http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/community/tag_rss/Dianne+Feinstein While the US Senate is debating health care reform, and including a possible expansion of Medicare eligibility in the process, a separate effort is underway that could lead to significant cuts in both Social Security and Medicare benefits. As progressives across America mobilize to stop this effort, Senator Dianne Feinstein is in the middle of the battle. That's why the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action have joined forces to petition Senator Feinstein to stop this commission. Here's what's happening: US Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, has been pushing for the creation of a "deficit reduction commission" that would have the power to propose cuts in "entitlement" spending. The commission's recommendations would then go to the Congress for an up or down vote on the entire package, without the ability to amend its proposals. Because it could lead to cuts in benefits for Social Security and Medicare, many progressives are calling this a "cat food" commission . And Senator Dianne Feinstein is on record as a supporter of this commission. The Courage Campaign first learned about this from an article in The Hill last month : Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation. “You rarely do have the leverage to make a fundamental change,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who said he hasn’t ruled out offering the independent commission legislation as an amendment to the healthcare reform bill. The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt. Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an “unsustainable” $63 trillion in 2083. The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending. The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended.... But before Tuesday’s hearing was over, Sens. Conrad, Gregg, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) publicly vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling if a budget reform commission bill doesn’t come along with it. The modus operandi of these Senators appears to be to demand that this commission be part of important bills or else they'll vote against that bill. Since the Congress hasn't yet voted to raise the debt ceiling, that threat is presumably still on the table. Kent Conrad is making that threat of the proposal to use TARP funds to create jobs - threatening to oppose that effort unless Congress agrees to add this commission to the bill. We have read reports that Senator Feinstein has her own proposal, but none appears on THOMAS , the official record of the US Congress. Progressives are already organizing to stop this. Last weekend Over 30 progressive groups signed a letter saying "no" to this commission. The groups include the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, People for the American Way, the NAACP, Common Cause, and other leading organizations: We write in strong opposition to proposals to create an entitlements or deficit-reduction commission that would override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate. Those supporting this circumvention of the normal process have stated openly the desire to avoid political accountability. Americans-seniors, women, working families, people with disabilities, young adults, children, people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others-expect their elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching legislation. Any deficit reduction measures should be carried out in a responsible manner, providing a fairer tax system and strengthening-rather than slashing-Social Security, Medicare and other programs that are vital to the middle class." And as unemployment continues to grow, we need a real debate about how to balance the need for economic recovery and productive public investment with the goal of long-term budget responsibility. The American people are likely to view any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive investment. As you know, the current effort to reform the health care sector seeks to achieve reductions in Medicare spending, without cutting benefits. But the proposed budget commission-which will be viewed as a way to actually cut Medicare benefits, while insulating lawmakers from political fallout-could confuse people and undermine the reform effort. And an American public that only recently rejected privatization of Social Security will undoubtedly be suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions regarding the future of a retirement system that's served them well in the current financial crisis. We urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission. ( Click here to see the full letter and the list of signers .) As we remember from the 2005 battle over Social Security privatization, there is no crisis in Social Security. The earliest the existing trust fund would have difficulty paying 100% of benefits is 2041. Even then, projections of shortfalls are assuming that the currently reduced levels of income resulting from the recession are ongoing. We have over 30 years to either grow the economy and fully fund our obligations without doing anything, or 30 years to find a fair way to find new revenues to fund these obligations. We certainly do not need an undemocratic commission that could grease the skids for benefit cuts. If the US Senate wants to address Social Security, they can and should do so through the normal legislative process. There are genuine concerns about Medicare spending. But the rising cost of Medicare, which could produce a fiscal crisis by 2017, isn't due to overly generous benefits. Medicare's rising costs are a reflection of rising health care costs across the country, regardless of the provider or payer. In fact, our existing system of private insurance actually exacerbates Medicare's problems, since insurers prefer to deny treatment for chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, preferring to wait until the patient turns 65 and it becomes Medicare's responsibility to pay for that expensive treatment. It is entirely possible that the current health care reform effort will address Medicare's rising costs and further make this commission unnecessary. The health care reform bill being debated right now in the US Senate contains a number of important cost control mechanisms that, along with a public option, should provide better and more affordable care to Americans, reducing the ability of insurance companies to dump these costs onto