellow Dem (and Elk Grove city councilor) Gary Davis.
• CT-04: The GOP has landed an interesting challenger to go against freshman Rep. Jim Himes: 24-year-old Will Gregory, a “young, fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican” activist who applied for a White House job during the Bush administration and, when asked to name two administration policies he agreed with, couldn’t provide an answer. State Senate minority leader John McKinney also seems likely to get in the race for the GOP and would bring a bit more, um, gravitas.
• NY-29: Tom Reed, the mayor of Corning, New York, announced that he won’t run for a second turn but that he was looking at another public service opportunity that he couldn’t be specific about, but that sounded suspiciously like running in the 29th against freshman Rep. Eric Massa.
• FL-Ag. Comm.: Ordinarily even we at SSP wouldn’t get so far down into the weeds as to post results of a poll of the GOP primary for the Florida Agriculture Commission race, but the results are too unbelievable to pass up… unbelievably funny, that is. The idea that the guy who used to be #3 on the House leadership ladder would try to demote himself to Florida Agriculture Commissioner is odd enough, but Rep. Adam Putnam is trailing a state Senator, Carey Baker, 26-17, in that race.
• NY-St. Senate: As everyone sits and waits to see whether state Senator Hiram Monserrate should stay or go (he’s vacillating on his coup participation, meaning the whole thing turns on him now), two interesting new developments. One is that the coup may lead to ouster of Dem leader Malcolm Smith and his replacement with John Sampson, who apparently has a better relationship with the dissidents. Also, there’s buzz (though nothing confirmed) that Barack Obama himself has been on the phone with not just Monserrate and Pedro Espada, trying to get them back into the fold, but also with Darrel Aubertine (although it’s unclear whether Obama would encourage Aubertine to stay in the Senate as the Dems try to get their narrow edge back or to get into the NY-23 race that Obama opened up for him by promoting John McHugh).
• NY-20: Well, we know Scott Murphy can count on getting at least one vote out of the huge pile of absentee ballots in the deadlocked NY-20 election: the ballot of the woman he’s seeking to replace, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, is one of them.
• NY-29: In an example of political chaos theory at work, the NY-20 election may wind up protecting Rep. Eric Massa several seats over. If Jim Tedisco wins, he’s out of his current job as Assembly Minority Leader, and even if he loses, there have been rumblings to replace him anyway. His replacement as Minority Leader would likely be Brian Kolb, who, if he took the position, would probably want to focus on that and no longer be the top GOP pick to take on Eric Massa in NY-29. (Other potential GOP candidates in NY-29 include Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks and state senators Cathy Young and George Winner.)
• PA-Sen: Arlen Specter is already defending his right flank with ads attacking ex-Rep. Pat Toomey, in preparation for the 2010 primary. Specter’s ad sounds a bit, um, Democratic, attacking Toomey for favoring deregulation, wanting to privatize Social Security, and for the unforgivable sin of having traded CDSs when he was working on Wall Street.
• MN-Sen: The next step in the MN-Sen saga has national implications: governor Tim Pawlenty has to decide, once the Minnesota Supreme Court rules, whether to go ahead and sign the certificate declaring Al Franken the winner (and, y’know, follow the rule of law)… or whether to continue to obstruct Franken in order not to alienate the rabid Republican base he’ll need in 2012 if he’s going to have any hope in the presidential primary.
• OH-Sen: I know I wouldn’t buy a used car from Rob Portman, but he finally has some competition in the GOP primary, and it’s a guy a lot of people apparently have bought used cars from. Cleveland-area car dealer Tom Ganley has also entered the race (although he shouldn’t be more than a speed bump for the heavily-funded Portman).
• AK-AL: Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell is “considering” another primary run at Rep. Don Young. One negative for Parnell is that, this time, he’d have to give up his LG slot for a 2010 run. But there’s also the possibility that the federal investigation into Young may actually yield something in the next few years.
