Aff Politics Link Answers

Aff Politics

Link Answers

Generic Aff = Bipart

Wide support for privacy over security – Bill developed bipartisan support and 163 sponsors

Several months ago, I predicted that in the debate over proposed NSA surveillance reform, NSA’s security defenders would ultimately hold the line against significant changes in the current mode of operation. Traditionally, security trumps privacy. But at this point in time, the tide seems to be going the other way. Last week, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), introduced a version of the USA Freedom Act that is far more restrictive on intelligence agencies’ operations than any other competing bill. Surprisingly, given the deep political divisions, Leahy’s bill seems to have swept the field. As Jodie Liu and Benjamin Wittes write in Lawfare, “It’s the bill. It represents a compromise between the intelligence community, the administration more generally, civil liberties groups, industry, and a fairly wide range of senators. And it will be the legislation that moves forward with the sometimes nose-holding support of most of the major parties.” What follows is a brief review of how we got here – and the future prospects for NSA surveillance reform. On the other side, numerous privacy and civil liberties organizations – the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, et. al. – immediately clamored for legally binding, tighter restrictions on NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance activities. They were joined by a Who’s Who of high-tech companies, including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Jockeying among congressional committees provides one central focus for the narrative over the past six months. Jurisdiction over NSA/FISA reform is split between the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees in both houses, with primary power traditionally residing in the Intelligence Committees. Pursuant to the president’s proposals, the House Intelligence Committee began working on a bill to partially revamp intelligence community and FISA Court procedures. But in a surprising turn of events, a competing bill from the House Judiciary Committee developed strong bipartisan support and 163 sponsors. At that point, House Intelligence Committee leadership capitulated and entered into negotiations with the administration and with Rep. Sensenbrenner and others on the Judiciary Committee. This in turn led to a Judiciary Committee version of the USA Freedom Act that was revised in late negotiations to assuage concerns among both the administration and Intelligence committee members. This bill passed the House on May 21, 303-121.

Both parties want Domestic Surveillance downsizing

Jaycox 14

Jaycox, Mark. He is a Legislative Analyst for EFF whose issues include user privacy, civil liberties, surveillance law, and "cybersecurity." "Update: Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying." Electronic Frontier Foundation. N.p., 22 Jan. 2014. Web. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying 05 July 2015.

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued. Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June. What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy rights. Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight. In a recent poll, Rasmusson—though sometimes known for push polling—revealed that there's been a 30 percent increase in people who believe it is now more likely that the government will monitor their phone calls. Maybe even more significant is that this skepticism carries over into whether or not Americans believe the government's claim that it "robustly oversees" the NSA's programs. In a Huffpost/You Gov poll, 53 percent of respondents said they think "the federal courts and rules put in place by Congress" do not provide "adequate oversight." Only 18 percent of people agreed with the statement. Americans seem to be waking up from its surveillance state slumber as the leaks around the illegal and unconstitutional NSA spying continue. The anger Americans—especially younger Americans—have around the NSA spying is starting to show. President Obama has seen a 14-point swing in his approval and disapproval rating among voters aged 18-29 after the NSA spying.

Republicans and democrats both want Obama to limit domestic surveillance but the public is more concerned with safety

Davis 13

Davis, Julie. "Privacy Confronts National Security in Obama Surveillance." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 7 June 2013. Web. 05 July 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-07/privacy-confronts-national-security-in-obama-surveillance

Still, Obama faces criticism both from Democrats alleging his administration is trampling civil liberties and Republicans who say his anti-terror tactics are just the latest example of his government overreaching. “If the seizure and surveillance of Americans’ phone records -- across the board and with little to no discrimination -- is now considered a legitimate security precaution, there is literally no protection of any kind guaranteed anymore to American citizens,” Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote in an opinion piece yesterday in The Guardian, which first reported the phone-data collection program. “In their actions, more outrageous and numerous by the day, this administration continues to treat the U.S. Constitution as a dead letter.” Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia called for an end to the broad surveillance in an interview on “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing on Bloomberg Television this weekend. “I’m wanting to do everything I can to fight the war on terror,” Manchin said. “But do you give up everything as an American?”