Medicare. And again, should these efforts fail, we have time to debate solutions sensibly and rationally, without rushing to create an undemocratic commission. (Note: This commission is not the same thing as a recent vote, backed by the AARP, regarding Medicare benefits that took place last week. That vote was part of the overall health care reform effort in the Senate. This commission, however, is an entirely separate proposal.) By her support of this commission, Senator Feinstein is showing that she is willing to consider cuts to Social Security and Medicare that are neither necessary nor acceptable. That's why the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action have organized a petition to Senator Feinstein asking her to withdraw her support for this commission. As one of her constituents, I would like to think that Senator Feinstein would want to protect and even boost Social Security and Medicare benefits, and not support a process that could lead to cuts in both programs. If she wants to address ways to improve Social Security and Medicare, she should do so directly, without having an undemocratic commission do the work for her. If she wants to talk about the budget deficit, again, she should do so openly and directly through the normal legislative channels, instead of asking a commission to tackle the matter. The Courage Campaign and CREDO Action reiterate our call for Senator Feinstein to drop her support of this commission, and ask that you sign our petition to that effect. If Senator Feinstein really doesn't want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, then she should have no problem withdrawing her support of this commission, and using the normal legislative process to shore up and improve those programs. Below is the text of the email we sent to our members on this topic. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2ZF http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2ZF/commentary#comments Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:04:25 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2ZF Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2ZF/ Last Thursday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that under the current bills being considered in the House and Senate, 90% of Americans would not be able to pick a public health insurance option . The proposed rules would limit access to the Exchange, where the public option would be offered, to "individuals who cannot get insurance, or whose health care costs exceed 12.5 percent of their income." Not only would that mean most Americans wouldn't have access to the public option - it also means that public option would be weaker. For the public option to bring down costs and provide quality care, it needs to have a large base of paying customers to be able to negotiate good rates. Further, it needs to be able to attract healthy young people. If it can't, then the public option may suffer what is known as "adverse selection" where only the sickest people get the public option. That would drive up the costs of the public option, and make it less effective. In order to make the public option provide the most benefits for the most people, we need to open it up so that anyone who wants to buy into it may do so. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is offering an amendment to allow anyone to access the Exchange, where the public option will be offered. Senator Barbara Boxer has already indicated her support for the Wyden Amendment. It's now up to Senator Dianne Feinstein to join Boxer, Wyden, and the American people in demanding everyone be allowed to choose the public option. That's why we sent the following email to our members today, asking them to sign the letter to Senator Feinstein asking her to open the public option to everyone: http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2Zx http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2Zx/commentary#comments Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:43:49 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2Zx Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2Zx/ Pop quiz hot shot: when someone gets two options, and picks option A, does that mean that there was never a choice to begin with? I know, I know, that question really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But then again neither does the response by the Chamber of Commerce to our email on the Employee Free Choice Act and Robert's blog post on Calitics about it. Here is the Chamber: Language lesson for Calitics, the word option means "The power or freedom to choose." The Employee Free Choice Act gives no choice "if a majority of them sign cards," there will not be an election. Yes, that's right. Workers would get to choose how or if they would like to unionize under the Employee Free Choice Act. Option A 50% of workers sign a card saying yes I would like to join a union. Option B the workers request a secret election. If they choose Option A and 50% of the workers sign the cards, then they do not do Option B. The Chamber is confused, because quite often workers have to do both A and B under the current law and that is what is wrong with current labor law, among other things. Why do they do both you ask....well, often workers will sign the cards, but the bosses will not want to accept the fact that their workers want to join a union. The bosses decide at that point that they want a secret election. Those usually take months to set up, giving the employers time to hire union busting consultants, spend work time threatening their workers that if they vote to unionize then they will go out of business and all too often, fire workers who are helping organize a union. The Employee Free Choice Act puts the decision making power into the hands of the employees, thus the name of the act. The end result is that workers will be able to more easily form a union when they want one. That power shift away from the corporations that make up the Chamber of Commerce is what scares the pants off of them and causes them to make up illogical arguments. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/C2cz http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/C2cz/commentary#comments Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:18:01 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/C2cz Julia Rosen, Online Political Director http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/0ca8c47d776c223f85_zb4mv24s8.jpg Julia Rosen, Online Political Director 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2cz/ I yearn for the day I no longer have to write titles like that: Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election. Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July. "If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. ( AP via SFGate ) To her credit Dianne Feinstein is outraged, sending out this statement a few minutes ago: I think it's awful. This battle is not over. We will come back and fight another day - that's for sure. I regret the House appropriations committee didn't see fit to go with a better, more widely accepted alternative, which would have kept in place a moratorium 50 miles or more off shore. In my view, there were better options than this. Once again the Democratic Congress caves to Republicans who say "boo!" Drilling had faded from public consciousness and Democrats would have done well to insist Especially as bailouts are being discussed, you'd think Democrats would not want to be sending any signals that they can wave the white flag if pressured to do so. Dems would have done well to listen to Van Jones, who at Netroots Nation in July explained the need to move from opposition to proposition - that the only way we will beat back the drilling push is to aggressively propose a more sensible and sustainable alternative. Dems didn't do that, and once again they've failed at politics and failed America. Sure, they might restore the ban next year - but it's not clear if it will be a total moratorium, or if this will have opened a door that can't be closed again. And if McCain wins, Congress will have a very difficult time reimposing a moratorium. Otherwise they've signed a death warrant for California's oceans and those who depend on them for a living. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLLJ http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLLJ/commentary#comments Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:27:40 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLLJ Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/CLLJ/ Today the New York Times reports on the continuing failure of the Michael Mukasey as Attorney General experiment . The short version is that Mukasey has not performed as promised...by a long shot. Back in November we at the Courage Campaign didn't much like the notion of an Attorney General Mukasey, but Senator Dianne Feinstein strongly disagreed. She got a lot of pushback and defended her case in an LA Times OpEd that she might want back at this point given the way reality has actually played out. Let's play point/counterpoint between Feinstein's argument in November and the New York Times today: Feinstein: During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge. Sen. Arlen Specter: "I don't want to use the word 'disappointed,' but he hasn't provided the balance that I had hoped for" http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLqc http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLqc/commentary#comments Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:47:45 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLqc Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 1 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/CLqc/ There's a lot of talk this year about more and better Democrats. Generally the "and better" part means primary campaigns and being selective in the candidates that we support with time, money and cyber ink. The other side of that is holding our representatives accountable in ways outside the ballot box, because sometimes we can't just wait for re-election to get responsive representation; too much happens. It's not always easy to find effective ways to get attention and movement, but passion and creativity can be combined into a potent mix. Last week Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to give away our 4th Amendment privacy protections and grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who may have been illegally complicit in domestic spying on U.S. citizens. It was hardly the first time that Sen. Feinstein has given us reason for serious concern. Once before, her support of previous iterations of FISA legislation, Judge Leslie Southwick and now-Attorney General Mukasey inspired us to insist she pay attention to Californians. We asked you whether it was time to pursue censure again, and more than 12,000 of you responded with a clear message. Rick Jacobs sent an email this morning running through the results, explaining where we go from here, and asking you to help: http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLqt http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLqt/commentary#comments Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:15:10 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLqt Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 6 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/CLqt/ "A Heavy Heart." That was the subject of the email I received today from Senator Chris Dodd. After fighting tooth and nail for many months, with a coalition cobbled together on the fly, brought together by a fundamental drive to protect the Constitution, the Senate was finally able to force through a new FISA bill including retroactive immunity for telecom companies. A number of Democrats abandoned the Fourth Amendment to vote for immunity, including Senator Dianne Feinstein. It's been a relatively tough year for the Constitution when Feinstein's been faced with challenging votes, and this sadly was no exception. But it's important to hear Senator Dodd's words today: ...let us stand tall, knowing that by working together we were able to make wiretapping and retroactive immunity part of the national discourse these last number of months. We came together - all of you, Senator Feingold, bloggers like Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald, organizations like the EFF and ACLU, and untold hundreds of thousands of Americans who simply wanted to make sure that this one, last insult did not happen with ease. I'm sorry we weren't successful. And so Rick Jacobs put the challenge to Courage supporters today via email. What are we going to do about it? --------------------------------------- http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLq5 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLq5/commentary#comments Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:11:21 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/CLq5 Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 3 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/CLq5/ The Wall Street Journal blew the lid off of the FISA debate today, uncovering that- despite Congress killing it five years ago- the Pentagon's program to collect electronic information about people lives on. It just moved over to NSA: Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans' privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But the data-sifting effort didn't disappear. The National Security Agency, once confined to foreign surveillance, has been building essentially the same system. The central role the NSA has come to occupy in domestic intelligence gathering has never been publicly disclosed. But an inquiry reveals that its efforts have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people's communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks. snip According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records. The NSA receives this so-called "transactional" data from other agencies or private companies, and its sophisticated software programs analyze the various transactions for suspicious patterns. Then they spit out leads to be explored by counterterrorism programs across the U.S. government, such as the NSA's own Terrorist Surveillance Program, formed to intercept phone calls and emails between the U.S. and overseas without a judge's approval when a link to al Qaeda is suspected. The NSA's enterprise involves a cluster of powerful intelligence-gathering programs, all of which sparked civil-liberties complaints when they came to light. They include a Federal Bureau of Investigation program to track telecommunications data once known as Carnivore, now called the Digital Collection System, and a U.S. arrangement with the world's main international banking clearinghouse to track money movements. The effort also ties into data from an ad-hoc collection of so-called "black programs" whose existence is undisclosed, the current and former officials say. Many of the programs in various agencies began years before the 9/11 attacks but have since been given greater reach. Among them, current and former intelligence officials say, is a longstanding Treasury Department program to collect individual financial data including wire transfers and credit-card transactions. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BWn http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BWn/commentary#comments Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:34:10 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BWn Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BWn/ Today the US Senate, in an unprecedented act, granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally spied on Americans in cooperation with the Bush Administration. Amendments that would have reiterated support for the 1978 FISA law, including Dianne Feinstein's so-called "exclusivity" amendment that would have confirmed FISA as the exclusive arbiter of wiretap legality, were rejected. Feinstein's "good faith" amendment was rejected, as were Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold's effort to strip telecom immunity from the bill. Significantly, Dianne Feinstein helped to kill the Dodd-Feingold effort to strip telecom immunity from the bill. And while she did ultimately vote against the FISA bill , it came after she voted FOR cloture on the bill. Were she truly interested in stopping the bill she would have joined Senators Feingold, Dodd, and Leahy in voting against cloture. Feinstein's press release would have us believe she did all she could to stop immunity: However, I believe this bill didn't do enough to protect against the assertion of executive power. I have said on many occasions that without the additional language to strengthen and tighten the exclusivity already in FISA, I could not support final passage.... There should never be another warrantless surveillance program. And I continue to believe that there should be a strong statement in law making it crystal clear that FISA must be followed, period. But her votes against the Dodd-Feingold amendment, and her vote for cloture, contradict these claims. The sad truth is that Senator Feinstein failed to take a consistent stand against telecom immunity and against this bill, and the result is a bill that gives the White House everything it had demanded of the Senate. Reaction around the blogosphere was damning. At Calitics David Dayen said "Feinstein pulled a Lieberman here" and "[sold] us out and give the phone companies what they wanted for violating civil liberties." Kagro X at Daily Kos said "The US Senate commits suicide on national television" and wondered why Senators even bothered to show up for work if all they were going to do is legitimate Bush's flouting of the law.  Glenn Greenwald denounced the entire proceeding: I used to think that amnesty supporters held their position because they didn't understand this extremely simple point, but now I think that most of them have their position precisely because they do understand it. A lawless "police state" -- and that's the only term that can be used to describe what this bill creates -- is exactly what our political establishment desires. This defeat stings. Many believed that Feinstein would never have come around and joined us in defense of the Constitution, and that this outcome was assured back in December when Harry Reid brought the immunity-giving Senate Intelligence Committee bill to the floor, and it certainly has played out that way. But it doesn't make it any easier to swallow the stunning abrogation of basic constitutional principles, the direct assault on the rule of law, and the creation of a potential police state - all of which are the outcomes of today's vote. History will not remember this day well. The fight is not yet completely lost. The House must now reconcile the Senate's evisceration of FISA with their own RESTORE Act , a much better bill that does not grant telecom immunity. Glenn Greenwald and Firedoglake are hosting a petition to convince the House to defend the RESTORE Act and reject the Senate's granting of immunity. It may seem like a longshot, but given the stakes, fighting hard on FISA is well worth the effort. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BWW http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BWW/commentary#comments Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:03:31 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BWW Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 2 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BWW/ Tomorrow will witness the final votes in the Senate on the remaining amendments to the Senate Intelligence Committee's immunity-giving FISA reform bill. When those votes are done, there will be a cloture vote on the bill as a whole, and 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture. Today Pat Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - which offered a much better bill that Reid chose to not bring to the floor - announced he would join the Dodd's efforts to stop cloture. As reported by mcjoan at Daily Kos : "This is signficant, in that one committee chairman, Leahy for the Judiciary Committee, is stating his clear opposition to the work of another chairman, Jay Rockefeller at Intelligence: Tuesday, February 12 is a critical day in our fight to stand up for American values and preserve our freedoms while protecting our national security. The Senate is voting on amendments to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing the use of wiretaps and other means to conduct surveillance of foreign threats. Unfortunately, the new FISA bill we'll be voting on still has many problems. I will do everything in my power -- including joining my colleague Chris Dodd in a filibuster against this legislation -- to fix it. The procedure for tomorrow is that votes on the outstanding amendments will begin at 10:00. After these votes happen, they'll have the cloture vote. When Leahy and Dodd say they will filibuster, it means that they will vote against the cloture vote on the bill to continue debate. If they are successful in preventing 60 votes for cloture, the debate can continue for as long as 30 hours. If they fail to prevent cloture, Dodd has four hours reserved for him and his colleagues like Leahy to convince enough fellow Dems to vote against final passage." Leahy has a contact tool to help mobilize pressure on the Senators - including Feinstein - to get them to oppose immunity and oppose cloture. Glenn Greenwald explains , though, that mcjoan is wrong to call this a "filibuster" - there won't be any effort to hold up all of the Senate's business, that even if cloture is not invoked there would only be another 30 hours of debate. Further, the unanimous consent agreement that Reid, Dodd, and others made with the Senate GOP two weeks ago provides for 60-vote threshholds for key Democratic amendments, including Feinstein's, that are not actually expected to be achieved. The GOP gets to have the outcome of a filibuster here without having to go through the actual motions. As usual, Greenwald offers some excellent framing, reminding us that these telecoms are *lawbreakers*: Whatever else is true about these telecoms that are about to be granted this extraordinary gift from Congress -- no matter how many times they are lavished with the creepy Orwellian phrase "patriotic corporate citizens" -- it is undeniable that they are deliberate lawbreakers. That's why they need amnesty in the first place. Any amnesty advocate who denies that central fact is arguing from a position of deep dishonesty. Bestowing retroactive telecom amnesty is nothing more than the latest step in creating a two-class legal system in America, where most citizens suffer grave penalties if they break the law, while our most politically powerful and well-connected actors are free to do so with impunity. Greenwald goes on to argue that the Blue Dogs in the House will likely play the same role Reid, Rockefeller and Feinstein have played in the Senate - enabling the Bush Administration's lawbreaking as well as that of those who aided them - but still sees value in trying to lobby the House anyway: There is some small chance that the House will impede -- if not stop -- at least some of the more extreme Cheney/Rockefeller provisions. As The Nation's Ari Melber reports : "A trio of Democratic House Committee Chairmen [Dingell, Markey and Stupak] are stepping up the fight against President Bush's surveillance bill this week, vowing to beat back a controversial proposal to grant retroactive amnesty to companies accused of illegally spying on Americans . . . circulating a letter urging their colleagues to stand firm and keep amnesty out of the final spying bill. Unfortunately, the House "Blue Dogs" are basically the House version of Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid and can, and likely will, single-handedly ensure that the House joins the Senate in complying in full with Bush's demands. But as long as the prospect remains that it can be stopped in the House -- and "an ACLU spokesperson told The Nation that the action by House leaders is the only 'ray of hope' to scuttle amnesty" -- it is worth trying. We'll have a petition and various action steps posted tomorrow once the Senate votes in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty." The Courage Campaign has been leading the effort to get Senator Feinstein to stand up for our Constitution and to support Dodd's efforts to block cloture. Visit our FISA page for more information, including our in-depth report explaining why Feinstein's "good faith" amendment is such a bad idea. Call Senator Feinstein and tell her to protect your rights and stop lawbreakers from getting away with it: Call one of following phone numbers (if one is busy, call the next number): 202-224-3841 (Washington, DC) 310-914-7300 (Los Angeles) 415-393-0707 (San Francisco) 619-231-9712 (San Diego) 559-485-7430 (Fresno) If Senator Feinstein is not your Senator, please call the Capitol switchboard toll-free to contact your Senator: 1-800-828-0498   http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Brn http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Brn/commentary#comments Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:42:09 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Brn Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Brn/ Over at DailyKos, mcjoan has a fresh update on today's FISA developments. Your CSpan will probably be relatively dry as a string of amendments cycle through, most of them unlikely to get very far. Amnesty amendments are expected to be introduced tomorrow for a vote either either end of that day or Wednesday. Given the Super Tuesday-ness of tomorrow, we shouldn't expect to be seeing Senators Obama or Clinton back in DC for this debate. But as mcjoan points out, waiting as long as possible on key votes makes it more likely that endorsers out on the stump- like Kennedy and Kerry- will be back to help out in a battle where every single vote will be crucial. All of this is enough to make even the heartiest political observer's eyes glaze over. But it mostly boils down to the fight being far from over. One of the most effective weapons that the Bush administration and its enablers have had over the years is stretching out the process to the point where people get too confused or bored to keep up the pressure. Courage Campaign had the good fortune of getting full analysis of the inherent flaws in Senator Dianne Feinstein's "good faith" premise from Robert Cruickshank and it's all as true now as it was then. We know that we got Feinstein's attention with all of our calls, faxes, and emails because her Communications Director reached out to us almost immediately. We can make a difference on this. Jump below the fold or follow the link to see the Bradley Whitford video on FISA, and keep calling: Call one of following phone numbers (if one is busy, call the next number): 202-224-3841 (Washington, DC) 310-914-7300 (Los Angeles) 415-393-0707 (San Francisco) 619-231-9712 (San Diego) 559-485-7430 (Fresno) If Senator Feinstein is not your Senator, please call the Capitol switchboard toll-free to contact your Senator: 1-800-828-0498 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/Brb http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/Brb/commentary#comments Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:59:33 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/Brb Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Brb/ All sorts of interesting developments on the FISA debate over the weekend as we swing into the next phase of the showdown. First, the New York Times blasted leading Senate Democrats in an editorial for even considering an extension of Bush's protections. It also went ahead to say what so many of us know already: the notion that amnesty for telecom companies is anything but an attempt to cover up what this administration has been up to is...well...crazy. The President contends that amnesty is necessary to get cooperation in the future, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. If the law is followed, it's not a problem. And if there's any question about legality, the time to sort it all out isn't well after the fact. That's the whole point of having a FISA court in the first place. Call Senator Feinstein and ask her to stand with Senator Dodd against immunity http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcF http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcF/commentary#comments Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:26:05 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcF Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BcF/ Yesterday was a big day on the FISA debate, but only the beginning. We got Senator Feinstein's attention, both jamming all of her voicemail boxes and getting a comprehensive response from her Communications Director. Most encouraging has been the cooperation throughout the netroots and grassroots organizations that want to protect our 4th amendment rights. Courage Campaign was joined by CREDO, DailyKos, Glenn Greenwald, FireDogLake, D-Day at Digby, and countless others to push back on unnecessarily bad legislation. We even got a big boost from John Edwards . But while we've clearly gained momentum, the issue will extend into next week. Tim Tagaris has a great rundown of what's likely to be coming down next week. A number of votes are likely on Monday, which also happens to be the day of the State of the Union. That means that EVERYbody is gonna be in town and we could really see some fireworks as presidential contenders like Clinton, Obama, and McCain come home and either conspicuously mix it up or conspicuously don't. As one commenter at OpenLeft noted yesterday, most people on the street have no idea what FISA is. Well, with all the attention on the big presidential candidates, that could change. There are indications that we may ultimately not get either the Judicial or Intelligence versions of the bill through, in which case we're likely to see a 30 day extension courtesy of Harry Reid on Monday. Regardless, we're going to be seeing cloture votes and battles over 50 and 60 vote thresholds all day Monday leading up to Bush almost certainly bringing it up during the State of the Union. Senator Feinstein will remain a key vote on any FISA legislation. I encourage everyone to read Robert's excellent analysis of everything that's wrong with her particular amendments and keep up the heat and act now to tell Senator Feinstein tto support the Dodd filibuster and protect tha Constitution . http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcK http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcK/commentary#comments Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:03:19 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcK Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BcK/ FISA is grabbing national attention today as the debate rages on the floor of the Senate, and on the heels of Senator Feinstein's response to Robert's post, Senator John Edwards is calling for citizen pressure on Senators Boxer and Feinstein. The heat is on and Edwards isn't mincing words on this one- "It's wrong for your government to spy on you." No kidding. Senator Feinstein's parsing position that would give away the keys to the store and validate immunity for Bush on this issue is a classic example of Democrats conceding the issue without a fight. When Bismarck declared politics to be the art of the possible, it's hard to imagine he meant the art of what is immediately possible. Time and again, this administration has demonstrated that it is not only foolish but reckless to operate in "good faith" when the Constitution is involved, and moving constitutional judicial proceedings behind closed doors doesn't inspire much good faith in me. Anyways, the leadership from John Edwards on this issue is much appreciated and a big boost to proponents of basic freedom. It appears that Senator Clinton will not support the Dodd filibuster by returning to Washington and Obama has, so far as I know, not moved to add support either. That's disappointing but not entirely unexpected as the battle continues over every single Senator. Keep up the pressuring phone calls to make sure that Senator Feinstein knows we're serious about this one. Check out the Edwards email on the flip. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/Bcb http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/Bcb/commentary#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:56:09 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/Bcb Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Bcb/ Senator Feinstein's office has responded to our criticisms:   "Today's post on Senator Feinstein's amendment to the FISA bill contains a number of serious and misleading factual errors.  I write to correct the record, and I hope that you will update your post with this information.   1. You write the ACLU has been "vocal in their opposition" to the Feinstein amendment.  Not true.  They have not taken a position on the Feinstein amendment." We are currently waiting on the ACLU's response on the Feinstein amendment, though it is correct they have not been "vocal" in opposition to it to this point.   2. Additionally, you quote Tim Sparapani, ACLU senior legislative counsel, as evidence of the ACLU's opposition.  This quote – which appeared in The Hill, not Roll Call – is not in reference to the Feinstein amendment, but to the Specter amendment.                 "The ACLU, meanwhile, has condemned the Specter amendment because it believes the measure leaves some loopholes open to the government."  (The Hill, DoJ, ACLU cool to Specter's FISA deal, 01/17/08) http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/doj-aclu-cool-tospecters-fisadeal-2008-01-17.html   We did not claim this quote applied to Feinstein's amendment directly. Instead we used it to illustrate the reasoning behind our own opposition to Feinstein's amendment. More on this below. They are correct that the email sent out to Courage Campaign members said the quote was from Roll Call not The Hill. It is our mistake. 3. As for the content of the Sparapani quote, it does not apply to the Feinstein amendment providing independent judicial review of immunity claims.                      He said:  "Unless Congress wholly rejects [the] executive privilege or state secrets claims, there are legal hurdles that could prevent the full hearing of the matter in federal court," said Tim Sparapani, ACLU senior legislative counsel.  "We also oppose having the FISA court making the good faith determination unless outside parties are allowed to argue in front of the secret court, which has never happened before.  Otherwise, only one side is represented."   Let me explain how it doesn't apply: · First, the Feinstein amendment specifically rejects the state secrets claim.   · Second, the Feinstein amendment specifically allows outside parties to argue their case in front of the FISA Court.  The court's ruling can also be appealed to a higher court. But even if it allows outside parties (and even then only those who have already filed lawsuits, disempowering other Americans who have not yet filed), and even if their ruling can be appealed, that is still not the same as public, open courts handling this issue. And further, it would still potentially allow immunity - which we still flatly oppose - and would still use the discredited "good faith" determination to grant such immunity. The deck would remain stacked against plaintiffs and against the rule of law. Bottom line:  This amendment preserves independent judicial review of the telecom company's immunity claims.  If it can be shown that the companies were not acting based on legal government certification and not in good faith, then their claims of immunity can be denied by the Court. In yesterday's press release they said "OR" in good faith. Which is it - "and good faith" or "or good faith"?   This is a reasonable alternative.  It adds court review of any immunity.  It allows the companies and the plaintiffs to make their case before this federal court skilled in intelligence. We strongly disagree that this is a reasonable alternative. It is wrong for the FISA court or the US Senate, directly or indirectly , to grant or make possible immunity for illegal activity. No matter how Feinstein dresses this up, this is fundamentally designed to give the appearance of protecting legal rights while setting up a process that is virtually certain to provide immunity anyway.  http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Bc3 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Bc3/commentary#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:10:09 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Bc3 Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 3 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Bc3/ Now that the Senate has settled in after its winter vacation, the rubber is hitting the road. Floor hearings begin TONIGHT on the FISA extension and with it, telecom immunity. Senators Dodd and Feingold have pledged to filibuster any immunity for telecom companies who may have violated our Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared in no uncertain terms that he'll force a true filibuster in order to stop yet another Bush victory. He's picked an odd time to take such a stand, since he's never actually forced a Republican filibuster, but make no mistake about the stakes here. Granting telecom immunity would establish the legal precedent which would give President Bush the same immunity. What's at stake is no less than whether Bush can or will be held accountable for his actions. That's why it's so vital to contact Senator Feinstein and insist that she oppose retroactive immunity. If we don't take a stand now on accountability and the basic rule of law, there's no telling when we'll get another chance. And I'm not much interested in cutting Bush any more slack. Senator Feinstein's vote is going to be key in the fight to protect our privacy and our Constitution. She has a bunch of phone numbers. Keep calling till one of them lets you through: 202-224-3841 (Washington, DC) 310-914-7300 (Los Angeles) 415-393-0707 (San Francisco) 619-231-9712 (San Diego) 559-485-7430 (Fresno) On the flip, check Eden's call to action. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcQ http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcQ/commentary#comments Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:09:50 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/lucasoconnor/BcQ Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign Lucas O'Connor, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BcQ/ (cross-posted on Calitics ) Ok, so the attempt to censure Senator Feinstein failed, but the attempt sure changed the conversation. Everyone from the New York Times editorial board to Fox News chimed in. Over 35,000 people and over 40 grassroots groups, clubs and organizations joined in. It really hit a nerve and catalyzed a new discussion about what it means to be a Democrat. Now it is time to do something positive and continue the conversation. Next week the Senate will again take up the re-authorization of FISA. Immunity for telecom companies will be a major battle within the larger re-authorization bill. Senator Dodd has promised to put a hold and filibuster the bill to prevent the attempt to let the telecommunications companies off the hook for following Bush's orders to break the law and spy on Americans without a warrant. Heck, the bill as written would not even let us even look into what exactly they did and who they spied on. Senator Feinstein has indicated that he will join this effort. CDP Chair Art Torres said that this issue was "very important" to him and one that he discussed with Senator Feinstein. Two Senators does not a filibuster make. They need some friends. We must hold the line together. So today the Courage Campaign sent out an email to our members (available below the fold) asking people to sign on to a letter to Chairman Torres requesting that he convey the message to Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposing retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Will you join us? http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/BnF http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/BnF/commentary#comments Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:03:46 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/BnF Julia Rosen, Online Political Director http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/0ca8c47d776c223f85_zb4mv24s8.jpg Julia Rosen, Online Political Director 1 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BnF/ I thought that I was alone in my thoughts about Dianne's voting record. I am so happy to find the Courage Campaign. Dianne and her husband have reaped the rewards of her vote for Mr. Bush's tax cut give away to the wealthy. How much is she saving each year because of her vote? Has anyone asked her publicly? I know my three hundred dollars came in handy. Has she ever explain how this hugh give away has helped the country and the people of California? This seems to be something that never comes up. I wonder why? I will write an email to her on her website and ask her. Although she has never answered the last two letters I sent her. I have received the form letters that her staff sends out and they usually tell me how concerned she is but they never answer any of the questions I ask of her. I have an idea. She does a breakfast with Dianne and I think we should get a large group together and have a chat with her over coffee. I think it might be fun and we could ask her personally the real questions that she needs to answer. I am sure she would love to have true patriotic California Democrats stop by. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Here is the website if you want ot make a reservation for a breakfast date with Dianne.   http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ServicesForCalifornians.ConstituentBreakfast Mr. Torres, I am so amazed that he did not want to talk about the censure of Dianne. I am sixty one and have been a life time Democrat, what is Mr. Torres afraid of? I think I will write to him and see what he has to say. I hope he is not as impolite as Diane and never write back to me. Do you think that either one of them even read any of it. I will let you know if I get an answer. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/donaldpinegar/BnL http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/donaldpinegar/BnL/commentary#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:32:57 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/donaldpinegar/BnL Unknown user Unknown user 1 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BnL/ (cross-posted from Crooks & Liars ) Let's start with the good news first, even though there is plenty of bad to come later, given the disgraceful behavior of California Democratic Party staffer Bob Mullholland, caught on video. In just five days, over 34,000 Americans, 90% or more Californians, joined the Courage Campaign call for the California Democratic Party (CDP) to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein for her pivotal votes to approve Judge Michael Mukasey as U.S. Attorney General and Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals. These Americans were joined by the Courage Campaign, MoveOn.org, Progressive Democrats of America, and over 40 Democratic Clubs and progressive organizations from across California. With a week of non-stop organizing, this movement changed the conversation of the entire meeting of the CDP Executive Board. Party Chair Art Torres spent about half of his speech on Saturday praising Senator Dianne Feinstein, acknowledging that people within the Democratic Party are upset with a few of her crucial votes. Of course, these weren't just any votes. They were votes contrary to core Democratic (and democratic) values like opposing torture, racism and homophobia. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/BnX http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/BnX/commentary#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:14:30 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/BnX Julia Rosen, Online Political Director http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/0ca8c47d776c223f85_zb4mv24s8.jpg Julia Rosen, Online Political Director 3 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BnX/ The Executive Board of the California Democratic Party meeting just adjourned without the resolution to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein being heard. A move from the floor today to allow a discussion of the topic was denied. More to come later. While we did not get the resolution addressed there is no doubt that your voices were heard. From the Women's Caucus endorsement to Art Torres's address you changed the converation. I am on my phone so I have not been able to check the latest numbers but we were just under 32,000 at 8 am today. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/Bnm http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/Bnm/commentary#comments Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:31:36 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/juliarosen/Bnm Julia Rosen, Online Political Director http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/0ca8c47d776c223f85_zb4mv24s8.jpg Julia Rosen, Online Political Director 5 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Bnm/