• DCCC: The DCCC launched a new radio spot in the districts of six GOP representatives in Democratic-leaning seats, attacking them for voting against the middle-class tax cuts contained in the stimulus package. The targets are Mike Castle (DE-AL), Ken Calvert (CA-44), Bill Young (FL-10), Thad McCotter (MI-11), Charlie Dent (PA-15), and Mike McCaul (TX-10).
• LA-02: The Anh Cao Watch continues! GOP leading lights John McCain and Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-01) were recently seen jawing with Cao, who hasn’t yet decided how he’ll vote on the Democrats’ budget resolution. Would he really defect? And would it even matter? (D)
• Census: The new pick for Census Director has been announced, and if the squealing emitting from Patrick McHenry is any indication, it’s a good pick. It’s Robert Groves, a Univ. of Michigan professor who was the Census’s associate director for statistical design in the early 90s. Groves is a proponent of statistical sampling, which is the main flashpoint in debate over the census. Commerce Sec. Gary Locke has indicated that sampling won’t be used for redistricting purposes, but will be used for increased accuracy (for purposes of allocating federal funds, for instance).
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it’s been all over the map. I’ll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the “good guys” are.
First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
Now, not all of these statements were made this past week. Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air. But hey, they’re on record. So here goes, alphabetically by district. If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.
It was Ben Franklin who said that “any man who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of security deserves, neither.” We seem to have a country full of people who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of an empty promise of security. As a free country, founded on concepts like justice and liberty, the de-evolution of our free society should not be tolerated by any people of conscience.
CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)
I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn. Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.” We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.
In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.
….
But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.
….
And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.
And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.
Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.
We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.
In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.
Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?
No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.
Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.
Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.
You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.
We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects — unless you believe that you and I are terrorists. I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans. On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.
George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations. Does that comfort you? Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American. Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.
I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws. No one is above the law. If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American. Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.
When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal. We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.
What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it. The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period. There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.
As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works. You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.
FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.
As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.
Said land conservation activist Shafroth: “While this current bill takes some small steps to weaken the authority of the president to unilaterally spy on Americans, it does not go far enough in protecting our civil liberties.”
Internet entrepreneur Polis said that “phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.”
And former state Senate President Fitz-Gerald criticized the bill’s “de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law.”
“The government has no right to listen and wiretap any phone without judicial oversight,” she said.
….
Fitz-Gerald said the House version of the legislation amending FISA was better than an earlier U.S. Senate version, but “it still was not acceptable and I would have rejected the House measure.”
Shafroth said he would have voted against the bill because “many of the protections in the bill are superficial and there are too many avenues left to the president to unconstitutionally spy on American citizens.”
Polis said the nation must restore people’s trust in their government, but “rushing FISA reform through Congress is not the answer.”
It is disappointing that some of our Democratic leaders are rushing FISA reform through Congress. I strongly oppose telecom immunity that paves the ground for the further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties.
Our Democratic leaders in Washington should stand firm against allowing Republicans and the Bush Administration to violate the civil liberties of our citizens any more than they already have; phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held fully accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.
Rather than providing cover for the Bush administration, our leaders should show backbone and not allow FISA reform to be rushed through Congress.
The fear mongering tactics of President Bush and his cronies on Capitol Hill are tired; the American public now understands that we can have security at home while also protecting the civil liberties of our law abiding citizens.
I had left a message there asking her position on this FISA bill. She personally took the time to call me back and told me she is against this thing and would have voted Nay!
“In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide– not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration’s request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles.”
What, exactly, is the Right Wing’s problem with the Fourth Amendment? Why do they constantly seek ways to evade and subvert the Fourth Amendment? It seems to have worked pretty well, for over 200 years. And over 99% of the time, the federal judges give all POTUS the warrants he wants.
What it really comes down to is that they want a dictatorship. It’s issues like this one, where the Right has to choose between conservatism and fascism, when you see their true colors.
As the “New York Times” said in its June 18 editorial: “The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.”
….