Generic Aff = Tech Lobby

Plan gets the support of the tech lobby- the prefer specific and strict regulations

Romm in 2015 (Tony is a senior technology reporter for POLITICO Pro; “Tech giants get deeper into D.C. influence game” Published: 1/21/15 6:49 PM EDT Accessed: 7/5/15; http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tech-lobby-apple-amazon-facebook-google-114468.html

Apple, Amazon and Facebook shelled out record amounts to influence Washington; Google posted one of its biggest lobbying years ever; and a slew of new tech companies dipped their toes into politics for the first time in 2014 — a sign of the industry’s deepening effort to shape policymaking in D.C. The sharp uptick in spending reflects the tech sector’s evolution from an industry that once shunned Washington into a powerful interest that’s willing to lobby extensively to advance the debates that matter most to companies’ bottom lines — from clamping down on patent lawsuits to restricting NSA surveillance to obtaining more high-skilled immigration visas and green cards. “There is increasingly a sense from companies that they need to engage earlier and smarter,” said Ryan Triplette, a Republican lobbyist for Franklin Square Group, which represents companies like Apple and Google. “They began opening up their view as their businesses have grown … and not just looking at traditional technology issues.” Apple, which mostly avoided D.C. under the watch of late CEO Steve Jobs, grew its lobbying balance sheet to just over $4.1 million last year from $3.3 million in 2013, according to an analysis of lobbying reports, the latest of which were filed midnight Tuesday. The iPhone giant recently has shown a greater willingness to engage Washington under CEO Tim Cook: It even dispatched executives to Capitol Hill in September to talk about its new smart watch and health tracking tools hoping to assuage lawmakers’ fears about the new technology’s data-tracking abilities. Amazon’s lobbying expenses — more than $4.7 million, up from around $3.5 million in 2013 — correspond with the company’s own Washington makeover. The e-commerce giant last year jumped into new lines of business, expanding its pursuit of government contracts while eyeing a new drone delivery service, prompting it to hire a slew of new lobbyists and move to a bigger downtown D.C. office. Amazon is also fighting the Federal Trade Commission over how it handled app purchases made by kids. Apple, Amazon and Google declined to comment on the record. Facebook did not reply to a request for comment. For all their efforts, these tech giants failed to advance their political priorities in the last Congress — but the fights are sure to return in 2015 under the Republican-majority Congress. GOP leaders in both chambers have already promised to revive the debate over patent litigation reform — a critical issue for tech companies like Google that want to curb lawsuits from so-called patent trolls. There’s also talk of boosting the number of foreign high-skilled workers, something industry titans have coveted as part of broader immigration reform. The looming expiration of key Patriot Act surveillance authorities means Congress must also wade back into the fight over what data the NSA can collect — a major issue for tech companies stung by Edward Snowden’s leaks about the agency’s spying via popular Internet services. And lawmakers are plugging into new issues like drones and wearable technology that are important to Silicon Valley. “No doubt, Internet and tech companies are a bigger and more important part of the economy — period. It’s natural they’re going to be more involved in the political process,” said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group whose members include Amazon, Facebook and Google. “There’s been a growing realization that not only do tech companies have to be in there [in D.C.], to make a fair pitch, they have to be more actively involved because they have to fight off hostile efforts.“ Google is the leader of the tech pack when it comes to lobbying: The company, which until October owned Motorola Mobility, spent more than $17 million in 2014 — its second-most expensive year after 2012, when it battled back a federal antitrust investigation. The search giant’s D.C. operation, led by former GOP Rep. Susan Molinari, relocated last year to a new, sprawling 54,000-square-foot office steps from the Capitol. Facebook, for its part, spent more than $9.3 million in 2014, up from $6.4 million in 2013. The company’s most recent lobbying report points to its work on privacy and security issues along with Internet access and trade, as Facebook aims to expand its service worldwide and avoid foreign rules that might restrict where it stores user data. Companies like Belkin, a major player in the emerging sector of connected home devices, and Snapchat, an app for disappearing photo messages, each registered their first-ever lobbyists last year. Snapchat hired its new consultants from the firm Heather Podesta + Partners after a major data breach registered on Washington’s radar. Other prominent tech companies retained new help, as well. Netflix grew its lobbying roster amid the fight at the FCC over net neutrality. And Uber added D.C. lobbyists to win new allies for its ride-hailing app, which has triggered fights with state and local regulators and cab operators nationwide. And a coalition of tech titans like Apple, Google and Microsoft banded together to invest in an anti-NSA snooping coalition, Reform Government Surveillance, which spent $230,000 in 2014. Many of those companies’ executives regularly traveled to Washington to press President Barack Obama on surveillance reforms, and the group ran frequent advertisements highlighting the need for more NSA transparency.

