Senator Wyden asks your help in reining in NSA

[grasswire]

rec'd via email


Dear xxxxx,


When we talk about reforming the NSA, we’re right to focus first and foremost on protecting the rights and privacy of American citizens.

Government spying on innocent civilians is simply wrong. But that’s not the whole story. NSA overreach is also doing damage to our economy, and costing us jobs.

As chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I’ve heard from technology leaders about the economic impact of the dragnet surveillance – and the news is sobering. By some estimates, U.S. technology companies could lose up to $35 billion in revenue over the next three years. Much of that loss comes from foreign customers opting not to buy high-tech goods and services from U.S.-based companies. Mass surveillance isn’t just bad for our democracy and our diplomacy – it’s bad for business.

Reining in the NSA would do more than restore our right to privacy – it would also help us create and protect jobs. But the watered-down version of the USA Freedom Act passed by the House of Representatives simply doesn’t do the job.

I hope you’ll join me in calling on the House to pass the full-strength version of NSA reform, so we can send it to the President for his signature. Sign the petition calling for real NSA reform and let’s make our voices heard! http://www.standtallforamerica.com/petition/stop-nsa-mass-surveillance/

Thank you for standing with me.

Ron Wyden

[merrily]

1. I like Wyden A LOT, but this seems like typical D.C. kabuki to me.

When Wyden sat in the Democratic majority Senate, did he ask our help in calling him and the Democratic Senators who were in the majority to act on this? For one thing, I am not sure when anyone in D.C. ever responded to phone calls. Certainly not more than they respond to lobbyists. If they did, the ACA would have a stronger public option now because that issue and Medicare for all got plenty of calls and other public pressure 2009-2010. For another, security and defense is just about the only kind of government spending the Republicans will approve, other than anti-choice. It's their thing.

What are the chances that a Republican House is going to respond to these calls? And, if they don't respond, who are we going to blame for what is essentially much more of an Executive Branch issue than an issue for Congress? And, since it is essentially much more of an Executive Branch issue, why is he telling us to call the Republican House and not the Democratic Executive?

I hope some DUer can give me great answers to these questions. Meanwhile, as a general comment, I will call DC about many things, even when I am 99% sure it's futile. However, I think laboring under any illusion can be quite dangerous. And, I think the belief that members of the House or the Senate or the White House will act in a certain way if 2000 or even 200,000 people from their state or district call them is an illusion.

For just one glaring example, did Hillary speak on behalf of the Iraq War because of the many calls pro and con she got from her district about the War that she referred to at the start of that speech? Or because Democratic think tanksters like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute were solidly in favor of that fricking, deadly invasion? For another, did the White House scold people about the public option being a sliver because the White House had no calls in favor of the public option? Or because the lobbyists with whom Rahm had been meeting since January had opposed it?

And those two things concerned Americans at those times a hell of a lot more than NSA snooping does. So, go ahead and call, just as I do. But don't think that a call (or a post) = the kind of activism that is going to change minds in D.C.

[LeftyMom]

2. Wyden did a lot to call attention to the issue, but he was really hamstrung

by the fact that being on the committee meant that he couldn't say a lot of what he knew. He asked a lot of pointed questions in hearings, etc that made it really obvious what his concerns were if you were paying attention.

Unfortunately most people weren't paying attention.

He's reliably on our side on this one. One of the few.

[merrily]

3. I know. But my specific question, was did he ask us to call him and the Dem Senators

when he sat in the Senate as part of the Dem majority.

[LeftyMom]

4. So the fence sitters would feel pressure, I suspect?

That's usually the motivation behind call-in campaigns.

[merrily]

5. You are still not answering the one question I asked in two posts.

And I strongly disagree that a genuine expectation that some calls will change history or, in this case, the outcome of a Republican house vote, is usually the motivation behind a politician's starting a call in campaign.

For example, in this case, let's even go ahead and assume calls would change votes of a few House fence sitters, a proposition for which I submit we have near zero evidence. But, let's assume it would. What difference would that make in the outcome of a vote in an overwhelmingly Republican and unified House?

[billhicks76]

6. Phone Calls Help

[merrily]

9. What evidence can you cite for that?

[billhicks76]

10. Their Notes?

When I worked for a Congressman I believe their was a weighted system to pay attention to citizens. Obviously lobbyists have their ear but citizen input does matter according to them. You must remember they do it because they need votes to get re-elected. It's just another form of quid pro quo. Emails are the most meaningless and get one point, phone calls get 100 points and hand written letters get 1000 points...or something like that.

[Aerows]

7. He may not be able to say everything

but I support him for saying *something* which is what too many have failed the American people with silence.

[NealK]

8. K&R