The problem is special interest money, Curtis said, coupled with a business-as-usual attitude in Washington.
“This is the root cause of the Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Republicans. They are all eating from the same trough,” Curtis said. “This is why we need leadership that will stay true to our values rather than cater to special interest contributors.”
“The laws that were created under FISA were sufficient to meet our country?s national security needs. What the Bush administration has done, again, is present Americans with a false choice between national security and civil liberties, while this bill increases neither. I oppose any broad retroactive immunity provided to companies who may have broken the law. The legal purpose of immunity is to use the protection granted by such immunity as an inducement to divulge information about what occurred. Immunity in this case would do the opposite: it would shut down any investigation into what actually occurred.”
GA-08: Robert Nowak (primary challenger to Jim Marshall)
The latest demand from President Bush, that the US Congress shield telecommunication providers from liability for breaking federal law, is a real step backwards in the important mission of authorizing an effective intelligence surveillance program. Congress not give blanket immunity for any unlawful acts, it should renew its call for increased oversight of the telecom providers that may or may not have broken federal surveillance laws.
Further, the US Congress must not budge in insisting that any surveillance program with the capability of eavesdropping on US citizens be subject to court oversight.
The Congress should insist on codifying in the statute a court order requirement for any surveillance done on American citizens.
This last August, Representative Marshall voted for a temporary bill that allowed for expanded wiretapping and surveillance on Americans without a court order. Allowing that regime to continue is unacceptable.
GA-12: Regina Thomas (primary challenger to John Barrow)
After reading the FISA bill — Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — I thought “This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment [right of] privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States.” I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.
The Congress is considering a bill that guarantees retroactive immunity for telecom companies who participated in the President’s illegal wiretap program, and that fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. This measure would require the courts to grant immunity to big telecom companies for their past illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, and authorize future surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their rights.
This is wrong. No one should get a free pass for breaking the law. Iowans and all Americans have a right to live their lives without government intrusion on their privacy.
If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure. I believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability is needed. No President should ever have unchecked power. Americans in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive branch. As Americans, we can protect ourselves without destroying our Constitutional rights. We need to focus on the very real threats we face, and not waste our resources on spying on loyal Americans.
Today, Rep. Mark Kirk once again showed how out-of-step he is with Illinois’ 10th district, by siding with the Bush administration to protect telecommunications companies who participated in illegal spying on American citizens. Kirk has received over $80,000 in contributions from the telecom companies he has continually voted to protect.
Coming in the wake of his vote against outlawing waterboarding, Kirk has shown that he is more interested in following the Bush administration than upholding our international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, and protecting our constitutional rights.
Congressional Candidate Dan Seals (IL-10) released the following statement today:
“While I was pleased to see the House Democrats stand their ground against granting amnesty to the telecommunications companies who broke the law, I was disappointed to see Mark Kirk side once again with the Bush administration and his campaign contributors over the 4th amendment.
“The U.S. Constitution is not a discretionary document. It’s time we elect leaders with the courage and independence to stand up for our most sacred rights. When I go to Congress, I will stand up for our Constitution and ensure that no one is above the law.”
I like Brad Ellsworth, and yes he is that good looking in person, I like Baron Hill, and always have, I like Joe Donnelly and have since the first time I met him, and the same for Senator Bayh, but I really, really, really, have a fondness for this piece of paper called the United States Constitution.
I would not have voted as they did on FISA, but I am more liberal than they are and we all know that, you know that, I know that, and they know that. Some in Indiana are afraid of being called a Liberal and the word comes from Liberty, so I think we should embrace it.
….
Brad, Baron and Beyond, (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, it’s the blogger in me) voted the way they did because of National Security, and I do not hate them for voting what they believe, because I believe in National Security too, but I also understand the potential for expansion of the FISA bill, and the potential danger. I love this country but since 2000, have feared this government and do not agree with granting this administration any additional power. It is my hope that in 6 months this will not be re-newed, it is my fear that it will.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
Personally I’m tired of Tim Walberg and George W. Bush using fear about our national security to score cheap political points. Congress has passed legislation to ensure that tools are in place to protect our country’s safety, but Walberg and Bush seem more interested in protecting big corporations that have helped them listen to our phone calls, read our emails, violate our privacy, then they are about protecting law-abiding citizens. I believe our Constitution, and our rights, including our right to privacy, are worth fighting for. If our government or big corporations break the rules, they should be held accountable.
I would have voted no. Let me start out by saying that, I am absolutely committed to keeping America safe, taking on the terrorists, and defending our national security. I was a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve, and I spent time over in the Persian Gulf. I understand what kind of pressure our people are under to get good intelligence. Good intelligence is absolutely critical to the safety of our soldiers and to protecting our country. We can’t function without it.
We definitely need to update FISA to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, while also absolutely guaranteeing that Americans’ rights are protected.
There are important updates that we need to make to FISA, but I can’t support the retroactive immunity – and I sincerely hope that those provisions get stripped out in the Senate.
I am troubled by the House passage of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. There is much we can do to prevent terrorism, but such measures do not require the sacrifice of fundamental constitutional freedoms which our country was founded upon. This legislation demonstrates the need for leaders in Congress who have experience in the military and in Iraq, and who value the rule of law as we fight the War on Terror.
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t exclude lobbyists. The “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” means George Bush and the other Washington politicians can’t grant immunity to law breakers no matter how much they give to campaigns.
It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) issued a release today taunting Linda Stender, candidate for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, on the issue of Congress’ re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
….
Stender hit back this afternoon.
“It’s clear from this nonsensical attack that the national Republicans know they’re in jeopardy of losing this seat,” said Stender campaign spokesman Joshua Henne. “Linda Stender believes we can defend both our nation’s security, and the Constitution. The Bush Republicans sadly still haven’t learned its possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn’t compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush’s friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice.
This Friday, legislation was passed that will take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. The FISA bill strips Americans of these rights and protects telecommunications companies from being held accountable by the people.
I am standing up against my own party because I believe we can have sound legislation that defends our country and, at the same time, protects our Constitution. If we are to hold our government accountable, retroactive immunity is the wrong path to go down.
It’s time to support Democrats with democratic values and principles, Democrats who will work on behalf of the American people and protect their rights. When I’m elected to Congress, I will be that Democrat.
Today, Darius Shahinfar, candidate for the 21st Congressional District, called the compromise reached on amendment of the Federal Information Surveillance Act (FISA) a compromise of Constitutional principles.
“The critical problem of this compromise is that it contains a free pass for the Bush Administration’s and telecommunication companies’ past actions. The Administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps cannot be reviewed, and the process to review the telecommunications companies’ participation in the wiretapping program leads inevitably to immunity for those companies” Shahinfar said.
Darius’ remarks come at a time when the controversial piece of legislation would allow immunity to phone companies who currently face lawsuits for violating the constitutional rights of their members, according to plaintiff claims.
“By passing this piece of legislation, we are telling our government and our citizens that as long as the President tells you to do so, breaking the law is legal. No one, not even the President, is above our laws, especially when it comes to the issue of protecting our Constitutional rights.”
When asked further of his views about FISA, Shahinfar continued, “FISA was created 30 years ago, is applicable with today’s advanced technology and has been a vital tool in collecting intelligence for our nations’ security.It had not been an issue, until this administration decided to use it improperly and against its intended purpose. This will not make Americans any safer from threats at home or abroad; rather it will put us at the mercy of secret agreements between corporations and our government.”
If the Bush Administration had read the constitution the first time, we wouldn’t find ourselves having this debate. Granting amnesty to these companies would set a precedent that would allow others to arbitrarily ignore the constitution. No one should be above the law in America.