Generic Aff- GOP Supports Plan

The GOP is opposed to domestic Surveillance

Miller, 2014 Miller, Zeke J. "Exclusive: Republican Party Calls For End To NSA Domestic Phone Records Program." Time. Time News, 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 03 July 2015.

In the latest indication of a growing libertarian wing of the GOP, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution Friday calling for an investigation into the “gross infringement” of Americans’ rights by National Security Agency programs that were revealed by Edward Snowden. The resolution also calls on on Republican members of Congress to enact amendments to the Section 215 law that currently allows the spy agency to collect records of almost every domestic telephone call. The amendment should make clear that “blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence — electronic, physical, and otherwise — of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court,” the resolution reads. The measure, the “Resolution to Renounce the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Program,” passed by an “overwhelming majority” by voice vote, along with resolutions calling for the repeal of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and reaffirming the party’s pro-life stance, according to Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman. Among other points, the resolution declares “the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” a claim embraced by civil libertarians of both parties. The revelation of the NSA programs has caused deepened a rift within the Republican Party between national security hawks and libertarians, but at the meeting, no RNC member rose to speak against the resolution. The full text of the resolution as given to TIME follows below: Resolution to Renounce the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Program WHEREAS, the secret surveillance program called PRISM targets, among other things, the surveillance of U.S. citizens on a vast scale and monitors searching habits of virtually every American on the internet; WHEREAS, this dragnet program is, as far as we know, the largest surveillance effort ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens, consisting of the mass acquisition of Americans’ call details encompassing all wireless and landline subscribers of the country’s three largest phone companies; WHEREAS, every time an American citizen makes a phone call, the NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation, all of which are an invasion into the personal lives of American citizens that violates the right of free speech and association afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; WHEREAS, the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, that warrants shall issue only upon probable cause, and generally prevents the American government from issuing modern-day writs of assistance; WHEREAS, unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society and this program represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy and goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act; and WHEREAS, Republican House Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, an author of the Patriot Act and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Section 215’s passage, called the Section 215 surveillance program “an abuse of that law,” writing that, “based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended,” therefore be it RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to enact legislation to amend Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make it clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence — electronic, physical, and otherwise — of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court; RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to call for a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying and the committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform ot end unconstitutional surveillance as well as hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance; and RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA’s data collection programs.

Surveillance Reform = Popular

Both legislators and the American people support surveillance reform,

Sledge ‘13 [Matt Sledge, 9/25/13, Huffington Post, “NSA Reform Bill Comes from Bipartisan Group of Senators”] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/nsa-reform-bill_n_3991245.html

A bipartisan group of senators announced a comprehensive surveillance reform bill on Wednesday, but their effort may encounter resistance from the powerful Intelligence Committee chairwoman, who steadfastly supports the National Security Agency. The legislation "expresses our bipartisan view of what Congress must do to enact real, not cosmetic, intelligence reform," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Intelligence Committee. "The disclosures over the last hundred days have caused a sea change in the way the public views the surveillance system." Wyden was joined by fellow committee member Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). The senators said that their bill, whose full text was not immediately available, would end bulk collection of Americans' phone records, close a loophole that allows the NSA to conduct "backdoor searches" of Americans' communications without a warrant, and create a "constitutional advocate" to argue against the government before the secretive court that oversees foreign surveillance. The bill would also permit private companies like Google, which has complained that its hands are tied, to disclose more information about what kind of data they are forced to give the government. And it would create a right to sue for individuals who are "professionally impacted" by surveillance -- an issue core to a lawsuit against the government that the Supreme Court swatted down in February for lack of legal standing. All of those proposals are indebted to the revelations of NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Since June, when Snowden's disclosures started appearing in the world press, the NSA has weathered a steady drip of damaging stories. Recently it was revealed that the agency has violated privacy rules thousands of times a year and that it has misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "The significant reforms in this bill are especially important in light of recent declassified reports that show what Senator Wyden and I have known for years," said Udall, who was privy to the secret reports as a member of the Intelligence Committee but not allowed to reveal their contents. "The National Security Agency has been unable to properly manage existing surveillance programs," he said. "This has led to the abuse of Americans' privacy and misleading statements made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the pro-surveillance reform Electronic Frontier Foundation, applauded the bill's introduction Wednesday. "The Senators' move is yet another reassuring sign -- which ranges from public opinion to the Amash amendment -- that Congress will try to fix the NSA spying," he said via email. "Now it's time for the Senators' fellow members to get behind these reforms and make sure that the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the NSA end." Although Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has already introduced legislation to increase oversight on some of the NSA's programs, the larger, comprehensive reform bill likely needs to move through the Intelligence Committee. The latter panel is chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has repeatedly expressed her support of the NSA's efforts and, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has shown little inclination to allow reform bills to advance. "We have a number of fronts on which we're going to operate, and quite frankly fight, because this is not going to be easy," Udall acknowledged. Civil libertarians have scored one victory: With polls showing a broad majority of Americans concerned there are not enough checks on the NSA's powers, and with the House nearly passing an amendment in July meant to curb the bulk collection of phone call data, the Senate Intelligence Committee is allowing rare public hearings on the NSA's programs. Wyden said the bill's introduction was an attempt to set a high bar for debate ahead of the Intelligence Committee's first public hearing since Snowden's leaks. That hearing on Thursday will feature testimony from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

Privacy = Bipart

Privacy-protecting legislation has bipartisan support—polls prove the public opposes spying

Jaycox ‘14 [Mark M. Jaycox, Jaycox is a Legislative Analyst for EFF, specializing in user privacy, civil liberties, surveillance law, and cybersecurity, 1/22/14, Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Update: Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying”] Accessed Online: 7/05/15 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued. Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June. What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy rights. Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight.

Privacy protecting legislation proves to have bipartisan support

Rampton ‘15 [Roberta Rampton, 2/05/15, “Obama Finds Bipartisan Support For First 'Big Data' Privacy Plan”] Accessed Online: 7/05/15 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/obama-privacy-plan_n_6620436.html

The White House is working with bipartisan sponsors on a bill to protect data collected from students through educational apps - the first of President Barack Obama's "Big Data" privacy plans to gain traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. Obama has pushed to do more to protect privacy in an age when consumers leave a trail of digital footprints through smart phones, personal devices and social media - information that can be collected, analyzed and sold. He has proposed action on a series of laws to address "Big Data" concerns, but most have yet to find momentum. That could change, given public concerns over privacy and cybersecurity that have been amplified by high-profile hacking of credit card data at companies such as Target and Home Depot, said top Obama adviser John Podesta. "I think there's much more pressure now to move legislation and we're certainly going to use all of the resources we have, including the president's time, to ensure that the Congress takes this up," Podesta told Reuters in an interview. In the next couple of weeks, Indiana Congressman Luke Messer, the chairman of the House of Representatives Republican Policy Committee, and Democrat Jared Polis of Colorado, an Internet entrepreneur who founded a network of charter schools, will unveil a student privacy bill. "Protecting America's children from Big Data shouldn't be a partisan issue," Messer said in a statement. "I'm glad to work across the aisle to find the appropriate balance between technology in the classroom and a parent's right to protect their child's privacy." The lawmakers have long worked on the issue with privacy advocates and more than 100 companies including Microsoft, Google, and News Corp subsidiary Amplify to develop a privacy pledge to prevent misuse of data collected in classrooms.

Telephone Aff = Bipart

Ending telephone collection programs has bipartisan support—similar bills have passed easily in both the house and the senate

Reuters 6/2 [Reuters, 6/02/15, Business Insider, “U.S. Congress passes bill to limit domestic surveillance”] http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-congress-passes-bill-to-limit-domestic-surveillance-2015-6
The U.S. Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that ends spy agencies' bulk collection of Americans' telephone records, a vote that reversed national security policy that had been in place since shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. After weeks of often angry debate over how to balance concerns about privacy with worries about terrorist attacks, the Senate passed the USA Freedom Act by a vote of 67-32, with support from both Democrats and Republicans. Because the House of Representatives passed the bill last month, the Senate vote sends the bill to the White House, where President Barack Obama has promised to sign it into law. The measure replaces a program in which the National Security Agency sweeps up data about Americans' telephone calls with a more targeted system.