Growing up in Western New York, one of the first lessons I was taught was that each of us has to take responsibility for our actions. As a social studies teacher, I came to understand this principle in the broader context of our democracy. We are, first and foremost, a nation of laws. Each of us should be treated equally under the law, and no one should be given special treatment. The founding fathers designed the courts as the proper place to weigh one’s actions under the law, not the White House. I trust that the courts, which have ensured the rights and liberty of all Americans for over 200 years, are more than able to continue providing the wisdom and protections that keep us free.
NY-29: Eric Massa (you should really read the entire diary and Massa’s analysis)
At the heart of the debate is the truncation of the Fourth Amendment, which outlines the right of the people to be secure in their persons and belongings. That right, which many would consider a bedrock of basic liberties in the Nation, is altered to allow the Federal Government to conduct searches and seizures of personal property without a warrant from a court of law.
….
But the bigger problem here is the immunity that would be given if it is found that the government and cooperating officials acted without due justification. Under current law, those involved can be held accountable and the individual on whom the actions were perpetrated can seek redress before the government. This right to seek redress is another fundamental individual liberty that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain for all Americans. This current bill takes away the right of citizens to seek redress.
The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers’ privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people.
I am opposed to affording any immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have broken the law by their participation in handing over information or granting wire-taping access to the Bush Administration without first properly receiving permission through FISA Court.
I am hoping that before the current legislation makes its way to the President’s desk, members of the U.S. Senate will see that the protection of civil rights should precede any special treatment for any special interest. When the Patriot Act was first debated and wrongly passed, the telecommunications lobbying arm kept quiet and now they want to ensure that justice is silenced forever.
As the daughter of a cop, I have great respect for our Constitution and the pursuit of the truth. Any immunity that is granted before giving the American people the opportunity to even uncover a violation is a violation unto itself.
The Constitution also places no one above, below or immune from the law. The House Judiciary Committee was absolutely correct today to reject President Bush’s demand for blind and blanket immunity for large telecom companies who aided illegal spying. It should be noted that not all such companies heeded the call for unchecked Presidential power, and those who resisted should be commended. For the others, blind immunity for crimes, especially when not even yet fully documented, is an alien and disturbing idea to Americans.
“Finally, to those who imply that by opposing warrantless, illegal spying in America, Democrats somehow are aiding our enemies: I urge you to take an evening off, turn off that distracting talk radio and Fox News, and spend a quiet evening reading the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. You may learn something new, and wonderful.
This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies.
Has anyone in Washington these days ever heard of (let alone read) the U.S. Constitution– remember that document? We were guaranteed certain rights. It seems many Republican members of Congress lay awake at night, thinking what rights can we take away from our fellow Americans today.
Specifically my opponent J. Randy Forbes, VA (R) wanted to add language that would have ensured that nothing in the bill would be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, a state sponsor of terrorism or agents of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the language would have permitted the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of any person concerning an imminent attack on the United States, any U.S. person, including members of the Armed Forces, or an ally of the United States, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, members of the al-Queda Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or any terrorist or terrorist organization. This language failed to garner enough votes to be included in H.R. 3773.
The right-wing is operating in force in Congress and the typical corporate Republicrats are once again falling in line. We have a Democratic majority in the House and yet they seem to be as confused by the meaning of the Constitution as the Republicans. Apparently, since impeachment is off the table, so is the U.S. Constitution. When I look at this new bill I can’t help wondering if this is the new Democratic thinking, “If we make all illegal actions legal, then the President and Vice President have done nothing wrong. Ergo there is no need to consider impeachment because no laws were broken.”
“This “compromise” will not make Americans safer,” said Perriello, a national security consultant with experience in Afghanistan, Darfur and West Africa. “If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation.”
No one in this country should be above the law and saying Alberto Gonzales told me it was okay is hardly an excuse. I oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms who engaged in illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Frank Wolf has again sided with the President on this issue voting in favor of immunity for those who circumvented the FISA courts and our legal process.
Honestly, I don’t understand why at this point any member of Congress would think it was a good idea to give George Bush the power to grant immunity to anyone he wants around warrantless wiretapping – and to cover all tracks in the process. George Bush has proven, over and over again, that he cannot be trusted to uphold either the letter or the spirit of the laws that protect the people of the United States from the abuse of our government.
….
All I can say is that I’m sorry Congress failed on this one – and that I will honor the pledge I hope to take to uphold the Constitution.
WY-AL: Gary Trauner (also see here for some excellent choice quotes Gary dug up from our own Founding Fathers)
Wow. I am deeply saddened today by the news that the US House has voted to pass a bill amending the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which strikes at the very core of American democracy – our Constitutional Bill of Rights and the rule of law. It enables our federal government to intercept, without probable cause, all international communications of American citizens, and it provides retroactive immunity for companies that may have broken the law (if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?).
….
Wow! Is that what it’s come to? Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we “need” to do it? Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington DC or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you – where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:
I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit.
I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms. If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?.
We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works.
I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice.
If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause. Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear.
….
Finally, the truth is that Congress last year passed a temporary extension of the Protect America Act that was vetoed by the President and voted against by the Republican leadership and certain Democrats. They said they would not accept a bill that does not include giving a free pass to companies that might have broken the law! Incredible. It deserve saying one more time – these so-called leaders are telling us the Protect America Act was so important, without it America is not protected from terrorists; however, they were willing to block this incredibly important Act, and leave America unprotected, unless large corporations were let off the hook for knowingly breaking the law. Because unlike you and me, who in the event of potential wrongdoing only get off the hook by presenting our case in a court of law, they think large corporations should be held to a different standard – no accountability.
The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
The Church Committee’s investigations resulted in the creation of a permanent Senate Committee on Intelligence, and the passage of substantial legislation, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.
Church’s work is now being shredded by the Bush Administration.
FISA established a legal framework for electronic eavesdropping at home, including a special FISA court. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect intelligence involving communications with “agents of foreign powers.”
The Bush Administration exploited this narrow exception in the passage of the Patriot Act that allows use of FISA to obtain personal records from many sources including libraries and internet service providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism.
Even worse, the Bush Administration now uses FISA to get around the constitutional requirement of seeking a warrant before it eavesdrops on communications by the NSA.
….
When I am elected to the Senate, I will demand an end to the abuse of FISA and a return to the checks and balances espoused by Frank Church and the Church Committee.
As a former Congressman, Frank Church staff member, and U.S. Army intelligence office, I will help lead the way back from the civil liberty abuses of this administration.
The secret warrantless wiretapping program was flat out wrong. The Bush administration went too far when it may not have even been necessary. Almost 99 percent of wiretapping applications were approved when they were submitted to judges. We must do all we can to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary tools to protect our homeland but individual privacy and civil liberties must be protected because those are the freedoms we fight for. That is America. And I think we should be focused finding terrorists and not protecting corporate CEOs. I’m sure there was pressure from the Bush administration and that isn’t an enviable position to be in for a company but what is wrong is wrong and there must be accountability. When mistakes were made in my companies, I took responsibility, took action and solved the problems.
I was encouraged by news a few months ago that both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed new FISA bills with added privacy protections. Now Mitch McConnell and his Republican leadership in Washington need to work with Senate and House Democrats to finalize legislation that protects the safety, and freedoms, of all Americans. I hear this issue will be brought up again in the Senate sometime during the summer.
ME-Sen: Tom Allen (who just voted against it in the House)
As I have stated before, neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable. This ‘compromise’ fails to hold either the Bush administration or the telecommunications companies to the same standards that apply to other Americans.
The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.
Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.
That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.
Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveillance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.
The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance.
The bill will force federal district courts to immediately dismiss any cases against telecommunications companies that participated in illegal surveillance. This is unacceptable. The Constitution of the United States was violated. Over several years telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of innocent Americans to the federal government without proper oversight and without a warrant.