Lobbying Influences Agenda

Lobbying has considerable influence on policy makers studies show

Dr. Schwalbe in 2015 (Stephen is a faculty Member at the American Public University; “Special Commentary: Lobbying in America” Published: July 2, 2015 Accessed: 7/5/15; http://inhomelandsecurity.com/special-commentary-lobbying-in-america/)

There is a debate among political scholars as to which type of lobbying is more effective – direct or indirect. Before addressing this question, let me provide some background on lobbying. Lobbyists are knowledgeable people, many of them lawyers. They meet with advocates and other organizations on Capitol Hill to support specific legislation. Lobbying Congress often involves lobbyists doing the leg work that can’t be completed by congressional staff members because there are not enough of them with the requisite expertise. Lobbyists compile evidence for congressional hearings. They attend hearings to keep members and staff well abreast of what is going on. Despite the great work lobbyists generally do, political lobbying generally does not have a good reputation primarily due to negative media reporting. It only takes a few corrupt lobbyists (see Jack Abramoff, Rep. Randy Cunningham, and Charles Keating) to sour people on lobbying efforts in Congress. Lobbying has its roots in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The most current law regarding lobbying is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which is intended to keep members of Congress from accepting gifts from lobbyists, and requires them to disclose more information related to their lobbyists. In 2009, President Obama signed two Executive Orders and three presidential memoranda which restricted how former members of Congress could be employed as lobbyists in the government. However, lobbying is not restricted to just members of Congress. It occurs at every level of government, and also is done within the executive branch where policies are implemented. Since 1998, 43 percent of the members who left Congress registered to become lobbyists. The Center for Responsive Politics reported on opensecrets.org, a site that tracks the flow of money in Washington, that there are currently 12,000 lobbyists registered federally. Of the 81 former members of the 111th Congress with new jobs, 25 of them are now lobbyists. Among current congressional staffers, 120 are former lobbyists. Among current lobbyists, 890 are former congressional staffers. Yet, there are an estimated 261,000-plus people involved in lobbying when you count all of the assistants, lawyers, et al. And, the amount of money spent lobbying in federal government ranges from $2 billion to $3.5 billion annually. (Open Secret 2013) Direct lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation between a lobbyist and anyone involved in making laws and policy. Usually, before meetings take place between lobbyists and lawmakers, lobbyists must have knowledge of not only the subject, but also of the lawmaker with whom they will be speaking, their voting history, and their stance on a particular subject. The communication between a lobbyist and lawmaker must be related to specific legislation and involve a position on it to legally be considered lobbying. The majority of lobbying is done directly. Alternatively, there is indirect lobbying, also known as “grassroots” lobbying. This is referred to as “grassroots” because lobbyists appeal directly to the public with a “call to action” to influence the elected official to vote in their favor on some legislation. There is also something known as “AstroTurf” lobbying which is grassroots lobbying sponsored by corporations. Using indirect lobbying, lobbyists get citizens to write letters, sign petitions, call their representatives, and even stage public demonstrations for their particular cause. The indirect approach also involves sending faxes and emails, writing editorials, advertising, holding fundraisers, and holding public meetings to bring attention to their point of view. In a 2000 Gallop Poll survey of Congress, “more than 70 percent rated personal letters from the constituents as having a great deal of influence on their legislative decisions” (Brown M.D., J. & Evens M.D., R. 2000). However, there is much more time and effort involved in indirect, compared to direct, lobbying. Just as there is corruption associated with direct lobbying (e.g., bribes, favors, entertainment), so is there with indirect lobbying. Fraudulent grassroots lobbying could include sending communications from a nonexistent person, or knowingly submitting false information to an official or to the public. According to Ron Jacobs, et al, of Venable.com, “The more an organization controls and/or directs the grassroots activities, the less genuine the resulting communication may appear in the eyes of the official and public.” So, the question is which approach is more effective? Since this is a political question, the answer is the standard, “It depends.” It depends on a few key factors, including the lawmaker, the legislation and contextual variables. The first factor is who are the lawmakers one is trying to influence. Sometimes the direct approach is more effective as it is more tailored to the lawmakers, their personalities or their political affinity. On the other hand, seeing massive demonstrations on an issue in a member’s home district or state both in person and on the national news, or receiving hundreds of phone calls or emails daily could have the decisive impact. Lawmakers are human, so there are many variables that affect how they might be influenced. Then, there is the legislation itself being considered. Some issues are easier than others to get citizens motivated to petition for. Finally, there are contextual variables that could affect which type of lobbying might be more effective. For example, if there is limited time before a vote on a controversial bill, then direct lobbying would likely be more effective as indirect lobbying takes more time to organize and execute. Another example would be who the stakeholders are in favor of and against the bill. The greater the stature of the stakeholders, the more likely that grassroots lobbying would be more effective. A third example would be the availability of resources. Indirect lobbying usually requires more resources (i.e., time and money) than direct lobbying.