The Bush Administration disregarded the Fourth Amendment when it authorized this surveillance and now Congress may provide the Administration and these companies a free pass. This is a mistake. The Senate is set to vote on the FISA bill this week. For the sake of our constitution and the foundation of our democracy, I urge all Senators to unite in opposition to this bill.
If I’m elected to the Senate, I will not hesitate to fight to protect our civil liberties and the laws this nation was founded upon.
I have spoken out against immunity for telecommunications companies throughout this campaign. Last February, I urged my supporters to sign a petition to pressure my opponent, Republican Senator Gordon Smith, to vote against the FISA bill that granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Unfortunately, Gordon Smith voted in favor of granting retroactive immunity. I expect him to do the same when the Senate votes on this issue in the coming days. For years, the Bush Administration has been undermining the balance of powers. Checks and balances must be restored and a vote against the immunity bill would be a critical starting point.
On Christmas morning 2004, outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, my buddies and I drove to our base camp to use the computers. We wanted to be with our kids when they woke up that Christmas. To get there we drove through a near ambush–anytime we drove on the Jalalabad Road, it was risky, and we had an incident on our way.
That Christmas morning, I suspect the government listened to our conversations. They occurred between two countries; Afghanistan and the US. They probably didn’t realize the difference in tone in my voice as I spoke to my wife and children that morning as my heart raced still from our encounter on the road. My wife did.
I fought to defend our country and our constitution in Afghanistan. I fought for the right to privacy for every Texan. Mr. Cornyn must now stand up for the privacy of every Texan and American too. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they violated the law.
Americans understand the need for safety and the need for intelligence gathering. What they will not accept is an abuse of power, of crossing the line on American’s privacy.
I would join Sen. Dodd in opposition to any retroactive provisions that allow a “get out of jail card” for violating the Constitution. If Mr. Cornyn had ever had the opportunity to have his Christmas conversation listened to by the government, on a day that he feared for his life in a convoy on Jalalabad Road, he would do the same.
Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue. Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.
House
AZ-03: Bob Lord (nobody asked him in his diary two days ago?)
FL-18: Annette Taddeo
FL-21: Raul Martinez
FL-24: Suzanne Kosmas
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
MD-01: Frank Kratovil
MN-02: Steve Sarvi
NE-02: Jim Esch
NM-02: Harry Teague
NM-03: Ben Ray Lujan (who even diaried here last week, but nobody asked him about FISA!)
NV-02: Jill Derby
NV-03: Dina Titus
OH-15: Mary Jo Kilroy
OH-16: John Boccieri
TX-07: Michael Skelly
WV-02: Anne Barth
Senate
KS-Sen: Jim Slattery
MN-Sen: Al Franken (though he did write a satire piece about wiretapping)
MS-Sen: Ronnie Musgrove
NE-Sen: Scott Kleeb
And then there’s even some Democratic challengers who have come out in FAVOR of this FISA bill.
For his part, Adler released a statement today, underscoring his own support for reupping FISA “so that our intelligence community has the tools needed to keep America safe in a dangerous world. We must also protect the freedoms for which our troops have made so many courageous sacrifices.”
She was asked if she would have voted for, or against, the FISA bill this week which would have granted retroactive immunity to Telcos for felony violations of the current FISA law.
Ms. Hagan explained that she was against Telcos spying on Americans, but that she would have voted FOR the bill, and granted them immunity, but that future law breaking would not be tolerated.
And of course, Mark Udall running for the Senate in Colorado voted for this bill last week. And perception on the blogs seems to be that Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen would’ve supported this bill had they been in the Senate, so I’m not exactly holding my breath to hear statements from them against telecom immunity.
Now, some of the candidates above still have a contested primary to go, like in CO-02, where all three of them came out against it, even as the person they’re trying to replace, Mark Udall, voted for it. There’s other districts, like in AZ-01 and NY-21, where only that candidate has released a statement on FISA, and others haven’t seemed to. (I’m looking at you, Ann Kirkpatrick.) If you guys can find statements by them, please let me know in the comments.