At: Dems Links

The Dems are silent on NSA surveillance

Zelizer, 2013 Julian. "The NSA Spies and Democrats Look Away." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 09 July 2013. Web. 3 July 2015.

During the weeks of debates triggered by Edward Snowden and his release of information about a classified National Security Agency spying program, the story has moved further and further from the actual surveillance and centered instead on the international cat-and-mouse game to find him. What has been remarkable is how Democrats have expressed little opposition to the surveillance program. Many Democrats have simply remained silent as these revelations have emerged while others, like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, have openly defended the program. President Barack Obama, while initially acknowledging the need for a proper balance between civil liberties and national security, has increasingly focused on defending the government and targeting Snowden. When former President George W. Bush offered comments that echoed much of the president's sentiment, some of his supporters couldn't help but cringe as these two one-time adversaries came together on the issue of counterterrorism. Julian Zelizer Julian Zelizer The loss of a Democratic opposition to the framework of counterterrorism policy has been one of the most notable aspects of Obama's term in office. Although Obama ran in 2008 as a candidate who would change the way the government conducted its business and restore a better balance with civil liberties, it has not turned out that way. Obama has barely dismantled any of the Bush programs, and sometimes even expanded their reach in the use of drone strikes and the targeting of American citizens. He has also undertaken an aggressive posture toward those who criticize his program. Opinion: Why we're all stuck in the digital transit zone with Snowden Equally notable has been how silent many liberals, who once railed against Bush for similar activities, have become in recent years. Whenever Obama has encountered conservative pushback for minor efforts to change national security operations, there has been little pressure from liberals for him to move in a different direction. If there was any moment when liberals might use a scandal to pressure the president into reforms, this was it. But there is little evidence that this will happen. Where is the outrage? Where has the Democratic opposition gone? Part of the story simply has to do with political hypocrisy. Whether or not we like it, partisans tend to be harder on the opposition party than their own. This was clear when Republican opponents of a strong national security system, who gave then-President Bill Clinton trouble when he went after home-bred white extremists in 1995 and 1996 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, remained silent when President Bush took the same steps against terrorism after 9/11 -- such as in the use of roving wiretaps on cell phones. Democrats have been reluctant to weaken a president who has moved forward on domestic policies they care about by giving him trouble on an issue where their party has traditionally been vulnerable. The silence on national security is also a product of presidential leadership. One of the functions of a president, as party leader, is to send strong signals about what the party should focus on. When Obama backed away from closing Guantanamo early in his first term, and has been reluctant to do much about the issues of interrogation and aggressive use of American power, he made it much harder for Democratic liberals to do this on their own. By embracing so much of President Bush's national security program, Obama has forged a bipartisan consensus that further marginalized the left and made it harder for them to gain much traction. Opinion: Edward Snowden, want my advice? Finally, liberals have been split on this issue. The intense animosity toward Bush created the appearance of unanimity, but, in reality, divisions loomed all along. Now that Democrats have been able to debate national security with their own president in the White House, it is clear that many liberals, like Feinstein, believe the government needs to take these steps. Efforts to attack the United States, ranging from the failed plot to bomb the New York City subways to the Boston bombings, have offered a reminder of the chronic risks the nation faces. "What do you think would happen if Najibulla Zazi was successful?" Feinstein asked, referring to his effort to bomb a New York subway. "There would be unbridled criticism. Didn't we learn anything? Can't we protect our homeland?" But Democrats must also remember that too much consensus can lead to bad decisions. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, many liberal Democrats feared being seen as "soft on communism," and allowed reckless and random attacks on Americans accused of allying with the Soviets. This dangerously eroded civil liberties and destroyed many lives. During the early 1960s, Lyndon Johnson's refusal to listen to the many critics of his Vietnam policies led him deeper and deeper into the quagmire of that war. And during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Democratic fears of being seen as weak on defense led to a ratcheting up of concern about Iraq that helped give Bush the political space he needed to send American troops off to war. It is possible that further revelations supplied by Snowden to The Guardian newspaper's Glenn Greenwald will energize liberal opponents of national security policy and build pressure in Congress for serious investigations and possible reform. But the odds are slim. Opinion: U.S. intelligence community is out of control It's more likely that most liberal critics of the administration will remain silent and our equivalent of what President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 called the military-industrial complex -- the intricate web connecting defense contractors, the military, members of Congress and the executive branch -- will continue to grow.

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 292.55 Kb.

Share with your friends: