Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Traditional Political Capital Links
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Obama Pushes the Plan
Obama promised surveillance reform – that means he takes blame for the plan.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and representation professor with
the Phil Lind Chair, and Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, “Secrecy and negligence: How Congress lost control of domestic
surveillance” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf, p.15-6, accessed 7-15-15,
TAP]
Ideally, in the aftermath of the Snowden scandals, Congress would undertake to restore order and legal
regularity to surveillance policy by passing new legislation on the metadata program. Conceivably, it
could choose to end bulk collection of phone records and reaffirm the original requirement of individual
orders for the seizure of a target’s business records. Given the prevailing sense of urgency about
antiterrorism security, however, we think a constructive measure would more likely sanction metadata
collection, subject to conditions and requirements designed to avoid unnecessary harm to privacy
interests. For the immediate future, however, Congress appears to have gone out of the business of
determining policy for antiterrorism surveillance. In the near term, the best hope for privacy interests is
for President Obama to make good on his post-Snowden pledge, repeated in his 2015 State of the Union
Address, to reform surveillance programs in order to instill “public confidence…that the privacy of
ordinary people is not being violated.” He promised to work with Congress on the issue. If Congress is
not capable of acting, the executive branch can impose its own constraints on surveillance practices.57
But the maintenance of self-imposed executive-branch constraints would depend entirely on the
strength of the administration’s commitment—and, in two years’ time, on the disposition of the next
president. Because of the president’s central responsibility for national security, the presidency is hardly
a reliable institutional champion for privacy interests.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
New Surveillance Restrictions
Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new surveillance limits
uniquely drains PC
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what critics
have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be
reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA
Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours
later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to
resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers,
including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be
difficult to get “broad, sweeping
reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the
office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance
reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other
activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more
restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—
that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for
low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater
we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass
surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual
physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
Reform is unpopular.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and representation professor with
the Phil Lind Chair, and Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, “Secrecy and negligence: How Congress lost control of domestic
surveillance” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf, p.14, accessed 7-15-15, TAP]
The Snowden revelations, resulting in a yearlong series of scandalous front-page news stories, led to
widespread demands for legislative action. The leaked documents largely eliminated the problems of
deliberating a secret program by making it no longer secret. But ongoing security concerns and everincreasing partisan gridlock have prevented Congress from acting.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Congressional structure and current political fight guarantees massive fight over the
plan.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and representation professor with
the Phil Lind Chair, and Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, “Secrecy and negligence: How Congress lost control of domestic
surveillance” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf, p.1-2, accessed 7-15-15,
TAP]
We describe and explain Congress’s deliberative failure on phone and Internet surveillance policy. We
show that along with a lack
of consistent public concern for privacy, and the increasing tendency toward partisan gridlock,
Congress’s institutional methods for dealing with secret surveillance programs have undermined its
capacity to deliberate and act effectively with respect to those programs. Although the current political
environment is hardly conducive to addressing such problems, we discuss long-term goals for
institutional reform to enhance this capacity. We see no easy or decisive institutional fix. But without
some structural change, the prospects look dim for maintaining significant limitations on investigatory intrusion in
an era of overwhelming concern for security.
Passage of the Freedom Act sapped momentum for surveillance
reform – any further changes to surveillance programs will be met
with resistance in Congress
Gross 6/5 (Grant, IDG News Service, 'Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress',
www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.html)
After the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security
Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further
change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom
Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President
Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the
Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That
resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans,
who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward
Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It
may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said
Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged
the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and
seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,”
Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more
congressional action. “It will be a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst
and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to
gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,”
said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The
theater we’ve just witnessed allows
decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies
understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may dither around
the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
NSA reforms cost political capital – Republicans oppose
Roberts 6/1 (Dan, The Guardian’s Washington Bureau chief, http://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2015/jun/01/charges-against-edward-snowden-stand-despite-telephone-surveillance-ban)
But the White House placed itself firmly on the side of NSA reform, when asked if the president was “taking ownership” of the USA
Freedom Act, which is expected to pass Congress later this week. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I
would suspect [it] would be a logical conclusion from some historians that the president ended some of these programmes,” replied
Earnest. “This is consistent with the reforms that the president advocated a year and a half ago. And these are reforms that
required the president and his team to expend significant amounts of political capital to achieve
over the objection of Republicans.” The administration also avoided four separate opportunities to warn that the
temporary loss of separate Patriot Act surveillance provisions that expired alongside bulk collection on Sunday night had
put the safety of Americans at risk, as some have claimed. “All I can do is I can illustrate to you very clearly that there
are tools that had previously been available to our national security professionals that are not available today because the
Senate didn’t do their job,” said Earnest. “As a result, there are programmes and tools that our national security
professionals themselves say are important to their work that are not available to them right now, as
we speak.”
Plan unpopular – Congress fears risk of terrorism
Milligan 6/12 (Susan, Political and foreign affairs writer, http://www.usnews.com/news/thereport/articles/2015/06/12/privacy-or-terrorism-a-question-of-risk)
But still, says John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University and an expert in
security studies, Congress and the public are still uncomfortable doing the
same calculations they naturally do when getting into a car or eating a few
pieces of bacon: what is the real risk, and what costs are we willing to pay
to ease that risk? The chances of dying in a terror attack, even considering 9/11, are just one in
four million, Mueller notes (it's one in 110 million if 9/11 is taken out of the equation). "The issue
is 'acceptable risk,' and nobody wants to use that term," Mueller says. For
when it comes to terrorism, any risk may be too much for Congress and
their constituents to take on.
Freedom Act negotiations prove the plan would be controversial –
any further reforms would stir up backlash
Kayyali 5/1 (Nadia, member of EFF’s activism team; Nadia's work focuse on surveillance, national security
policy, and the intersection of criminal justice, racial justice, and digital civil liberties issues, 5/1/2015, Electronic
Frontier Foundation, “Yesterday's USA Freedom Markup: A Glimpse into the Fight to Reform Section 702,”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-markup-glimpse-fight-reform-section-702)
The 2015 version of the USA Freedom Act, HR 2048/S.1123 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee this
week, with a vote of 25 ayes and 2 noes. The Committee did not pass any amendments to the legislation. But the
markup discussion revealed a lot about where the House Judiciary Committee stands when it
comes to reforming Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act—one of the key authorities that the government
claims as justification for mass surveillance. House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte explained why he and
others voted against all amendments: The legislation before us today was painstakingly and
carefully negotiated not just amongst members of this committee, but with our colleagues on the
House Intelligence Committee and the intelligence community… We must not pass amendments
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
that will be a poison pill to the success of these reforms. Rep. Goodlatte made it clear that he wanted to pass the bill as is
to preserve a carefully crafted compromise. In fact, he and other supporters of USA Freedom on the Committee
repeatedly noted that they supported certain amendments in theory, but could not vote for them
because of their concern about making the legislation impossible to pass. We think it’s important to take note
of what they supported and what they didn’t. When these issues come up again, either around another piece of legislation or another reauthorization
fight, we hope that you’ll join us in holding these lawmakers accountable. Ultimately, the lack of amendments was a mixed blessing because it blocked
both bad and good changes. A data retention amendment from Rep. Steve King that would have authorized the government to enter into agreements
with telecoms and compensate those telecoms to store data was on the table. Rep. Goodlatte spoke favorably about the amendment, but made it clear
that he couldn’t support it because “data retention issues are controversial, and inclusion of this amendment will most certainly prevent consideration
of this bill” on the House and Senate floor.[1] We’ve long been concerned about data retention, so we’ll be following this issue closely. Unfortunately,
there were also some important amendments that would’ve strengthened a piece of legislation that we see as only a first, small step in the right
direction— one that has serious faults that could have been partially addressed by these changes. In particular, we were closely watching an amendment
that aimed to cut funding to NSA “backdoors” from Rep. Ted Poe, which mirrored the language in an amendment to the 2014 Department of Defense
appropriations bill. As Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who also introduced the similar Secure Data Act of 2014 with Sen. Ron Wyden, explained: we have said that
the bill would end bulk collection, but without addressing 702, I do not think it is correct that we will be ending bulk collection. The amendment would
have addressed two types of NSA backdoors. First, it attempted to end the practice known as "backdoor searches.” The NSA collects contents of
communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Even though it’s ostensibly used for foreign targets, Section 702 surveillance sweeps
up the communications of Americans, and the NSA has acknowledged that it searches this information without a warrant for the communications of
Americans. The amendment that did not pass yesterday attempted to prohibit this practice except in a few limited situations. The amendment also
addressed the NSA’s backdoor into products and services. Leaked documents have shown that the NSA, with the help of the FBI, has sought backdoors
into products and services, from encryption software to online communications tools like Skype. While the government claims that these backdoors
would only be accessible to them, tech companies and security experts have made it very clear that security backdoors make products and services, and
by extension the Internet, less secure for everyone. Yet both the FBI and NSA Directors have recently urged companies to install security "backdoors"
into hardware or software, even while American businesses continue to suffer reputational harm overseas and even lose business. Ultimately, the
amendment failed 9-24 .[2] Rep. John Conyers echoed Rep. Goodlatte’s comments on the compromise represented by the legislation in explaining his
House
leadership had all but assured us that if the bill is amended, it will not be considered on the
House floor. However, Rep. Conyers and others who voted against the amendment expressed clear support
for what the amendment would have done. Rep Goodlatte noted, “this committee will exercise its jurisdiction on this and soon.
no vote: Any amendment to this compromise threatens to stop this legislation dead in its tracks. This is not mere speculation.
We will hold a hearing on this . . .” Echoing Rep. Goodlatte’s sentiments, Rep. Darrell Issa noted: If I get an opportunity to vote for it on a bill that
cannot be blown up by the House leadership and/or the Senate, I will vote for it, and I think that is what we need to do. Rep.
Jim
Sensenbrenner also said that he supports the policy, but stated, “The time and the place to do
this is when Section 702 comes up for reauthorization.” The sentiment that the FISA
Amendments Act expiration is the right time for 702 reform was echoed by several others as
well. But the FISA Amendments Act doesn’t expire until December 31, 2017. We don’t think reform to this
unconstitutional spying bill should wait that long.
Plan unpopular – Congress supports intelligence community
Timm 15 [Trevor Timm, 3/14/15, Trevor Timm is a co-founder and the executive director of the Freedom of the
Press Foundation. He is a journalist, activist, and lawyer who writes a twice weekly column for The Guardian on
privacy, free speech, and national security. He received his J.D. from New York Law School. In 2013, he received the
Hugh Hefner First Amendment Award for journalism., Congress won't protect us from the surveillance state – they'll
enhance it, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/14/congress-wont-protect-us-from-thesurveillance-state-theyll-enhance-it]Mantis
The same Senator who warned the public about the NSA’s mass surveillance pre-Snowden said this week that the
Obama
administration is still keeping more spying programs aimed at Americans secret, and it seems
Congress only wants to make it worse. In a revealing interview, Ron Wyden – often the lone voice in favor of privacy
rights on the Senate’s powerful Intelligence Committee – told Buzzfeed’s John Stanton that American citizens are being
monitored by intelligence agencies in ways that still have not been made public more than a year
and a half after the Snowden revelations and countless promises by the intelligence community
to be more transparent. Stanton wrote: Asked if intelligence agencies have domestic surveillance programs of which the
public is still unaware, Wyden said simply, “Yeah, there’s plenty of stuff.” Wyden’s warning is not the first clue about the
government’s still-hidden surveillance; it’s just the latest reminder that they refuse to come clean about it. For instance, when the
New York Times’ Charlie Savage and Mark Manzetti exposed a secret CIA program “collecting bulk records of international money
transfers handled by companies like Western Union” into and out of the United States in 2013, they also reported that “several
government officials said more than one other bulk collection program has yet to come to light.” Since then – beyond the myriad
Snowden revelations that continue to pour out – the public has learned about the Postal Service’s massive database containing
photographs of the front and back of every single piece of mail that is sent in the United States. There was also the Drug
Enforcement Administration’s mass phone surveillance program – wholly separate than the NSA’s – in which “phone records were
retained even if there was no evidence the callers were involved in criminal activity,” according to the New York Times. And recently,
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
the Justice Department’s “national database to track in real time the movement of vehicles around the US”, reported by the Wall
Street Journal. That there are still programs aimed at Americans that the Obama administration is keeping secret from the public
should be a front page scandal. Instead of exposing and informing these programs, however, Congress
seems much
more intent on giving the intelligence agencies even more power. On the same day that
Wyden issued his warning, the Senate Intelligence Committee passed its latest version of CISA, a
supposed “cybersecurity” bill that allows companies to hand over large swaths of personal
information to the government without any court order at all – and gives the companies
immunity from any privacy lawsuits that may result. Wyden called it “a surveillance bill by
another name” – and was the only Senator on the Intelligence Committee member to vote
against it. The committee claims they passed some privacy amendments, but we have no idea what since they did so in complete
secrecy, and the announcement came after it had already passed. The public has yet to see the bill. While members of
Congress attempt to pass a new way for the government – and the NSA – to get their hands on
more data of Americans, they’ve barely made a peep about reforming Section 215 of the Patriot
Act, the controversial law that was twisted and warped to allow the NSA to collect every phone
record in the United States. Soon they’ll have no choice but to address it: Section 215 has to be renewed by Congress in
June, or the law expires. With no progress on reforming, there will be a huge push in the coming weeks for Congress to reject
Section 215 entirely – and many people believe the surveillance state might not have the votes to keep it. Congress can keep trying to
avoid change, but reform is coming one way or another.
Reform beyond the Freedom Act is opposed in Congress
Hattem 4/30 (Julian, writer for the Hill, 4/20/15, The Hill, “Expansive
surveillance reform takes backseat to House politics,”
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spying-reforms-takebackseat-to-house-politics)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence
reform. As lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more expansive
reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of the reforms — which
practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they would derail a
carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The House
Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would reform the National
Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a
perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment
who ultimately voted against it. “What
adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that
this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill
goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA
Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its
“PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the
networks that make up the backbone of the Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to
include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on
American citizens, our intelligence agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A
warrantless search of American citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a
fascinating glimpse into the political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to
advance legislation. While every committee member who spoke up was in support of the
amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if
this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is
objected to by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Intelligence
Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be
scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the
more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending
bill last year. “How can it be when the House of Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is
illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested
that it would be brought up as an amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers are also set to sunset in 2017, which
should force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little reassurance to critics of the
NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Plan will cause a fight – Congress is divided on surveillance reform
Kiefer 14 (Francine, Staff Writer and Congressional Correspondent for CS Monitor, 1/17/2014, CS Monitor,
“NSA reform? Obama faces headwinds in a Congress divided on surveillance policy,”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0117/NSA-reform-Obama-faces-headwinds-in-aCongress-divided-on-surveillance-policy)
President Obama
says he’d like to put the US government out of the business of storing Americans’
phone records – though he maintains it’s still necessary to collect those records en masse for anti-terrorism purposes. To
make this and other suggested changes to the National Security Agency's surveillance system, he’ll need the help of
Congress. Capitol Hill, however, is as divided on the subject as is the American public. Libertarianminded conservatives align with liberals in opposing the phone-dragnet program altogether, while
other Republicans and Democrats largely support it. Last July, the House fell short of
ending the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records, on a close, bipartisan vote. On the key House and Senate committees
responsible for drafting relevant legislation, members of the judiciary panels tend to want wholesale changes, while those dealing
with intelligence want only tweaks. But even that is a bit of a generalization, as division also marks the
committees. The upshot is that Congress could well have a tough time agreeing on the
legislation required to alter the program. President Obama proposes that the government stop holding
phone records. In making this recommendation, the president followed the advice of a blue-chip review panel he convened after the
furor over massive leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Although the panel found no intentional abuse of the records
so far – and the NSA collects data about a phone call but not its content – it warned that the government's storage of the data creates
the potential for abuse and public mistrust. Mr. Obama has asked the attorney general to come up with an alternative storage
arrangement. The panel suggested either keeping it with the phone companies or entrusting it with a third party. "While I am
encouraged the president is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am
disappointed in the details,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, in a statement. The senator, a tea party favorite, described
Obama’s solution as “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.” In the end, Senator Paul told CNN, little
changes: Private records will still be collected without a search warrant. He gave Obama an “A for effort” though. In the House, Rep.
Adam Schiff (D) of California, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, welcomed the changes. But in a statement – and in
legislation he introduced – the congressman says the government should obtain an individualized court order to get at phone
records “already held by phone companies as part of their normal business practices.” He opposes a third party holding records
because it would be “perceived as a subsidiary of the NSA and would do little to build public confidence.” Conversely, letting the
phone companies store the records “may create as many privacy problems as it solves,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, at a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. He pointed to recent examples of hacking at Target and Neiman Marcus. Rep. Peter
King (R) of New York, a strong defender of the NSA's bulk data collection, tweeted, in part: “Pres Obama NSA speech better than
expected. Most programs left intact.” Indeed, the need to keep up the mass collection of phone records has
staunch defenders on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, the chair of
the Senate Intelligence Committee. She says that collecting phone records is “important to
prevent another [9/11] attack.” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio took on a cautionary tone. "When lives are at
stake, the president must not allow politics to cloud his judgment," he said, in a written response. "The House will review any
legislative reforms proposed by the administration, but we will not erode the operational integrity of critical programs that have
helped keep America safe." An independent voice The president also seeks to change the workings of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISA), the secret court that provides judicial review of the NSA phone collection program. Obama wants
Congress to “authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an
independent voice in significant cases” before the court. This, too, drew criticism from the Hill. Such a
“public advocate” can’t be trusted if it even works for the government or is appointed by the government, said Senator
Paul. Representative Schiff echoed that an advocate panel must be “truly independent.” On the other hand, legislation passed by
Senator Feinstein’s committee last year gives the FISA court the ability to select a more sympathetic panel – “friends of the court” –
to argue for privacy or to provide an independent legal perspective. In Congress, it seems, there are as many views
about how to proceed as there are members.
Surveillance reform splits the Dems - Freedom Act proves
Fleitz 15 (Fred, "senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy," 5/11,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418207/nsa-data-collection-necessary-or-unconstitutional-fredfleitz)
Congress also has struggled with NSA reform. Last May, the House passed the 2014 USA Freedom Act, which would
put significant restrictions on the 215 program, including a mandate that metadata be retained by the phone companies, not the NSA. Although I
viewed this as a bad bill, I endorsed it in a June 23, 2014, National Review article because I believed that, regardless of the merits and capabilities of the
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
metadata program, it has been so damaged by fear-mongering attacks by the press and some politicians that it could not continue in its current form.
Unfortunately, the House version of the USA Freedom Act was made substantially worse by Patrick Leahy, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, who added restrictions that would effectively kill the metadata program and interfere with the operation of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court. Because of Leahy’s changes to the House version of the 2014 USA Freedom Act, it did not garner a filibuster-proof majority last
November, and the Senate failed to pass it. The top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee – then-chairman Feinstein and Saxby
Chambliss — said Leahy’s bill went too far. Former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey condemned the bill in a
November 17, 2014, Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “NSA Reform That Only ISIS Could Love.” The challenge for Congress now is to pass legislation to
extend the metadata program before it expires at the end of this month. Members of Congress and staff have been working over the past three months
to devise a 2015 version of the USA Freedom Act. On April 30, the House Judiciary Committee approved this bill by a vote of 25 to 2. An identical
version has been sponsored in the Senate by Senators Leahy and Lee. The House’s 2015 USA Freedom Act is slightly better than the 2014 Senate
version. The metadata program would continue, although the data would be held by phone companies. NSA searches of metadata databases would be
narrowed. The bill also would create a panel of experts to advise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on privacy, civil liberties, and technological
matters. Significant FISC decisions would be declassified. The bill includes concessions to the House Intelligence Committee, such as allowing the NSA
authority to conduct surveillance for 72 hours without obtaining a warrant on foreign targets who enter the United States, and to monitor domestic
targets on whom it has a probable-cause warrant when they travel overseas. The NSA will also be allowed to use the Patriot Act to collect data
domestically in an emergency. The
Left and privacy groups are split over the 2015 version of the USA
Freedom Act. Some have endorsed it, because they believe that it is the best they can get and
that it will open the door to greater reform down the road. These groups are pressuring Congress
to remove the concessions made to the House Intelligence Committee. Several of these groups
have stepped up their efforts to amend the bill in the light of the May 7 New York Court of
Appeals decision. Others on the left, such as the ACLU and the New York Times, do not support
the 2015 USA Freedom Act, since they would prefer that the electronic-surveillance provisions
of the Patriot Act be allowed to expire.
Hindering the NSA is massively unpopular – bipartisan support for
surveillance
Van Dongen 14 (Teun, , Independent National and International Security Expert,
12/18/2014 How proponents of NSA’s digital surveillance have won – for now, U.S. and the
World, http://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/article/how-proponentsnsa%E2%80%99s-digital-surveillance-have-won-%E2%80%93-now)
Already, November 18th was set to be a “do or die” moment for American spy agencies. On that day the
Senate voted on a Bill that Senate
of the NSA,
whose digital mass surveillance program came under fire after the revelations by NSAsubcontractor Edward Snowden. The most important and controversial parts of the Bill, ambitiously called the USA
Freedom Act, were provisions to restrict the NSA’s ability to gather digital data. For instance, had the Bill been
adopted, it would have put a stop to the bulk collection of US domestic phone records, forcing the
NSA to file specific requests for information instead. Additionally, the Bill recommended the introduction of so-called
Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democratic Senator from Nevada, was hoping would bring about the long-awaited reform
advocates, who could argue in court against the government. Currently, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which grants or dismisses
government requests for surveillance warrants, only hears the case made by the government, and there is no one to argue the other side. The role of
advocates would have been to fill that gap and to make sure that a real discussion took place. However, the
only 58 Senators, two short of the 60 necessary to override a filibuster, supported it. Predictably, many
Bill was shot down, as
of the Bill’s opponents cited
the increased terrorist threat, especially from the Islamic State, as a reason to block the USA Freedom Act. As
Republican Senator Susan Collins put it with more than a touch of pathos, “Why would we weaken the ability of our
intelligence community at a time when the threats against this country have never
been greater?” Other prominent Senators, including Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat
Dianne Feinstein of California, who chairs Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, opposed the Bill on similar grounds,
claiming that the recent emergence of new threats to US national security makes it
inopportune to reign in the NSA.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Trick – Generic – Obama Fights Plan/A2: Link Turns
Obama fights intensely against plan – all their turns are links
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, 11-19-2014, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevanceu-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought
to change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while
leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,
based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95 percent of
the planet called “non-Americans”). There were some mildly positive provisions in the USA Freedom Act: the placement of “public advocates”
at the FISA court to contest the claims of the government; the prohibition on the NSA holding Americans’ phone records, requiring instead that
they obtain FISA court approval before seeking specific records from the telecoms (which already hold those records for at least 18 months);
and reducing the agency’s “contact chaining” analysis from three hops to two. One could reasonably argue (as the ACLU and EFF did) that,
though woefully inadequate, the bill was a net-positive as a first step toward real reform, but one could also reasonably argue, as Marcy
Wheeler has with characteristic insight, that the bill is so larded with ambiguities and fundamental inadequacies that it would forestall better
options and advocates for real reform should thus root for its defeat. When
pro-privacy members of Congress first unveiled
the bill many months ago, it was actually a good bill: real reform. But the White House worked very hard— in
partnership with the House GOP—to water that bill down so severely that what the House ended up
passing over the summer did more to strengthen the NSA than rein it in, which caused even the ACLU and
EFF to withdraw their support. The Senate bill rejected last night was basically a middle ground between that
original, good bill and the anti-reform bill passed by the House. * * * * * All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most
important point from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S.
government is . . . the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and
that’s particularly true of empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform. This
Congress is not going to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance.
Even if it somehow did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the fact that the
U.S. intelligence community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means they’d easily
co-opt the entire reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of the mid1970s led to the establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight” court—the
committees were instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence community like Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Chambliss, and Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court quickly became a rubber stamp with subservient judges
who operate in total secrecy. Ever since the Snowden reporting began and public opinion (in both the U.S. and globally) began radically
changing, the White House’s strategy
has been obvious. It’s vintage Obama: Enact something that is called “reform”—
that in actuality changes
almost nothing, thus strengthening the very system he can pretend he “changed.” That’s the same tactic as
so that he can give a pretty speech telling the world that he heard and responded to their concerns—but
Silicon Valley, which also supported this bill: Be able to point to something called “reform” so they can trick hundreds of millions of current and
future users around the world into believing that their communications are now safe if they use Facebook, Google, Skype and the rest. In pretty
much every interview I’ve done over the last year, I’ve been asked why there haven’t been significant changes from all the disclosures. I
vehemently disagree with the premise of the question, which equates “U.S. legislative changes” with “meaningful changes.” But it has been
clear from the start that U.S.
legislation is not going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSA’s powers of
mass surveillance, at least not fundamentally. Those limitations are going to come from—are now coming from —very
different places:
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
That draws Obama into major fight with plan’s supporters - freedom act empirics
prove
Whittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14, http://www.zdnet.com/housepasses-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)
House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was
designed to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered
down." Next stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act,
which first authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152 cosponsors, the
bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands,
which according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama
administration by strengthening previously removed provisions. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author —
who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to
counter the "misuse" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House Judiciary
Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After
the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the
most prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However,
in prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the bill he
first introduced. "The
legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s surveillance
authorities," he said. "It bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message
to the NSA: We are watching you."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext – Obama Fights Plan
Obama fights against surveillance limits – any prior support was only designed to
INCREASE surveillance in face of immediate sunset provision
Sasso, 14 -- Brendan Sasso, National Journal, 3/25/14, Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed
Their Minds, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds20140325
It was only months ago that President Obama, with bipartisan backing from the heads of Congress's
Intelligence committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program
was key to keeping Americans safe from the next major terrorist attack. They were also dismissing
privacy concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the necessary safeguards were
already in place. But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and
the NSA's top supporters in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. And civil-liberties
groups—awash in their newly won clout—are declaring victory. The question is no longer whether to change the
program, but how dramatically to overhaul it. So what changed? It's not that Obama and his Hill allies
suddenly saw the error of their ways and became born-again privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical
section of the Patriot Act set to expire next year, they realized they had no choice but to negotiate. If
Congress fails to reauthorize that provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's collection of U.S.
records would have to end entirely. And the growing outrage prompted by the Snowden leaks means
that the NSA's supporters would almost certainly lose an up-or-down vote on the program. Rep. Adam
Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that looming sunset is what
forced lawmakers to the bargaining table. "I think what has changed is the growing realization that the
votes are simply not there for reauthorization," he said in an interview. "I think that more than anything else,
that is galvanizing us into action."
Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their proposals are now the NSA's best bet
to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror plots. Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated she is on board with the changes, saying
the president's proposal is a "worthy effort." And though the Hill's NSA allies are now proposing reforms to the
agency, they don't seem particularly excited about it. At a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the
Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the panel's top
Democrat, often sounded like they were arguing against their own bill that they were unveiling. "I passionately
believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said. Ruppersberger said if the program had
been in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. But the lawmakers acknowledged there
is broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently structured. "We need to do something about bulk collection
because of the perception of our constituents," Ruppersberger admitted. Under their legislation, the vast database of phone records would stay
in the hands of the phone companies. The NSA could force the phone companies to turn over particular records, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact. But Rogers rejected a reporter's suggestion that the NSA should have never had
control of the massive database of phone records in the first place. "There was no abuse, no illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said. For
all
their hesitance, however, Rogers and company much prefer their version to a competing proposal to change
the way the government gathers information. That would be the USA Freedom Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Rogers and his ilk fear would go too far in hamstringing the
NSA. The USA Freedom Act would require the NSA to meet a tougher standard for the data searches and
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
would limit other NSA programs, such as Internet surveillance of people overseas. Additionally, President Obama is
expected to unveil his own plan to reform the controversial phone data collection program this week. According to The New York Times,
Obama's proposal would also keep the database in the hands of the phone companies. His plan would
have tougher judicial oversight than the House bill by requiring pre-approval from the court for every targeted phone number, the
newspaper reported. But though the momentum has shifted and officials seem to be coalescing around a
framework for overhauling the NSA program, the question is far from settled. Leahy and Sensenbrenner
are not backing off from their USA Freedom Act, and outside groups will continue their policy push as
well.
Obama Opposes plan – Post Freedom Act status quo IS obama’s preferred middle
ground on surveillance – security concerns ensure he’ll oppose further limits
Shear, 6/3 -- Michael, NYT, White House Correspondent for NYT, Mr. Shear received a B.A. degree from
Claremont McKenna College and a M.A. degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard
University, 6/3/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-programown.html?_r=0
In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance For more than six years, President
Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a
program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress
into reauthorizing the program, with
new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little
question that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk
collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies
available for broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted
are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top
counterterrorism adviser. She called the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate
finally passed it.” The
president is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of
equilibrium he has talked about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also
vowed to rein in what he called government overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about
the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in
part because of his often grim daily intelligence
briefing, the president was also “very, very focused on the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every
day,” she said. The compromise on collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the
president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in
congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can intrude on the
lives of innocent Americans. Either way, Mr. Obama’s signature on the law late Tuesday night ensures that he will
deliver to the next president a method of hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that
emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program. “He owned it in 2009,”
said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just
didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA
Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a very small step forward.” He said his organization would continue to
demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance programs. “Obama has been presented with
this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or are you going to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus
far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is willing to spend political capital changing
those programs.” In the case of the telephone program, Mr. Obama’s preferred compromise was originally the brainchild
of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the public’s privacy concerns without losing the
agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly. In the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown,
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Mr. Obama
and his national security team insisted that broad surveillance powers were vital to tracking
terrorist threats, while admitting that the new approach to data collection would not harm that effort. White House officials said Mr.
Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right balance. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s
legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary. Mr.
Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed records. “This is the kind of
rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially
different than the program that he inherited.” Mr. Obama’s
advocacy put him at the center of a fierce congressional
debate over the surveillance program, which officially expired early Monday morning before lawmakers approved changes on
Tuesday. In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, railed against the president’s compromise
proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive.” At the
same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, excoriated Mr. Obama, saying, “The president continues
to conduct an illegal program,” a reference to a recent ruling by a federal appeals court that the original N.S.A. telephone data
collection program was not authorized by federal law. What emerged from that debate was a rare bipartisan victory for
the president, whose approach was met with approval by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate.
Even some of the president’s most ardent critics in the Republican Party endorsed the approach. “This is a
good day for the American people, whose rights will be protected,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example
of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The
compromise on the telephone collection program is part of a
broader tug-and-pull for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national security infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a
candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that infrastructure, pledging at the time to review every executive order by Mr.
Bush “to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties, which are unconstitutional, and I will reverse them with the stroke of a
pen.” Once
in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s decisions — in one of his first acts as president, he signed an executive
national security team has also embraced some of Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing
that they are necessary to protect Americans against attacks and to fight threats abroad. Mr. Obama
talked about “putting careful constraints” on surveillance even before Mr. Snowden revealed the existence of the
telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained how his thinking had evolved. “I came in with a
healthy skepticism about these programs,” Mr. Obama said. “My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them
thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s
assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on the privacy that are
involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on net, it was worth us
doing.” With the passage of the USA Freedom Act nearly two years later, Mr. Obama must make his new
approach work by maintaining a focus on security while doing more to respect privacy. “Certainly,” Ms. Monaco said, “we
order banning torture. But his
are going to be focused on that.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link/Turn Shield – Generic – Ratchet effect
Limiting surveillance drains PC – link only one way – strong political support makes
fight bigger - ratchet effect, inertia, and terror fears outweigh Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance
Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
been gathering the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and
only targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence
or law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that
a request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as
part of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original
intended scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it
can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements
may have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that
Sensenbrenner describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the
“ratchet effect” in legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can
become entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely.[1] For
example, some scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline
of legal “normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent
with the ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on
how powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the
ratchet effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet
effect], it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor
do I debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Limiting surveillance drains PC – perception of ties to anti-terror efforts ensure
stickiness – outweighs political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to modify
or repeal portions can prove challenging. An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th terrorist attacks.[5]
At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous letters containing
weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within the United States,
began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded the definition of
terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the Department
of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the recent NSA surveillance
revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act, which relates directly to the NSA’s
collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area is the Act’s permitting searches of personal library records and
other organizational files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand disclosure of certain records
from an organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without judicial review.[8] The number of NSLs drastically
increased after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 8,000 NSLs. In 2004, by contrast, the FBI
issued 56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs, though secrecy rules bar their lawyers from discussing
the nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve
years since the Act’s entrance into use, governments, civic organizations, and
citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the Act without success. Two years after the Act
became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia passed resolutions against it.[9] Members of
the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of legislation seeking to scale back the Act’s original
scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe v.
Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the Act’s constitutionality. Yet despite this
steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both Republican and Democratic
administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history reflects the difficulties
governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or repeal portions of the USA
PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason. Al-Qaeda has been degraded significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a
significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly illustrates. In light of the continuing
threat of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why anti-terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT
Act can prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a
constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism laws in place.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
drains PC – inertia, entrenched political and economic interests, agency backlash and
security concerns outweigh – inevitably perceived and linked to soft on terrorism –
regardless of declining public support - can’t avoid getting tied
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because there is increased public deference to government during crises. Legal scholars
and political scientists have explored the effect of terrorism on public deference to democratic governments.[10] While the specific reasons for this vary, the research overwhelmingly points
Popular support can provide the
political capital necessary for legislators and executives to quickly craft and implement anti-terrorism
laws. Over time, despite some slippage, public approval of these laws can continue—particularly when the crisis that
prompted the laws’ creation continues. The ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws create a new security
paradigm. An aggressive anti-terrorism law can fundamentally alter societal approaches to terrorism.
Surveillance may increase. Police powers can expand. Intelligence efforts may grow. Public expectations
of privacy can diminish. In the aggregate, these types of changes can represent a drastic change in a government’s
approach to terrorism, and effectively create a “new normal” level of security. Because this “new normal” is
linked to the law itself, reversing the law begins to dismantle the new security paradigm. From the
public’s perspective, this might be an unacceptable option because it may increase societal vulnerability to terrorism. Government
agencies also risk losing resources—personnel, money, and political support—by returning to the
status quo ante.
toward increased trust in government authorities in the immediate wake of terrorist attacks, though this can wane over time.
uniquely drains PC– fear of future political death sentence ensures powerful
opposition - inherent and terminal risk make probability and causal linkage irrelevant
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because elected officials do not want to risk repealing anti-terrorism laws.
Here is a political nightmare: for whatever reason, a legislator or government executive spearheads an effort to reverse
an anti-terrorism law. The anti-terrorism law is repealed. Within a week, a terrorist attack occurs. Being wrong about terrorism
can carry devastating political consequences for incumbents. But being specifically identified as the one who
“turned off the alarm system” is a political death sentence. Under this scenario, even if there is no direct
causal link between the law’s repeal and the attack, the two are easily correlated because of their temporal proximity to
each other. It makes no sense for an elected official to open herself to the possibility of this scenario
without a clear, compelling reason—and, even then, scaling back an anti-terrorism law may still be too
politically risky a proposition to entertain seriously. For these reasons, anti-terrorism laws can remain
in effect beyond the end of the crisis that brought them into existence.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – Post Freedom Act
Freedom act was delicate balancing act – ANY additional changes drain PC and
guarantee intense opposition – congressional leadership, GOP, law enforcement
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest
overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views,
calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone
records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database
from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts
when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released
to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data
collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and
NSA from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define
“specific search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term
and give the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to
congressional intent, but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the
old version of the Patriot Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom
Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas
limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013
Snowden leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of
Internet traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly
people who don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign
surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute,
as they did with the expiring sections of the Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its
oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said.
Republican leaders opposed to more changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass
congressional leadership, however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom
Act and refused to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA. In the House,
Republican leaders threatened to kill the USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to
address other surveillance programs. Still, many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new
surveillance limits, with lawmakers adding an amendment to end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a
large appropriations bill this week. Obama’s administration has threatened to veto the appropriations bill for several unrelated reasons, but
several House members have pledged to push hard to prohibit the FBI and CIA from searching the content of reportedly tens of thousands of
U.S. communications swept up in an NSA surveillance program targeting overseas terrorism suspects. Closing that surveillance backdoor is a top
priority for civil liberties groups, said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C.,
legislative office. “We’ve had this statute that masquerades as affecting only people abroad, but the reality is that it sweeps up large numbers
of U.S. persons,” she said. Other changes possible Advocates and lawmakers will also push for a handful of other surveillance reforms in the
coming months. The changes most likely to pass make limited changes to surveillance programs, however. While
not tied to NSA surveillance, lawmakers will press for changes to the 29-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a wiretap law
that gives law enforcement agencies warrantless access to emails and other communications stored in the cloud for more than six months. A
House version of ECPA reform counts more than half the body as co-sponsors. Still, tech companies and civil liberties groups have been pushing
law enforcement agencies and some Republican
lawmakers have successfully opposed the changes. Another bill that may gain traction in coming months is the Judicial
since 2010 to have those communications protected by warrants, but
Redress Act, a bill that would allow citizens of some countries to file lawsuits under the U.S. Privacy Act if government agencies misuse their
records. “The Privacy Act offers limited protections, even to Americans, but passage of this bill would be an important first step to addressing
especially European concerns that US privacy reforms won’t help them,” said Berin Szoka, president of free market think tank TechFreedom.
Public pressure, along with potentially new leaks, will be the key to driving any more surveillance changes, advocates said. “The public will for
mass surveillance laws was made very clear recently, and that’s partly why we saw much of Congress flock to whatever could be called
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
surveillance reform,” said Tiffiniy Cheng, a founder of digital rights group Fight for the Future. “No one is fooled by USA
Freedom—it’s a
weak piece of legislation that uses exceptions in legislative language to codify the NSA’s practice of
surveilling most people.” Congress has much work left to do, Cheng said by email. “After the recent showdown and public outcry, USA
Freedom is at best, seen as a beginning of surveillance reform, not the end,” she said.
Additional restrictions drains PC post freedom act – massive controversy, upsets
delicate bipartisan compromise, huge flip flop – Obama inevitable gets blame
Shear, 6/3 -- Michael, NYT, White House Correspondent for NYT, Mr. Shear received a B.A. degree from
Claremont McKenna College and a M.A. degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard
University, 6/3/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-programown.html?_r=0
In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance For more than six years, President
Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a
program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress
into reauthorizing the program, with
new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little
question that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk
collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies
available for broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted
are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top
counterterrorism adviser. She called the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate
finally passed it.” The
president is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of
equilibrium he has talked about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also
vowed to rein in what he called government overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about
the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the
president was also “very, very focused on the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every day,” she said. The
compromise on collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some
Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much
surveillance that can intrude on the lives of innocent Americans. Either way, Mr. Obama’s
signature on the law late Tuesday night
ensures that he will deliver to the next president a method of hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread
privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program.
“He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance
programs for years. “He just didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties
Union, called the USA Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a very small step forward.” He said his organization
would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance programs. “Obama has been
presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or are you going to change them?”
Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is willing to spend political
capital changing those programs.” In the case of the telephone program, Mr. Obama’s preferred compromise was
originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the public’s privacy concerns
without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly. In the lead-up to last week’s
congressional showdown, Mr. Obama and his national security team insisted that broad surveillance
powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats, while admitting that the new approach to data collection would not harm that
effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right balance. “To the extent that
we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the
president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed
records. “This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is important,” Mr. Earnest
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
said. “And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.” Mr. Obama’s
advocacy put him at the center of a
fierce congressional debate over the surveillance program, which officially expired early Monday morning before lawmakers
approved changes on Tuesday. In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, railed against the
president’s compromise proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated
and aggressive.” At the same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, excoriated Mr. Obama, saying, “The
president continues to conduct an illegal program,” a reference to a recent ruling by a federal appeals court that the original
N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law. What emerged from that debate was a rare
bipartisan victory for the president, whose approach was met with approval by Republicans and
Democrats in the House and Senate. Even some of the president’s most ardent critics in the Republican Party
endorsed the approach. “This is a good day for the American people, whose rights will be protected,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of
Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The compromise on the
telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and-pull for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national
security infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that infrastructure, pledging at
the time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush “to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties, which are unconstitutional,
and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen.” Once
in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s decisions — in one of his first
acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his national security team has also embraced some of
Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing that they are necessary to protect Americans against attacks and to fight
threats abroad. Mr. Obama talked about “putting careful constraints” on surveillance even before Mr. Snowden
revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained how his thinking had
evolved. “I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Mr. Obama said. “My team
evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But
my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest
encroachments on the privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content,
that on net, it was worth us doing.” With the passage of the USA Freedom Act nearly two years later, Mr.
Obama must make his new approach work by maintaining a focus on security while doing more to respect privacy.
“Certainly,” Ms. Monaco said, “we are going to be focused on that.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – Obama PC
Changes in surveillance policy inevitably drain political capital – every decision
triggers backlash and fights - Obama takes the blame
*This evidence is also in “A2 link turns”
Page, 13 (Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, 12-30-2013, "Ex-NSA chief calls for
Obama to reject recommendations", USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/30/gen-michael-hayden-urges-obama-rejectnsa-commission-recommendations/4249983/, DA: 5-23-2015)
Snowden's revelations have fueled objections by civil liberties advocates that the NSA goes too far in collecting
information about Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. This month, a federal judge in Washington called the program "almost
Orwellian," although a few days later, another federal judge in New York said it was legal. Hayden's blunt warnings about the
risks he sees in accepting the commission's recommendations underscore the difficult balancing act
Obama faces between ensuring the nation's security and respecting citizens' privacy. No decision he makes is likely
to avoid criticism. "Here I think it's going to require some political courage," said Hayden, 68, a retired Air Force
general whose service in the nation's top intelligence posts gives him particular standing. "Frankly, the president is going to have to
use some of his personal and political capital to keep doing these things."
Drains PC – can’t pass without Obama push
Feaver, 14 (peter, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy @ Duke, Director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies and Director,
Program in American Grand Strategy Foreign Policy,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/17/obama_finally_joins_the_debate_he_called_for
Today President Barack Obama finally joins
the national debate he called for a long time ago but then abandoned: the debate
about how best to balance national security and civil liberty. As I outlined in NPR's scene-setter this morning, this
debate is a tricky one for a president who wants to lead from behind. The public's view shifts markedly in response to
perceptions of the threat, so a political leader who is only following the public mood will crisscross himself repeatedly. Changing one's mind and
shifting the policy is not inherently a bad thing to do. There is no absolute and timeless right answer, because this is about trading off different
risks. The risk profile itself shifts in response to our actions. When security is improving and the terrorist threat is receding, one set of trade-offs
is appropriate. When security is worsening and the terrorist threat is worsening, another might be. It
is likely, however, that the
optimal answer is not the one advocated by the most fringe position. A National Security Agency (NSA)
hobbled to the point that some on the far left (and, it must be conceded, the libertarian right) are demanding would
be a mistake that the country would regret every bit as much as we would regret an NSA without any
checks or balances or constraints. Getting this right will require inspired and active political leadership. To date,
Obama has preferred to stay far removed from the debate swirling around the Snowden leaks. This president relishes
opportunities to spend political capital on behalf of policies that disturb Republicans, but, as former Defense
Secretary Robert Gates's memoir details, Obama has been very reluctant to expend political capital on behalf of national security policies that
disturb his base. Today
Obama is finally engaging. It will be interesting to see how he threads the political
needle and, just as importantly, how much political capital he is willing to spend in the months ahead to
defend his policies.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Freedom act passage clears the deck, plan drains PC, forces gridlock and agenda
tradeoff, Obama can’t avoid – 7 reasons - every option triggers major fights, it’s a
losing issue, flip flop, focus and docket crowd out, requires congress, Obama cant avoid
even if he tries – only increases congressional chaos and gridlock
Gerstein, 14 -- Josh Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA reform,
dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will
try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out
reforms to U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil
liberties and national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits. Many of the key reforms he’s expected to
endorse — including changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the
U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks, all
hell’s liable to break loose on the Hill,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who will be
voting against it because Obama’s reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it because it
doesn’t defend us enough and other people voting against it because it outsources espionage.” It’s
another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks for issues that aides want to highlight in
Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and immigration. The snooping saga has been a
loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret
documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the international community. And disclosures that
widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation as a reformer who would end over-the-top
anti-terrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — denounced under
President George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain surveillance practices altogether.
For instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so it can be used to trace potential
contacts of terrorism suspects. But
the president has said he’s considering replacing that program with a privatesector-based arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That would require
Congress to step in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some
court — involvement in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis
told NPR News last week. “But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral
authority to impose dramatic reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White
House has signaled that much of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of
foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile
phone. Administration officials say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he
set up to dig into the issue: the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the
NSA’s program that has collected information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that
the metadata program — aimed at running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges
have concluded that the effort is lawful. The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the
government on a case-by-case basis with individual court warrants, something
likely to require Congress to impose new
requirements on the firms. The review group also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, so judges could hear from an attorney advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for Americans
whose data is swept up in surveillance programs. And the panel urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the chief justice
no longer has the sole power to make such picks. Those changes, too, would need legislation. All five review group members are set to publicly
promote their plans at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. “There
are a few big things you really need Congress
to do. If you want to change the appointment mechanism for the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do any kind of structural reform
of the FISC, you need it. If you want to continue the metadata program in some form, but reform it in any way,
you need an act of Congress,” said Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – Divisions/Bipart opposition
Plan’s unpopular – congressional division blocks reform – fights guaranteed, even
supporters get drawn into battles over specific details
Kiefer, Staff Writer and Congressional Correspondent for CS Monitor, 2014
(Francine, NSA reform? Obama faces headwinds in a Congress divided on surveillance policy, January 17,
2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0117/NSA-reform-Obama-facesheadwinds-in-a-Congress-divided-on-surveillance-policy)
Obama says he’d like to put the US government out of the business of storing Americans’ phone
records – though he maintains it’s still necessary to collect those records en masse for anti-terrorism purposes. To make this and other suggested changes to the National Security
Agency's surveillance system, he’ll need the help of Congress. Capitol Hill, however, is as divided on the subject as is the American public.
Libertarian-minded conservatives align with liberals in opposing the phone-dragnet program altogether, while other
Republicans and Democrats largely support it. Last July, the House fell short of ending the NSA’s bulk
collection of phone records, on a close, bipartisan vote. On the key House and Senate committees responsible for drafting relevant legislation, members of the judiciary panels tend to want wholesale changes, while
those dealing with intelligence want only tweaks. But even that is a bit of a generalization, as division also marks the committees. The upshot is that
Congress could well have a tough time agreeing on the legislation required to alter the program. President Obama proposes
President
that the government stop holding phone records. In making this recommendation, the president followed the advice of a blue-chip review panel he convened after the furor over massive leaks by former NSA contractor Edward
Snowden. Although the panel found no intentional abuse of the records so far – and the NSA collects data about a phone call but not its content – it warned that the government's storage of the data creates the potential for abuse
and public mistrust. Mr. Obama has asked the attorney general to come up with an alternative storage arrangement. The panel suggested either keeping it with the phone companies or entrusting it with a third party. "While I am
encouraged the president is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, in a statement. The senator, a tea
party favorite, described Obama’s solution as “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.” In the end, Senator Paul told CNN, little changes: Private records will still be collected without a search warrant. He gave
Obama an “A for effort” though. In the House, Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, welcomed the changes. But in a statement – and in legislation he introduced – the congressman
says the government should obtain an individualized court order to get at phone records “already held by phone companies as part of their normal business practices.” He opposes a third party holding records because it would be
“perceived as a subsidiary of the NSA and would do little to build public confidence.” Conversely, letting the phone companies store the records “may create as many privacy problems as it solves,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of
Iowa, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. He pointed to recent examples of hacking at Target and Neiman Marcus. Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a strong defender of the NSA's bulk data collection, tweeted, in
part: “Pres Obama NSA speech better than expected. Most programs left intact.” Indeed, the need to keep up the mass collection of phone records has staunch defenders on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of
California, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She says that collecting phone records is “important to prevent another [9/11] attack.” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio took on a cautionary tone. "When lives are
at stake, the president must not allow politics to cloud his judgment," he said, in a written response. "The House will review any legislative reforms proposed by the administration, but we will not erode the operational integrity of
critical programs that have helped keep America safe." An independent voice The president also seeks to change the workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), the secret court that provides judicial review of the
Obama wants Congress to “authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an
independent voice in significant cases” before the court. This, too, drew criticism from the Hill. Such a “public advocate” can’t
be trusted if it even works for the government or is appointed by the government, said Senator Paul. Representative Schiff echoed that an advocate panel must be “truly independent.” On the other hand, legislation
passed by Senator Feinstein’s committee last year gives the FISA court the ability to select a more sympathetic panel – “friends of the court” – to argue for privacy or to provide an independent legal perspective. In
Congress, it seems, there are as many views about how to proceed as there are members.
NSA phone collection program.
It’s a huge fight – powerful bipartisan opposition and committee resistance – they buy
the national security hype
Hudson, 14 -- John Hudson, The Cable, Foreign Policy, 6/6/14,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/06/hope-fades-for-aggressive-nsa-reform-in-congress/
Hope Fades for Aggressive NSA Reform in Congress Edward Snowden's greatest fear may be coming true. Since disclosing government surveillance
programs last year, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor has said the worst possible outcome would be that "nothing will change." But the odds of that happening
increase daily. This week, a bipartisan chorus of senators poured cold water on the notion that
America's surveillance activities need reforming and even criticized the modest NSA reform bill the
House passed late last month that enjoys strong intelligence community support. Privacy advocates say the final
version of the USA Freedom Act was "watered down" just days before the House approved it, and they looked to the Senate for more
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
robust legislation. Now the upper chamber appears unlikely to deliver for privacy advocates when it
considers the bill later this summer. "It seems to me that this bill is fixing a lot of things that simply aren't
broken," Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Republican, said Thursday, June 5. "It seems to me that
we're doing something unnecessary," added the committee's former chairman, West Virginia Democrat Jay
Rockefeller. "We should not play to the siren song of a political response," Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) chimed in at a hearing Thursday. The hearing offered the first public venue for
senators to discuss the House bill together, which passed 303-121 on May 22. Broadly speaking, the bill would limit the NSA's ability to collect
Americans' communications data en masse. It also would add transparency and oversight safeguards to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the judicial body that oversees the NSA's surveillance activities. Privacy advocates complain that the House bill lacks clarity
about the types of requests the government can make to phone companies and the "selection terms," which traditionally are discrete items such as a name or phone number, that the
fear the Senate will follow the House's lead or water down the bill
even further. "One after another, too many lawmakers said, 'Yep, this is constitutional; yep, this is constitutional; yep,
this is constitutional,'" said Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, referring to the NSA's bulk data collection program. " I didn't leave the
hearing feeling that the bill was going to be strengthened." Julian Sanchez, a privacy expert at the libertarian Cato
Institute, agreed. "Even this now rather flaccid reform is still more than some on the Senate Intel Committee can
handle," he said. "You are still hearing a Tourette syndrome-like tick that this is a lifesaving program, when every
scintilla of public evidence says otherwise." Besides Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico , few of their
committee colleagues appear eager to build in more privacy safeguards. However, privacy advocates do
have a friend in Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. In a statement issued after the House vote, Leahy
vowed to keep pressing for a tougher final bill. "The House took an important step last month by approving a modified version of our bill, but at this
government can use to search huge databases of records. Now they
historic moment, we cannot stop there," he said. "All Senators should support real reform that bans bulk collection of data, provides greater accountability, and improves transparency."
Whether Leahy can overcome the powerful, bipartisan opposition in the Senate is unclear. And not every privacy
champion is ready to concede defeat. "The Senate needs to improve the proposed law to get to real reform," said the American Civil Liberties Union's Gabriel Rottman. "I'd say this is
going to be the fight of the summer."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – Concessions
Curtailing surveillance drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership and requires
political concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence
reform. As lawmakers stare down the
barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more expansive reforms to U.S.
intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of the reforms — which practically all
members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they would derail a carefully
calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The House Judiciary Committee
killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA)
bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the
enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who
ultimately voted against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming
the Patriot Act. ... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) would
block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications without
a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data
from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet. The
amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations
and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee member who spoke
up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the overall bill. “We
have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
said. “This amendment is objected to by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the
Patriot Act without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate
effort would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said,
because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an
amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a debate on
them then. Goodlatte also pledged
to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little
reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to
American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – Flip Flop
The plan is a flip-flop from Obama’s stance on surveillance
Lizza, 13 (Ryan Lizza, senior political correspondent for The New Yorker, 3-12-2013, "State of
Deception", New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-deception, DA: 530-2015)
Wyden, who said that he has had “several spirited discussions” with Obama, is not optimistic. “It really seems like General Clapper, the
intelligence leadership, and the lawyers drive this in terms of how decisions get made at the White House,” he told
me. It is evident from the Snowden leaks that Obama inherited a regime of dragnet surveillance that often operated outside
the law and raised serious constitutional questions. Instead of shutting down or scaling back the programs, Obama
has worked to bring them into narrow compliance with rules—set forth by a court that operates in secret—that
often contradict the views on surveillance that he strongly expressed when he was a senator and a
Presidential candidate. “These are profoundly different visions,” Wyden said, referring to his
disagreements with Obama, Feinstein, and senior intelligence officials. “I start with the proposition that security and
liberty are not mutually exclusive.” He noted that General Alexander had an “exceptionally expansive vision” of what
the N.S.A. should collect. I asked Wyden for his opinion of the members of the review panel, most of whom are officials with ties to
the intelligence establishment. He smiled and raised his eyebrows. An aide said, “Hope springs eternal.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – Intelligence Agency Lobbying
Surveillance reform drains PC - ensures intelligence agency lobbying, they’re super
powerful, outweighs support
Timm, 14 -- Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, columnist @
Guardian, 5/22/14, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/nsa-reform-bill-passedhouse-usa-freedom-act-senators-only-hope
But putting our faith
in Congress, whether it's now or in a year, is a risky proposition either way. As Stanford law
professor Jennifer Granick wrote on Wednesday: [I]t's worth asking why legislative surveillance reform has so
far failed, despite huge support in Congress and in the public for ending bulk collection. What does this
say about our political system, and about the influence of intelligence agency lobbying despite public
sentiment in favor of more restraint?
Intelligence reforms ensure finite PC drain and agenda trade off, multiple structural
factors
Zegart, 9
Amy B. Zegart, co-director of CISAC and professor of political economy @ Stanford, “Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11”, p.
56-60, 2009, google books,
http://books.google.com/books?id=x59k854wyd0C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=nsa+reform+%22political+capital%22&source=bl&ots=plXd6ATNi
4&sig=5BVCbmnGq5jS0TOeumjSaKq5tE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OkafU_vwLIyxyATg4YHAAw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=nsa%20reform%20%22political%20capital%
22&f=false
Rational Self-Interest of Presidents, Legislators, and National Security Bureaucrats Government officials are constrained by the incentives and
capabilities that come with their positions. Although individuals have their own ideas, skills, and policy preferences, institutional
incentives and capabilities exert a powerful influence, making some courses of action easier and less costly than others. These
incentives and capabilities explain why, before the September 11 attacks, no president championed intelligence
reform, why legislators largely avoided and blocked it, and why national security agency bureaucrats
opposed it. PRESIDENTS All presidents have strong incentives to improve organizational effectiveness. To make their mark on history/ they
must make the bureaucracy work well for them. Perhaps even more important, presidents are also driven to enhance organizational
effectiveness by the electorate, which expects far more of them than they can possibly deliver. Held responsible for everything from inflation to
Iraqi democratization, presidents have good reason to ensure that government agencies adapt to changing demands as much and as fast as
possible.51 The
problem is that presidents are weak. With little time, limited political capital, few formal
powers, and packed political agendas, presidents lack the capabilities to make the changes they desire. Instead, they almost
always prefer to focus their efforts on policy issues that directly concern (and benefit) voters rather than on the
arcane details of organizational design and operation. And who can blame them? Tax cuts and social security lock boxes win votes, but no
president ever won a landslide election by changing the CIA's personnel system. Moreover, presidents
are especially reluctant to
push for agency reforms in the absence of a crisis or in the presence of anticipated resistance. Presidents
are thus loath to reform existing agencies through executive action or legislation. Although dozens of
investigations, commissions, and experts identified shortcomings in the U.S. Intelligence Community between 1947, when the CIA was created,
and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, no president attempted major intelligence reform.53 Rational self-interest ex-plains why.
LEGISLATORS Self-interest
leads most legislators to avoid tackling intelligence reform altogether or seek to
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
block it. Like presidents, legislators have little incentive to delve into the messy inner workings of intelligence
agency design because doing so does not provide tangible benefits to voters back home.4 Indeed, the weak
electoral connection is one of the reasons congressional intelligence oversight committees continued imposing term limits for their members
throughout the 1990s, long after it became clear that these regulations severely weakened the development of congressional expertise and
after numerous commissions recommended abolishing them.55 When crises
do arise, intelligence committee members
are rewarded more for airing dirty laundry than cleaning it. They frequently hold hearings but only rarely
take corrective action. The Bay of Pigs, the congressional investigations into CIA abuses during the 1970s, the lran-Contra scandal, and
the Aldrich Ames spy case all triggered major investigations but none produced fundamental change in the Intelligence Community- In addition,
members of Congress care about maintaining the power of the institution. Generally, this means that legislators prefer executive arrangements
that diffuse authorities and capabilities; the more agencies in the executive branch, the more power bases can accrue in Congress to oversee
them. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY BUREAUCRATS Finally,
national security agency bureaucrats have their own
interests at stake and powerful means to pursue them. Whereas most domestic policy agencies operate in relatively
autonomous policy domains—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, has no reason to think about the design or operation of
the Social Security Administration—U.S.
national security agencies are more tightly connected. Policymaking
inevitably crosses bureaucratic boundaries, involving diplomacy, the use of force, economic policy/ and intelligence. In such a
complex web, national security bureaucrats see reform as a zero-sum battle for agency autonomy and power. EPA
officials may not be conjuring up ways to gain advantage over another government agency, but national security bureaucrats are. In the
interdependent world of national security affairs, no agency wants to yield authority or discretion to another.""6 The Problems of Decentralized
Democracy Rational
self-interest makes reform difficult; self-interest coupled with the decentralized structure
of the U.S. federal government makes it more so. Paradoxically, some of the cherished features of American democracy impede
effective agency design and raise obstacles to reform. Separation of powers, the congressional committee
system, and majority rule have created a system that invites compromise and makes legislation hard to pass. This has two
consequences for government agencies. First, political compromise allows opponents to cripple any new agency from the start. As Terry Moe
writes, "In the political system, public bureaucracies are designed ... by participants who explicitly want them to fail."37 Political compromise
unavoidably leads to subop-timal initial agency design, even for critical national security agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency. *
Indeed, critics who contend that the CIA is poorly suited to meeting the needs of the post-Cold War world are only partially right: the agency
was not particularly well designed to meet the United States' Cold War needs, either. In 1947, existing intelligence agencies in the FBI, State
Department, and military services succeeded in stripping the CIA of any strong centralization powers. When the CIA was created, it was flawed
by design.59 The decentralized structure of American democracy also means that the worst agency problems usually are the hardest to fix.
Although agencies can make some changes on their own and can also be altered by unilateral presidential action, the most
far-reaching
reforms almost always require new legislation. But legislative success is difficult even under the best of
circumstances because it demands multiple majorities in both houses of Congress. As Philip Zelikow, executive
director of the 9/11 Commission put it, "the most powerful interest group in Washington is the status quo."60
Summary Taken together, these three enduring realities—the nature of organizations, rational self-interest,
and the fragmented federal government—provide a basic model for understanding why U.S. intelligence agencies
failed to adapt to the terrorist threat before September 11, why they have not done much better since then, and why they are unlikely to
improve substantially in the future. Government agencies are not built to change with the times. Because reform does not generally arise
from within, it must
be imposed from the outside. But even this rarely happens because all organizational
changes, even the best reforms, create winners and losers, and because the political system allows losers multiple opportunities to
keep winners from winning completely. Indeed, the greater the proposed change, the stronger the resistance will
be. As a result, organizational adaptation almost always meets with defeat, becomes watered down, or
gets shelved for another day, when the next crisis erupts.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – McConnell
McConnell hates surveillance reform – he’s a key lawmaker and sets the agenda in the
Senate
Hosenball and Zengerle, 15 (Mark Hosenball and Patricia Zengerle, political journalists for Reuters,
5-14-2015, "The NSA surveillance reform bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate", Business Insider,
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-surveillance-reform-bill-faces-uncertain-senate-fate-2015-5, DA:
5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A
bill to narrow spy agencies' power to collect Americans' electronic data and business records
faced an uncertain fate in the Senate on Thursday, even though it passed the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming
majority. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a group of defense hawks want to renew provisions of the USA
Patriot Act that allowed the bulk collection of Americans' data, rather than approve a new law that would allow this,
the USA Freedom Act passed by the House on Wednesday. Unless both Houses of Congress approve new legislation before a vacation break at
the end of next week, powers used by the National Security Agency and the FBI to gather records for counter-terrorism purposes will expire on
June 1. Administration officials said President Barack Obama is willing to let those powers lapse, although they say intelligence capabilities
could be weakened if some kind of surveillance authorities are not extended. Congressional officials said any proposal to give agencies a
broader license to spy would almost certainly be dead on arrival in the Senate. And McConnell's proposal to extend current surveillance powers
also has little prospect of success, with at least two senators - Democrat Ron Wyden and his fellow Kentucky Republican, Rand Paul, both
promising to filibuster the measure in order to stop it. Senate
rules give McConnell almost total discretion to set the
agenda in his Republican-controlled chamber. So far he has announced no plan for debate on either the
reform bill approved by the House or his own bill to extend existing spy powers. Senate Democrats insisted they had enough votes needed
for the USA Freedom Act to advance in the 100-member Senate. Senator Richard Durbin, the chamber's number two Democrat, said the bill's
backers had at least 60 votes. But when asked about the measure's fate, he said, "Ask Mitch." McConnell late on Monday introduced
both a two-month extension of the Patriot Act provisions and the Freedom Act in the Senate, meaning both will be eligible
for consideration by the chamber when it returns next week. Congressional officials said McConnell was considering a move to allow Senate
debate on his own bill next week. A spokesman for McConnell could not confirm this. Some officials said this could provide proponents of
reform of surveillance methods an opportunity to amend the bill to contain provisions identical, or similar to, the legislation approved by the
House.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Generic – A2: “Link Assumes GOP, Internal Link Assumes
Dems”
Our Link isn’t just about GOP – plan sparks fights, congressional divisions, and intense
opposition on both sides – ensures PC Drain
Kiefer, Staff Writer and Congressional Correspondent for CS Monitor, 2014
(Francine, NSA reform? Obama faces headwinds in a Congress divided on surveillance policy, January 17,
2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0117/NSA-reform-Obama-facesheadwinds-in-a-Congress-divided-on-surveillance-policy)
Obama says he’d like to put the US government out of the business of storing Americans’ phone
records – though he maintains it’s still necessary to collect those records en masse for anti-terrorism purposes. To make this and other suggested changes to the National Security
Agency's surveillance system, he’ll need the help of Congress. Capitol Hill, however, is as divided on the subject as is the American public.
Libertarian-minded conservatives align with liberals in opposing the phone-dragnet program altogether, while other
Republicans and Democrats largely support it. Last July, the House fell short of ending the NSA’s bulk
collection of phone records, on a close, bipartisan vote. On the key House and Senate committees responsible for drafting relevant legislation, members of the judiciary panels tend to want wholesale changes, while
those dealing with intelligence want only tweaks. But even that is a bit of a generalization, as division also marks the committees. The upshot is that
Congress could well have a tough time agreeing on the legislation required to alter the program. President Obama proposes
President
that the government stop holding phone records. In making this recommendation, the president followed the advice of a blue-chip review panel he convened after the furor over massive leaks by former NSA contractor Edward
Snowden. Although the panel found no intentional abuse of the records so far – and the NSA collects data about a phone call but not its content – it warned that the government's storage of the data creates the potential for abuse
and public mistrust. Mr. Obama has asked the attorney general to come up with an alternative storage arrangement. The panel suggested either keeping it with the phone companies or entrusting it with a third party. "While I am
encouraged the president is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, in a statement. The senator, a tea
party favorite, described Obama’s solution as “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.” In the end, Senator Paul told CNN, little changes: Private records will still be collected without a search warrant. He gave
Obama an “A for effort” though. In the House, Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, welcomed the changes. But in a statement – and in legislation he introduced – the congressman
says the government should obtain an individualized court order to get at phone records “already held by phone companies as part of their normal business practices.” He opposes a third party holding records because it would be
“perceived as a subsidiary of the NSA and would do little to build public confidence.” Conversely, letting the phone companies store the records “may create as many privacy problems as it solves,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of
Iowa, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. He pointed to recent examples of hacking at Target and Neiman Marcus. Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a strong defender of the NSA's bulk data collection, tweeted, in
part: “Pres Obama NSA speech better than expected. Most programs left intact.” Indeed, the need to keep up the mass collection of phone records has staunch defenders on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of
California, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She says that collecting phone records is “important to prevent another [9/11] attack.” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio took on a cautionary tone. "When lives are
at stake, the president must not allow politics to cloud his judgment," he said, in a written response. "The House will review any legislative reforms proposed by the administration, but we will not erode the operational integrity of
critical programs that have helped keep America safe." An independent voice The president also seeks to change the workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), the secret court that provides judicial review of the
Obama wants Congress to “authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an
independent voice in significant cases” before the court. This, too, drew criticism from the Hill. Such a “public advocate” can’t
be trusted if it even works for the government or is appointed by the government, said Senator Paul. Representative Schiff echoed that an advocate panel must be “truly independent.” On the other hand, legislation
passed by Senator Feinstein’s committee last year gives the FISA court the ability to select a more sympathetic panel – “friends of the court” – to argue for privacy or to provide an independent legal perspective. In
Congress, it seems, there are as many views about how to proceed as there are members.
NSA phone collection program.
And, both matter for our scenario, not just dems – he needs to woo votes on both
sides of the aisle for TAA revote – PC Key
Hughes, 6/12 -- Siobhan, Capital Hill Reporter, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-deals-blow-toobamas-bid-for-trade-deal-rejects-worker-aid-program-1434131589
While stinging, the vote was not the last word in the trade fight, as House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said there
would be a re-vote by Tuesday on extending the aid program, which is designed to help workers hurt by international trade. But Friday’s
defeat showed the degree to which Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is on shaky ground in Congress. The House voted against the workers-aid
program by 126-302. To improve those numbers, House Republican leaders, the White House and pro-trade businesses will need to
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
find ways to win over a combination of Democrats who are skeptical of the overall trade push and
Republicans leery of supporting the aid package.
Obama fights intensely against plan – if dems really like the plan and are key to TPA
that’s a neg LINK, not a takeout
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, 11-19-2014, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevanceu-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought
to change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while
leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,
based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95 percent of
the planet called “non-Americans”). There were some mildly positive provisions in the USA Freedom Act: the placement of “public advocates”
at the FISA court to contest the claims of the government; the prohibition on the NSA holding Americans’ phone records, requiring instead that
they obtain FISA court approval before seeking specific records from the telecoms (which already hold those records for at least 18 months);
and reducing the agency’s “contact chaining” analysis from three hops to two. One could reasonably argue (as the ACLU and EFF did) that,
though woefully inadequate, the bill was a net-positive as a first step toward real reform, but one could also reasonably argue, as Marcy
Wheeler has with characteristic insight, that the bill is so larded with ambiguities and fundamental inadequacies that it would forestall better
options and advocates for real reform should thus root for its defeat. When
pro-privacy members of Congress first unveiled
the bill many months ago, it was actually a good bill: real reform. But the White House worked very hard— in
partnership with the House GOP—to water that bill down so severely that what the House ended up
passing over the summer did more to strengthen the NSA than rein it in, which caused even the ACLU and
EFF to withdraw their support. The Senate bill rejected last night was basically a middle ground between that
original, good bill and the anti-reform bill passed by the House. * * * * * All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most
important point from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S.
government is . . . the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and
that’s particularly true of empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform. This
Congress is not going to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance.
Even if it somehow did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the fact that the
U.S. intelligence community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means they’d easily
co-opt the entire reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of the mid1970s led to the establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight” court—the
committees were instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence community like Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Chambliss, and Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court quickly became a rubber stamp with subservient judges
who operate in total secrecy. Ever since the Snowden reporting began and public opinion (in both the U.S. and globally) began radically
changing, the White House’s strategy
has been obvious. It’s vintage Obama: Enact something that is called “reform”—
that in actuality changes
almost nothing, thus strengthening the very system he can pretend he “changed.” That’s the same tactic as
so that he can give a pretty speech telling the world that he heard and responded to their concerns—but
Silicon Valley, which also supported this bill: Be able to point to something called “reform” so they can trick hundreds of millions of current and
future users around the world into believing that their communications are now safe if they use Facebook, Google, Skype and the rest. In pretty
much every interview I’ve done over the last year, I’ve been asked why there haven’t been significant changes from all the disclosures. I
vehemently disagree with the premise of the question, which equates “U.S. legislative changes” with “meaningful changes.” But it has been
clear from the start that U.S.
legislation is not going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSA’s powers of
mass surveillance, at least not fundamentally. Those limitations are going to come from—are now coming from —very
different places:
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ensures major fight with plan’s supporters - freedom act empirics prove
Whittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14, http://www.zdnet.com/housepasses-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)
House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was
designed to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered
down." Next stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act,
which first authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152 cosponsors, the
bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands,
which according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama
administration by strengthening previously removed provisions. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author —
who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to
counter the "misuse" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House Judiciary
Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After
the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the
most prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However,
in prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the bill he
first introduced. "The
legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s surveillance
bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message
authorities," he said. "It
to the NSA: We are watching you."
directly Spills over and Trades off with Obama’s trade agenda, also proves an
independent docket crowd out link
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and a
trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time. Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “ We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act
used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs
— though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it is
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
an
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
collection program are
running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle. McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve. McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the
trade fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in
the House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security. Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time so
we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna have. I
Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone records
and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a short-term
reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP and
the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
think that is unfortunate.” Top
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Links – Area
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Altering Existing Laws
Plan drains PC – link only goes one way – ratchet effect makes repealing current
(programs/laws/authorizations) unique - – inertia and terrorism fears outweigh, strong
political support only sparks bigger fight
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can
Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had been gathering the
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and
only targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence
or law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that
a request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as
part of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original
intended scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it
can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements
may have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that
Sensenbrenner describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the
ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can
become entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely.[1] For
example, some scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline
of legal “normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent
with the ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on
“ratchet effect” in legal scholarship. The
how powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the
ratchet effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet
effect], it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
do I debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Plan drains PC and link only 1 way – terrorism and national security concerns,
political/legal inertia, powerful vested economic interests – repealing existing
provisions is uniquely difficult
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The
ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws are effective. Anti-terrorism laws may stick
simply because they work. If so, then scaling back or reversing an effective anti-terrorism law would increase a nation’s vulnerability to
terrorism, pulling it back toward a condition that existed before the law initially went into effect. This goes against national security
interests, so it makes sense to leave these laws on the books. The ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws
may address multiple threats. Anti-terrorism laws may come about because of a particular terrorist group or
incident. But that does not necessarily mean the laws will work only for that group, or apply only to similar types
of terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 spurred the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act. Yet today the Act’s provisions can
also impede domestic terrorist organizations like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) by
facilitating intelligence sharing for law enforcement purposes. The ratchet effect can occur because it is
challenging to repeal laws in democracies. Absent “sunset” provisions, which force certain portions of a law to
expire after a pre-determined amount of time, it can be difficult to repeal a law under normal circumstances—let
alone when that law concerns something as serious as terrorism. It requires careful political
maneuvering to reverse an anti-terrorism law because the law itself may enjoy popular support, be
seen as effective, or be linked to vested economic interests. These obstacles can promote a legal
inertia that resists efforts to scale back or reverse the law.
Repealing existing surveillance laws drains PC – link only one way – ratchet effect,
political inertia, terror fears
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
What the NSA Surveillance Controversy Can Teach Us about the Ratchet Effect and Anti-Terrorism Laws After a
terrorist attack, creating laws quickly to contend with terrorism is reasonable and appropriate. It is equally reasonable and appropriate,
however, to build hedges into those laws to guard against unsound initial judgments or assumptions. The set of policy recommendations below
provides a starting point to mitigate the potential impact of the ratchet effect upon anti-terrorism laws. Taking these steps does not guarantee
that anti-terrorism laws will be easy to scale-back or reverse, nor can it completely prevent unintentional interpretations of anti-terrorism laws.
But these recommendations can increase policymakers’ awareness of the ratchet effect, which can lead to more thoughtfully crafted and
effective anti-terrorism laws. First, initial
changes may be difficult to undo. The early legislative moves after a
terrorist attack are pivotal. They set the tone for future, related legislation. Moreover, as argued earlier in this
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
article, changing
laws can be difficult under normal circumstances, let alone when the laws concern an
issue as serious as terrorism. It is vital for leaders to get the beginning stages of a nation’s anti-terrorism legislation right; a bad start
can lead to a pattern of subsequent bad laws. This is not a call for perfection, but a plea for greater awareness of this reality and for leaders to
use this awareness when drafting laws. Second, policymakers should beware of reflexive legislation. Terror attacks create conditions in which
emotions can run high; feelings of terror, anger, sadness, confusion, and frustration are natural consequences of these circumstances.
Behavioral psychology teaches us that human beings’ higher-order thinking skills (e.g. logic, reasoning, analysis, reflection) are poorly
integrated with baser, emotionally-rooted thinking (e.g. irrational prejudices, unreasonable fears, self-destructive desires).[11] One researcher
has gone so far as to say that the amygdala—the portion of the brain that controls reactive emotion—can hijack the higher-order parts of the
brain, impeding effective decision-making in crises.[12] Considering this, it is reasonable to suggest that laws passed in the immediate
aftermath of terrorist attacks may be rooted more in baser, emotionally-driven thinking than in careful, analytical, higher-order thinking. In
other words, they may be mostly reflexive, not reflective. This is not to say that all laws passed after terrorist attacks are emotionally-driven.
Nor is it the case that all laws created in these circumstances are somehow “bad” laws. But during and after terrorist attacks, leaders’
judgment of what may or may not be good law can become clouded by emotion. Similarly, terrorist attacks
can drive public support for reflexive anti-terrorism legislation. And this is not an instinct that can be
somehow “shut off” or “tuned out.” Legislators and citizens should be aware of this potential, and must walk a fine line between
meeting immediate post-crisis needs and championing laws that will remain effective for the long haul. Third, “sunset” provisions are prudent
and reasonable. Given that anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of terrorist attacks may be partly driven by emotion and that initial
laws
may prove difficult to undo, it is wise for government leaders to include “sunset” provisions in new anti-terrorism laws.
Generally “sunset” provisions allow portions of a law to expire if not renewed by a pre-determined date. In a sense,
democracies must deliver a new mandate for the law—or at least part of the law—to avoid this expiration. With “sunset” provisions
in place, unwise, irrelevant, or ineffective components of a law can be allowed to wither and die when necessary.
Letting these provisions lapse requires virtually no political capital from government leaders, unlike
actively changing or removing a law, which can require a great deal. For elected officials, this means that letting part
of an anti-terrorism law expire is relatively easy. Re-examining and pruning anti-terrorism laws in this way is a healthy practice. It can head off
potential abuses of particularly aggressive anti-terrorism measures and forces a continual re-thinking of anti-terrorism laws as circumstances
change over time. The
recent NSA surveillance controversy highlights the relevance of the ratchet effect to
broader discussions of anti-terrorism laws. The ratchet effect can affect anti-terrorism laws generally,
entrenching and expanding them over time and potentially leading to those laws being interpreted in unexpected and
undesirable ways. The USA PATRIOT Act, developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been difficult to scale
back since then, and has now been interpreted in a way that at least one of the Act’s authors did not intend. This unintended interpretation
of the Act led, in part, to today’s NSA surveillance controversy. Scholars can benefit from future explorations of the
ratchet effect, which may help illuminate further why anti-terrorism laws remain in place and how their
influence can expand in unanticipated ways.
drains PC – inertia, entrenched political and economic interests, agency backlash and
security concerns outweigh – inevitably perceived and linked to soft on terrorism –
regardless of declining public support - can’t avoid getting tied
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because there is increased public deference to government during crises. Legal scholars
and political scientists have explored the effect of terrorism on public deference to democratic governments.[10] While the specific reasons for this vary, the research overwhelmingly points
Popular support can provide the
political capital necessary for legislators and executives to quickly craft and implement anti-terrorism
laws. Over time, despite some slippage, public approval of these laws can continue—particularly when the crisis that
prompted the laws’ creation continues. The ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws create a new security
paradigm. An aggressive anti-terrorism law can fundamentally alter societal approaches to terrorism.
toward increased trust in government authorities in the immediate wake of terrorist attacks, though this can wane over time.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Surveillance may increase. Police powers can expand. Intelligence efforts may grow. Public expectations
of privacy can diminish. In the aggregate, these types of changes can represent a drastic change in a government’s
approach to terrorism, and effectively create a “new normal” level of security. Because this “new normal” is
linked to the law itself, reversing the law begins to dismantle the new security paradigm. From the
public’s perspective, this might be an unacceptable option because it may increase societal vulnerability to terrorism. Government
agencies also risk losing resources—personnel, money, and political support—by returning to the
status quo ante.
uniquely drains PC– fear of future political death sentence ensures powerful
opposition - inherent and terminal risk make probability and causal linkage irrelevant
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because elected officials do not want to risk repealing anti-terrorism laws.
Here is a political nightmare: for whatever reason, a legislator or government executive spearheads an effort to reverse
an anti-terrorism law. The anti-terrorism law is repealed. Within a week, a terrorist attack occurs. Being wrong about terrorism
can carry devastating political consequences for incumbents. But being specifically identified as the one who
“turned off the alarm system” is a political death sentence. Under this scenario, even if there is no direct
causal link between the law’s repeal and the attack, the two are easily correlated because of their temporal proximity to
each other. It makes no sense for an elected official to open herself to the possibility of this scenario
without a clear, compelling reason—and, even then, scaling back an anti-terrorism law may still be too
politically risky a proposition to entertain seriously. For these reasons, anti-terrorism laws can remain
in effect beyond the end of the crisis that brought them into existence.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Terror
Plan’s unpopular – it gets spun as “letting the terrorists win” which erodes support – it
outweighs outside lobbying
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York
Times best-selling books on politics and law, 11-19-2014, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevanceu-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
The “USA Freedom Act”—which its proponents were heralding as “NSA reform” despite its suffocatingly narrow scope—died in the
august U.S. Senate last night when it attracted only 58 of the 60 votes needed to close debate and move on to an up-or-down
vote. All Democratic and independent senators except one (Bill Nelson of Florida) voted in favor of the bill, as did three tea-party GOP Senators
(Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Dean Heller). One GOP Senator, Rand Paul, voted
against it on the ground that it did not go
nearly far enough in reining in the NSA. On Monday, the White House had issued a statement “strongly
supporting” the bill. The “debate” among the Senators that preceded the vote was darkly funny and deeply boring,
in equal measure. The black humor was due to the way one GOP senator after the next—led by ranking intelligence committee
member Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (pictured above)—stood up and literally screeched about 9/11 and ISIS over and over and
over, and then sat down as though they had made a point. Their scary script had been unveiled earlier that morning by a Wall Street Journal oped by former Bush Attorney General Mike Mukasey and former CIA and NSA Director Mike Hayden warning that NSA reform would make the
terrorists kill you; it appeared under this Onion-like headline: So the pro-NSA
Republican senators were actually arguing that
if the NSA were no longer allowed to bulk-collect the communication records of Americans inside the
U.S., then ISIS would kill you and your kids. But because they were speaking in an empty chamber and only
to their warped and insulated D.C. circles and sycophantic aides, there was nobody there to cackle contemptuously or tell
them how self-evidently moronic it all was. So they kept their Serious Faces on like they were doing The Nation’s Serious Business,
even though what was coming out of their mouths sounded like the demented ramblings of a paranoid End is Nigh cult. The boredom of this
spectacle was simply due to the fact that this
has been seen so many times before—in fact, every time in the post-9/11 era
pretends publicly to debate some kind of foreign policy or civil liberties bill. Just
enough members stand up to scream “9/11″ and “terrorism” over and over until the bill vesting new powers is
passed or the bill protecting civil liberties is defeated.
that the U.S. Congress
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Terror
Hindering the NSA is massively unpopular – across the aisle support for surveillance
Van Dongen, Independent National and International Security Expert, 2014
(Teun, How proponents of NSA’s digital surveillance have won – for now, U.S. and the World,
18/12/2014, http://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/article/how-proponents-nsa%E2%80%99sdigital-surveillance-have-won-%E2%80%93-now)
Already, November 18th was set to be a “do or die” moment for American spy agencies. On that day the
Senate voted on a Bill that
of the
NSA, whose digital mass surveillance program came under fire after the revelations by NSAsubcontractor Edward Snowden. The most important and controversial parts of the Bill, ambitiously called the USA
Freedom Act, were provisions to restrict the NSA’s ability to gather digital data. For instance, had the Bill been
adopted, it would have put a stop to the bulk collection of US domestic phone records, forcing the NSA to
file specific requests for information instead. Additionally, the Bill recommended the introduction of so-called advocates, who
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democratic Senator from Nevada, was hoping would bring about the long-awaited reform
could argue in court against the government. Currently, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which grants or dismisses
government requests for surveillance warrants, only hears the case made by the government, and there is no one to argue the other side. The
role of advocates would have been to fill that gap and to make sure that a real discussion took place. However, the
Bill was shot down,
as only 58 Senators, two short of the 60 necessary to override a filibuster, supported it. Predictably, many of the Bill’s
opponents cited the increased terrorist threat, especially from the Islamic State, as a reason to block the USA
Freedom Act. As Republican Senator Susan Collins put it with more than a touch of pathos, “Why would we weaken the ability
of our intelligence community at a time when the threats against this country have never been
greater?” Other prominent Senators, including Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Dianne Feinstein of
California, who chairs Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, opposed the Bill on similar grounds, claiming that the
recent emergence of new threats to US national security makes it inopportune to reign in the NSA.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Terror – Perception
Decreasing surveillance is perceived as soft on terror
Wilstein, Mediate LA Bureau Chief, 2013
(Matt, ‘Principle Or Politics?’ The Five Asks Why Americans Changed Their Tune On Civil Liberties From
Bush To Obama, June 11th, 2013, http://www.mediaite.com/tv/principle-or-politics-the-five-asks-whyamericans-changed-their-tune-on-civil-liberties-from-bush-to-obama/)
Fox News’ The Five traveled all the way down to Washington, D.C. Tuesday for a special show in the nation’s capital. And the team used
their new setting to explore the implications of a new Pew research poll that shows how Americans’ views on
civil liberties have shifted depending on which party holds the White House. “There are a buttload of
hypocrite Democrats and a fair amount of Republicans too,” Greg Gutfeld said up top, “which is why you must ask, are
they motivated less by principle and more by politics?” According to the polls, 37% of Democrats found the NSA’s surveillance programs
acceptable under President George W. Bush, while 64% find them acceptable under President Obama. Similarly, 75% of Republicans found
them acceptable under Bush while only 52% find them acceptable under Obama. Gutfeld insisted that his support of the programs has been
“consistent” no matter who the president is. “You may think I am wrong,” he said, “but at least I don’t change my tune depending on who’s in
charge.”Andrea Tantaros said she thinks both “politics” and “principles” are at work in the poll results, which show that
people are just more willing to trust the leader for whom they voted. Reacting much like many of the Republicans in the Pew survey, Eric Bolling
argued that because President Obama has escalated the surveillance techniques put in place by Bush, it only follows that he would be more
critical of those tactics. Tantaros got the last word on the issue, using the Pew poll to attack Democrats for being soft on terror. “I
would
love to know how the left expects us to go after terrorists and keep us safe,” she said. “They’re not going to
acknowledge the War on Terror–if they don’t like drone strikes, if they don’t like enhanced interrogation, and now they’re
going crazy about the surveillance program, how do they propose we go after terror?” While she may be right
about “enhanced interrogation,” it seems more clear than ever that the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, is not about to stop
using drone strikes and widespread surveillance to prevent terrorism.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Terror – Security Hawks
Curtailing surveillance triggers massive fights in congress—backlash from hawks over
national security
*note – also under “Link – Generic”
Volz and Fox, Reporters for the National Journal, 6-3-2015
(Dustin and Lauren, “THE WAR OVER NSA SPYING IS JUST BEGINNING,”
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2015/06/war-over-nsa-spying-just-beginning/114394/)
But while reformers hope Tuesday's victory is an appetizer to a multiple-course meal to rein in the NSA, security
hawks—many of them
Republicans vying for the White House—hope to halt the post-Snowden momentum behind surveillance
reform. And some already are talking about unraveling the Freedom Act. "What you are seeing on the floor of the Senate is just the beginning," said Sen. Ron
Wyden, a civil-liberties stalwart in the upper chamber who serves on the intelligence committee and has worked for more than a decade to reform government
surveillance. "There is a lot more to do when—in effect—you can ensure you protect the country's safety without sacrificing our liberty." Wyden used the Freedom
Act's passage to call for additional intelligence-gathering reforms that he has long advocated, such as closing the so-called "backdoor search loophole" that allows
U.S. spies to "incidentally" and warrantlessly sweep up the email and phone communications—including some content—of Americans who correspond with
foreigners. He added he plans to move quickly on reworking Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before Congress is up backed up against its
renewal deadline in 2017. The Oregon Democrat also supports tech companies in their ongoing tussle with the administration over smartphone encryption as a key
priority. While Google and Apple have begun to build their phones with "too-tough-to-crack" encryption standards, the FBI has warned that the technology locks
out the bad guys and the good—and can impede law-enforcement investigations. Wyden and his allies, though, are bumping up against an impending presidential
campaign, where many Republicans will jockey with one another to look toughest on national security. Few issues divide the GOP White House contenders more
than NSA surveillance, as defense hawks such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio continue to defend the NSA bulk metadata program as
necessary to protect the homeland, while libertarian-leaning agitators such as Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz warn voters of the privacy perils associated with the
government's prying eyes. Rubio, who has said he'd prefer that the NSA's phone dragnet be made permanent, issued a statement after the Freedom Act's passage
saying it fell to the next president to undo its policies. "The
failure to renew the expiring components of the PATRIOT Act
was a mistake," Rubio said in a statement after the vote. "The 'USA Freedom Act' weakens U.S. national security by outlawing the very programs our
intelligence community and the FBI have used to protect us time and time again. A major challenge for the next president will be to fix the significantly
weakened intelligence system that the current one is leaving behind." Paul, meanwhile, continues to fundraise on social media and in campaign emails off his
hardline opposition to "illegal NSA bulk data collection." The Kentucky senator succeeded in drawing enormous attention to the issue by forcing a temporary lapse
this week of the Patriot Act's spy authorities, and has vowed to limit the agency's mass surveillance practices "on day one" if elected president. But Paul also was a
major obstacle for the Freedom Act's passage, repeatedly voting against it and helping delay its consideration on grounds it didn't go far enough—and codified parts
of the Patriot Act he thinks should stay dead. Cruz, meanwhile, represented the middle ground and was a chief GOP backer of the legislation, setting up a potential
argument with Paul debate stages about who has done more to fight against mass surveillance. Any jockeying between the two will expose them to sniping from
candidates on the other side of the debate, including potential candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who often goes out of his way to condemn those who
criticize government snooping. Rand Paul
already has become a regular punching bag for the GOP field's security
hawks. Back on Capitol Hill, many of the same members who were engaged in defeating metadata reform warn
that it only takes one security setback for Congress to stop taking powers away from the NSA. "The next time
there is a terrorist act within the United States, the same people are going to be coming to the floor seeking changes to the tools that our intelligence community,
our law enforcement community has at their disposal because the American people will demand it," said Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee. Sen. Susan Collins, who also serves on the intelligence panel, recognized that reforms and oversight will likely continue now that the USA Freedom Act
has passed, but she said she's not so sure supporters of the Freedom Act won't have buyer's remorse down the line. "I believe it is actually going to expose
Americans' data to greater privacy risk and to vulnerability from computer data breaches," Collins said. The
momentum to end the NSA's
phone dragnet snowballed over the past year and a half as two review panels deemed it ineffective. President Obama pledged to end it "as it
currently exists" and a federal appeals court deemed it illegal. But further reforms—such as to the Internet surveillance program known as PRISM, which
Snowden also revealed—are likely to be tougher sells in Congress. For PRISM especially, that's in part because the program is
considered more useful and because it deals primarily with surveillance of foreigners. U.S. tech companies that are subject to PRISM, including
Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, have called for changes to the program. Yet when asked about whether he would work to take down PRISM, even Wyden bristled at
the question. "I am going to keep it to the three that I am going to change," Wyden said. Even reformers outside the confines of the Senate recognize that ending
PRISM is a complicated pursuit. "It is not going to be quite as easy to drum up the same support," says Liza Goitein, codirector for the Liberty & National Security
Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Though PRISM may prove difficult to upend, other efforts, such as a broadly supported push to update the decades-old
Electronic Privacy Communications Act, may prove more palatable. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee, the lead authors of the Freedom Act in the upper chamber,
indicated their desire to move quickly on passing legislation that would update the law to require law enforcement obtain warrants before accessing the content of
Americans' old emails. The
immediate next battlefield for civil liberties groups will find them on the defense, as
they attempt to prevent legislation that would increase the sharing of certain cyber data among the private sector
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
and the government in order to better fend off data breaches. Such proposals, which already passed the
House and are likely to be before the Senate in the coming weeks, could grant the NSA access to more personal data, privacy
advocates warn. No matter how the looming debates shake out, for now, one thing is clear: the fight over the government's
surveillance operations is far from over.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Terror
Soft on terror is political suicide—midterms prove, thanks Obama
National Journal 9/19/2014 Alex Roarty, “Republicans Airing Ads Attacking Democrats as Being Soft
on Terrorism,”http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/republicans-airing-ads-attacking-democrats-forbeing-soft-on-terrorism-20140919
September 19, 2014 House
Republicans are making a big bet that in the final weeks of the midterm election they can exploit
doubts about President Obama's foreign policy to persuade late-deciding voters to support Republicans. The National
Republican Congressional Committee announced Friday a quartet of new ads focusing on national security. One, airing against Rep. Dan Maffei
of New York, accuses the congressman of "backing constitutional rights for foreign terrorists." Another, in a bellwether Iowa district, claims that
Democratic candidate Staci Appel supports "passports for terrorists." These ads open with footage from Islamic State fighters. 'DAN MAFFEI
PUTS US AT RISK' (NRCC) At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor the same morning, the group's chairman, Greg Walden, made
clear it's a topic voters can expect to see more of from Republicans before Election Day. Foreign
policy and terrorism, he said, have
seen a "big uptick" in polls, Walden said, and are contributing to a big shift among voters toward the
GOP in recent weeks. "There is just this growing sense that things are a little out of control," he said. "And I
don't mean …. they don't like Washington. Fifty-seven percent of the American people don't think President Obama is doing a good job on the
terrorist question. That points to a real, real problem for all concerned." The NRCC chairman pointed specifically to "security moms"—women
whose worries about national security nudged many of them to vote for the Republican Party in the 2002 midterms—as a bloc who have been
sensitive to the issue. There's a real debate within the GOP, in both Senate and House races, about how prominent a role foreign policy should
play in the campaign's closing weeks. Many of the
party's candidates have used the topic to argue that Obama is
incompetent, but others have shown hesitation to distract their airtight message on domestic issues. The NRCC, apparently, no longer
shares those worries. Asked if foreign policy had overtaken the economy as voters' primary issue of concern, Walden demurred. "I don't
know that I could answer that at this point," he said. "I'd want to see more data." He added that it's a "very potent and important
issue." "In campaigns, you want to be talking about issues people care about."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
---Soft on Terror = Political Suicide
Being perceived as soft on terror = political suicide
Humphreys, President and Director of the Human Capital Project, 2-26-2015
(John, President & Director of the Human Capital Project, an Adjunct Scholar at the Centre for
Independent Studies, board member of the Circle Project and the Australian Taxpayers Alliance,
postgraduate representative on the UQ Senate and the UQ Union, deputy secretary at the Economic
Society of Australia (Qld), Director of the Australian Libertarian Society, and a PhD student at the
University of Queensland, The politics of fear, February 26, 2015,
http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2015/02/26/the-politics-of-fear/)
At this point, it
is childishly easy for politicians to win support by promising “strong action” to provide
safety and security. The pesky details are irrelevant. The government is able to sell themselves as your saviour
(rescuing you from unimaginable disaster)… and if the opposition dares to disagree then the government gets the
double benefit of being your protector while also accusing the other side of wanting you to be
vulnerable and in mortal danger. Suffice to say, most oppositions will meekly agree to any change, and they might add their own
“fear & security” rhetoric in an attempt to neutralise the political point scoring. One problem with this political narrative is that the
government has already given themselves massive, intrusive, and pervasive powers. The political dilemma is
that while a fear & security agenda will provide a boost in opinion polls, the state already has nearly all the power you can
imagine from all the previous fear & security campaigns. The balance between “security” and “liberty”
has been continuously pushed in only one direction, and there are only so many times that you can
double police powers before the situation gets absurd. But from a political perspective, this is only a problem of style (not
substance) which can easily be solved with more dramatic rhetoric. The tactic of exaggerating a danger and then saying
you will protect people from the danger does not require effective policy. Indeed, to some degree the
political tactic works best if you propose an absurd solution, since it increases the chance that the
opposition may oppose the policy… and can then be painted as “soft on terror” and unwilling to protect
you. Given his precarious political position, it is not surprising to see Abbott falling back on the politics of fear & security. The simple and sad
reality is that it works. But next time somebody tells you that we need to give up a bit more liberty (and a bit more,
and a bit more) to protect us from terrorism… ask them how much liberty they are willing to give up to
protect themselves from the horrors of hot tap water, catching a bus, and falling off chairs.
Perceptions of being soft on terror = political suicide
Engler, Senior Analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, 2004
(Mark, author and journalist based in Philadelphia, He is an editorial board member at Dissent, a
contributing editor at Yes! Magazine, and a senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, a network of
foreign policy experts, My Political Suicide Note, As a candidate for President, there are certain things
that John Kerry can’t say. But I can, Published on April 13, 2004,
http://www.democracyuprising.com/2004/04/my-political-suicide-note/)
Let’s face it. There
are certain things you can’t say in politics, especially if you want to be elected President of the United States. We
might get tired of politicians taking boring, middle-of-the-road positions on controversial issues. But do we really want it any other way? Take John Kerry.
From a progressive perspective, he’s no Paul Wellstone. Then again, the candidate in the race who is politically closest to late, great Senator from Minnesota is
Dennis Kucinich–and Kucinich has never been a contender. Having emerged from a closely fought Democratic primary, Kerry needs to beat Bush by focusing on core
issues like health care, security, and the economy, without being drawn into wedge-issue debates. But just because John Kerry
can’t take strong
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
stances on dicey topics, it does not mean that these stances aren’t right. Since I am not running for President, let me take
this opportunity to offer my political suicide note. Whether talking about gay marriage, due process for accused terrorists, or socialized
medicine, I can say what Kerry can’t. Like many politicians, Kerry takes what the Associated Press charitably describes as a “carefully crafted” position on the issue of
gay marriage. The wire service explains that the Senator “personally opposes gay marriage, prefers civil unions, and rejects any state or federal legislation that could
be used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.” It is nice that Kerry recognizes the importance of partnership
rights for same-sex couples, like access to pensions, health insurance, and hospital visitation privileges. But when Kerry then seeks political cover by saying, “I
believe marriage is between a man and a woman” and arguing that “the issue of marriage should be left to the states,” it’s pretty weak. In no need of political cover
myself, I’m happy to promote gay marriage. If the institution of marriage can withstand a divorce rate among its heterosexual participants that hovers around 50%,
plus annulled farces like Britney Spears’ drunken 55-hour Las Vegas nuptial extravaganza, surely it can handle some committed gay and lesbian couples taking the
plunge. In a culture still rife with homophobia, marriage for gay and lesbian couples should be backed by federal protections that will ensure family reunification
immigration benefits and that will keep couples in more conservative parts of the country from suffering discrimination. Unless the government gets out of the
marriage business altogether and starts granting civil unions to all desiring couples, whether or not they are straight, these unions will keep gays and lesbians in a
separate-and-not-equal category. John Kerry himself has noted the “echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago” in current debates. However,
even though standing up for gay marriage is the right thing to do, John Kerry is not the person to do it. The Senator has correctly observed that President Bush has
proposed a constitutional amendment on marriage precisely because of its divisiveness. “This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care,” Kerry
says. “He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American
people.” In order to win, Kerry needs to pick his battles. Gay marriage is not the one to pick. That’s not cynicism. It’s reality. To take another example, looking
soft on terrorists is rarely something that helps your political career. Back when Howard Dean was the
front runner for the Democratic nomination, he received a lot of criticism for saying that we shouldn’t
prejudge Osama bin Laden’s guilt for 9/11–that judgement should be left to the justice system. “What in the world were you thinking?”
asked John Kerry in a subsequent debate. And the Senator from Massachusetts was right. It was hardly the time and the place for Dean to take that stand. As for
me, someone who is not in the heat of a political campaign, I have little hesitation in declaring that even accused terrorists deserve fair treatment under the law.
This is especially true in light of shocking accusations about the abuse of detainees held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay. In March, British citizen Jamal alHarith was released after two years of captivity at Guantanamo, having never been charged with a crime. In interviews with The Mirror of London and with the BBC,
the former detainee told of being shackled for upwards of 15 hours at a time and being beaten by guards in riot gear. He claimed that “religiously devout detainees”
were forced to watch as prostitutes “touched their own naked bodies.” That type of morally repellant treatment clearly violates the better traditions of American
due process. As progressives, we need to draw attention to charges of human rights abuse at Guantanamo Bay. We shouldn’t expect Kerry to do it for us, however.
We have reason to hope that, after he gets elected, Kerry will prove more susceptible to pressure on the issue than Bush. For that to matter, he needs to get elected
first. The list goes on. I’m in favor of “socialized medicine”–a single-payer health care system–not only because health care is a human right, but also because the
skyrocketing costs of the private health insurance system is making American businesses increasingly uncompetitive. But I appreciate the fact that Kerry’s $90 billion
health care plan was one of the better proposals to emerge from the Democratic pack. He will have a hell of a time getting even this limited, for-profit plan through
Congress. Acknowledging
the realities of mainstream American politics doesn’t mean abandoning your principles. It means
acting more effectively and strategically. While there are wedge issues where Kerry should stand on pragmatism rather than on principle,
there are other issues where activists are justified in pushing for a more progressive stance. One such issue is the Iraq War. Kerry’s timidity in challenging Bush’s
elective invasion and disastrous occupation represents a missed opportunity for his campaign. Instead of calling out the President on how the Iraq War left al Qaeda
untouched and spread anti-American resentment, Kerry sticks to the safest margins of the issue. He charges that Bush failed to “exhaust the remedies of
inspections,” and he proposes sending 40,000 more troops to Iraq. That’s hardly a recipe for leading an emboldened Democratic Party in taking up the charges of
insiders like Richard Clarke and denouncing the White House’s botched war on terror. Kerry should be slamming Bush for taking advice from neoconservative
ideologues rather than counter-terrorism experts, and for making the world a more dangerous place. Iraq aside, having
gone on the record in
defense of gay marriage, the rights of accused terrorists, and socialized medicine, I think that–like Kucinich–I’m pretty much
dead politically, at least for this election season. I’m glad to say that Kerry isn’t.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
---Soft on Terror – Link UQ
ISIS, Iran, and Snowden caused seismic shifts towards hawkishness—even Rand Paul
and Obama have been forced towards being hard on terror
Rogers, National Journal Contributor, 6-3-2015
(Alex, “McCain Now the GOP Hawks' Mentor, if Not Their Leader,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/mccain-now-the-gop-hawks-mentor-if-not-their-leader20150603)
"The more, the merrier," McCain said in the Capitol on Tuesday. "The
more people we have that are engaged in
national-security issues, the better. I like it." Then for the first several months of the year, McCain must have felt giddy
among the many colleagues who have taken the spotlight to showcase their national-security acumen—or
brazenness. In March, freshman Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas led many of his GOP colleagues, including McCain, to sign
and send a controversial letter to Iranian leaders reminding them that a nuclear deal with President Obama could be
modified by Congress. A few months later, Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker led the passage of the Iran nuclear review
bill, which passed with only one nay—Cotton, who, like McCain, is extraordinarily skeptical of the administration's negotiations.
This week, the Senate passed an NSA-reform bill over the objections of Sen. Rand Paul, a presidential aspirant with Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell's endorsement, and the hawks. McConnell and Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr played the biggest roles in trying to
keep the Patriot Act alive. But along the way, McCain found himself reprimanding Paul—telling his colleague on the chamber floor to "learn the
rules of the Senate"—with almost the entire GOP conference. And while McCain may still top the charts in Sunday show appearances, two of
the GOP presidential contenders—Lindsey
Graham and Marco Rubio—are biting at his heels to showcase their
own muscular brand of global affairs. Graham, a McCain acolyte who this week announced his candidacy to insert a forceful
national security angle into the race, has positions similar to all of the major candidates in the race, save Paul. But even Paul has felt the
pressure, offering a budget amendment this year to increase Pentagon funding to Rubio levels—a stark
turnaround from his own 2011 budget. (Sen. Ted Cruz has characterized his foreign-policy platform as the "third point on the triangle" between
Paul and McCain.) As FiveThirtyEight points out, Republicans'
attitudes have changed dramatically since Edward
Snowden's 2013 revelations, favoring much more government intervention to protect the country
against terrorism. "Since 1980 there's probably never been this much emphasis on foreign policy and
national security as there is in this election campaign," said McCain this week. "Which obviously gives some advantage to
Lindsey Graham. And it's not an accident these other candidates are emphasizing—no matter who they are—national security and foreign
policy. "I think that you're going to see things worsen in the world because there's no strategy for winning," he added. "And so I think by the
time the real primary votes start it'll be the one dominant issue, along with the economy." While McCain hasn't been the leader on reforming
the National Security Agency or shaping the Iran nuclear deal—areas clearly in the domain of the Intelligence and Foreign Relations
committees—he has been instrumental in guiding the new crop of military veteran senators. In particular, McCain has taken Cotton under his
wing, supporting him during his competitive House primary and, after Cotton's victory in 2012, taking him to conferences in Munich and
Halifax—as he took two other military veterans on the Armed Services committee, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, on a recent
trip to Singapore. "He could obviously run the entire show and take all the time himself," said Cotton in an interview. "But he never does that.
Even when I was a brand new congressman less than a month in, he gave me just as much time as every congressman and senator that he took.
And those are conversations with heads of state or senior ministers. I think that speaks very well of how he hopes to mentor and coach the next
generation of leaders for our country." McCain's next goal as Senate Armed Services chairman is to guide the major defense authorization bill
through Congress. Facing a White House veto threat because the bill yields to the sequestration caps and a Republican-led House committed to
keeping them, McCain has decided to boost defense with a budget gimmick: an additional $38 billion in a separate wartime account. But
Democrats adamantly are behind Obama, who wants to see a roughly 7 percent increase in 2016 over
sequestration levels. Nondefense appropriations have "either fallen or remained essentially frozen" four
of the past five years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and members like Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip,
see breaking the caps just for defense as "not as direct and honest as it should be." On Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called
the defense bill a "waste of time" due to the veto threat, and even Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee,
opposes busting the caps for just the Pentagon.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Crime
Soft on Crime Label is political suicide – any accusation ensures congressional
opposition
Hancock 14 {Jerry, director of The Prison Ministry Project, “'Soft on Crime' Tactic Works, but at a High
Cost,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30, http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/soft-on-crime-tacticworks-but-at-a-high-cost-b99301906z1-265307291.html}
Politicians are addicted to crime. Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives are all addicted to
crime and the politics of fear. I recently received a fundraising request from a liberal Democrat, a candidate whose positions
and career I generally respect. In the request, he accused the incumbent of being "soft on crime." I realize that many of us
might agree that it is wrong not to prosecute campaign finance violations — which was the context of the solicitation — but the phrase
itself is toxic. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the causes and problems of mass incarceration. If a liberal
Democrat will use "soft on crime" when he thinks it will motivate voters, there is very little hope we will
ever be "smart on crime." "Soft on crime" is one of those simple phrases — such as "truth in sentencing" or "three
strikes and you're out" — that so oversimplify complex issues that they suck the life out of people. We see the
consequences of "soft on crime" campaigns every time we visit men and women serving sentences without hope in Wisconsin's overcrowded
prisons. Any serious candidate should know better. Anyone running for public office should read Michelle Alexander's book, "The New Jim
Crow." Alexander details the causes and costs of keeping more than 2 million of our brothers and sisters behind bars and keeping fathers of 2
million children in prison. Alexander explains that mass incarceration results from two explicit public policies: the war on drugs and tough-oncrime laws (such as "truth in sentencing") that have led to more people being put in prison for longer sentences with no chance for parole or
time off for good behavior. Accusing
an electoral opponent of being "soft on crime" is a powerful weapon. It
motivates voters by preying on their fears — sometimes realistic but often inflated — of becoming victims of crime. The
"soft on crime" charge often works, but it comes with a terrible cost. Candidates who get elected by being "tough on crime"
mortgage their political and moral future and the future of the citizens they claim to serve. Having been elected by calling their opponents "soft
on crime," they know the power of the allegation. Once
elected, they are compelled to do everything they can to
show they will never be "soft on crime." More prisons get built. Sentences get longer. Parole is
denied. Pardons are refused. In the end, Wisconsin ends up spending more on prisons than on its world-class university system or on
health care, with no justifiable increase in public safety.
Soft on crime drains capital –
*note – also under “Link – Law Enforcement”
Bump, Political Correspondent for the Washington Post and the Atlantic, 2014
(Philip, Why the police are so politically powerful, August 14, 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/why-the-police-are-so-politicallypowerful/)
For those watching as violence erupted in Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday night, it was impossible not to
notice a voice missing from the conversation. For hours, there was silence from state and federal
elected officials. There's one obvious reason for a politician to be cautious before offering his or her
opinion: Saying the wrong thing or rushing to judgment in a fraught situation with lots of conflicting
details could do much more harm than good in the long run. (An easy example: President Obama's
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
comments on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.) There's another reason for caution:
Police agencies have long been unusually politically powerful. Politicians never want to purposely
alienate anyone, but they are particularly wary of crossing the cops. It's clear why. First and foremost,
the police are popular. Each year, Gallup polls Americans to evaluate how much confidence they have in various institutions. In the
most recent iteration of that research, police were rated third-highest, behind the military and small businesses. Americans have more
confidence in the police than they do in organized religion. Compare that with confidence ratings for Congress, which have fallen, continue to
fall, and don't have much further they can drop. Branches of the military, the institution in which Americans have the most confidence, can't
(and shouldn't, for clear reasons) endorse elected officials. But local police forces and, more specifically, local police unions, can and do.
People who trust the police more also vote more. Not only that, but the police have stronger support from
groups that vote more frequently. Below, data from Gallup breaking down how honest the police are perceived to be by political
party and age. Gallup also found that nonwhite Americans were substantially less likely to share white Americans' confidence in the police.
Forty-eight percent of nonwhites had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in cops, compared to 68 percent of whites. Whites,
Republicans, and older Americans are also more likely to regularly vote, including in off-cycle elections where local politicians are on the ballot.
Politicians love to say they're endorsed by police -- and fear a "soft on crime" image. If you've ever been near a
television during October in an even-numbered year, you've seen a police officer on television, describing why Candidate X is backed by the
police. If you've ever actually looked at the mail you receive that same month, you'll see pieces of mail that, somewhere, have a little gold
badge prominently displayed.
Being “Tough on Crime” still perceived and matter – assumes all your indicts of the
laws
Butts 14 {Stephen, soon to be J.D/Ph.D. in Law and Psychology (Golden Gate University and Palo Alto
University), J.D. and Master's Degree in Addiction Studies (Hazelden Graduate School), Criminal Justice
and Drug Policy Intern at the ACLU of Northern California, “Lawmaker’s Cookbook: A Recipe for ToughOn-Crime Laws,” Golden Gate University Law Review, 4/15,
http://ggulawreview.org/2014/04/15/lawmakers-cookbook-a-recipe-for-tough-on-crime-laws/}
Many “tough-on-crime” laws have been enacted over the past fifty years. These laws impose harsh sentences and severely
restrict offenders’ civil liberties under the guise of preventing crime. Sex offender laws, Three Strikes laws, zero tolerance laws, and mandatory sentences are
examples. “Tough-on-crime”
laws are economically unfeasible, ineffective, and unjust; yet their creation
continues. Chelsea’s law, the newest “tough-on-crime” law, was enacted just over three years ago. Unfortunately, “tough-on-crime” laws are
a lot like chocolate cupcakes at a soccer mom bake sale. When they’re just an idea, everyone loves them. They’re the
“talk of the town.” Upon presentation, eyes grow wide. People begin to salivate. They seem so
appeasing. People don’t realize just how bad an idea they are until they’ve had time to digest one. Once the high is over, the
reality sets in that they just make everyone feel bad and weren’t very good to begin with. A “tough-on-crime” law is similar, and it’s an easy dish to create if you
have the right ingredients. Like flour, the
base ingredient for a “tough-on-crime” law is public fear. It has been said: “Behind every bad
the context of criminal laws, this fear is of a monstrous villain, and three types of villains
are most often cited: sex offenders, drug addicts, and career criminals. Of these choices, sex offenders are the fiend du jour, with child molesters
law [there is] a deep fear.” In
being more villainous than rapists. Sex offenders are seen as monsters and despised by society. Even in prison, “a society unto itself,” sex offenders have the lowest
rank in the social order. The public views sex crimes as the most morally reprehensible crimes and, therefore, sex offenders create a moral panic. Sex offenders may
addiction is seen as a “moral failing,” with drug
addicts being confined to prisons rather than treated for a chronic brain disease. While some drug laws have been
reformed, the “War on Drugs” rages on. Only certain career criminals are seen as villains, though. If an offender’s rap sheet is long enough
and sufficiently disturbing, he can become a very powerful villain. A rape, murder, or kidnapping can transform a petty criminal into someone to be feared. The
next and most important ingredient, like the sugar in a cupcake, is the media’s continual stream of fear appeals.
Fear appeals persuade action by highlighting threats to public safety. The strongest fear appeal is provided by the media’s
garner the most attention, but drug addicts and career criminals are also vilified. Drug
spotlight on the rape or murder of a white child, preferably a female. Many “tough-on-crime” laws have been named after the children whose murders inspired the
legal causes: Chelsea’s law, Megan’s law, Jessica’s Law, Marsy’s Law, the Adam Walsh Act, and the Jacob Wetterling Act. California’s Three Strikes Law was enacted
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
in response to the media-incited public fear after the murder of Polly Klaas. During
the War on Drugs, there were no specific
horrendous incidents for the media to amplify. Instead, yellow journalism was used. From Reefer
Madness to reports that African-Americans who used cocaine were raping white women, the media used its
power to garner support for “tough-on-crime” legislation. As the focus of the media’s fear appeals has changed, so have the
villains. From the 1870s until the 1990s, drug addicts were the main villains. In the 1990s, career criminals were the focus. Since 1994, sex offenders have been the
to our addiction to sugar, people are addicted to the media, and the media continually
spoon-feeds these fear appeals to the masses. Unable to abstain from viewing, fears are aroused. This
arousal is uncomfortable. To correct this emotional dysregulation, humans instinctively react to the perceived
focal point. Similar
need to protect themselves by pressuring politicians for change. Politicians are also controlled
by fear. In fact, it is largely due to their fear of not being re-elected that politicians have enacted these
unnecessary laws. Without the addictive media, there would be no “tough-on-crime” laws. For example, a year before Polly Klaas’s murder inspired California’s
Three Strikes Law, Kimber Reynolds, another young white girl, was murdered by a career criminal. But, no one supported the Three Strikes Law Kimber’s father was
promoting because there was no media attention surrounding her murder. While
a personal or political agenda can be helpful in the
creation of a “tough-on-crime” law, it is simply icing on the cupcake. An agenda can have a strong influence on public
perceptions. The media can then promote the agenda. For instance, yellow journalism was used to
support Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs” political agenda and the media promoted Marc Klaas’s personal agenda to rid the streets of career
criminals. Once the media has galvanized the public, pressure can be put on politicians to enact
legislation. Politicians, whose primary agenda is re-election, worry they’ll look “soft-on-crime” unless “tough-oncrime” laws are passed. Unfortunately, after a “tough-on-crime” law is enacted, it can take decades before the ramifications are fully digested and
people recognize how bad the law was in actuality. Once the public realizes the ineffectiveness and vindictiveness of “tough-on-crime” laws, the laws are usually
reformed. Forty years after the “War on Drugs” began, the focus on drug policies is slowly changing from incarceration to treatment. Almost twenty years after
California’s Three Strikes Law was implemented, it was reformed to focus on serious or violent felonies. A
“tough-on-crime” law is a simple
dish with only two main ingredients: our fear of villains and the media’s fear appeals. The media has a debilitating
effect on our independent thinking because it spoon-feeds us fear appeals. To regulate our fear, the public creates fear in politicians. These
ingredients are perfect for a “tough-on-crime” law. Due to their simplicity, these laws will
continue to be created. It is only by abstaining from our mindless consumption of the media’s fear appeals that laws will transform from
being reactive to proactive.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Soft on Crime – Dems
fear of soft on crime labeling ensures dems won’t buy in
Bean 12 {Alan, executive director of Friends of Justice, featured in Newsweek, The Washington Post,
USA Today, La Monde and The Chicago Tribune and CNN, “The Conservative War on Prisons: How an
Unlikely Coalition of Evangelicals and Libertarians Changed the Politics of Crime,” 11/13,
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-conservative-war-on-prisons-how-an-unlikelycoalition-of-evangelicals-and-libertarians-changed-the-politics-of-crime/}
I heartily commend this well-crafted article on the unlikely evangelical-libertarian coalition that created the Right on Crime
movement. David Dagan and Steven M. Teles appreciate that liberal organizations like the ACLU, the Open Societies Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation carried the torch for criminal justice reform during the
. But liberal politicians have been too afraid of the softon-crime label to associate themselves with the reform movement; in fact, Democrats like Bill Clinton built
careers on out-toughing the conservatives. Real political change required a bi-partisan approach, and
this meant that the impetus for reform had to come from the political right. Democrats will vote for
change, but only if conservatives give them political cover. Conservatives, especially in deep-red states like Texas, don’t have to worry about looking soft.
dark ages (1980-2000) of tough-on-crime politic and ever-expanding prison populations
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link - Intelligence Reforms
Intelligence reforms ensure finite PC drain and agenda trade off, multiple structural
factors
Zegart, 9
Amy B. Zegart, co-director of CISAC and professor of political economy @ Stanford, “Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11”, p.
56-60, 2009, google books,
http://books.google.com/books?id=x59k854wyd0C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=nsa+reform+%22political+capital%22&source=bl&ots=plXd6ATNi
4&sig=5BVCbmnGq5jS0TOeumjSaKq5tE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OkafU_vwLIyxyATg4YHAAw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=nsa%20reform%20%22political%20capital%
22&f=false
Rational Self-Interest of Presidents, Legislators, and National Security Bureaucrats Government officials are constrained by the incentives and
capabilities that come with their positions. Although individuals have their own ideas, skills, and policy preferences, institutional
incentives and capabilities exert a powerful influence, making some courses of action easier and less costly than others. These
incentives and capabilities explain why, before the September 11 attacks, no president championed intelligence
reform, why legislators largely avoided and blocked it, and why national security agency bureaucrats
opposed it. PRESIDENTS All presidents have strong incentives to improve organizational effectiveness. To make their mark on history/ they
must make the bureaucracy work well for them. Perhaps even more important, presidents are also driven to enhance organizational
effectiveness by the electorate, which expects far more of them than they can possibly deliver. Held responsible for everything from inflation to
Iraqi democratization, presidents have good reason to ensure that government agencies adapt to changing demands as much and as fast as
possible.51 The
problem is that presidents are weak. With little time, limited political capital, few formal
powers, and packed political agendas, presidents lack the capabilities to make the changes they desire. Instead, they almost
always prefer to focus their efforts on policy issues that directly concern (and benefit) voters rather than on the
arcane details of organizational design and operation. And who can blame them? Tax cuts and social security lock boxes win votes, but no
president ever won a landslide election by changing the CIA's personnel system. Moreover, presidents
are especially reluctant to
push for agency reforms in the absence of a crisis or in the presence of anticipated resistance. Presidents
are thus loath to reform existing agencies through executive action or legislation. Although dozens of
investigations, commissions, and experts identified shortcomings in the U.S. Intelligence Community between 1947, when the CIA was created,
and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, no president attempted major intelligence reform.53 Rational self-interest ex-plains why.
LEGISLATORS Self-interest
leads most legislators to avoid tackling intelligence reform altogether or seek to
block it. Like presidents, legislators have little incentive to delve into the messy inner workings of intelligence
agency design because doing so does not provide tangible benefits to voters back home.4 Indeed, the weak
electoral connection is one of the reasons congressional intelligence oversight committees continued imposing term limits for their members
throughout the 1990s, long after it became clear that these regulations severely weakened the development of congressional expertise and
after numerous commissions recommended abolishing them.55 When crises
do arise, intelligence committee members
are rewarded more for airing dirty laundry than cleaning it. They frequently hold hearings but only rarely
take corrective action. The Bay of Pigs, the congressional investigations into CIA abuses during the 1970s, the lran-Contra scandal, and
the Aldrich Ames spy case all triggered major investigations but none produced fundamental change in the Intelligence Community- In addition,
members of Congress care about maintaining the power of the institution. Generally, this means that legislators prefer executive arrangements
that diffuse authorities and capabilities; the more agencies in the executive branch, the more power bases can accrue in Congress to oversee
them. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY BUREAUCRATS Finally,
national security agency bureaucrats have their own
interests at stake and powerful means to pursue them. Whereas most domestic policy agencies operate in relatively
autonomous policy domains—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, has no reason to think about the design or operation of
the Social Security Administration—U.S.
national security agencies are more tightly connected. Policymaking
inevitably crosses bureaucratic boundaries, involving diplomacy, the use of force, economic policy/ and intelligence. In such a
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
complex web, national security bureaucrats see reform as a zero-sum battle for agency autonomy and power. EPA
officials may not be conjuring up ways to gain advantage over another government agency, but national security bureaucrats are. In the
interdependent world of national security affairs, no agency wants to yield authority or discretion to another.""6 The Problems of Decentralized
Democracy Rational
self-interest makes reform difficult; self-interest coupled with the decentralized structure
of the U.S. federal government makes it more so. Paradoxically, some of the cherished features of American democracy impede
effective agency design and raise obstacles to reform. Separation of powers, the congressional committee
system, and majority rule have created a system that invites compromise and makes legislation hard to pass. This has two
consequences for government agencies. First, political compromise allows opponents to cripple any new agency from the start. As Terry Moe
writes, "In the political system, public bureaucracies are designed ... by participants who explicitly want them to fail."37 Political compromise
unavoidably leads to subop-timal initial agency design, even for critical national security agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency. *
Indeed, critics who contend that the CIA is poorly suited to meeting the needs of the post-Cold War world are only partially right: the agency
was not particularly well designed to meet the United States' Cold War needs, either. In 1947, existing intelligence agencies in the FBI, State
Department, and military services succeeded in stripping the CIA of any strong centralization powers. When the CIA was created, it was flawed
by design.59 The decentralized structure of American democracy also means that the worst agency problems usually are the hardest to fix.
Although agencies can make some changes on their own and can also be altered by unilateral presidential action, the most
far-reaching
reforms almost always require new legislation. But legislative success is difficult even under the best of
circumstances because it demands multiple majorities in both houses of Congress. As Philip Zelikow, executive
director of the 9/11 Commission put it, "the most powerful interest group in Washington is the status quo."60
Summary Taken together, these three enduring realities—the nature of organizations, rational self-interest,
and the fragmented federal government—provide a basic model for understanding why U.S. intelligence agencies
failed to adapt to the terrorist threat before September 11, why they have not done much better since then, and why they are unlikely to
improve substantially in the future. Government agencies are not built to change with the times. Because reform does not generally arise
from within, it must
be imposed from the outside. But even this rarely happens because all organizational
changes, even the best reforms, create winners and losers, and because the political system allows losers multiple opportunities to
keep winners from winning completely. Indeed, the greater the proposed change, the stronger the resistance will
be. As a result, organizational adaptation almost always meets with defeat, becomes watered down, or
gets shelved for another day, when the next crisis erupts.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Law Enforcement
Lack of support for law enforcement drains capital – multiple warrants
Bump, Political Correspondent for the Washington Post and the Atlantic, 2014
(Philip, Why the police are so politically powerful, August 14, 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/why-the-police-are-so-politicallypowerful/)
For those watching as violence erupted in Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday night, it was impossible not to notice a
voice missing from the conversation. For hours, there was silence from state and federal elected officials.
There's one obvious reason for a politician to be cautious before offering his or her opinion: Saying the
wrong thing or rushing to judgment in a fraught situation with lots of conflicting details could do much
more harm than good in the long run. (An easy example: President Obama's comments on the arrest of
Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.) There's another reason for caution: Police agencies have long
been unusually politically powerful. Politicians never want to purposely alienate anyone, but they are
particularly wary of crossing the cops. It's clear why. First and foremost, the police are popular. Each year,
Gallup polls Americans to evaluate how much confidence they have in various institutions. In the most recent iteration of that research, police
were rated third-highest, behind the military and small businesses. Americans have more confidence in the police than they do in organized
religion. Compare that with confidence ratings for Congress, which have fallen, continue to fall, and don't have much further they can drop.
Branches of the military, the institution in which Americans have the most confidence, can't (and shouldn't, for clear reasons) endorse elected
officials. But local police forces and, more specifically, local police unions, can and do. People
who trust the police more also
vote more. Not only that, but the police have stronger support from groups that vote more frequently. Below,
data from Gallup breaking down how honest the police are perceived to be by political party and age. Gallup also found that nonwhite
Americans were substantially less likely to share white Americans' confidence in the police. Forty-eight percent of nonwhites had a "great deal"
or "quite a lot" of confidence in cops, compared to 68 percent of whites. Whites, Republicans, and older Americans are also more likely to
regularly vote, including in off-cycle elections where local politicians are on the ballot. Politicians
love to say they're endorsed
by police -- and fear a "soft on crime" image. If you've ever been near a television during October in an even-numbered year,
you've seen a police officer on television, describing why Candidate X is backed by the police. If you've ever actually looked at the mail you
receive that same month, you'll see pieces of mail that, somewhere, have a little gold badge prominently displayed.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Military Industrial Complex
Lack of support for military industrial complex drains capital – national security
trumps all
Avlon, Daily Beast Reporter, 2013
(Jon, The Military-Industrial Complex Is Real, and It’s Bigger Than Ever, 6-12-2013,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/12/the-military-industrial-complex-is-real-and-it-sbigger-than-ever.html)
But the
military-industrial complex has a trump card to play with members of Congress and the public:
nobody wants to argue with national security, especially when the very real threat of terrorism exists.
This ain’t no phantom menace: more than 45 jihadist terror plots had been stopped before the 10th anniversary of 9/11. But the
combination of real threat and opaque multibillion-dollar budgets leads inevitably to a lack of
transparency and accountability. That’s where the risk of not just information-dragnet overreach but
also the risk of leakers like Ed Snowden comes in. With this level of complexity in the system, security is ironically almost
impossible to maintain. There is no debate that Snowden’s unlikely access to the nation’s security secrets is a
reflection of the overextended partial privatization of our intelligence operations. Better to streamline a stillrobust national-security community, leading to strict lines of accountability while minimizing consultants and their 500,000 top-secret
clearances. If too much is top secret, then nothing is, especially in the digital age when documents can be accessed by any low-level staffer.
Moreover, the tsunami of metadata collected might ultimately be utilized by our enemies, hacking into our system servers, rather than the
inevitably disorganized tangle of private contractors and government workers. Snowden wasn’t the danger Ike imagined in his Farewell
Address, given from the Oval Office in the predawn of the computer age. Some might argue that Snowden represents the “alert and
knowledgeable citizenry” that Eisenhower said would be the best check on the interests of military-industrial complex. But there
is no
debate that Ed Snowden’s unlikely access to the nation’s security secrets in the first place is a reflection of
the overextended partial privatization of our intelligence operations. This is what Ike explicitly warned about
more than a half-century ago: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We
must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties.”
Support for the Military Industrial complex outweighs other political concerns
O’Connell, Associate Professor of History at the United States Naval Academy, 2012
(Aaron B., The Permanent Militarization of America, November 12th, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?_r=0)
IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left
office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial
complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument. In his farewell address,
Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the
defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause
economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and
warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health. The
military-industrial
complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous
sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of
our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953. Defense-related research
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
has not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power
to GPS navigation. The
United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered
employment and economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense
spending is the job loss such cuts would entail. Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower
warned. Foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’
repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military
action. Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible.
Though it’s true that mercenaries and contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are
made today much as they were in Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and
then more or less rubber-stamped by Congress. Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet. But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning —
concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our
culture has militarized
considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’
constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,”
“Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet
of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course,
veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution —
particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism. Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its
public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are
more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there
are fewer veterans in Congress
today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for
the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all
members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything
else are just too high.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Link Turns
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Link Turn – Generic
Specific details of reform ensure controversy and outweigh ideological support
Baker and Peters, 14 – cites Jane Harman, author of the last major surveillance law and now the
president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Peter Baker and Jeremy W. Peters,
NYT congressional political writers, 1-18-2014, "With Plan to Overhaul Spying, the Divisiveness is in the
Details", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/us/politics/with-plan-to-overhaulspying-the-divisiveness-is-in-the-details.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — The roiling
debate over security and liberty did not end with President Obama’s newly announced
overhaul of surveillance practices. Rather, it now enters a volatile next phase as intelligence agencies and a divided
Congress try to turn principles into policy. In responding to months of uproar about government spying, Mr. Obama left to
be decided the details that would determine just how meaningful the change he promised would be. He asked security
officials to develop ways to protect the privacy of foreigners. He asked Congress to help figure out how to store bulk telephone data. He invited
other proposals to restructure a secret intelligence court. All
of which means that the future shape of a surveillance
far from certain. The assurances Mr. Obama offered
his critics may be made more nebulous by exceptions written into any new policies. The question of what to do
with a vast trove of data on everyday Americans may elude policy makers who cannot agree on much. And yet legislators may
find their usual politics scrambled by an issue that crosses party lines. “It’s the beginning of a long process, and the end on
some of this is still unclear,” said former Representative Jane Harman, an author of the last major surveillance law and
now the president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “But the good news is now there’s a full debate in the
Congress and in the country about our values and how to address security and liberty at the same time.”
apparatus whose secrets have been uncomfortably exposed remains
Obama will always lose the spin game – ensures he loses PC
Page, 13 (Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, 12-30-2013, "Ex-NSA chief calls for
Obama to reject recommendations", USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/30/gen-michael-hayden-urges-obama-rejectnsa-commission-recommendations/4249983/, DA: 5-23-2015)
Snowden's revelations have fueled objections by civil liberties advocates that the NSA goes too far in collecting
information about Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. This month, a federal judge in Washington called the program "almost
Orwellian," although a few days later, another federal judge in New York said it was legal. Hayden's
blunt warnings about the
risks he sees in accepting the commission's recommendations underscore the difficult balancing act
Obama faces between ensuring the nation's security and respecting citizens' privacy. No decision he makes is likely to
avoid criticism. "Here I think it's going to require some political courage," said Hayden, 68, a retired Air Force general
whose service in the nation's top intelligence posts gives him particular standing. "Frankly, the president is going to have to use
some of his personal and political capital to keep doing these things."
No turns – Republican majority and terrorism concerns prevent support
Risen, 14 (Tom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, 11-21-2014,
"Will Surveillance Reform Get a Second Act?", US News & World Report,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/21/will-surveillance-reform-get-a-second-act, DA: 523-2015)
Sensenbrenner, who helped write the Patriot Act, will continue to press for surveillance reform in the next session of Congress despite
the possibility of a loophole. “The fact that this issue exists is further evidence that the NSA is operating far beyond the intent of Congress,”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Miller says. Building
support for a new bill could be tough as the incoming Republican majority in Congress may
also feel political pressure to shy away from limiting spying powers. Sensenbrenner introduced the Freedom Act in
2013, as reports of broad government surveillance of the Internet and phones, brought to light in documents leaked by former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden, dominated the news. Current headlines highlight the terrorist threat of the Islamic State group. Leahy spoke
out on the Senate floor, saying that talk of privacy limits damaging national security were “scare tactics.” “Some would have us wait while
American businesses continue to lose tens of billions of dollars in the international marketplace,” Leahy said, citing damage the NSA program
has done to Silicon Valley’s reputation. “Or we could even wait until we are facing down the expiration of [Patriot Act] Section 215 in a matter
of months, thereby creating dangerous uncertainty and risk for the intelligence community.” But Nelson, who supports military action
against the Islamic State group and voted against the Freedom Act on Tuesday, insists that broad
spying powers are still
needed to counter terrorism. "The United States and our allies must leave no stone unturned in going after these
barbarians," Nelson said in a statement on Monday.
No link turn – privacy interests have no clout.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and representation professor with
the Phil Lind Chair, and Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, “Secrecy and negligence: How Congress lost control of domestic
surveillance” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf, p.3, accessed 7-15-15, TAP]
The lack of consistency in defending privacy interests has several sources. Most fundamental, legislators
reflect the attitudes and demands of their constituencies. The American public has generally been quite
willing to surrender privacy rights for the sake of enhanced security, against even unspecified, highly
indefinite terrorist threats.1 In addition, there are generally no well-organized, powerful
constituencies for privacy interests.2
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Link Turn – Congress/Coalitions
Coalitions are divided and Congressional leadership hates reform – that prevents
broad support
Baker and Peters, 14 (Peter Baker and Jeremy W. Peters, NYT congressional political writers, 1-182014, "With Plan to Overhaul Spying, the Divisiveness is in the Details", New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/us/politics/with-plan-to-overhaul-spying-the-divisiveness-is-inthe-details.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
But Mr. Obama
had no answer for the biggest question involving the bulk data collection program. Although
he said the government should no longer keep the data, he outlined flaws in the only two alternatives floated so far:
leaving data with telecommunications providers or creating an independent consortium to store it. He assigned the attorney general, Eric H.
Holder Jr., and the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., to develop a plan and asked Congress to help. Unlike
many
divisive issues to arrive on Capitol Hill, this one appears unlikely to die after a wait for a floor debate that never
happens, or to be thwarted by the parliamentary maneuver of an uncompromising leader. “Reformers may not get all
of what we want,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. “But I think there’s a very real prospect of doing better than the
president has proposed, and he’s acknowledged himself that there may be a need for taking additional steps.” Others were not so certain.
“This
happens all the time in Washington,” said Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky and a vocal critic of surveillance
gets in an uproar — ‘Congress must act! Congress must act!’ But when they do act,
they do something devious and don’t really address the problem.” Indeed, supporters of the N.S.A.
programs say they expect Congress to resist undercutting programs that protect the public. “You will see
changes at the margins with significant ambiguities and exceptions that will provide the executive branch with lots of
flexibility,” predicted former Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, a onetime chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee. What distinguishes the surveillance issue from so many that have stymied a polarized Congress is that it
does not follow easy patterns. The libertarian right, represented by Mr. Paul, has joined the liberal left, represented
by lawmakers like Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who calls himself a socialist. On the other side are the
leaders of both parties, like Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of
Michigan, leaders of the Intelligence Committees and supporters of the surveillance programs. The two
programs. “Everybody
attended Mr. Obama’s speech on Friday at the Justice Department, then lingered together afterward consulting with Mr. Clapper. Within a few
hours, the
two issued a joint statement defending the programs. “It’s interesting because there’s splits within
both parties,” said Peter Swire, a Georgia Tech professor who served on a panel of Mr. Obama’s that reviewed
the surveillance programs. “Potentially it makes it easier, because members are open to persuasion. It’s not a party-line vote.”
Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, said: “Ideology is sort of confusing on this one. When you
have Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders on the same side, that makes for a pretty interesting debate.” Indeed, some Democrats seemed eager to
use the issue to distance themselves from an unpopular chief executive. “I don’t believe innocent Alaskans’ personal records need to be
collected and analyzed in bulk in an effort to help catch terrorists,” said Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, who faces a challenging race for
reelection this year. “It’s a violation of our civil liberties and is heavy-handed — like using a shark hook to fish for a salmon.” In
the Senate,
the debate sets up a possible clash among three of the most powerful and headstrong Democrats: Ms.
Feinstein; Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an advocate for expansive changes; and Harry Reid of
Nevada, the majority leader, who feels pinched between the White House and members of his caucus. In the House, the issue pits
Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio against some in his Republican caucus. When the House debated a bill that would have blocked
the N.S.A. from collecting bulk telephone data, the measure came within a dozen votes of passing. Although speakers rarely vote,
Mr. Boehner took the unusual step of voting in opposition. Mr. Boehner has not endorsed the legislation that seems most
likely to be the vehicle for the debate over N.S.A. practices this year, which has been drafted by Mr. Leahy and Representative Jim
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who as an author of the Patriot Act holds considerable sway with his Republican colleagues. The bill would end
bulk data collection and establish an independent counsel to argue against government requests at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
“The bottom line is real reform cannot be done by presidential fiat,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said, bluntly making the case that Congress has to act
where the White House stopped short. “The president and intelligence community have repeatedly misled Congress and the American people
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
and lack credibility for reform.” Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who also has sponsored legislation that would curb
surveillance programs, said lawmakers may still not go far. “I’m
not all that sanguine about Congress’s ability to step up
to the plate and enact reform on its own,” he said. “Congress will do some of the easy things,” like require more
transparency in surveillance. But it may not be until next year, when the Patriot Act comes up for renewal, that more significant issues are
addressed. “Unequivocal defenders know the program disappears in 18 months,” Mr. Schiff said. “That may make them more amenable to
compromise.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Link Turn – Public
Public support is irrelevant – doesn’t spill over to Congress and still creates fights
Zakrzewski, 15 (Cat Zakrzewski, 5-18-2015, "Surveillance Reform Stalemate In Congress Doesn’t
Reflect Public Opinion", TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/18/surveillance-reformstalemate-in-congress-doesnt-reflect-public-opinion/, DA: 6-2-2015)
The ACLU on Monday released a
survey that found 60 percent of American voters want to see modifications to the
PATRIOT Act, the post 9/11 law that created the nation’s modern intelligence apparatus. The polling comes as the Republican
leadership attempts to halt surveillance reform in the Senate. The debate is becoming increasingly
politicized in Congress, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for clean reauthorization of a PATRIOT Act
provision set to expire on June 1, Section 215. This section provided the mandate for the controversial bulk collection of American phone
records revealed by former government contractor Edward Snowden almost two years ago. The House passed a bill that would reform parts of
the Patriot Act last week, but a spokesperson for the ACLU criticized that portion for not going far enough. From Snowden’s revelations, we
know the government uses other laws — notably Section 702 and Executive Order 1233 — to collect Americans’ communications. This reform
would only affect the bulk collection occurring under the Patriot Act. As other organizations
like Pew have found, the survey shows
that calls for reform are bipartisan. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats surveyed and 58 percent of
Republicans surveyed strongly agreed with modifying the law. That percentage only rose among independents, with 71
percent supporting reform efforts. In a media call, ACLU legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said these findings highlight the
disconnect between lawmakers on the Hill and the American people. “In order to be more reflective of public’s
views on surveillance and the Patriot Act, members of Congress should more fully support reforms and can fully support more aggressive
reforms,” she said. The ACLU also noted that surveillance reform could become a key issue during the primaries, especially because voters on
the far right and far left are more likely than moderates to support reform efforts. The ACLU said that with the bipartisan support for reform
and even greater support among independents, surveillance reform is an issue that could consistently help candidates appeal to voters no
matter their political affiliation. As we’ve seen with past surveys, younger voters were more likely than older voters to support modifying the
Patriot Act. Sixty-five percent of 18- to 39-year-olds support reform, as compared to only 59 percent of voters over the age of 45. The
overwhelming majority of respondents — 82 percent — said they were concerned about the government
collecting and storing their information. When given specific examples of government surveillance, respondents were most likely
to be concerned about the government accessing their personal records without a judge’s permission or collecting information without a
warrant for purposes other than stopping terrorist attacks. This
survey of about 1,000 likely American voters comes as the future of
surveillance reform remains uncertain in Washington. Although the reform bill sailed through with a large majority in the
House, Senate Republicans seem intent on lining up with McConnell and calling for a clean reauthorization. But privacy
advocates on both sides of the aisle say they will filibuster any legislation that reauthorizes the program. With the clock ticking, lawmakers will
have to break this stalemate quickly or risk letting the PATRIOT Act provision expire, and with it the most controversial of the NSA programs.
Public opinion is divided and intelligence community influence outweighs for Congress
Greenwald, 13 (Glenn Greenwald, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York
Times best-selling books on politics and law, 7-29-2013, "Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress,
on NSA surveillance and privacy", Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-privacy-pew, DA: 6-22015)
The primary problem enabling out-of-control NSA spying has long been the Intelligence Committees in both houses
of Congress. That's an ironic twist given that those were the committees created in the wake of the mid-1970s Church Committee to provide
rigorous oversight, as a response to the recognition that Executive Branch's surveillance powers were being radically abused - and would
inevitably be abused in the future - without robust transparency and accountability. But with a few rare and noble exceptions, the Intelligence
Committees in both houses of Congress are filled
with precisely those members who are most slavishly beholden to, completely
captured by, the intelligence community over which they supposedly serve as watchdogs. Many receive
large sums of money from the defense and intelligence industries. There is a clear and powerful
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
correlation between NSA support and amounts of money received by these members from those
industries, as Wired's Dave Kravets adeptly documented about last week's NSA vote and has been documented before with similar NSAprotecting actions from the Intelligence Committee. In particular, the two chairs of those committees - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in
the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are such absolute loyalists to the NSA and the National Security State
generally that it is usually impossible to distinguish their behavior, mindset and comments from those of NSA officials. In sum, the Senate
and House Intelligence Committees are the pure embodiment of the worst of Washington: the
corrupting influence of money from the very industries they are designed to oversee and the complete capture
by the agencies they are supposed to adversarially check. Anything that comes out of the leadership of those two Committees that is labeled
"NSA reform" is almost certain to be designed to achieve the opposite effect: to stave off real changes in lieu of illusory tinkering whose real
purpose will be to placate rising anger. But that trick seems unlikely to work here. What has made these disclosures different from past NSA
scandals - including ones showing serious abuse of their surveillance powers - are the large numbers of the NSA's own documents that are now
and will continue to be available for the public to see, as well the sustained, multi-step nature of these disclosures, which makes this far more
difficult for NSA defenders to predict, manage and dismiss away. At least as much as they are shining long-overdue light on these specific NSA
domestic programs, the NSA
disclosures are changing how Americans (and people around the world) think about the
mammoth National Security State and whether it can and should be trusted with unchecked powers exercised in the
dark. Those public opinion shifts aren't going to disappear as the result of some blatantly empty gestures from Dianne Feinstein and Mike
Rogers masquerading as "reform". Despite
the substantial public opinion shifts, Pew found that Americans are largely
split on whether the NSA data-collection program should continue. The reason for this is remarkable and repugnant
though, at this point, utterly unsurprising: Nationwide, there is more support for the government's data-collection
program among Democrats (57% approve) than among Republicans (44%), but both parties face
significant internal divisions: 36% of Democrats disapprove of the program as do 50% of Republicans. Just as Democrats went from
vehement critics of Bush's due-process-free War on Terror policies to vocal cheerleaders of Obama's drone kills and even Guantanamo
imprisonments, the
leading defenders of the NSA specifically and America's Surveillance State generally are now found among
self-identified Democrats. That was embodied by how one of the most vocal Democratic NSA critics during the Bush years - Nancy Pelosi in almost single-handedly saved the NSA from last week's House vote. If someone had said back in 2007 that the greatest support for NSA
surveillance would be found among Democrats, many would find the very idea ludicrous. But such
is life in the Age of Obama: one
of his most enduring legacies is transforming his party from pretend-opponents of the permanent National
Security State into its most enthusiastic supporters.
Doesn’t create political mobilization – no one cares enough
Nossel, 13 (Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the Pen American Center and a former deputy
assistant secretary of state for international organizations at the U.S. State Department, 12-4-2013,
"Opinion: After Snowden, we're self-censoring and we don't care", CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effect/, DA: 6-2-2015)
Some Americans' relative nonchalance toward
the government prying into e-mails and calls we long thought were
private may stem in part from knowing that we have already ceded so much of our privacy voluntarily. Social
media, online shopping, and simple browsing have become semi-public acts. It's hard to know who can see what, and worrying
about it can stand in the way of buying a birthday present, posting a great photo or getting your taxes done. Moreover, for most
Americans, learning that the government is a lurking hidden online "friend" doesn't evoke the fears it would
have in communist Eastern Europe or today's Russia or Iran. Because we are all subject to the NSA's
intrusions, there is no single group -- not Muslims, or African-Americans, or people of Middle Eastern descent -- that has
emerged as a target of these newly revealed programs. While Americans are used to fighting against
discrimination, we are less accustomed to standing up for rights to privacy, expression and association
that belong to us all. Finally, because of the utter secrecy of the programs -- schemes we would not even know about
short of Snowden's astonishing breach -- unless you're Angela Merkel you wouldn't know whether you were under
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
investigation, questioned at the airport, or denied a visa because of something you said or wrote. It may be years, if
ever, before stories come to light of people done in by their own texts, web-surfing or Facebook posts.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Link Turn – Tech Lobbies
It empirically fails and can’t influence congress
Wilhelm, 14 (Alex Wilhelm, technology writer for TechCrunch, 11-19-2014, "Tech Reacts to the
Demise of Partial NSA Reform in the Senate", TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/19/techreacts-to-the-demise-of-partial-nsa-reform-in-the-senate/, DA: 6-2-2015)
The failure of the Senate to advance NSA reform in the current Congress isn’t too popular with the
technology community. The demise of the USA FREEDOM Act — a half-measure at best — in the Senate is another
loss for the technology industry, which saw many of its leading companies repeatedly call for the bill’s
passage. The FREEDOM Act was aimed at ending the NSA’s collection of American’s telephone metadata, a
controversial program that the Snowden leaks uncovered. The Act was no panacea, but it did appear to be an achievable piece of legislation.
The House passed a version of the bill that was mocked after it was neutered before passage. The Senate’s variant was stiffer. It was called a
first step. Even that couldn’t pass. “A Missed Opportunity” Reaction by tech industry groups to the 58-42 has been negative. The group
Reform Government Surveillance, which counts Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook as members released a small statement saying that it
was “disappointed in the Senate procedural vote.” The influential Business Software Alliance called
it a “missed opportunity.” The
big tech companies appear content to speak through groups that they are members of, sparing them
the need to directly criticize member of Congress that, in many cases, are about to take the majority position in
the upper chamber. “Extremely Disappointing” Companies that have strong cloud focuses are particularly unhappy with the situation. Aaron
Levie, the CEO of Box told TechCrunch that the vote was “extremely disappointing.” What is needed, according to the executive, is “any sign of
progress that shows that the Senate and the government in general understand the gravity of the surveillance situation.” He continued, stating
that the “United States government failing to lead is leading to other governments thinking about Internet management.” In the wake of the
NSA revelations, there have been fears that the Internet could split into regional pieces, with different rules and carving the larger Web into
splinters. That wouldn’t be so good for companies that want to sell their services around the world. Vineet Jain, co-founder and CEO of Egnyte,
a company that provides cloud collaboration services to enterprises told TechCrunch that the failure of the FREEDOM Act sent “very strong
message” to Americans “about our right to privacy.” He went to state that by “continuing to allow NSA surveillance, there is a new level of FUD
(fear, uncertainty, doubt)” in the market that “is inhibiting [the technology industry] from progressive innovation.” Jain also said that if privacy
was better protected from government intrusion through legislative action, companies in tech could “reallocate valuable resources that have
been put into NSA countermeasures.” Ajay Patel, the CEO of HighQ, another company in the enterprise collaboration space, told TechCrunch
that the failure of that Act implied that “U.S. policy on collecting individuals and corporations private information isn’t likely to change anytime
soon.” He noted that United States-based companies will lose some business, as “corporations and governments will seek to contract with nonU.S. technology based companies that do not use U.S. domiciled data centers to escape the long reach of the Patriot Act.” The Money Team Not
everyone is worried, however. I spoke to a number of venture capitalists this morning, and the tone of response was that the vote wouldn’t
change much in the short term. Given that the failure of the FREEDOM Act is a continuance of the status quo, this is perhaps not too surprising.
But while the capital folks might not be looking to shake up their investment strategies, it doesn’t mean that they enjoy the government’s
position, or actions. Jason Lemkin, a partner at Storm Ventures told TechCrunch that “the current environment is creating a ‘tax’ on many startups, especially [business-to-business] ones, where customers outside the U.S. are deeply concerned about trusting their data to U.S. web
companies.” That impact, he argued is “hard to see in the numbers,” given “the explosive growth of so many companies the past” two years.
But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, certainly, or that it might not become an increasing point of friction in the future. The Other
Perspective Not everyone is downcast, however. Several important
voices in the privacy debate have been critical of the
FREEDOM Act, and have thus been less perturbed over its defeat. Given that, there is perhaps some hope to the point that if the Act had
passed, it could have blocked better reform in the next year, or Congress. Evan Greer and Emptywheel are the two must-reads here.
Technology companies with more than $1 trillion in market cap — far more — threw their weight behind a bill that
many called too small, and it failed. When you additionally take into account the fact that the party that
was most in opposition to the Act in the Senate will take up the majority in that chamber next year, the picture
becomes a bit more dim. Never say never, but for this year here’s where we ended. It’s been 531 days since the first
Snowden revelation.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Tech lobbying is a PR show to save face with consumers – won’t shield the link or
create change
Anthony, 13 (Sebastian Anthony, ExtremeTech's senior editor, 12-9-2013, "Tech giants team up to
battle NSA surveillance, governmental snooping", ExtremeTech,
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/172286-tech-giants-team-up-to-battle-nsa-surveillancegovernmental-snooping, DA: 6-2-2015)
Eight of the world’s largest tech companies, including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple, have
joined forces to launch the Reform Government Surveillance website and open letter. The website
specifically calls out the US government, and governments worldwide, for their over-reaching and highly opaque
information gathering activities. The open letter asks the US government to lead worldwide efforts to “ensure that government
surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.” The coalition,
which consists of AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo, asks for surveillance reform in five areas: limiting
governments’ authority to collect users’ information, oversight and accountability, transparency about government demands, respecting the
free flow of information, and avoiding conflicts among governments. The Reform Government Surveillance website breaks down these five
principles in further detail, if you’re interested. In essence, though, the eight companies are basically asking for government surveillance to be
governed by some kind of legal framework. At the moment, governmental surveillance operates in secret and without adequate oversight,
allowing for gross overreach by the intelligence community. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if we citizens knew exactly what was going on, but if it
wasn’t for whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, we’d all still be in the dark. The open letter says that, “The balance… has tipped too far in favor
of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all
cherish. It’s time for a change.” To hammer home its manifesto, the Reform Government Surveillance website also features quotes from seven
corporate bigwigs — with an Apple exec being the mysterious omission. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” says Microsoft’s
general counsel, Brad Smith. “Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for
the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world,” says Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. Something
about the website doesn’t quite ring true, though. In the middle of the open letter, which is addressed to President
Obama and Members of Congress, is a paragraph that’s clearly aimed at the companies’ customers. The letter says that all
eight companies are “deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks” — a line that is
obviously meant to make us feel safer at night. But look at their use of “unauthorized” — this whole
PRISM/Snowden/NSA/surveillance shebang is predicated on the fact that these big tech companies have
willingly granting the US government access to their networks over the last few years. Once the whistle was
blown, the companies came out in protest, to save face and attempt to regain consumer confidence —
but the fact remains that they gave the US government access. Deploying better and more encryption is certainly a good thing, but there’s still
very little evidence that the NSA (pictured top) and the rest of the intelligence community have actually cracked existing encryption standards.
Again, the coalition’s use of the word “unauthorized” is very pertinent: It doesn’t really matter how good your encryption is, if your government
forces you to hand over your encryption keys, passwords, or otherwise provide some kind of back door. In that regard, this open
very much feels like a PR maneuver to regain the trust of users. But maybe I’m just being too cynical…
letter
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Links – Specific
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – FISA
FISA reform creates backlash – alienates war hawks and intelligence – they’ll blame
Obama
Liebelson, 14 (Dana Liebelson, political reporter for Mother Jones, 1-16-2014, "Obama's NSA reforms
are going to tick off everyone", Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obamansa-reforms-spying-telephone-mad-privacy, DA: 5-23-2015)
If Obama Reforms the Top-Secret Spy Court… Who gets mad? The top-secret spy court and the NSA Some
judges will no doubt be outraged if Obama makes any changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court,
the top-secret spy court that approves or denies many of the government's surveillance requests. Obama is expected to appoint a privacy
advocate to advise the court on civil liberties issues. But on January 13, US district Judge John Bates,
the former presiding judge of
the FISA court, wrote in a public letter that "a privacy advocate is unnecessary." Bates also decried the presidential panel's
recommendation that the government require judicial approval for all National Security Letters—secret requests the
FBI and other government agencies use to force businesses to hand over records. According to Bates, subjecting these requests to the FISA
court's scrutiny would be a "detriment to [the court's] current responsibilities." (If the FISA court emerges untouched by Obama's reforms,
privacy advocates will be irate.) Obama
faces a tricky challenge. He clearly believes some NSA reform is necessary, yet, for good or
doesn't want to alienate the intelligence community. This might lead him to a position that does not
produce sufficient change to allay the concerns of techies, civil libertarians, and Americans who worry the surveillance state has gone
too far—but still manages to tick off the intelligence officials he counts on to defend the nation; and the national
security hawks on and off Capitol Hill who are always ready to assail the president. Obama has often
talked about the need to balance national security and civil liberties. His effort to deal with the Snowden-prompted
NSA scandal shows how tough a political task that is for him.
bad, he
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – FISA – A2: Obama Avoids/Plan Not Congress
Freedom act passage clears the deck, plan drains PC and agenda tradeoff, Obama can’t
avoid it – 7 reasons - every option triggers major fights, it’s a loss, flip flop, focus and
docket crowd out, requires congress and Obama cant avoid even if he tries
Gerstein, 14 -- Josh Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA reform,
dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will
try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out
reforms to U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil
liberties and national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits. Many of the key reforms he’s expected to
endorse — including changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the
U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks, all
hell’s liable to break loose on the Hill,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who will be
voting against it because Obama’s reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it because it
doesn’t defend us enough and other people voting against it because it outsources espionage.” It’s
another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks for issues that aides want to highlight in
Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and immigration. The snooping saga has been a
loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret
documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the international community. And disclosures that
widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation as a reformer who would end over-the-top
anti-terrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — denounced under
President George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain surveillance practices altogether.
For instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so it can be used to trace potential
contacts of terrorism suspects. But
the president has said he’s considering replacing that program with a privatewould require
Congress to step in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some
court — involvement in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis
sector-based arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That
told NPR News last week. “But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral
authority to impose dramatic reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White
House has signaled that much of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of
foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile
phone. Administration officials say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he
set up to dig into the issue: the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the
NSA’s program that has collected information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that
the metadata program — aimed at running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges
have concluded that the effort is lawful. The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the
government on a case-by-case basis with individual court warrants, something
likely to require Congress to impose new
requirements on the firms. The review group also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, so judges could hear from an attorney advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for
Americans whose data is swept up in surveillance programs. And the panel urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the
chief justice no longer has the sole power to make such picks. Those changes, too, would
need legislation. All five review group
members are set to publicly promote their plans at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. “There are a few big things you
really need Congress to do. If you want to change the appointment mechanism for the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do
any kind of structural reform of the FISC, you need it. If you want to continue the metadata program in
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
some form, but reform it in any way, you need an act of Congress,” said Ben Wittes of the Brookings
Institution.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
NSA
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1NC Link
Plan causes political backlash, court won’t preempt congress now, aff goes too far
Nakashima 5/7 (Ellen- national security reporter for The Washington Post, “NSA
program on phone records is illegal, court rules”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/appeals-court-rules-nsarecord-collection-violates-patriot-act/2015/05/07/c4fabfb8-f4bf-11e4-bcc4e8141e5eb0c9_story.html)
The ruling comes as Congress begins a contentious debate over whether to reauthorize the statute that
underpins the NSA program or let it lapse. The court did not issue an injunction ordering the program to stop. [With deadline near,
lawmakers introduce bill to end NSA program] The NSA’s mass collection of phone records for counterterrorism purposes — launched after the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks — was revealed by former agency contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013. The revelation sparked outrage but also steadfast assertions by the
Obama administration that the program was authorized by statute and deemed legal by a series of federal surveillance court judges. But the judicial rulings had
taken place in secret until the Snowden leaks forced disclosure of once-classified opinions. Under the program, the NSA collects “metadata” — or records of times,
dates and durations of all calls — but not call content. The government has argued that huge volumes of records — being collected from U.S. phone companies each
day and stored in a database — are relevant to counterterrorism investigations because any record could later prove critical in identifying terrorism suspects. A
series of judges on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have agreed. The appeals court, however, said “such an expansive concept of ‘relevance’ is
unprecedented and unwarranted.” In the ruling, written by Judge Gerard E. Lynch, the panel noted that the government never “attempted to identify to what
particular ‘authorized investigation’ ” the data of all Americans’ phone calls would be relevant. “At its core,” the panel said, “the approach boils down to the
proposition that essentially all telephone records are relevant to essentially all international terrorism investigations.” Saying the collection has amounted to “an
unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans,” the court said the government’s interpretation of the law would also allow for the bulk
collection and storage of data associated with Americans’ financial records, medical records, and e-mail and social-media communications. With
the
statute scheduled to expire June 1, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the House and Senate is
seeking to renew it with modifications that sponsors say will enable the NSA to get access to the records
it needs while protecting Americans’ privacy. The bill, the USA Freedom Act, is poised to pass the House next
week. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), have introduced a bill to maintain the program. But if that passes, the
government will have to persuade the Supreme Court to reverse the 2nd Circuit decision in order to keep the program from ending. [What 2016 candidates have to
say about the NSA court ruling] The
court decision drew sharp responses from some Republicans on the Senate floor
Thursday. “According to the CIA, had these authorities been in place more than a decade ago, they would
have likely prevented 9/11,” McConnell said. He said the USA Freedom Act would not “keep us safe or protect our privacy.” Meanwhile the bill’s
sponsors — Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who is the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Mike Lee (R-Utah) — issued a statement saying: “Congress
should not reauthorize a bulk collection program that the court has found to violate the law. We will not consent to any extension of this program.” FBI Director
James B. Comey told reporters that if Congress lets the statute, known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expire, the FBI will lose a useful tool. “But,” he said, if that
was to happen, “we press on.” Administration officials have
indicated they are likely to support the bipartisan
legislation. But the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of groups on the left and the right are pushing to let the statute simply lapse, on grounds
that it would end the NSA bulk collection while leaving in place adequate powers for the government to pursue terrorism cases. The appeals court,
noting the impending deadline for the program, declined to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the NSA from collecting the ACLU’s call records. “In light of the
asserted national security interests at stake, we deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that
may (or may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape,” Lynch wrote.
Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new surveillance limits
uniquely drains PC
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what critics
have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA
Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours
later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to
resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers,
including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be
difficult to get “broad, sweeping
reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the
office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance
reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other
activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more
restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—
that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for
low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater
we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass
surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual
physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Generic – Costs Capital
Obama has to expend capital to get real NSA reform.
Burnett, retired Silicon Valley executive, 2014
(Bob, “Why Hasn't Obama Reined in NSA?”, 1-10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/obamansa_b_4574910.html)
There are three explanations for the president's weak NSA policy. 1 .
Obama decided not to expend political capital changing it.
Given the economic problems he inherited from George Bush, plus the difficulty of working with a divided Congress, Obama
may have decided it was not worth the effort to rein in the NSA. That's been true of national security in
general. Obama had increased defense spending, expanded the national-security state, and maintained the hundreds of US military bases that dot the globe.
Obama tried to shut down Guantanamo but was thwarted by Congress.
Even seemingly uncontroversial proposals cost Obama.
Gerstein, Politico, 2014
(Josh, “The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA reform”, 1-13,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/nsa-surveillance-limits-102081.html)
It’s unclear whether Obama’s speech and his endorsement of specific reform proposals can break the
legislative logjam that has frozen action on the issue in Congress for months. There is a flurry of bills proposing
surveillance changes that range from added transparency to modest reforms on the retention and use of bulk data to outright repeal of the authority to collect it.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) favors tweaks to the current system. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (DVt.) would do away with bulk collection altogether, as would other program critics like Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Whether they would
support legislation to facilitate collecting the data as the review group has suggested is uncertain. There are similar divisions in the House. A senior House Judiciary
Committee member, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) has signed on to Leahy’s bill to kill the program. However, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike
Rogers (R-Mich.) is arguably the program’s staunchest and most unapologetic defender on Capitol Hill. In July, the House narrowly defeated, 205-217, an
amendment that would have blocked the NSA call tracking program. However, that was amid the shock of the initial revelations. In
other policy areas,
the White House has shied away from endorsing specific legislation out of fear of a backlash among
House Republicans hostile to the president. Some GOP members may have voted against the program
last July because they identified it with Obama. If a reform measure is seen as having the president’s
support, some in the GOP might oppose that as well. Even proposals that don’t seem terribly
controversial, like the public advocate for the intelligence court, can stir up trouble on Capitol Hill. Last
week, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) pressed Justice Department official John Carlin to endorse the notion that the advocate should be able to step into any
case he or she thinks would benefit from a second viewpoint.
Aggressive NSA reform costs Obama capital.
Schoen, Forbes political strategist, 2013
(Doug, “Obama Plays Politics With The NSA”, 8-16,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2013/08/16/obama-plays-politics-with-the-nsa/)
While I have no doubt that a degree of effort will be taken to reign in and circumscribe the purview of
the NSA, an additional fact is clear: the White House is playing politics. President Obama and his staff
understand that criticism of the NSA’s policies is coming from both the left and the right, and that in
order to respond to critics and protect what is left of the President’s dwindling political capital, the
White House must balance the concerns of the security community with those of the general public. However, Obama is in no
rush to push through reforms, and it is very likely that the congressional oversight and investigation of
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
the NSA’s surveillance program, in addition to the bipartisan effort that will be needed to streamline and
prevent any further overreach within the surveillance program, are still a ways down the line.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Nothing Beyond Metadata
Anything beyond metadata would face stiff opposition.
Gross, IDG News Service, 6-5-15
(Grant, “Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress”
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-fromcongress.html)
After the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security
Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further change
the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic
phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate
and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at
odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit
NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also
promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem
ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance
programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s
Other activists are less optimistic about
more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA
analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that
is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a
prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.”
cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies
understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.” What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while
supporters have called it the biggest overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views, calling it
modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those
records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to
consult with tech and privacy experts when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released to the
public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking
the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and NSA from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but
it doesn’t otherwise define “specific search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term and give the NSA the
authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to congressional intent, but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone
records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the old version of the Patriot Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of
overseas Internet traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with
many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign
surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the expiring sections of the
Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions
Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass
congressional leadership, however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA
Freedom Act and refused to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA. In the
House, Republican leaders threatened to kill the USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee
amended the bill to address other surveillance programs. Still, many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new
expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican leaders opposed to more changes
surveillance limits, with lawmakers adding an amendment to end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill this week.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Not Before 2017
Section 702 reform is controversial before 2017
Kayyali, Electronic Frontier Foundation activism team, 2015
(Nadia, “Yesterday's USA Freedom Markup: A Glimpse into the Fight to Reform Section 702”, 5-1,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-markup-glimpse-fight-reform-section-702)
The amendment also addressed the NSA’s backdoor into products and services. Leaked documents have shown that
the NSA, with the help of the FBI, has sought backdoors into products and services, from encryption software to online communications tools like Skype. While the
government claims that these backdoors would only be accessible to them, tech companies and security experts have made it very clear that security backdoors
make products and services, and by extension the Internet, less secure for everyone. Yet both the FBI and NSA Directors have recently urged companies to install
security "backdoors" into hardware or software, even while American businesses continue to suffer reputational harm overseas and even lose business.
Ultimately, the amendment failed 9-24.[2] Rep. John Conyers echoed Rep. Goodlatte’s comments on the
compromise represented by the legislation in explaining his no vote: Any amendment to this
compromise threatens to stop this legislation dead in its tracks. This is not mere speculation. House
leadership had all but assured us that if the bill is amended, it will not be considered on the House floor.
However, Rep. Conyers and others who voted against the amendment expressed clear support for what the amendment would have done. Rep Goodlatte noted,
“this committee will exercise its jurisdiction on this and soon. We will hold a hearing on this . . .” Echoing Rep. Goodlatte’s sentiments, Rep. Darrell Issa noted: If I
get an opportunity to vote for it on a bill that cannot be blown up by the House leadership and/or the Senate, I will vote for it, and I think that is what we need to
do. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner also said that he supports the policy, but stated, “The
time and the place to do this is when Section 702
comes up for reauthorization.” The sentiment that the FISA Amendments Act expiration is the right
time for 702 reform was echoed by several others as well. But the FISA Amendments Act doesn’t
expire until December 31, 2017. We don’t think reform to this unconstitutional spying bill should wait that long.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NC Link Wall
Court preemption of congress triggers political backlash- specifically true for national
security cases
Robert M. Chesney 9, Professor, University of Texas School of Law, NATIONAL SECURITY FACT
DEFERENCE, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1361
Judicial involvement in national security litigation, as noted at the outset, poses unusual risks for the judiciary as an
institution. Such cases are more likely than most to involve claims of special, or even exclusive, executive branch
authority. They are more likely than most to involve a perception - on the part of the public, the
government, or judges themselves - of unusually high stakes. They are more likely than most to be in the media spotlight and
hence in view of the public in a meaningful sense. These cases are, as a result of all this, especially salient as a political matter. And
therein lies the danger for the courts. Because of these elements, an inappropriate judicial intervention in national
security litigation is unusually likely to generate a response from the other branches or the public at large that
might harm the institutional interests of the judiciary, either by undermining its prestige and authority
or perhaps even by triggering some form of concrete political response.
Plan creates a political divide
Jaffer 5/8 (Jameel- deputy legal director of the ACLU, “Court Rules NSA Bulk Spying
Illegal: New Vindication for Snowden and Uncertainty for PATRIOT Act”,
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/8/court_rules_nsa_bulk_spying_illegal)
JAMEEL JAFFER: Right, right. I think he’s still talking about that. So we get this decision in the middle of this congressional debate, and the
reason we’re having the congressional debate is that three provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including
Section 215 are scheduled to sunset on June 1st, meaning that they will go away unless Congress does
something. Now, we actually think they should go away, that these provisions should never have been—at least Section 215—should never
have been enacted in the first place. But at the very least, Congress should make strong reforms to prevent the kinds of abuses that we’ve just
been talking about. But in
Congress, there’s a real split. There are some legislators, including the Senate majority
leader, who want to extend Section 215 in its existing form and to allow this kind of surveillance, this kind
of mass surveillance, to continue indefinitely. There are other legislators, pro-privacy legislators, who would like to
scale back Section 215 in some ways. You know, as I said, we have been calling for a sunset of 215. But at the very least,
I think that yesterday’s opinion makes clear that the reforms that are on the table right now don’t go nearly far enough, and that the reform
side should really strengthen the bill.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NR Uniqueness for Preemption Link
Courts have avoided preempting congressional decisions
Neavl Devins 10, Goodrich Professor of Law and Professor of Government, College of William & Mary.,
Talk Loudly and Carry a Small Stick: The Supreme Court and Enemy Combatants, 12 U. Pa. J. Const. L.
491
the Court has never risked
executive branch non-acquiescence in its enemy combatant decision making
Court
decision making in this area has largely tracked social and political forces.
the Court has found ways to expand its
authority without risking an institutionally costly backlash ¶
¶ Supreme Court interventions
in the enemy combatant disputes never pushed the limits of what was acceptable to the political
branches
The Court maximized its authority by moving incrementally and expanding judicial
power in ways
acceptable to the political branches
there is no reason to think that
the Court will depart from past practices during the Obama administration.¶
the Court's 2009
decision to back away from a case involving Bush administration efforts to detain a legal resident
without charges. After agreeing
to hear a challenge
the Court
sided with Obama
and removed the case from its docket
In Part III of this Essay, I will argue that the Court's actions in the first year of the Obama administration are cut from the same cloth as its decision to intervene in Bush-era disputes. As this section has suggested,
national security or
. Moreover, as I argued in Part I,
For reasons I will now detail, the Court's decisions both to steer clear of this issue in
the spring and summer of 2009 and its fall 2009 decision to hear the Uighur petition match past Court practices. Throughout the enemy combatant dispute,
.
III. Conclusion: The Past Is Prologue
[*523]
of government.
, instead,
generally
. This was true of Bush-era decision making and
Consider, for example,
- in December 2008 -
the
March
to the Bush administration's detention of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri at a South Carolina Navy brig,
administration
. n170 The administration had claimed the case was moot because - in February 2009 - it formally filed federal
criminal charges against al-Marri (so that he would be tried in federal court and not held indefinitely at a military base). n171 Mr. Marri's lawyers objected, arguing (unsuccessfully) that the administration could subsequently relocate him to a military base and, consequently, the Court
should still resolve his legal challenge. n172¶ The Court's decisions to hear and then moot al-Marri are readily understandable. The Fourth Circuit had upheld the Bush administration in al-Marri and - when agreeing to hear the case - the Justices had good reason to slap down the Bush
administration for their continuing efforts to sidestep federal court review over enemy combatant policy-making. Not only had the Court taken a strong stand in favor of judicial review in Boumediene and other decisions, but the November 2008 election of Barack Obama and the
Democratic Congress further solidified the Court's position with elected officials and the American people. And, with none of the eighteen amicus briefs in the case supporting the Bush administration, n173 a Court ruling against [*524] Bush administration actions would have further
buoyed the Court's status with academics and other interest groups. By March 2009, however, there was no good reason to ask the new administration to sort out its views on the al-Marri detention. Candidate Obama had campaigned against the Bush administration efforts to fence out
federal courts from war-on-terror litigation. Indeed, when asking the Court to moot the case, the Obama administration told the Justices that it was willing to have the Fourth Circuit ruling vacated (showing "that the government is not attempting to preserve its victory while evading
there was simply no reason for the Justices to force Obama
to formally disavow or
embrace Bush administration legal arguments
an administration decision supporting Bush administration
arguments would set the stage for a costly battle between the Court and the new administration A
decision on the merits
would have opened the Court up to charges of judicial over-reaching
review"). n174 Against this backdrop,
the
administration
. An Obama administration decision disavowing Bush administration arguments would not strengthen the Court's position vis-a-vis the executive (as the Obama
Justice Department had already conceded the Court's authority to vacate the lower court ruling);
.
, moreover,
. In its brief seeking to
moot al-Marri, the government argued that keeping the case alive "would lead only to an advisory opinion with no real-world impact on any individual" and that the Court should not reach out to decide "in a hypothetical posture" "complex constitutional questions" about the line where
Kiyemba displays the Court's sensitivity to its status vis-a-vis the
other branches and to the risks of unnecessarily interjecting itself in national security policy.
"national security policy and the Constitution intersect." n175 ¶ The Court's participation in
likewise
This was true of both the
June 2009 decision to hold over the appeal of the Uighur petitioners and the October 2009 decision to hear the case (but to schedule oral arguments so as to delay any decision until the summer of 2010). n176 ¶ June 2009 was too early for the Court to enter this dispute. Even though
petitioners cast the case as an opportunity for the Court to defend its turf (suggesting that Boumediene had become an empty shell and it was up to the Court to give meaning to the decision), n177 [*525] the Court well understood the costs of entering this dispute. At that time, the
Obama administration and Democratic Congress were sorting out their policy priorities on Guantanamo, Bagram detainees, and much more. Correspondingly, the Court had reason to think that a ruling demanding the relocation of Uighur detainees to the United States would not sit well
with either the administration or Congress. Not only did the Obama administration oppose the relocation of the Uighurs to the United States, n178 Congress enacted legislation in June 2009 that severely limited the President's power to move Guantanamo detainees to the United States
or resettle them in another country. n179¶ By holding the issue over, however, the Court gave the Obama administration time both to sort out its policy priorities and to relocate the Uighur detainees (and, in so doing, to try to moot the case). n180 In its brief opposing certiorari, the
Obama administration made clear that it was trying both to close Guantanamo and to relocate the Uighur petitioners and asked the Court to respect the "efforts of the political Branches to resolve issues relating to petitioners and other individuals located at Guantanamo Bay." n181
Furthermore, the decision to hold the case over bought the Court time to see how the enemy combatant issue would play out among politicians, interest groups, the media, and the American people. As Part I reveals, Court enemy combatant decisions track social and political forces. As
Part II reveals, the Court has moved incrementally - advancing its authority to say "what the law is" without risking backlash or national security. ¶ The Court's October 2009 decision to hear Kiyemba does not break from this pattern. By scheduling oral arguments for spring 2009, the
Court both provided elected government with additional time to settle this issue and provided itself with an opportunity to calibrate its decision making against the backdrop of elected government action and other subsequent developments. n182 More than that, [*526] since
Boumediene only decided the threshold issue that enemy combatants were entitled to habeas corpus relief, Kiyemba is a good vehicle for the Court to provide some details on how habeas proceedings should be conducted. In particular, there is little prospect that the decision will impact
the rights on many Guantanamo detainees. By the summer of 2010, Guantanamo may be closed; if not, most detainees who prevail in habeas proceedings are likely to have been relocated to another country. Moreover, Kiyemba raises a quite narrow issue, namely, whether federal
courts can mandate that Guantanamo detainees be relocated to the United States if no foreign nation will take them. n183 In other words, there is next to no prospect that Kiyemba will result in the type of scrutinizing judicial review that might raise national security risks (assuming, of
Throughout the course of its
decision making, the Court has moved incrementally In so doing, the Court has expanded its authority
vis-a-vis the President. Obama administration efforts to moot al-Marri
speak to
the administration's desire to avoid Supreme Court rulings that might limit the scope of presidential
power
¶ What is
striking is that the Court never took more than it could get - it carved out space for itself without
risking
or political backlash
Its decision to steer clear of Obama-era
disputes avoids the risks of a costly backlash while creating incentives for Obama
to take
judicial authority into account (by settling these cases outside of court)
the Court was able to flex its muscles without meaningfully undermining the policy preferences of
course, that the Court will rule against the administration). Instead, Kiyemba seems likely to further tighten judicial control over the executive - but only in a very modest way.¶
enemy combatant
.
and to relocate Uighur detainees (thereby mooting that litigation)
. Unlike the Bush administration (whose politically tone deaf arguments paved the way for anti-administration rulings), n184 the Obama administration understands that the Court has become a player in the enemy combatant issue.
here,
the nation's security
. Its 2004 and 2006 rulings provided ample opportunity for the President to pursue his enemy combatant initiative. Its 2008 ruling in Boumediene, while clearly constraining the political
branches, reflected the views of the new Democratic majority in Congress and (to a lesser extent) the views of presidential candidates Obama and McCain. n185
likewise
early
the
[*527]
administration
. n186 Put another way, by taking prevailing social and political forces into account,
the
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
President
and Congress ¶
.
I, of course, recognize that the Court's willingness to engage the executive and, in so doing, to nullify a signature campaign of the Bush administration, is a significant break from the judiciary's recent practice of steering clear of disputes
tied to unilateral presidential war making. n187 At the same time, I see the Court's willingness to challenge, and not defer, as not at all surprising. The Bush administration made arguments that backed the Court into a corner. The Court could either bow at the altar of presidential power,
or it could find a way to slap the President down. It is to be expected that the Court chose to find a way to preserve its authority to "say what the law is." n188 The Justices, after all, have incentives to preserve the Court's role in our system of checks and balances - especially when their
decisions enhance their reputations with media and academic elites. n189 This is true of the Supreme Court in general, and arguably more true of the current Court - given its penchant to claim judicial supremacy and given the importance of these institutional concerns to the Court's socalled swing Justices. n190 It is also noteworthy that the enemy combatant cases were at the very core of the judicial functi on. At oral arguments in Hamdan, Justice Kennedy emphasized the importance of habeas corpus relief, n191 suggesting that limitations on habeas relief would
"threaten[] the status of the judiciary as a co-equal partner of the legislature and the executive." n192 ¶ [*528] One final comment on the nature of the dialogue that took and is taking place between the three branches on the enemy combatant issue: Throughout the Bush-era, these
cases were anything but a constitutional dialogue. The executive persisted in making the same argument, and, as its political fortunes diminished, the Court carved over more and more issue space for itself. For its part, the Bush-era Congress played no meaningful role - it simultaneously
backed the executive while signaling to the Court that it would support judicial invalidation of executive initiatives. With a new administration in place, there is reason to think that the inter-branch dynamic will change. The Obama administration has advanced its policies while pursuing a
less confrontational course; avoiding absolutist arguments and trying to steer clear of an adverse Supreme Court ruling. In so doing, the administration has yet to launch the type of broadsides that challenge the foundations of judicial authority. Up until now, the Court has responded in
there is good
reason to think that the Court will follow the path it has laid down
taking social and political forces
into account so as to protect its turf without risking national security or elected government backlash
kind, leaving the administration breathing room to pursue its policies without a Supreme Court pronouncement on the scope of presidential power. It is a matter of pure speculation whether this pattern will continue. At the same time,
in Bush-era cases,
.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NC Courts Link
Courts link
Mirengoff 10 [Paul E. Mirengoff, JD Stanford, Attorney in DC,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aNOGdaFrKhYJ:www.fedsoc.org/debates/dbtid.41/default.asp+obama+minimalism+blame+court+confirmation&cd=1&hl=en&ct
=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a, 6-23-10]
There's a chance that the Democrats' latest partisan innovation will come back to haunt them. Justice Sotomayor and soon-to-be Justice
Kagan are on record having articulated a traditional, fairly minimalist view of the role of judges. If a liberal
majority were to emerge -- or even if the liberals prevail in a few high profile cases -- the charge of
"deceptive testimony" could be turned against them. And if Barack Obama is still president at that time, he likely will
receive some of the blame.
Obama politicized the court
Copland ‘9 James, Director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute “Why Politicized Judges Spark Rancorous Confirmations” 7/15,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/07/james-r-copland-whypoliticized-judges-spark-rancorous-confirmations
No one following this process seriously doubts its outcome. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) noted, President Obama’s
pick for the
Supreme Court, Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, will be confirmed unless she has “a complete meltdown.” But notwithstanding the
near-certainty that the theatrical confirmation hearings are irrelevant to the Senate’s ultimate vote, the process opens
a public window
onto a very real conflict over the proper role of the courts and the rule of law. These disagreements are hardly new: The
judiciary’s power to overturn congressional statutes as unconstitutional is itself far from clear in the plain text of the Constitution, and the
Supreme Court’s decision to this effect in the seminal 1803 case Marbury v. Madison was anything but uncontroversial. In the last century,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt flirted with a constitutional crisis when he threatened to “pack” the Supreme Court with new justices after the
Court rejected various elements of his New Deal on constitutional grounds. The early twentieth-century critiques of judicial overreach thus
came from the Left, who only turned away from their democratic-populist message in the civil rights era. This history helps to expose the
opening statements of some Senate Democrats, including Franken, which caricatured conservative critiques of “judicial activism.” The senators’
arguments run essentially as follows: Republican-appointed justices have proven as likely, or more likely, to overturn the “will of the people” as
expressed through laws enacted by Congress; thus, “activism” is merely in the eye of the beholder. This argument only makes sense if one
defines judicial activism as the “counter-majoritarian difficulty” in overturning the majority will, an implicit critique of the power of judicial
review itself. But while some of the liberal philosopher-kings of the legal academy have wrestled mightily with the counter-majoritarianism
inherent in judicial review, this has never been the concern of serious conservatives. Instead, the conservative critique of judicial activism is
rooted in concern for the rule of law, i.e., the application of known principles to resolve cases, without arbitrary discretion. Written
constitutionalism with judicial review necessarily implies that the courts police the political branches, but such policing should flow from the
written text; when
courts instead venture into “penumbras” and “emanations,” they turn themselves into but
another political branch and undermine their legitimacy and the rule of law itself. Deconstructing the rule of law has been the major
project of leftists in the legal academy over the last century. The legal realists rejected the notion of objectivity in judging and purposely sought
to de-legitimatize judicial constraints on Progressive- and New Deal-era government expansion. Later, various scholars under the “critical legal
studies” umbrella specifically embraced race- and gender-conscious interpretations of the law. When President Obama advocates “empathy” in
judging and Judge Sotomayor flirts with race and gender as acceptable drivers of judicial outcomes, they echo these leftist academic
movements and thus understandably provoke conservative reaction. No one questions that legal ambiguities abound, and mainline
conservatives differ over the proper decision rules for resolving such cases, but tipping the scales of justice for a particular party in litigation is
antithetical to the rule of law as traditionally understood. In deconstructing the rule of law, however, the
Left has openly embraced
the notion that judging is merely an extension of the political process. It should hardly be surprising,
then, that the judicial confirmation process has devolved into little more than politically charged
theater.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
The plan’s a rallying point for GOP criticism
Washington Post ‘6 “GOP Seeks Advantage in Ruling On Trial,” July 1 , http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001737.html
st
Republicans yesterday looked to wrest a political victory from a legal defeat in the Supreme Court, serving notice to
Democrats that they must back President Bush on how to try suspects at Guantanamo Bay or risk being branded as weak on terrorism. In striking down the military commissions Bush sought
for trials of suspected members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the high court Thursday invited Congress to establish new rules and put the issue prominently before the public four
GOP leaders signaled they are ready to use this
events as a political weapon. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's comment Thursday that
months before the midterm elections. As the White House and lawmakers weighed next steps, House
week's turn of
the court decision "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." That statement, Boehner said, amounted to Pelosi's advocating "special
privileges for terrorists." Similar views ricocheted around conservative talk radio -- Rush Limbaugh called Pelosi's comments "deranged" on his show Thursday -- and Republican strategists said
they believed that the decision presented Bush a chance to put Democrats on the spot while uniting a Republican coalition that lately has been splintered on immigration, spending and other
issues. "It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists," said Terry Nelson, a prominent GOP political strategist who
was political director for Bush's reelection campaign in 2004. Mindful of this thinking, Democrats were measured in their comments about how to respond to the ruling, which held that Bush's
policy was not authorized by law and violated the Geneva Conventions. Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman, said Democrats "want to work with" the administration in fashioning new rules for
terrorism suspects, and he dismissed Boehner's comments as a sign of desperation. "[Bush] is not a king -- he has to follow the law," Daly said. "That's all we're saying." Democrats seemed to
gain some support from a few Senate Republicans, who said politics should not dictate how Congress responds to the Supreme Court. "This should not be a party fight," said Sen. Lindsey O.
Graham (R-S.C.). "I'm a proud Republican senator, but my nation needs both parties working in collaboration with the executive branch to solve the military commission problem, and both
parties will be rewarded by the public if we're seen as working for the common good." The issue is not without complexity for Republicans. A Washington Post-ABC poll this week suggested
that while Americans continue to favor holding suspects at the U.S. military installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, they are leery of an administration policy that has resulted in almost all of
the 450 detainees being held without charges. Of those polled, 71 percent said the detainees should be either given POW status or charged with a crime. In many respects, the Guantanamo
Bay facility has become an albatross for the Bush administration since its creation in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a prison for terrorism suspects picked up in Afghanistan and
elsewhere. Bush signed an executive order in November 2001 establishing military commissions to try the inmates, but the process has been in a legal limbo and no suspect has gone through a
full trial. Meanwhile, the United States has attracted intense international criticism for holding the detainees in limbo, and Bush has said repeatedly that he wants to close the prison. Some
lawmakers want Congress to endorse a plan to have the commissions operate by the rules of a regular court-martial, which would give the detainees more rights than they would have under
the current commission structure. But administration lawyers have been concerned that it would be difficult to win convictions under that scenario, in large measure because the standard of
A senior administration official,
seemed to hint at the potential political implications in
proof would be higher. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the administration is reviewing how to respond to the court.
who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is still being debated internally,
Congress. "Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform,"
this official said. The House and Senate Armed Services committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee have called for hearings as soon as Congress returns from the week-long Fourth of July
break. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday outlined his plan to conduct military tribunals in a manner consistent with the court's decision. Under the Specter
bill, a three-judge panel of military lawyers would preside. Defendants would be present in court with their lawyers, who would be granted the right to gather evidence, cross-examine
witnesses and review classified information after it had been reviewed by a judge. Defendants would be granted the right to appeal verdicts to a court of military appeals and, ultimately, the
Supreme Court. "I would suggest that the rhetoric be cooled at least long enough for people to read the opinion," Specter said of the Supreme Court decision. "We're going to have to dot all
the i's and cross all the t's on this legislation to make sure it passes muster." Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), a key figure on detainee policy, noted that the court pointedly ruled that military
tribunals had to comport with the Geneva Conventions, so any effort to simply grant Bush the power he wants would not pass the scrutiny of the court. If Republicans ignore the court's
prescription, military lawyers would be quick to speak out, granting Democrats political cover, he predicted. "That kind of excess, I think, backfires," Levin said of the House Republican
broadsides. "The American public has too much common sense to put much stock in that kind of diatribe. Americans respect the Supreme Court." But some GOP allies said they suspect that
the decision will help energize a Republican base that has been angry at some Bush policies. Tom Liddy, a conservative talk show host in Phoenix, said
that the decision has been a big topic on his show and that it could be another terrorism issue that works to the GOP's advantage.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PRISM
PRISM reforms unpopular
Gross 6/5 (Grant, IDG News Service, 'Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance
from Congress', www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-tonsa-surveillance-from-congress.html)
The USA Freedom Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas Internet
traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA
program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many
lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still,
the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign
surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA,
although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the expiring sections of the
Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its
oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its
provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican leaders opposed to more changes
Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional leadership, however. Senate
Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused to allow
amendments that would require further changes at the NSA.
Plan would result in backlash – bipartisan public and Congressional
support of PRISM
Logiurato 7/10/2013 (Brett, degree in political science and journalism from Syracuse
University “The NSA's PRISM Program Is Shockingly Uncontroversial With The American
Public”, Business Insider, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-supportnsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html)
In fact, the public overwhelmingly approves of the program. The poll found that 66 percent of
Americans say the Obama administration was right to gather and analyze information from
major internet companies to help locate suspected terrorists. Here's the full wording of the
question posed in the poll:¶ [F]or the past few years the Obama administration has reportedly
been gathering and analyzing information from major internet companies about audio and
video chats, photographs, e-mails and documents involving people in other countries in an
attempt to locate suspected terrorists. The government reportedly does not target internet usage
by U.S. citizens and if such data is collected, it is kept under strict controls. Do you think the
Obama administration was right or wrong in gathering and analyzing that internet data?¶
Overall, according to the poll, the public has exhibited a collective shrug to new revelations
detailing the scope of the NSA's surveillance efforts. On its collection of phone data, the public is
less gung-ho about the program, but still supportive — 51 percent say the Obama administration
is right, while 48 percent say it's wrong.Incidentally, partisans on both sides of the aisle are most
likely to support the programs.Self-identified Republicans and Democrats approve of both
programs, while Independents are much less enthusiastic. They disapprove of the NSA's phone
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
surveillance program by a 40-58 split, and their approval of PRISM (58-41) significantly trails
both Republicans (67-31) and Democrats (76-24).
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Muslim Surveillance
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Religious Surveillance Link
Plan causes massive backlash-almost every agency engages in Muslim profiling --- cites
current congress
Haqiqatjou 15 - Daniel Haqiqatjou was born in Houston, Texas. He attended Harvard University where he majored in Physics and minored in
Philosophy. He completed a Masters degree in Philosophy at Tufts University. Haqiqatjou also studies traditional Islamic sciences part-time. He writes and lectures
on contemporary issues surrounding Muslims and Modernity. (Daniel, “CONGRESS DOESN’T APPLAUD MUSLIM TOLERANCE – ARE WE SURPRISED?”, Muslim
Matters, January 22, 2015, http://muslimmatters.org/2015/01/22/congress-doesnt-applaud-muslim-tolerance-are-we-surprised//DM)
Trust me, Congress. The feeling is mutual. By
now, we have all seen it. During the State of the Union, President Obama
called for a rejection of offensive Muslim stereotypes. Instead of applauding approval, the crowd went dead silent.
As far as we can tell, Congress and the other government officials who were in attendance are perfectly fine
with offensively stereotyping Muslims. My question is, are we really surprised? Let's take a look at a brief list of facts in order to gauge how
Muslim-friendly Congress and the US government at large have been over the years. 1. This is the same Congress and the same
President that have initiated and continued the “War on Terror,” backing military operations in seven
different Muslim nations over the past fourteen years: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, North West Pakistan. In the few Muslim
nations that have not been subjected to direct assault, the US has supported brutal dictators (Egypt, the Gulf) or perpetuated punitive sanctions (Iran, pre-invasion
Iraq). The loss of innocent life in these parts of the Muslim world is beyond tallying. To add insult to injury, the instability caused by the “War on Terror” has directly
led to the rise of brutal warlords and radical groups, like ISIS, which predominantly kill Muslims. 2. Did you know that as of 2014, there are eight US states that ban
Shariah law? Did you know that 34 states have considered banning Shariah just in the past five years? 3. Some Muslims have praised President Obama for speaking
against offensive Muslim stereotypes in the State of the Union address. But, let's not overlook the fact that right
before the Muslim stereotypes
line, Obama said, “As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when we're threatened, which is why
I've prohibited torture and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly
constrained.” Is it not interesting that he references two programs that have disproportionately affected
Muslims? Many will argue that Obama's drone program is anything but “constrained,” considering the hundreds of civilians killed to date, as well as the brutal
tactic of “double tapping” strike targets. Also, it is inaccurate for Obama to claim that he has “prohibited torture.” Torture was prohibited by President Reagan in
1988 when he signed the UN General Assembly's Conventions Against Torture. In light of the CIA Torture Report, Obama is violating international law by not
prosecuting those in the Bush Administration who authorized torture. 4. On that point, let's
not forget the recent CIA Torture Report
and how the victims of CIA torture were, again, predominantly Muslim, many of whom were not even
suspected of any wrongdoing. So far, neither President Obama nor Congress has felt the need to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes
against humanity. Again, failing to prosecute torturers is itself a crime according to international law. 5. Also mentioned in the State of the Union was good ol'
Guantanamo. Obama promised to shut it down. We can only wonder if this latest promise will be as hollow as the promise he made as a presidential candidate in
2008. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the
majority of Gitmo prisoners are Muslims who have not been charged
with any crime, yet have had to endure torture and all manner of barbarity. 6. The 2011 Congressional
hearing on “domestic Islamic terrorism” is a great example of how many key members of Congress have
viewed the American Muslim community and Muslims at large. The House Committee on Homeland
Security, which orchestrated this farce, was accused of “Muslim McCarthyism” by implying that all Muslims are
loosely responsible for terrorism. Rep. Peter King went so far as to question the legitimacy of CAIR, i.e., the most important legal advocacy
group the American Muslim community has. Of course, we were all left wondering, what is the grave “domestic Islamic terrorism” threat Congress is so concerned
about, since the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US is not conducted by Muslims. The FBI itself reports that, between 1980 and 2005, there were more
Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Muslim (7% vs. 6%). In light of this fact and others, multiple
university studies have
concluded that the threat of American Muslim terrorism is greatly exaggerated. Hmm, who could
possibly benefit from this overt stigmatization of Muslims? 7. How about NYPD illegal surveillance of
Muslims? Just your everyday racial profiling run amok, putting hundreds of thousands of innocent
American Muslims under the pressure of unfounded suspicion. But what did the federal government
have to say? Well, John Brennan, Obama's Homeland Security adviser at the time praised the program.
Obama himself praised Ray Kelly, the NYPD commissioner who oversaw Muslim surveillance, and in
2013 strongly considered appointing him as Secretary of Homeland Security. 8. Another major federal agency is the FBI.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Perhaps you have heard of the FBI's entrapment program, known best for foiling terror plots of its own making. According to a report published by Project SALAM,
nearly 95% of terror related arrests post 9/11 have been the result of the FBI foiling terror plots of its own making. As the report describes: “The government uses
agents provocateur to target individuals who express dissident ideologies and then provides those provocateurs with fake (harmless) missiles, bombs, guns, money,
encouragement, friendship, and the technical and strategic planning necessary to see if the targeted individual can be manipulated into planning violent or criminal
action.” I highly encourage people to peruse all the different cases of Muslim entrapment over the years as the details are often unbelievable. Some have even
reported on how the FBI and other agencies use “outreach” programs to spy on the Muslim community. As
far as the Obama Administration
is concerned, Attorney General Eric Holder of the DOJ has expressed support for the FBI's tactics with
respect to the Muslim community. 9. It hardly requires mention, but surely we cannot overlook President Obama
demanding, in an address to the UN last year, that Muslims denounce ISIS and radical Islamic
ideologies. As myself and many other commentators have repeatedly explained, requiring Muslims as a collective to apologize for
and denounce the crimes of a deranged few to which we have no connection is nothing other than racist
stereotyping. Even comedian Aziz Ansari made this simple point on Twitter, but apparently our President and much of Congress are too dense to understand
this. If Obama wants us to reject offensive Muslim stereotypes, he should start with himself. 10. Remember the “Ground Zero Mosque”? How many members of
Congress actively condemned it back in 2010? Quite a few, actually. Obama did make some tepid comments in support of Park51 initially but quickly backtracked
and stated: “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.” So much for offensive Muslim
stereotypes. 11. So,
we have covered the CIA, the FBI, the DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security. How
about the NSA? Do they have a disproportionate interest in Muslims? Why, yes indeed! As the
Snowden leaks detail, the NSA has been datamining the communications of Muslim leaders and
activists for years. 12. We would be remiss not to mention the Israeli Lobby and the US government's undying support for every crime and act of
genocide that that nation commits, despite the fact that Israel has more spies in the US than any other country. The fact that Palestinians are majority Muslim I'm
sure has no impact on influencing how congressmen view Muslims in general, given that those same congressmen grovel at the feet of their Zionist handlers. Let's
be real. Anyway, this
brief list merely scratches the surface. An entire five volume set could be written
cataloging the depth and breadth of US policy disproportionately and negatively impacting Muslims in
America and abroad, causing all manner of death, destruction, detention, bullying, and violence in the
past 14 years alone. And it is no secret that Islamophobia and riling people up with anti-Muslim fervor is quite lucrative for everyone involved. So,
no, it is not a surprise that Congress withheld applause for Muslims. At least they were consistent, unlike President Obama,
who, as always, waxes poetic about tolerance, acceptance, mutual understanding, etc., while his policies, in effect if not intent, are diametrically opposed to those
ideals. In any case, as American Muslims, we should keep in mind that elected politicians do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the American people. That
is why Congress' approval ratings are at historical lows. We, as a society, apparently don't care about these corrupt politicians and Washington's sick, perverted
political culture. And even when we look at Gallup polls on non-Muslim American sentiments toward Muslims and Islam, there is a lot to be positive about. As a
community, let's continue to work toward the positive in whatever ways we can, working with our neighbors, always embodying our religious ideals, never, ever
selling out for cheap political gain, and looking forward to a more just, peaceful future. Until then, Congress can go wallow in its own crapulence.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Religious Surveillance Link – AT: Obama Won’t Push
Obama in favor of curtailing religious surveillance
Richter 2/18 – (Greg Ritcher, 2/18/2015, “Obama Warns Against Profiling, Surveillance in Anti-Terror Speech”, NewsMax,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/barack-obama-war-terror-speech/2015/02/18/id/625593/)//MBB
President Barack Obama used
his speech on the second day of a three-day White House summit on extremism to warn against profiling
people or conducting surveillance simply because of their religious beliefs.
The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism came under fire from critics for failing to state that the focus is on radical Islamic terrorists, including
groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qaida, who are targeting the West in what they describe as a holy war.
Obama admitted that such groups are the reason behind the summit, but he reiterated that his administration will not label the
groups "Muslim" or "Islamic" because he said they are misusing passages of the Koran to justify their
violence.
Obama said it is important not to stigmatize entire communities.
"Nobody should be profiled or put under a cloud of suspicion simply because of their faith," he said.
Obama pointed toward more cooperation with Muslim communities in finding people early in the radicalization process, but, he said, "Engagement with
communities can't be a cover for surveillance."
Some in the Muslim community and on the left have been critical of efforts to infiltrate mosques to find imams preaching radicalism or to find members who have a
radical ideology.
In the United States, he said, local and federal authorities must make sure that Muslims aren’t isolated
and that they are welcomed and integrated into society.
"Muslim Americans feel they have been unfairly targeted," he said. "We have to be sure that abuses
stop, are not repeated, that we don’t profile entire communities."
Obama said the terror groups are trying to expand their reach by portraying the U.S. and other Western nations as being at war with Islam.
"We must never accept the premise they put forward, because it is a lie," Obama said Wednesday. "They are not religious leaders, they’re terrorists."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Drones
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1NC Link
Restricting domestic drones is controversial – takes on the defense industry
Cohen 13 (Marshall, Medill News Service, McClatchy News, 4/29, "Pushin Congress to Protect Privacy
Amid Growth in Drone Use")
As U.S. involvement in overseas wars wind down, defense and aerospace corporations are shifting focus
to domestic markets. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, whose influence with Congress is established
because of their role as defense contractors, are among the companies that comprise the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International.¶ The association represents the industry at congressional hearings, holds conferences and promotes commercial and government
uses of drones – a term the industry never uses.¶ The trade group works closely with the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, formed in
2009 by Reps. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas. A few dozen House members have since joined, and their stated mission is to
support the industry and “rapidly develop and deploy” more systems in the United States. ¶ “Congressman McKeon recognizes the cause for
privacy concerns and firmly believes that those concerns need to be addressed by the appropriate federal agencies,” spokeswoman Alissa
McCurley said. “It is his belief that both the Department of Justice and Commerce Department are best equipped and responsible for regulating
the law enforcement and commercial unmanned aerial systems markets.” The
four largest members of the lobbying group –
General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin – gave more than $1.4 million in campaign
contributions to drone caucus members in 2012.¶ Before that, the group worked to drum up support for the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act, which President Barack Obama signed last year. The law includes a provision that authorizes expanded
civilian drone use and requires the FAA to prepare U.S. airspace for unmanned vehicles.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Drones Link
Obama gets attached to the plan
Wolfgang and Boyer 2015 (Ben and Dave; Obama calls for rules on federal drones to prevent spying on citizens; Feb 15;
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/15/obama-calls-for-rules-on-federal-drones-to-prevent/?page=all; kdf)
The Obama administration on Sunday released a long-awaited set of guidelines to govern drones in American skies,
setting the stage for widespread use of the craft across a variety of industries. President Obama also issued
a separate directive creating the first set of concrete rules for the federal government’s own use of
drones — also known as unmanned aerial systems or UAS — designed to ensure the craft don’t violate Americans’ privacy.
Taken together, the two steps mark a major step forward in the White House’s effort to regulate the rapidly
expanding drone industry. “The federal government will take steps to ensure that the integration [of drones] takes into account not only our
economic competitiveness and public safety, but also the privacy, civil rights and civil liberties concerns these systems may raise,” Mr. Obama said in a
memorandum to federal agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration’s drone proposal, which is in draft form and will be open to public comment for the next 60
days, applies to UAS weighing less than 55 pounds and being used for non-recreational purposes, such as commercial use by private companies.
The drone lobby is powerful, will fight the plan – drains Obama’s PC
Bernd 2013 (Candice [assistant editor/reporter with Truthout]; The Coming Domestic Drone Wars; Sep 19; www.truth-out.org/news/item/18951-thecoming-domestic-drone-wars#; kdf)
States Push to Regulate Domestic Drones as Industry Pushes Back The Texas law is just one of many pieces of legislation placing restrictions on the use of domestic
drones to be introduced in 43 states this year, passing in eight. Many
of these state-level bills seek to require search warrants
for surveillance drones used by local police departments, and at least six states have required warrants. In 2013, Virginia put in
place a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by law enforcement to develop more stringent guidelines. Legislation restricting civilian drone use has passed in
states such as Florida, Tennessee, Idaho, Montana and Oregon, but other states such as North Dakota have tried to pass laws that would ban weapons from
domestic drones and have failed. But the
industry is pushing back against privacy restrictions and regulations on
civilian drones, saying the restrictions will hinder job creation. In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage backed up the claim by vetoing a bill
that would have required police to obtain a warrant before deploying a drone, citing concerns it would kill new aerospace jobs. "We don't support
rewriting existing search warrant requirements under the guise of privacy," Mario Mairena told the AP. Mairena is a
government relations manager for the Virginia-based Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an industry group. The group's website
boasts hundreds of corporate members, many of which are defense contractors. The group also has ties to the Unmanned Systems Caucus in Congress.
Whether or not requiring a warrant in law enforcement drone operations would kill jobs remains to be
seen, but the integration of civilian drones into the NAS would create a considerable economic impact,
to be sure. An AUVSI report estimates that that the integration of unmanned systems in the U.S. will generate more
than $13.6 billion and create 74,000 jobs within the first three years. But strong regulations of domestic
drones in the states may prove especially important depending on what guidelines the FAA puts in place
to integrate the technology into the national airspace by 2015, as some experts fear the susceptibility to co-option of unmanned
systems by third-party operators could pose serious risks to domestic security.
California proves – the plan will cause a fight
Friedersdorf 2014 (Conor; Why Police Don't Need Warrants to Snoop With Drones; Aug 28;
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/california-lawmakers-back-a-restraining-order-on-police-drones/379267/; kdf)
If Governor Jerry Brown signs this law when it crosses his desk, the Golden State will have struck the right balance: permitting
drone surveillance
in cases where police obtain an individualized warrant, while insisting on privacy rights consistent with the original understanding of
the Fourth Amendment, not the diminished version that War on Drugs jurisprudence has given us. Reuters reports there is opposition to the bill
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
from the public-employee unions that represent law enforcement, as well as the Los Angeles District Attorney's office,
which calls the law "an inappropriate attempt to impose search and seizure requirements on California
law enforcement agencies beyond what is required by the 4th Amendment." Without conceding that this law goes
beyond the Fourth Amendment, the district attorney's argument is notably at odds with the notion that the Bill of Rights was a partial, incomplete articulation of
the minimum rights owed a free people, not an upper bound on protecting liberty. Privacy-loving residents of other states should urge their legislators to follow
suit.
Limitations on the use of domestic drones would be controversial
Curry 13 (Tom Curry, national affairs writer, NBC News, 3/20/2013, “Lawmakers voice
concerns on drone privacy questions”, NBC News,
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17389193-lawmakers-voice-concerns-ondrone-privacy-questions?lite)
It was very clear Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on drones that
senators in both parties are worried about the threat to Americans’ privacy posed by the
personal, commercial and law enforcement use of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Senators expressed deep concerns about the spreading use of a technology that is rapidly
evolving and comes at a relatively affordable price tag. But it was equally clear that they’ve only
just begun to grasp the dimensions of the drone controversy, and are very far from being
decided on whether a federal law is need to regulate the use of drones inside the United States -much less what legislative approach to use. Last year, Congress gave the Federal Aviation
Administration until 2015 to devise rules to integrate drones into the national airspace system.
The agency predicted last year that 30,000 drones will be traveling the skies above America in
the next 20 years. To some degree senators at Wednesday’s hearing were still caught up in
marveling at the gee-whiz, technological capabilities of UAVs. “How small can these things get?”
asked Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. A drone as small as a hummingbird is being developed, replied
a witness at the hearing, Amie Stepanovich, director of the Domestic Surveillance Project at the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “The technology is increasing at an exponentially
rapid rate.” “Presumably at some point you could have one the size of a mosquito that has a
battery that operates for weeks and you could have the mosquito following you around and not
be aware of it,” said Franken. “God help us if an adolescent boy gets hold of one of these.” One
witness at Wednesday’s hearing, Benjamin Miller of the Mesa County, Colo., sheriff’s office, who
was representing the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, brought a small two-pound UAV
with him to the hearing and assured committee members that his department was using its
UAVs for traditional law enforcement functions. His office used a UAV last May to search for a
missing woman, saving much time by searching large areas at low cost. And cost is a major
factor in domestic law enforcement drone use: “drones drive down the cost of aerial surveillance
to worrisome levels,” said University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, adding that he
could imagine drones flying around with chemical sensors in order to detect drug trafficking.
Miller estimated that “unmanned aircraft can complete 30 percent of the missions of manned
aircraft for two percent of the cost.” He assured Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick
Leahy of Vermont that domestic law enforcement agencies would “absolutely not” seek to arm
UAVs with lethal weapons. Miller also testified that hours and hours of tracking a criminal
suspect was “not affordable” and that need for “persistent surveillance” – whether using an
airplane or a drone – was “relatively low.” But EPIC’s Stepanovich told Leahy “persistent
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
surveillance” was the greatest threat from domestic use of drones. Some senators’ questions
reflected a fear of an Orwellian Big Brother monitoring Americans.
Regulations on domestic drones unpopular – influential lobbyists
oppose
Morgan and Seetharaman 15 (David and Deepa, journalists for Reuters,
2/23/2015, Reuters, “Industry lobbyists take aim at proposed FAA drone rules,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-usa-drones-lobbyingidUSKBN0LS04R20150224)
Businesses hoping to capitalize on the commercial potential of drones are preparing to push
back against proposed regulations that would strictly limit how the aircraft can be used. During a 60-day public comment
period on the rules, lobbyists representing a range of industries, from Internet giants Amazon.com Inc and Google Inc to aerospace
firms and the news media, say they will try to convince regulators that cutting-edge technologies make some of the limitations
proposed last week by the Federal Aviation Administration unnecessary. Spending
on lobbying by special interests
that list drones as an issue surged from $20,000 in 2001 to $35 million in 2011 to more than
$186 million in 2014, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying activity. And the
proposed rules provide a new focus of lobbying efforts. If approved as written, the new FAA rules would lift the current near-ban on
flying drones for commercial purposes, but its restrictions would make many business applications, such as package delivery,
unfeasible. Among other constraints, the proposed rules would limit commercial drones to an altitude of 500 feet, allow flights only
during daytime hours and require operators to keep the aircraft in their sights at all times. Drones could not be flown near airports
or directly over humans. Officials say these precautions are needed for safety. But drone makers and other firms with a stake in
unmanned aircraft technology say they are already working on features that would allow drones to "sense and avoid" obstacles
including other aircraft and prevent link disruptions that could cause a drone to lose contact with ground operations. For example,
Amazon.com is developing autonomous drones that would navigate via GPS and use redundant safety mechanisms and sensor
arrays to avoid accidents as part of a "Prime Air" drone delivery service it hopes to launch. Industry representatives say they will use
the 60-day comment period to try to convince regulators that breakthrough safety features could make drone flights safe and
dependable. "This is the chance for all the parties who think the FAA got it wrong to come forward and say why," said Jack
Schenendorf, a former House Transportation Committee staff member who now works for law firm Covington & Burling. The
current ban on most commercial drone flights will stay in place until the FAA finalizes its proposed rules -- which could take
anywhere from nine months to three years. During that period, companies can continue to apply for exemptions to use drones under
strict rules. But the FAA has so far granted only 28 of more than 325 exemption requests, according to government documents.
Amazon, which applied for an exemption to allow outdoor testing at its own U.S. facilities last summer, says it has not yet received
approval from the agency. It has been testing a number of drone configurations at facilities in Washington state, Britain and Israel.
But only in the Britain has the company been able to conduct outdoor tests that it says are vital to its goal of developing a prototype
that can be demonstrated to the FAA. Meanwhile, a coalition of news media companies including NBC, the New York Times and
Thomson Reuters hopes to test news-gathering drones in coming months at an FAA site in Virginia. Separate
forecasts by
government and industry officials expect businesses to invest nearly $90 billion in drones
worldwide over the next 10 years, as the technology takes root in hundreds of markets that now
rely on manned flights or ground operations for activities ranging from pipeline inspections to
aerial photography. The number of companies and groups involved in drone lobbying now
exceeds 50. Senate documents show a broad range of parties from high-tech and aerospace
manufacturers to electric utilities, realtors, filmmakers, universities, labor unions, state
governments and broadcasters. Business interests have a potentially powerful lever in
Congress, which must reauthorize the FAA’s funding and regulatory direction by the end of
September. That process allows lawmakers to direct regulatory agencies to take specific actions .
For example, the last reauthorization in 2012 directed the FAA to pursue rulemaking on drones. Some influential allies in
Congress have already begun questioning the proposed rules. U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said last week
the FAA's "line of sight" rule appears to be a "concerning limitation on commercial usage, and this proposed rule should be
modified."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NC Link Wall
Bipartisan opposition to the aff
Antle, 13 -- Daily Caller News Foundation editor [James, "Congress Goes Bipartisan—Against Civil
Liberties," American Conservative, 3-4-13, www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-droneconsensus313/, accessed 5-23-13, mss]
Congress Goes Bipartisan—Against Civil Liberties The parties collude to defeat accountability for the
national-security state. Civil liberties are theoretically a bipartisan concern. Conservative Republicans who don’t like Obamacare’s
“death panels” should be outraged by presidential kill lists. Liberal Democrats who defend due process ought to be offended by secret
surveillance law. Protectors of the First and Second Amendments should have a high regard for the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth. Yet restricting
civil liberties is what actually commands bipartisan support in Washington. The same Congress that barely averted the
fiscal cliff swiftly passed extensions of warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention, assuring Americans that
only the bad guys will be affected but evincing little interest in establishing whether this is really the case. The same Congress that failed to
come up with an agreement to avoid sequestration appears to have bipartisan majorities in favor of profligate drone use
at home and abroad. Lawmakers are generally less exercised about the confirmation of likely CIA chief John Brennan than Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel. At the very time it appears Washington is so dysfunctional that the two parties cannot
get anything done, Democrats and Republicans cooperate regularly—when it it comes to jailing, spying
on, and meting out extrajudicial punishments in ways that on their face contradict the Bill of Rights. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid argued that preserving the Bush administration’s national surveillance program—now for the benefit of the Obama
administration—was more important than Christmas. Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss didn’t even want any amendments. The
Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would apply the same protections against unlawful
search and seizure to emails and text messages that already exist for letters, phone calls, and presumably the carrier pigeon.
Despite deep divisions over taxes and domestic spending, members of both parties tend to sing from the
same song sheet about the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act amendments. So much for the Democrats’ bedrock belief in the right to privacy or Republicans’
convictions about limited government.
Boeing hates the aff
Sledge 13 (Matt- Huffpost, 3/13, “Domestic Drone Lobby Pushes Back On Restrictions,
Seeks Tax Breaks”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/domesticdrones_n_2868450.html)
States are attempting a delicate balancing act between those privacy concerns and the potential
economic boon that drones represent. In California, where General Atomics is based and Northrop Grumman produces the Global
Hawk surveillance drone, two state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would give tax breaks for the construction
of drone manufacturing plants. But in states such as Arizona, Illinois, Maine, Texas and North Dakota,
restrictions on drones are being considered. Washington state Rep. David Taylor, a Republican from the central part of
the state, has introduced a bill that would restrict when state and local law enforcement agencies could buy
drones. Agencies would be required to seek legislative approval and to let the public know about their plans -- a step partially prompted by the Seattle Police
Department's recent bid, scrapped over privacy concerns, to buy two miniature robot helicopters. While noting that his bill was actually drafted months earlier,
Taylor called Paul's 13-hour filibuster an "inspiration." "It was just an incredible display of passion and set the standard, as far as I'm concerned, in terms of seeking
answers from your government," he said. Taylor
described support for his bill as "incredibly bipartisan." But that doesn't
mean everybody is on board. Taylor said that lobbyists for Boeing, the aerospace giant that was founded in
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Seattle and maintains a huge presence in the state, are pushing back hard. Boeing makes a variety of
handheld drones for the military and recently tested a larger spy drone that can fly for four days without
refueling. "What they have conveyed to me is their concern that the market would be reduced," Taylor said. He thinks those
concerns are unfounded and noted that nothing in his bill restricts the manufacture of drones.
They control house members
SanFransisco Gate 11/27/12 ("Push to Steup UP Domestic Use of Drones")
House members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the bipartisan "drone caucus" received the
lion's share of the funds channeled to lawmakers from dozens of firms that are members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, Hearst and CRP found.¶ Eleven "drone caucus" lawmakers from California, where many aviation firms are located, received more
than $2.4 million from manufacturers during the 2012 and 2010 election cycles, according to CRP tabulation of Federal Election Commission
reports. Eight Texas House members in the caucus received more than $746,000. And five caucus members from New York got more than
$400,000 from companies connected to the business of unmanned vehicles. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said drone manufacturers contribute
just as other interest groups do.¶ "We get contributions from media PACs, from teachers, from doctors and from a whole lot of companies that
produce drones," Cuellar said.¶ The House "drone caucus" was established three years ago. Senate lawmakers followed suit this fall.¶ Sen. Joe
Manchin, D-W.Va., co-chairman of the fledgling Senate "drone caucus," said the caucus would help frame future legislation because the use of
drones "carries great potential - and great risk."¶ Purpose of 'drone caucus'¶ Cuellar also said the purpose of the House caucus is to educate
other members on the need for and uses of drones for public safety, border enforcement, search-and-rescue and commercial uses. The
global market for drones is expected to double in the next decade, from $6.6 billion to $11.4 billion, and could top $2.4
billion in the United States alone, said Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis with the Teal Group, an independent research group that
studies the industry.¶ Growth in UAS technology and operations is encouraged by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International,
or AUVSI, which represents drone and systems manufacturers.¶ AUVSI firms have been far more generous to Republicans than Democrats
drone caucus members received 74 percent of the
group's donations.¶ In the House, the top recipient was Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), chairman of the House
when it comes to campaign donations. According to CRP analysis, GOP
Armed Services Committee. He received $833,650 in drone-related campaign contributions.¶ McKeon and Cuellar are co-chairmen of the
caucus.¶ Other California Republicans - Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County); Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands (San Bernardino County); Duncan
Hunter, R-Alpine (San Diego County); and Ken Calvert, R-Corona (Riverside County) - each
received more than $200,000 from
drone firms.¶ CRP's analysis also showed that companies with drone aircraft currently used by the military, but with potential civilian
applications, were among the largest donors to caucus members.¶ The largest donors¶ Those firms include BAE Systems, which makes
the Mantis and Taranis drones; Boeing Co., maker of the hydrogen-fueled Phantom Eye; Honeywell International, RQ-16 THawk; Lockheed Martin, RQ-170 Sentinel; Raytheon Co., Cobra; and General Atomics, Predator.
Attempts to limit the use of drones costs capital – takes on the drones lobby
Cohen 4/29/13 (Marshall, Medill News Service, McClatchy News, "Pushin Congress to Protect
Privacy Amid Growth in Drone Use")
WASHINGTON — The rapidly
expanding domestic drone industry is effectively unregulated when it comes to
privacy protections – but not for lack of trying. Congress has passed few laws regulating drones, or
unmanned aerial vehicles, but two clear sides emerged: a handful of lawmakers and civil liberties groups
pushing for privacy restrictions are stacked against a drone caucus with dozens of House members and
support from the UAV industry.¶ The Obama administration regularly deploys armed drones for overseas
military strikes, and unarmed models of the same Predator drones are used to patrol U.S. borders.¶ But smaller models are now
being used domestically for search-and-rescue missions, detecting forest fires, some law enforcement efforts
and scientific research. Supporters tout these and other benefits, but many civil libertarians cringe at the thought of
government-controlled eyes in the sky.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
They have an immense amount of political influence
Barry 11 (Tom, November 30th 2011, the Center for International Policy, "How the Drone Warfare
Industry Took Over OUr Congress")
In the 2010 election cycle, political action
committees associated with companies that produce drones donated
more than $1.7 million to the 42 congressional members who were members of the congressional drone
caucus. The leading recipient was McKeon, who currently chairs the powerful House Armed Services Committee, with Cong. Reyes coming in
a close second. ¶ General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, whose Predator drone production facilities are located in McKeon’s San Diego district,
is the fifth largest source of McKeon’s campaign contributions, following Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and SLM.¶ Since 2005 – the
year that DHS began purchasing Predator drones, the company’s political action committee has contributed $1.6 million to members of the
drone caucus, according to information from the Center for Responsive Politics. ¶ In that period General Atomics has received $242 million in
drone orders from DHS alone. The funds for the latest DHS drone purchases came not for the department’s annual budget but from a $600
million “emergency” supplemental bill that included $32 million to buy two more Predator drones for border security. ¶ Members
of the
unmanned systems caucus, including McKeon, Cuellar and McCaul, boast of their influence in pressuring DHS to
increase the pace of its drone program.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NR Drone Caucus Influence
The drones lobby is incredibly influential –
Replogle 12 (Jill, Fronteras, Investigative Newsource and Reporter Sam Greenspan Contributed to this
Story, 6/5/, “The Drone Makers and Their Friends in Washington")
SAN DIEGO -- You’ve probably heard of the Congressional Black Caucus, or perhaps the Progressive Caucus. But what about the drone caucus?
Officially, it’s the Unmanned Systems Caucus.¶ Primarily, the caucus advocates for drones — those pilot-less planes infamous for
their role targeting insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They’re used as a spy tool in Iran, a drug-fighting tool in Mexico and an antismuggling tool along the U.S.-Mexico border.¶ Many of the most successful drone manufacturers are based in Southern California and
elsewhere around the southwest.¶ The
drone caucus — like the technology it promotes — is becoming increasingly
important in the nation’s capitol as the government looks to unmanned vehicles to help save money on defense, better patrol the
country’s borders and provide a new tool to U.S. law enforcement agencies and civilians.¶ “It’s definitely a powerful caucus,” said
Alex Bronstein-Moffly, an analyst with First Street Research Group, a D.C.-based company that analyzes lobbying data.¶ “It’s probably up
there in the more powerful caucuses that sort of is not talked about.” And, he says, caucus members are
well placed to influence government spending and regulations.¶ “You have members that are tapped
into sort of key places," he said. “You also have members who have been around for a long time."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Drones – Security/FAA/Lobbies
Plan drains PC – powerful lobby and congressional support for domestic drones –
security concerns empirically trump anti-Drone backlash for Congress
*this evidence also speaks to border drone use
Wall, 12 (Tyler Wall, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University,
“Vertical Policing & Drone Enthusiasts: A Qualitative & Theoretical Exploration of Unmanned Aerial
Drones on the US Homefront”, Final Report for School of Justice Studies 2011-12 Research Grant,
http://justice.eku.edu/sites/justice.eku.edu/files/wall_police_drones-_grant_report.pdf, date not given
but was published at some point 2012 or later, PDF published 9-20-2012, DA: 6/5/2015)
Prior to 2012 though there had been one major obstacle to domesticating drones, namely, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations blocking widespread access to national airspace by both public and private
institutions. In February 2012 this significant obstacle, if not completely demolished, was significantly reworked into a much
less significant impediment with Congress passing H.R. 658, requiring the FAA to expedite the process of
handing out COAs to government agencies such as the police and border patrol and also private enterprises. That is, within 90 days (or
what was early May 2012) of passing the H.R. 658 the FAA were mandated to make clear guidelines on entering aerial drones into national
airspace. The
bill originally granted “public safety agencies” permission to operate any drone that is 4.4 lbs or less,
but soon afterwards the weight limit was increased to 25 lbs. In addition to the prioritizing the drone desires of public agencies, 658 also
requires the FAA to expedite the introduction of drones owned and operated by private companies into national airspace by 2015. It has been
estimated that by 2018, there could be 15,000 drones flying over US skies – a mixture of military, public safety, and private drones. And most
recently, one estimate claims that there could be 30,000 police drones in the next 10 years. The
passing of H.R. 658 was largely
due to sustained pressure by drone stakeholders, primarily Congress’s Unmanned Systems Caucus, the
Association of Unmanned Vehicles International (AUVSI) and domestic policing agencies. These stakeholders argued
that the lack of access to US airspace was a hindrance to both capital accumulation and much needed security
measures. As a spokesperson for the AUVSI has stated, “The potential civil market for these systems could dwarf the
military market in the coming years if we can get access to the airspace.” Michael Huerta, an FAA administrator, has stated:
“What we’re hearing from the Congress and the industry is, ‘This technology is evolving quickly and we
don’t want the FAA to be too cautious so as to hold up technological innovation”. But the mutually-reinforcing
discourses of “law and order” and security remained the most forceful. As the New York Democrat Charles Schumer
stated, “The FAA has been very hesitant to give authorization to these UAVs due to limited air space and restrictions that they have. I certainly
can appreciate those concerns; but when
we’re talking about Customs and Border Protection or the FBI, what
have you, we are talking about missions of national security. And certainly there’s nothing more
important than that”.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Drones – Tech/Law Enforcement
Drone regulations are controversial – competing approaches, uncertainty about tech,
and law enforcement lobby
Curry, 13 (Tom Curry, national affairs writer, NBC News, 3-20-2013, “Lawmakers voice concerns on
drone privacy questions”, NBC News, http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17389193lawmakers-voice-concerns-on-drone-privacy-questions?lite, DA: 6-2-2015)
It was very clear Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on drones that senators in both parties are worried
about the threat to Americans’ privacy posed by the personal, commercial and law enforcement use of drones, or
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Senators expressed deep concerns about the spreading use of a technology that is rapidly evolving and comes
at a relatively affordable price tag. But
it was equally clear that they’ve only just begun to grasp the dimensions of
the drone controversy, and are very far from being decided on whether a federal law is need to regulate
the use of drones inside the United States -- much less what legislative approach to use. Last year, Congress gave the
Federal Aviation Administration until 2015 to devise rules to integrate drones into the national airspace system. The agency predicted last year
that 30,000 drones will be traveling the skies above America in the next 20 years. To some degree senators at Wednesday’s hearing were
still caught up in marveling at the gee-whiz, technological capabilities of UAVs. “How small can these things get?”
asked Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. A drone as small as a hummingbird is being developed, replied a witness at the hearing, Amie Stepanovich,
director of the Domestic Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “The technology is increasing at an
exponentially rapid rate.” “Presumably at some point you could have one the size of a mosquito that has a battery that operates for weeks and
you could have the mosquito following you around and not be aware of it,” said Franken. “God help us if an adolescent boy gets hold of one of
these.” One witness at Wednesday’s hearing, Benjamin Miller of the Mesa County, Colo., sheriff’s office, who was representing the
Airborne Law Enforcement Association, brought a small two-pound UAV with him to the hearing and assured committee
members that his department was using its UAVs for traditional law enforcement functions. His office used a UAV
last May to search for a missing woman, saving much time by searching large areas at low cost. And cost is a major factor in
domestic law enforcement drone use: “drones drive down the cost of aerial surveillance to worrisome
levels,” said University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, adding that he could imagine drones flying around with chemical sensors in
order to detect drug trafficking. Miller estimated that “unmanned aircraft can complete 30 percent of the missions of manned aircraft for two
percent of the cost.” He assured Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that domestic law enforcement agencies
would “absolutely not” seek to arm UAVs with lethal weapons. Miller also testified that
hours and hours of tracking a criminal
suspect was “not affordable” and that need for “persistent surveillance” – whether using an airplane or
a drone – was “relatively low.” But EPIC’s Stepanovich told Leahy “persistent surveillance” was the greatest threat from domestic
use of drones. Some senators’ questions reflected a fear of an Orwellian Big Brother monitoring Americans. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he
had “very deep concerns about the government collecting information on the citizenry, and with the ease and
availability of drones, I think there is real concern that the day-to-day conduct of American citizens going about their business might be
monitored, catalogued, and recorded by the federal government.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voiced similar fears: “I know what
drones can do … I’ve seen drones do all kinds of things and those all kinds of things bring on great caution,” she said, alluding to her role as
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. After she left the hearing Feinstein told reporters more of her worries, “You
can say that
you won’t permit any drone to be armed but how do you see that that (restriction) is carried out? Can a
drone look into somebody’s window and photograph them in the privacy of their home?” She added, “The technology is way
ahead of our ability to know how to cope with it.” Asked whether she supported EPIC’s call for requiring a warrant whenever
a domestic law enforcement agency uses a UAV for surveillance, she said, “It all depends. If it’s surveillance, yes. If it’s traffic guidance, that kind
of thing, for which a drone, much like a helicopter, can be very useful, we
have to think this thing out. I don’t really want to
commit myself because I don’t really know at this stage.” While law enforcement agencies can get permission from FAA to
use drones, private-sector commercial operators for now are limited to experimental uses for tests, demonstrations and training. But Michael
Toscano, the president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), told the committee that drones
are poised to be one of America’s growth industries, with 70,000 new jobs, just as soon as federal regulations are set in the
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
next few years. Asked after the hearing about the possibility that Congress might crimp this commercial development, Toscano said, “I think
you’ll find that we’ll be able to come to a meeting of the minds” to allow commercial use of drones while not violating privacy rights. He
said
that “Congress shouldn’t knee-jerk into passing legislation that would be prohibitive” and should allow
the continued development of unmanned air systems.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Drones – Defense/Constituencies
Curtailing domestic drones links – powerful constituencies and domestic defense
lobbies
Reno, 13 (Jamie Reno, award-winning correspondent for Newsweek for 17 years, 3-31-2013, "San
Diego, Hub of the U.S. Drone Industry", Daily Beast,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/31/san-diego-hub-of-the-u-s-drone-industry.html, DA:
6-5-2015)
Seemingly everybody’s talking about drones. And arguably no
city is paying closer attention to the national debate over
than San Diego, the undisputed drone capital of America. Best
known for its zoo, sunshine, captive killer whales, and military bases, San Diego is also home to the world’s two leading drone
makers: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, builders of the Predator and Reaper drones that target terrorists around the
world, and Northrop Grumman, makers of the Global Hawk surveillance drones. Several smaller San Diego–area companies,
too, build drones, and additional firms make component parts and engage in research and development.
These companies are looking at a variety of applications for this technology, from law enforcement to mapping to powerline observation. Even underwater drones are being developed. All this means big bucks for the local economy. The drone
industry in the San Diego area, most of which is clustered in the northern part of San Diego County, has doubled in five years,
according to the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation (EDC). It’s expected to double again in the next
seven. Erik Bruvold, the president of the National University System Institute for Policy Research, says drone-related businesses in
San Diego County generate as much as $2 billion in annual revenue and have created as many as 14,000 jobs. He notes that
these controversial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
these are “just estimates.” Exact numbers aren’t publicly known, he says, because “many of these [drone] projects are classified.” Bruvold’s
institute recently released a report on the economic impact of UAVs in San Diego. Commissioned by the San Diego North Chamber of
Commerce, the report, which states that drone production now accounts for more than 12 percent of all Department of Defense contract
activity in the county, concludes rather predictably that drones are very good for local business. But the
growing concerns
nationwide about these aircraft have even staunch boosters of these unmanned vehicles acknowledging that the industry’s
future is up in the air. The FAA predicts that by the end of this decade as many as 30,000 drones will be flying in U.S. airspace. But
more than 30 states from Virginia to California have recently introduced or already passed legislation that restricts and
in some cases bans the vehicles. On the federal level, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s recent 12-hour filibuster rant,
which was mostly about drones, intensified the debate. And last week lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing expressed deep concerns about the privacy threats posed by domestic drones—concerns that
came from both sides of the aisle. Some San Diegans worry that the current push-back against drones
could lead to a slowdown in production and stunt the local economy, which is already expected to take a big hit
because of sequestration. “This could have a very negative affect on jobs and commerce here,” says Debra Rosen,
the president of the North San Diego chamber. “We don’t get into the political part of it, but the UAV industry in San Diego County means jobs.
Any time an industry is threatened, an entire community is potentially impacted, especially small business.” Despite
the anti-drone fervor, it appears to be business as usual in San Diego, at least for now. General Atomics would not comment for this story, but
Cyndi Wegerbauer, Northrup Grumman’s director of communications, said the company is transitioning its entire drone program to the new
Unmanned Systems Center of Excellence in Rancho Bernardo, in North San Diego County. Two of Grumman’s existing programs will be moved
to the new center: the MQ-4C Triton program currently in Bethpage, New York, and the NATO airborne ground-surveillance program in
Melbourne, Florida. Wegerbauer said the move, which will bring 300 more jobs to San Diego, “reinforces the company's commitment to this
viable market.” Seeking to make it even more viable, the San Diego EDC and the San Diego Military Advisory Council have filed an application
with the FAA to create a so-called drone test zone, which essentially means drones would be allowed to fly unencumbered in the area. These
groups want to have the airspace in San Diego County and Southern California open for drones in order to make it an even friendlier
environment for future drone business. The FAA reportedly plans to create six test zones in the U.S. as it integrates drones into the U.S.
airspace. About 40 applications have been filed from across the country. “The goal of the drone test zone designation is simply to further
stimulate the industry in San Diego County,” says Sarah Lubeck, a spokeswoman for San Diego’s EDC. “While we understand and respect the
concern over our civil liberties, at the end of the day, it’s all about creating jobs.” But the rallying
cries against drones are getting
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
louder, even in San Diego, where Craig Jones of the San Diego Coalition for Peace and Justice says there’s been a “drone
awakening” recently from people of all political stripes. He suggests this comes from “repulsion of unending
global war; the killing of hundreds of innocent people; the claim of national authority to conduct these remote-control
killings without public, judicial, or congressional approval or review; and increasing unease about the deployment of
drones at the border and by local police agencies.” San Diegans have peacefully co-existed with fighter jets, war ships, and
bomb-building defense contractors for decades, but this isn’t a conservative Navy burg any more. The demographics are changing,
and some residents are uneasy about having drones in their backyard and overhead. Already 10 Predator drones patrol the U.S.-Mexico border.
Dave Patterson, a Vietnam veteran who coordinates a boisterous demonstration every Thursday at the General Atomics headquarters to
protest the expanding use of drones for both military and domestic surveillance, says San Diegans are “opening their eyes to what drones
represent and how much they potentially threaten our privacy and what we stand for as a country.” Patterson, who once worked for a San
Diego defense contractor, says he understands that drones have been a shot in the arm for San Diego’s economy. “I don’t want to take away
anyone’s job,” he says. “But I do want to see more legislative and judicial oversight of these drones. The
defense contractors want
to sell $13 billion in drones over the next 10 years, mostly for domestic law enforcement. To do that
Congress has mandated that the FAA open the skies to 10,000 drones minimum. If they succeed, the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments go up in a cloud of drones.” On April 4, Patterson, who believes drones also make it “far too easy for the president to kill
people,” will be joined by anti-drone activists from across the country who’ll converge in San Diego to participate in the National Anti-Drone
Days of Action. The four-day event kicks off a series of anti-drone activities around the country and the world. Veterans for Peace in London will
hold an anti-drone protest April 6, and there’ll be an anti-drone demonstration in Pakistan on April 17. Just
how all the protests and
pending legislation will impact San Diego’s booming drone business remains to be seen. But the locals are closely
watching. Meantime, San Diego has competition. More than two dozen states and regions from Florida to the Dakotas are engaged in efforts to
lure drone manufacturing and development, according to the National University report. That’s just about the same number of locations that
are considering legislation to limit or ban the aircraft. “It’s critical we keep the industry here in San Diego,” says Rosen. “It represents a huge
workforce, a well-paid workforce, and it means dollars to local communities and small businesses, increased tax revenues, and more. A lot of
people I’ve talked to about UAVs say, ‘They’re scary. We don’t want them here.’ There are a lot of NIMBYs [‘not in my backyard’] here. But
when they learn more about UAVs, and they realize the financial impact they have on this community,
they change their opinion. A lot of this resistance is just fear of the unknown.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Drones
Drone policy drains PC – creates controversy and fights with defense and privacy
lobbies
Uberti, 13 (David Uberti, staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review, 4-7-2013, "Massachusetts,
national drone companies are struggling to gain public acceptance in face of controversy", Boston
Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/06/massachusetts-national-drone-companiesare-struggling-gain-public-acceptance-face-controversy/qtCg0CxAIUfrW7applrKWL/story.html, DA: 6-22015)
Other companies producing drones boast of firefighting capabilities and real-time weather analysis. The largest industry trade group — the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International — predicts that most manufacturing growth will be spurred by agriculture demand
and law-enforcement work. But
civil liberties advocates unleashed a torrent of criticism last year when Congress
mandated the Federal Aviation Administration to craft regulations for drone use in US skies by the end of 2015. Fears of
unwarranted privacy violations, domestic spying, and even questions about armed attacks on US soil reached a crescendo this month and
forced the industry into a defensive posture. How those regulations are shaped will have a major impact on whether the market for
domestically operated drones truly takes off. Markey’s legislation, introduced last week, aims
to prevent “flying robots from
becoming spying robots,” a statement said. His legislation would not permit an FAA license unless the applicant discloses who will
operate the drone, where it will be flown, what sort of data it will collect, how the data will be used, and whether the information will be sold
to third parties. Concern about the potential use of domestic drones reached its peak on March 6 when Kentucky Republican Rand
Paul
mounted a 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor questioning the Obama administration’s ability to
preemptively target American citizens suspected of terrorist activities. “No American should be killed by a drone on American soil
without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty by a court,” Paul declared. The administration’s response
— that it had no power to target citizens within US borders — didn’t end the argument, and start-up executives, and engineers and
inventors around the country have been shocked by the depth of the controversy. “It comes up in almost every
conversation about the products and the company and the way forward,” CyPhy director of operations Jason Walker said. “The word
[drone] has a lot to do with it. The idea that there are these robots flying around mindlessly doing some nefarious thing is not
accurate. From a technical standpoint, it’s silly.” Advocates of the fledgling domestic industry — ranging from biologists to
border patrol agents — are now rallying resources to stem the tide of bad press. “This happened so fast that it took all of us aback,”
Stephen Ingley, director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, said at an unmanned systems conference in March in Arlington, Va. He
added that the industry doesn’t have the political clout or social foothold to shift the conversation from
potential dangers to likely benefits. To be sure, UAV proponents agree that privacy concerns are valid, acknowledging the potential for misuse
among criminals, paparazzi, and government agencies. But they contend the anxiety is overblown, as drone sensors and cameras are no
different than those used in manned aircraft. “This is more than a pilotless vehicle,” Michael Toscano, president of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said at Leahy’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, convened to consider privacy risks. “There’s
nothing unmanned about unmanned systems.’’ Though defense giants
that produce military drones have been lobbying
Congress for years, smaller start-ups and inventors began seeking to influence lawmakers’ opinions only in
2007. The Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, cochaired by Representatives Buck McKeon of California and Henry Cuellar of Texas, has
grown to nearly 60 members. It aims to “educate” lawmakers on an industry that will “improve our lives as public acceptance progresses,”
according to its website. Caucus
members have garnered nearly $8 million in campaign contributions from
drone firms over the past four years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization that
tracks money in government. The industry trade group, meanwhile, has doubled its lobbying expenditures to about $250,000 annually as
Congress and government agencies craft regulations. At a trade meeting held at a Virginia Tech research center last week, industry leaders
discussed the need to increase public outreach to overcome drones’ cloak-and-dagger stigma. Physical Sciences Inc. in Andover is among the
firms making the transition from defense to domestic uses, tailoring drones for law enforcement agencies and anticipating a price tag of $1,000
or less, said Tom Vaneck, vice president of space technologies. Though his firm hasn’t thought of a catchy replacement for the term UAV, it has
begun discussing more proactive ways to laud everyday uses such as aiding first responders. Such efforts will probably target youth at the local
level since “the younger generation is almost always more open to new technology,” he said. “Let’s go to grade schools and have kids fly one of
these things,’’ Vaneck said, “so it’s not the boogeyman anymore.” Mary Cummings, an associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
at MIT, said public suspicion will dissipate as the technology becomes more familiar. She’s one of the few in the
industry who doesn’t mind the “drone’’ moniker. “If that’s the name the public wants to call it, then let’s just make a real definition of it,” the
former Navy fighter pilot said. Besides, she added, “it’s not a mouthful.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – ECPA – Post Freedom Act
Freedom act was delicate balancing act – new ECPA reforms drain PC and guarantee
intense opposition – congressional leadership, GOP, law enforcement
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest
overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views,
calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone
records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database
from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts
when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released
to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data
collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and
NSA from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define
“specific search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term
and give the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to
congressional intent, but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the
old version of the Patriot Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom
Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas
Internet traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden
leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who
don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs
sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the
expiring sections of the Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S.
surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican
leaders opposed to more changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional
leadership, however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused
to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA. In the House, Republican leaders
threatened to kill the USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to address other
surveillance programs. Still, many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new surveillance limits, with
lawmakers adding an amendment to end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill
this week. Obama’s administration has threatened to veto the appropriations bill for several unrelated reasons, but several House members
have pledged to push hard to prohibit the FBI and CIA from searching the content of reportedly tens of thousands of U.S. communications
swept up in an NSA surveillance program targeting overseas terrorism suspects. Closing that surveillance backdoor is a top priority for civil
liberties groups, said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C., legislative office.
“We’ve had this statute that masquerades as affecting only people abroad, but the reality is that it sweeps up large numbers of U.S. persons,”
she said. Other changes possible Advocates and
lawmakers will also push for a handful of other surveillance reforms in
the coming months. The changes most likely to pass make limited changes to surveillance programs, however.
While not tied to NSA surveillance, lawmakers will press for changes to the 29-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), a wiretap law that gives law enforcement agencies warrantless access to emails and other communications stored in the cloud for
more than six months. A House version of ECPA reform counts more than half the body as co-sponsors. Still, tech companies and civil
liberties groups have been pushing since 2010 to have those communications protected by warrants, but law
enforcement agencies and some Republican lawmakers have successfully opposed the changes. Another
bill that may gain traction in coming months is the Judicial Redress Act, a bill that would allow citizens of some countries to file lawsuits under
the U.S. Privacy Act if government agencies misuse their records. “The Privacy Act offers limited protections, even to Americans, but passage of
this bill would be an important first step to addressing especially European concerns that US privacy reforms won’t help them,” said Berin
Szoka, president of free market think tank TechFreedom. Public pressure, along with potentially new leaks, will be the key to driving any more
surveillance changes, advocates said. “The public will for mass surveillance laws was made very clear recently, and that’s partly why we saw
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
much of Congress flock to whatever could be called surveillance reform,” said Tiffiniy Cheng, a founder of digital rights group Fight for the
Future. “No one is fooled by USA
Freedom—it’s a weak piece of legislation that uses exceptions in legislative
language to codify the NSA’s practice of surveilling most people.” Congress has much work left to do, Cheng said by
email. “After the recent showdown and public outcry, USA Freedom is at best, seen as a beginning of surveillance reform, not the end,” she
said.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Trick – Metadata – Docket Crowd Out – TPA specific
limiting Meta-data beyond House bill specifically derails trade authority, TPP and econ
- PC loss, GOP division, house backlash, legislative stalemate, gridlock, and
independent docket crowd out – even extended House vote delay is enough
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and a
trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time. Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act
used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs
— though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it is
an
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
collection program are running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle. McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve. McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the
trade fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in
the House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security. Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time so
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna have. I
Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone records
and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a short-term
reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP and
the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
think that is unfortunate.” Top
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Trick – Metadata – Obama Fights Plan/A2: Link Turns
all their turns are links for us - Plan is a loss and Obama lobbies against it – sparking
major political fight with plan’s supporters –
Whittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14, http://www.zdnet.com/housepasses-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)
House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was designed
to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered down."
Next stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act, which first
authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152 co-sponsors, the
bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands, which
according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama
administration by strengthening previously removed provisions. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author —
who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to
counter the "misuse" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House Judiciary
Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After
the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the
most prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However,
in prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the bill he
first introduced. "The
legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s surveillance
authorities," he said. "It bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message
to the NSA: We are watching you."
Empirics prove Obama lobbies hard AGAINST plan – it’s a loss, not a concession – turns
don’t apply
Whitney, 14 (Lance, CNET News reporter, technology writer, and book author, CNet, 6/5/14, http://www.cnet.com/news/applegoogle-others-urge-senate-to-beef-up-nsa-reform-bill/)
Tech leaders urge Senate to beef up NSA reform bill Apple and Google are among the firms saying the bill passed by the House is
watered down. Will the Senate restore some of the original safeguards? A group of nine major tech players is calling
on the US Senate to muster up a stronger version of the USA Freedom Act recently passed by the House of Representatives. Uniting under
a common banner known as Reform Government Surveillance, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, LinkedIn, AOL, and Dropbox have sent a letter to
the Senate expressing their concerns about government surveillance and the current House version of the USA Freedom Act. Bearing the signatures of the CEOs of
each of the nine companies, the letter asks for a version of the bill that "would help restore the confidence of Internet users here and around the world, while
keeping citizens safe." The
USA Freedom Act was drafted in response to promises by the White House to limit
the powers granted to the National Security Agency under the Patriot Act. As such, the bill was supposed to curtail the bulk collection of metadata.
But the version passed by the House of Representatives last month removed some of the original elements, prompting
critics to label it a watered-down version of the initial proposal. In their letter, the tech companies highlight two specific concerns. First, the bill that was passed
could still permit the bulk collection of metadata, such as who you email and who emails you, which the White House and Congress both pledged to stop. Second,
the bill doesn't go far enough in allowing companies to provide greater details about the government requests they receive to share customer information. The nine
Congressional sources say the Senate will try to restore some of
the stronger provisions that were removed as a result of lobbying by the Obama administration.
companies may yet fare better in the Senate than in the House.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link/Turn Shield – Metadata – Ratchet Effect
drains PC – metadata link only one way – strong political support only ensures bigger
fight - ratchet effect makes repealing current (programs/laws/authorizations) unique – inertia and terror fears outweigh,
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance
Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
been gathering the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and
only targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence
or law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that
a request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as
part of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original
intended scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it
can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements
may have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that
Sensenbrenner describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the
“ratchet effect” in legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can
become entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely.[1] For
example, some scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline
of legal “normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent
with the ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on
how powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the
ratchet effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet
effect], it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
do I debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Curtailing meta-data surveillance drains PC –perception of ties to anti-terror efforts
and difficulties of repealing existing laws ensure stickiness – despite powerful
political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to
modify or repeal portions can prove challenging. An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th
terrorist attacks.[5] At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous
letters containing weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within
the United States, began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded
the definition of terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury
(DOT), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the
recent NSA surveillance revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act,
which relates directly to the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area is the Act’s
permitting searches of personal library records and other organizational files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies
use NSLs to demand disclosure of certain records from an organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without
judicial review.[8] The number of NSLs drastically increased after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued
approximately 8,000 NSLs. In 2004, by contrast, the FBI issued 56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs,
though secrecy rules bar their lawyers from discussing the nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve
years since the Act’s entrance into
use, governments, civic organizations, and citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the
Act without success. Two years after the Act became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia
passed resolutions against it.[9] Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of
legislation seeking to scale back the Act’s original scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe v. Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the
Act’s constitutionality. Yet despite this steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both
Republican and Democratic administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history
reflects the difficulties governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or repeal
portions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason. Al-Qaeda has been degraded significantly since 9/11,
but terrorism remains a significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly illustrates. In light of
the continuing threat of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why anti-terrorism laws like the
USA PATRIOT Act can prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not meant to be exhaustive, but to
show how a constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism laws in place.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Metadata – Expanding Beyond Freedom Act
Expanding scope of Freedom Act reforms drains PC – alienates Congressional
leadership and requires political concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The
House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would
reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a
vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act.
... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications
without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather
data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet.
The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee
member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the
overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by many in
positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without
changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said,
because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an
amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should
force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that
provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth
Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Going beyond freedom act compromise triggers massive fight and drains PC – house,
committees, and most powerful dems hate it - its a loss and flip flop for obama,
Hattem, 14 -- Julian, Reporter @ The Hill covering tech policy, 5/24/14,
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/207143-nsa-reform-to-be-senate-fight-of-the-summer
NSA reform to be ‘fight of the summer’ Civil libertarians who say the House didn’t go far enough to reform
the National Security Agency are mounting a renewed effort in the Senate to shift momentum in their direction. After
compromises in the House bill, the NSA’s critics are buckling down for a months-long fight in the Senate
that they hope will lead to an end to government snooping on Americans. “This is going to be the fight of the summer,” vowed
Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. If advocates are able to change the House bill’s language to prohibit
NSA agents from collecting large quantities of data, “then that’s a win,” he added. “The bill still is not ideal even with those changes, but that
would be an improvement,” Rottman said. The USA Freedom Act was introduced in both the House and Senate last autumn, after Edward
Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s operations captured headlines around the globe. Privacy advocates like the ACLU rallied around the bill
as the way to rein in the spy agency and more than 150 lawmakers signed on as cosponsors in the House. In recent weeks, though,
advocates worried that it was being progressively watered down. First, leaders on the House Judiciary Committee made
changes in order to gain support from a broader cross-section of the chamber. Then, after it sailed
through both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, additional changes were made behind closed doors
that caused many privacy groups and tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple to drop their support. When it passed the House 303-121
last week, fully half of the bill’s original cosponsors voted against it. “We were of course very disappointed at the weakening of the bill,” said
Robyn Greene, policy counsel at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “Right now we really are
turning our
attention to the Senate to make sure that doesn’t happen again.” Instead of entirely blocking the government’s ability
to collect bulk amounts of data, critics said that the new bill could theoretically allow federal agents to gather information about an entire area
code or region of the country. One
factor working in the reformers’ favor is the strong support of Senate
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Unlike House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who only came to
support the bill after negotiations to produce a manager’s amendment, Leahy was the lead Senate sponsor of the
USA Freedom Act. The fact that Leahy controls the committee gavel means he should be able to guide the bill through when it comes up
for discussion next month, advocates said. “The fact that he is the chairman and it’s his bill and this is an issue that he has been passionate
about for many years” is comforting, Greene said. “I think this is something he really wants to see get done. He wants to see it get done right.
And he wants to see that Americans are confident that their privacy is being adequately protected,” she added. Moments
after the
House passed its bill, Leahy issued a statement praising the action but said he was “disappointed” that
some “meaningful reforms” were not included. Other surveillance critics such as Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand
Paul (R-Ky.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) expressed similar dissatisfaction with the House effort.
Their sentiments should be buoyed by the swift outrage from civil liberties advocates on both sides of the
aisle, reformers hoped. One reason the House bill moved so far away from its early principles, lawmakers
and surveillance critics have claimed, was pressure from House leadership and the Obama administration in
the days ahead of the vote. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pledging to let Leahy and Intelligence Committee
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) take the lead on how to move forward. “I want Chairman Feinstein and Chairman Leahy to take a very
close look at that and report to the Senate as to what they think should be done,” he told reporters on Thursday. “I believe we must do
something and I have no problem with the House having acted, but I couldn’t pass a test on what’s in their bill. But I guarantee I’ll be able to
after Feinstein and Leahy take a look at this,” said Reid. Feinstein, who is also the
No. 2 Democrat on the Judiciary
Committee, could pose the biggest obstacle for Leahy’s efforts. She previously pushed for a much
narrower reform bill, but said late Thursday that she was “open to considering” the House-passed legislation.
House lawmakers, however, might not be too pleased if the two chambers end up with a significantly
different piece of legislation. After passing its bill on Thursday, Goodlatte warned the Senate not to deviate too
far from the compromise that he and his colleagues had put together. “This has been very carefully
negotiated here within the House but also with the administration,” he said. “And it’s going to be very
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
important that if the Senate does something different that it is... better and not just different. “Because
different can be worse rather than better,” Goodlatte said.
Further reforms uniquely drain PC – lack of looming sunset, committee opposition,
loss for obama, flip flop, bipartisan congressional leaders oppose, supporters only
trigger larger fight
Sasso, 14 -- Brendan Sasso, National Journal, 3/25/14, Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed
Their Minds, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds20140325
It was only months ago that President Obama, with bipartisan backing from the heads of Congress's
Intelligence committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program
was key to keeping Americans safe from the next major terrorist attack. They were also dismissing
privacy concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the necessary safeguards were
already in place. But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and
the NSA's top supporters in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. And civil-liberties
groups—awash in their newly won clout—are declaring victory. The question is no longer whether to change the
program, but how dramatically to overhaul it. So what changed? It's not that Obama and his Hill allies
suddenly saw the error of their ways and became born-again privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical
section of the Patriot Act set to expire next year, they realized they had no choice but to negotiate. If
Congress fails to reauthorize that provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's collection of U.S.
records would have to end entirely. And the growing outrage prompted by the Snowden leaks means
that the NSA's supporters would almost certainly lose an up-or-down vote on the program. Rep. Adam
Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that looming sunset is what
forced lawmakers to the bargaining table. "I think what has changed is the growing realization that the votes are simply
not there for reauthorization," he said in an interview. "I think that more than anything else, that is galvanizing
us into action."
Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their proposals are now the NSA's best bet
to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror plots. Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated she is on board with the changes, saying
the president's proposal is a "worthy effort." And though the Hill's NSA allies are now proposing reforms to the
agency, they don't seem particularly excited about it. At a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the
Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the panel's top
Democrat, often sounded like they were arguing against their own bill that they were unveiling. "I passionately
believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said. Ruppersberger said if the program had
been in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. But the lawmakers acknowledged there
is broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently structured. "We need to do something about bulk collection
because of the perception of our constituents," Ruppersberger admitted. Under their legislation, the vast database of phone records would stay
in the hands of the phone companies. The NSA could force the phone companies to turn over particular records, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact. But Rogers rejected a reporter's suggestion that the NSA should have never had
control of the massive database of phone records in the first place. "There was no abuse, no illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said. For
all
their hesitance, however, Rogers and company much prefer their version to a competing proposal to change
the way the government gathers information. That would be the USA Freedom Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Rogers and
his ilk fear would go too far in hamstringing the
NSA. The USA Freedom Act would require the NSA to meet a tougher standard for the data searches and
would limit other NSA programs, such as Internet surveillance of people overseas. Additionally, President Obama is
expected to unveil his own plan to reform the controversial phone data collection program this week. According to The New York Times,
Obama's proposal would also keep the database in the hands of the phone companies. His plan would
have tougher judicial oversight than the House bill by requiring pre-approval from the court for every targeted phone number, the
newspaper reported. But though the momentum has shifted and officials seem to be coalescing around a
framework for overhauling the NSA program, the question is far from settled. Leahy and Sensenbrenner
are not backing off from their USA Freedom Act, and outside groups will continue their policy push as
well.
Freedom Act was a sweet spot Bipartisan compromise – plan derails it, triggers
intense controversy and PC drain
Nicks, 14 -- Denver Nicks, Denver Nicks is a U.S. journalist and writer for Time, Nicks' work has appeared in The Nation, The Huffington
Post, This Land, and The Daily Beast. He is the author of Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in
American History (2012). Nicks holds a bachelor's degree in political science and international studies from Southern Methodist University and a
master's from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.[3], Time, 5/22/14, http://time.com/109444/nsa-leaks-snowden-usafreedom-act/
Privacy groups unhappy with late changes pulled their support from the bill at the last minute The
House passed legislation Thursday
to curtail the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ phone records, but the compromise bill left civil liberties
groups and privacy advocates unhappy and vowing to fight for stronger reforms in the Senate. The vote came a year after
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden set off a global debate about American surveillance practices by leaking a trove of documents detailing
them. Privacy groups pulled their support for the bill before it came to a vote, but it still passed 303-120. “The House is the beginning of the
conversation,” said Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The House wanted to pass something quickly
and as a result really watered it down. Now we’re at the Senate where we’ll have to present a stronger bill and where hopefully a stronger bill
will move.” In the days before the USA FREEDOM Act passed the House, support for the bill among the civil liberties groups and tech companies
that once championed it all but vanished. Groups that had been lobbying hard on behalf of the bill for months, like EFF, The Center for
Democracy and Technology, and the Reform Government Surveillance Coalition, a consortium on tech giants including Facebook and Google, all
yanked their endorsements at the 11th hour. Reform advocates were steamed about tweaks made in committee that they felt unacceptably
broadened the scope of who and what the NSA can monitor, and also by the elimination of a measure that would have created a privacy
advocate on the secretive court that oversees the NSA. “What happened was the bill changed at the last minute,” said Harley Geiger, senior
counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It changed at the last stop before going to the house floor.” Lawmakers who
supported the measure took turns Thursday emphasizing that it
would end the “bulk collection” of Americans’
communications. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chairs the House committee that deals with intelligence
matters, called it a “sweet spot” compromise with “strong bipartisan” support. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (RWis.) said the bill had its shortcomings but was a step in the right direction. “Let me be clear, I wish this bill did more,” he said. “To my
colleagues who lament changes, I agree with you. To privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, I share your disappointment. The
negotiations for this bill were intense, and we had to make compromises, but this bill still deserves
support.” But advocates said the changes left too much open to interpretation and that courts could eventually gut many of the reforms.
“What they’re not doing is defining ‘bulk collection,’” Geiger said. Amendments to the bill were not allowed as it went from the Rules
Committee to a floor vote Thursday. “All the House of Representatives got was an up or down vote on ambiguous reform on an issue that cause
a bona fide international scandal,” Geiger said. The bill will now go to the Senate, where it will be shepherded by one of its original
proponents, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). “Today’s action in the House continues the bipartisan effort to restore Americans’
civil liberties,” Leahy said in a statement after the bill passed. “But I was disappointed that the legislation passed today does not include some
of the meaningful reforms contained in the original USA FREEDOM Act. I will continue to push for these important reforms when the Senate
Judiciary Committee considers the USA FREEDOM Act next month.” Whether
or not Leahy and his allies will be successful
in reinserting some of the reforms that originally won civil libertarian support for the USA FREEDOM Act
remains to be seen. The Senate has a stronger cohort of establishment Republicans than the House and
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
fewer Tea Party conservatives whose small-government ethos clashes with the notion of expansive
domestic surveillance. On the other hand, the measure will have a powerful ally in Leahy.
Freedom act was the sweet spot – plan triggers intense controversy, congressional
division, committee backlash, and derails unique bipartisan compromise, it’s a loss
and flip flop
Hawkings, 14 -- David Hawkings, Roll Call, 3/25/14, Hill’s Bipartisan Deadlock on Phone Records May Be Easing,
blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/obama-nsa-reform-plan-could-ease-congressional-deadlock-on-spying/2/
Eight months ago, in one of its most important and fascinatingly nonpartisan votes of recent memory, the House came up just seven members
The roll call revealed a profound
divide in Congress on how assertively the intelligence community should be allowed to probe into the
personal lives of private citizens in the cause of thwarting terrorism. It is a split that has stymied legislative
efforts to revamp the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection programs. Until now, maybe. Senior members with
jurisdiction over the surveillance efforts, in both parties and on both sides of the Hill, are signaling
generalized and tentative but nonetheless clear support for the central elements of a proposed compromise
that President Barack Obama previewed Tuesday and will formally unveil by week’s end. The president, in other words, may be close
to finding the congressional sweet spot on one of the most vexing problems he’s faced — an issue that
surged onto Washington’s agenda after the secret phone records collection efforts were disclosed by former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden. If Obama can seal the deal, which he’s pledged to push for by the end of June, it would
almost surely rank among his most important second-term victories at the Capitol. It also would create an
exception that proves the rule about the improbability of bipartisan agreement on hot-button issues in an
short of eviscerating the government’s vast effort to keep tabs on American phone habits.
election season. “I recognize that people were concerned about what might happen in the future with that bulk data,” Obama said at a news
conference in The Hague, where he’s been working to gain support for containing Russia from a group of European leaders who have their own
complaints about U.S. spying on telephone calls. “This proposal that’s been presented to me would eliminate that concern.” The
top two
members of the House Intelligence Committee, GOP Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan and ranking Democrat
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, introduced their own bill to revamp surveillance policy Tuesday — and declared they
expect it would track very closely with the language coming from the administration. They said they had been
negotiating with White House officials for several weeks and viewed the two proposals as compatible. At their core, both the
Obama and House bills would end the NSA practice of sucking up and storing for five years the date and time, duration and destination of many
millions of phone calls placed or received by Americans. Instead, the phone companies would be required to retain this so-called metadata (and
comparable information about email and Internet use) for 18 months, their current practice. And the government would have to obtain
something like a search warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, meaning in each discreet case a judge would limit how deeply
the telecom companies would have to query their databases in hopes of finding calling patterns that suggest national security threats. Since
both Rogers and Ruppersberger have been prominent defenders of the bulk collection system, any
agreement they reach that has Obama’s blessing can be expected to pass the House. It should garner support
from a lopsided majority of the 217 House members (three-fifths of the Republicans and two-fifths of the Democrats) who voted to
stick with the status quo last July. And it stands a chance to win over at least some on the other side — an unusual
coalition of 94 mostly libertarian-leaning tea party Republicans and 111 liberal Democrats, who say NSA
searches of the databases should be limited to information about existing targets of investigations. But one leader of that camp
vowed to work for the defeat of any measure that looks like either the Obama or Intelligence panel plans. Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
of Wisconsin, who as chairman of House Judiciary a decade ago was instrumental in writing the Patriot Act, believes that law has been grossly
misapplied by the NSA to invade personal privacy much too easily. Sensenbrenner said he would continue to push his measure to almost
entirely prevent the NSA from looking at telecommunications metadata. But the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, Judiciary Chairman
Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said he would remain open to finding the makings of a deal in the Obama plan. Leahy signaled the legislative negotiating
would be much smoother if Obama suspended the bulk data collection during the talks. Much more enthusiastic was Calfornia’s Dianne
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who said she generally
supports the House proposal and views Obama’s plan “a worthy effort.” Her committee’s top
Republican, the retiring Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, was a bit more equivocal but gave a strong indication he was
eager to cut a deal based on the ideas from the House and the White House.
Plan drains PC – erodes fragile Freedom Act compromise – it’s a loss for Obama and
congressional leadership opposes
Mascaro, 14 -- Lisa, Columnist covering Congress @ LA Times, LA times, 5/21/14,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-nsa-reforms-legislation-20140522-story.html
Carefully crafted legislation that would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records
is under fire after the White House requested last-minute changes that critics say would water down its protections. A
year after Americans learned from National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA was secretly collecting vast amounts of
telephone and email data, the House is preparing to vote this week on legislation intended to curtail domestic spying. Although
the bill is
likely to pass Thursday, the changes hammered out in secretive negotiations over the last few days between the
Obama administration and leaders on Capitol Hill have led some privacy groups and civil libertarians to withdraw their
support. They warn that the revisions, including changes to what sort of government data searches would be permitted, could provide
loopholes that would allow massive data collection to continue. "I think it's ironic that a bill that was intended to increase transparency was
secretly changed," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which crafted the original legislation. "And
it was altered in worrisome ways." She said she was unsure how she would vote. So far, the changes
appear modest enough to
avoid tanking the bipartisan support needed for passage. But meddling with the accord poses inherent
risks in a divided Congress where lawmakers have grown increasingly wary of intelligence operations.
An unusual political alliance of liberal Democrats and small-government conservatives has thwarted
earlier efforts to expand spy agencies' reach into Americans' private lives. Many of those lawmakers remained
undecided Wednesday, suggesting the final vote could be closer than the White House would like. The White
House insisted Wednesday that the changes were intended to meet the shared goal of the president and
Congress to clip the vast collection of bulk "metadata," while ensuring against new directives that would impede
routine investigations or efforts to combat terrorism. Administration officials argued in the closed discussions, often held
in the third-floor Capitol suite of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), that the bill's language originally approved by the judiciary and
intelligence committees was drafted too narrowly and could limit non-bulk data collection operations. "There was no effort to soften the ban
on bulk collection," said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. "Our engagement was to ensure that the language of the USA
Freedom Act would not have any unintended consequences for routine individual investigations." Under the proposed legislation, the Justice
Department and intelligence agencies would no longer be allowed to collect from telephone companies vast amounts of so-called metadata,
including the times and lengths of calls but not the contents of conversations. Instead they would need to narrow searches by making "specific
selection" requests based on certain criteria. The bill would also require the government to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court
order for any such requests — with an exception for emergencies that would allow data collection up to seven days before approval must be
sought. But at the request of the White House, the definition of "specific selection" was changed. Initially, a search would have been required
to uniquely describe a "person, entity or account." The White House complained that the definition was too narrow and would impede even
routine investigations. The new language more broadly defines "specific selection" as a "discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a
person, entity, account, address or device." Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the addition of the
words "such as" make the new language "too expansive" and would allow "for much broader orders than privacy advocates are envisioning."
The American Civil Liberties Union said the new bill "leaves much to be desired." In
the Democratic-controlled Senate, which is
considering its own version of the bill, similar bipartisan objections have been raised. The top
Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he was concerned
about the new version, and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he
would seek to restore certain provisions. Those familiar with the negotiations said the lawmakers won
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
key concessions from the administration in return for the changes — including the appointment of
advocates who can review FISA court decisions. The government would also be required to "promptly" destroy any material
collected that was deemed irrelevant to an investigation rather than be allowed to retain it indefinitely.
Even Watered Down Freedom Act was tough – plan drains PC – triggers bipartisan
congressional and committee opposition
Gross, 14
Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service,
InfoWorld, 6/6/14, http://www.infoworld.com/d/security/senators-question-need-rein-in-nsasurveillance-243872?page=0,1
Senators question need to rein in NSA surveillance Several senators say they oppose reform legislation,
even though many advocates see the USA Freedom Act as too weak The U.S. Congress would endanger the
nation's security by passing even watered-down legislation to limit the National Security Agency's bulk collection of
domestic phone records, several U.S. senators said Thursday. Several members of the Senate Intelligence
Committee voiced opposition to the USA Freedom Act, a bill aimed at reining in NSA bulk collection of telephone and other records,
even though many civil liberties groups and technology companies have questioned whether the bill would work as its sponsors originally
envisioned. With
the USA Freedom Act, Congress is "compromising to please a skeptical and frequently misinformed
public" that's mistakenly worried about NSA surveillance, Senator Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, said during a hearing on the House bill,
taking place one year after the first leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden were published. The USA Freedom Act would ban what
the NSA and the U.S. Department of Justice consider "bulk" collection of phone and business records, said James Cole, deputy attorney general
at the DOJ. But Cole parsed the definition of "bulk" collection. Quoting a House Intelligence Committee report on the USA Freedom Act, Cole
said, "Bulk collection means indiscriminate acquisition. It does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communication records."
Therefore, the House bill would allow the NSA collection of large numbers of records, if that collection were approved by the U.S. surveillance
court. An amended definition of what records the bill allows the NSA to collect gives the agency wide latitude, said Senator Mark Udall, a
Colorado Democrat. The version of the USA Freedom Act that passed the House "is not the true reform I've demanded, and many other
Americans have demanded, for years," he said. The House bill is "vague enough to still allow the collection of mass information," Udall said.
"The NSA has shown time and time again it will seize on any wiggle room in the law, and there's plenty of that in this bill." The
NSA phone
records program helps protect national security, several senators argued, even though critics have found that many
of the examples of investigations given to justify the program have only a limited connection to it. Nevertheless, the Senate should
"step back" and reconsider whether to pass the USA Freedom Act, said Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia
Republican. "It seems to me this bill is fixing a lot of things that simply aren't broken," Chambliss said. "My name is in [the NSA database] along
with everybody else's. But frankly, I'm not worried because I don't talk to terrorists." The House of Representatives passed a watered-down
version of the USA Freedom Act, approved by Obama's administration, in May despite concerns from privacy advocates that it would allow the
NSA to continue to collect business records under broad categories. The CEOs of Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and other tech
companies urged senators to narrow the definition of records the NSA could search. "Unfortunately, the version that just passed the House of
Representatives could permit bulk collection of Internet 'metadata,' something that the Administration and Congress said they intended to
end," the tech CEOs said in a letter to senators Thursday. Several
former backers of the USA Freedom Act, including some of its
original sponsors, withdrew their support for the bill after lawmakers made changes to it, advocated by the
Obama administration, in the week leading up to the May 22 House vote. A major change to the bill before the House vote was an expanded
definition of a 'specific selection term" that the NSA must use to target its searches. The amended version of the bill allows the NSA to target
things such as a "person, entity, accounts, address, or device," instead of, in the original language, a "person, entity, or account." The words
"address" and "device" in the new language, as well as the open-ended term "such as," would allow the NSA to target wide groups of people,
critics have said. The new version of the bill would allow the NSA to target an entire state, an entire phone network or an entire email provider,
Harley Geiger, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, told senators. Still,
several members of the
intelligence committee, Republicans and Democrats, questioned the need for even the watered-down
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
bill. Leaks by Snowden have led to the "continual demonization" of the NSA, said Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland,
where the NSA is headquartered. People working at the NSA "keep America safe," she said. Senator John "Jay" Rockefeller, a West Virginia
Democrat, called the proposed NSA reform "unnecessary and unpredictable." The USA Freedom Act "might make the
public feel better," but would hurt national security. he said.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Metadata – Ideology/Security
Curtailing meta-data creates massive fights – ideology and national security concerns
– it alienates the GOP
*definitely a 1NC card
Steinhauer, 15 (Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, New York Times political writers, 5-302015, "Surveillance Vote in Senate Is Tangled in G.O.P. Debate", New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/surveillance-vote-in-senate-is-tangled-in-gopdebate.html?ref=topics, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — Since
2011, when Republicans took control of the House, Congress has lurched from one deadline to the
next, as Republicans and Democrats have sparred bitterly over funding for the government, the ability to lift the debt
ceiling and other policy matters. But unlike those fights, the Senate’s showdown this weekend over the future of the
government’s dragnet of American phone records is not the result of a partisan fracas. It is an ideological battle
within the Republican Party, pitting the Senate majority leader against the speaker of the House and, in
the Senate, newcomers against long-serving members, and defense hawks against a rising tide of younger, more
libertarian-minded members often from Western states. Senate leaders are expected to try to assemble a compromise surveillance bill
on Sunday that can get the required votes to proceed before the authorizing law expires Monday. President Obama and his director of national
intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., added more pressure with sharp statements on Friday and Saturday calling for immediate approval of a
House-passed surveillance bill. “A small group of senators is standing in the way, and, unfortunately, some folks are trying to
use this
debate to score political points,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “But this shouldn’t and can’t be about politics. This is a
matter of national security.” Even if a compromise can be reached in a rare Sunday session in the Senate, all signs point to at least a temporary
expiration on Monday of a key section of the Patriot Act that the government has been using to sweep up vast amounts of telephone
“metadata.” Last month, the
House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the
metadata surveillance exposed by Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency. But in the Senate, that
measure failed on a procedural vote this month, and efforts to pass a short-term extension collapsed under objections by three
senators. On Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, will try again. But opponents of a quick resolution,
like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, can easily force a delay. “They can take things into the middle of the week,” said
Representative Devin Nunes of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “This is very likely to go on for a few days.” Over
the congressional recess last week, Senate Republican leaders reached out to Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the House
Judiciary Committee chairman, to see if he would negotiate a compromise with Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Senate
Intelligence Committee chairman and a strong opponent of changes to current law. Mr. Goodlatte declined. Mr. Paul signaled to political
supporters that he intended to keep fighting. “We fought a revolution over this,” he said at a Republican Party meeting on Friday in
Rock Hill, S.C. Several factors have combined to force the showdown. The revelations of the breadth of the program have increased voter
distrust of it, members of Congress said. American companies have complained that foreign customers have been turned off by their products
because of fears their privacy would be at risk if they purchased computers and cellphones made in the United States. Democrats and an
increasing number of Republicans make up a growing alliance of members as concerned with civil liberties as national security. “People who
could not agree on anything have come together on this issue,” said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties
Union. “That has created a different dynamic in Congress, which has been so partisan over the last several years. These divisions are not along
party lines. They are over something else entirely.” Under the bipartisan bill, known as the
USA Freedom Act, changes would be
made to the Patriot Act to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called national security
letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies and could be retrieved by intelligence
agencies only after approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. That has
been strongly opposed by Mr.
McConnell and more than two dozen other senators who fear ending the program would endanger
national security. Mr. Nunes said negotiators on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had laid out a series of options to revise
the USA Freedom Act. They included adding a certification process to ensure that the technology is ready to move metadata storage to the
telephone companies, allowing for a longer transition to telephone company storage of the data and making permanent two other provisions:
authority to track a “lone wolf” terrorism suspect not connected to a state sponsor and “roving” surveillance of a suspect rather than of a
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
phone number to combat terrorists who frequently discard cellphones. Mr. McConnell most likely will not know what combination of those
changes might garner the necessary votes until senators have gathered Sunday. But he was optimistic that a deal that would pass the Senate
and House could be reached, even if that took a few days. “I believe that on Sunday night, they’re going to come up with a path forward, or
take the bill as is,” he said. Among the 12 Republicans who voted for the House bill last weekend, clear trends have emerged. Ten are freshmen,
and all but one are younger than 60, below the average age for senators. The majority are from Western states. Five — Senators Ted Cruz of
Texas, Jeff Flake of Arizona, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah and Tim Scott of South Carolina — voted in opposition to the senior
and older Republican senator from their state. The perspective they share “is that if there is any way to do intelligence and keep us safe but not
touch Americans’ private records, we should do that,” said Mr. Lankford, who fits all four categories of trends. In the House, longstanding
national security hawks have bent to the will of younger members or evolved in their thinking about the law. In 2013, Representative Jim
Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin and an author of the Patriot Act, wrote to the attorney general at the time, Eric H. Holder Jr., to say, “I
am extremely troubled by the F.B.I.’s interpretation of this legislation.” He is an author of the House bill that would change the law. Speaker
John A. Boehner of Ohio, has been convinced that the House bill would improve the current law, including adding emergency authority to
continue collecting metadata if someone already lawfully targeted by agents then unexpectedly showed up in the United States. In the search
for a compromise, the
biggest issue is a fierce dispute between House Republican leaders and Mr. McConnell
over whether the National Security Agency can develop the technology that will allow telephone companies to store massive
amounts of phone records, search that data when the government presents a warrant and then transmit the search results to the N.S.A. Mr.
McConnell and Mr. Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, say it cannot be done in the six-month transition period mandated by
the USA Freedom Act. Mr. Burr has demanded a two-year wait. House leaders from both parties say that is unnecessary, but Mr. Nunes
proposed a compromise: inserting a certification process into the legislation so the technology could be proved before the six-month window
closes. If it cannot, a longer transition would be triggered. Many architects of the USA Freedom Act oppose even that, although they are
confident such a certification could be met. Mr. Nunes said if a compromise like that could win overwhelming Senate support, it would
overcome such reservations in the House.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Metadata – Republicans/2016
Creates fights and divides republicans – gets drawn into 2016 election debates
Peoples, 15 (Steve Peoples and Ken Dilanian, writers on presidential politics for AP, 5-18-2015,
"Republicans clash over NSA surveillance powers", Associated Press,
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_NSA_SURVEILLANCE, DA: 5-30-2015)
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Republicans
clashed over the future of government surveillance programs on Monday,
highlighting a deep divide among the GOP's 2016 presidential class over whether the National Security
Agency should be collecting American citizens' phone records in the name of preventing terrorism. Republican White House
hopeful Rand Paul decried the phone data program and other post-9-11 domestic surveillance as unconstitutional at a Monday event outside
Philadelphia's Independence Hall. "We will do everything possible — including filibustering the Patriot Act — to stop them," the Kentucky
senator charged in front of the building where the Declaration of Independence was signed. Three hundred miles to the north, New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie offered an unapologetic defense of NSA phone records collection as he faced voters in the first-inthe-nation primary state of New Hampshire. Christie, who said he used the Patriot Act as a federal prosecutor, argued that
government surveillance powers should be strengthened, not weakened. "When it comes to fighting terrorism, our
government is not the enemy," Christie declared. "Absolutely no one has a single real example of our intelligence services misusing this
program for political or other nefarious purposes." The revelation that the NSA had for years been secretly collecting all records of U.S. landline
phone calls was among the most controversial disclosures by Snowden, a former NSA systems administrator who in 2013 leaked thousands of
secret documents to journalists. The program collects the number called, along with the date, time and duration of call, but not the content or
people's names. It stores the information in an NSA database that a small number of analysts query for matches against the phone numbers of
known terrorists abroad, hunting for domestic connections to plots. Intelligence officials call the program useful, but can point to no single
terrorist plot uncovered because of it. Monday's clash comes just as Congress debates the future of the Patriot Act,
which authorizes the phone records program. The law will expire on June 1 unless Congress acts. The House has passed a bill that would end
the NSA's collection and storage of the phone records, but would allow the agency to gather them from the phone companies on a case-by-case
basis. Some in
the Senate, including Republican leader Mitch McConnell, want to continue the program as is, with
the NSA keeping all the records. Christie and another presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., are in McConnell's camp,
arguing that it's critical to extend the provision to fight terrorism. So is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose aides
addressed the issue head on for the first time Monday. "In light of the growing terrorist threat to the United States, Governor Bush
supports extending responsible intelligence and law enforcement authorities—including the NSA metadata program—in order
to help keep us safe against the asymmetric terrorist threats facing our country," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said. During an interview
with The Associated Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker three times declined to say whether he supported reauthorizing the program. He
said it was "important to be able to collect information like that," as long as there were unspecified privacy safeguards.
After the interview, a spokesman emailed to say that Walker supported continuing the program as it exists, with the NSA
storing American phone records. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, strikes a middle ground, supporting a Senate version of the House bill that preserves
the program while ending NSA bulk collection and storage. Paul goes the furthest, arguing that the Patriot Act should expire. That would end
the phone records program and also other unrelated counter terrorism provisions, including a provision that makes it easier for the FBI to track
"lone wolf" terror suspects. The House bill would transfer too much power to telephone companies, he said. "They have the votes inside the
Beltway," he said. "But we have the votes outside the Beltway. And we'll have that fight." Obama supports the House legislation, known as the
USA Freedom Act, which is in line with a proposal he made last March. So, too, does Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who on Twitter recently endorsed the House plan. Overall, however, Clinton
has been vague on her position on the
surveillance program. The former secretary of state has also been critical of Snowden, whom she says could have acted as a
whistleblower without damaging national security. He leaked thousands of top secret NSA documents and fled to Russia to escape prosecution.
Christie took aim at Snowden during a full-throated defense of American intelligence gathering. "When Edward Snowden revealed our
intelligence secrets to the world in 2013, civil liberties extremists seized that moment to advance their very own narrow agenda," Christie said.
"They want you to think that there's a government agent listening in every time you pick up the phone or Skype with your grandkids." He called
that notion "exaggerated and ridiculous." Paul, meanwhile, has been less critical of Snowden. He declined Monday to say whether, if elected,
he would pardon the former government contractor. But he equated Snowden and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, whom
some say misled Congress about NSA surveillance. "It would probably be just and informative to put Clapper and Snowden in the same cell for
the same period of time," Paul said.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Metadata – Controversy
Bulk data reform controversial despite some agreement – ideology
Cohen 14 [Tom Cohen, Consultant at The World Bank and CNN correspondent, Lisa Desjardins and Jim
Acosta, CNN 3-5-2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/white-house-nsa/]
President Barack Obama and congressional leaders described similar proposals Tuesday for
ending the National Security
Agency's sweeping collection of bulk telephone records. Obama told reporters in The Netherlands that his intelligence team gave
him a "workable" option for NSA reform that he said would "eliminate" concerns about how the government keeps the records known as
metadata. At a news conference in Washington, the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee said they worked out their own bipartisan
compromise on a similar proposal intended to alleviate what they characterized as unfounded fears of excessive government surveillance. The
nearly simultaneous remarks demonstrated progress toward Obama's call in January for NSA changes in the aftermath
of last year's classified leaks by former agency contractor Edward Snowden that revealed the magnitude of surveillance programs created in
response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Congressional battle
coming However, the issue touches on deep
political and ideological fissures between Republicans and Democrats, promising an extended battle in
Congress over the necessary legislation -- especially in an election year.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Metadata – Link Magnifier
Even small changes trigger backlash from security officials and congress
Liebelson, 14 (Dana Liebelson, political reporter for Mother Jones, 1-16-2014, "Obama's NSA reforms
are going to tick off everyone", Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obamansa-reforms-spying-telephone-mad-privacy, DA: 5-23-2015)
If Obama Imposes Modest Limits on the NSA's Telephone Metadata Collection Program… Who gets mad? The
NSA, Feinstein, and other members of Congress The NSA will be happy if, as expected, Obama okays its continued collection
of bulk phone metadata. However, he may well make some modest changes to this program, according to the New York
Times, such as cutting back the number of people whose phone records the NSA can look at and limiting the time the NSA can hold on to the
records. Even such slight reforms will
upset folks in the intelligence community. According to the Times, "Some
[intelligence] officials complained that [Obama's] changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder
the hunt for potential terrorists." Some members of Congress also oppose modest limits to the NSA's collection
powers.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Metadata – A2: Obama Avoids/Plan Not Congress
Freedom act passage clears the deck, plan drains PC and agenda tradeoff, Obama can’t
avoid it – 7 reasons - every option triggers major fights, it’s a loss, flip flop, focus and
docket crowd out, requires congress and Obama cant avoid even if he tries
Gerstein, 14 -- Josh Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA reform,
dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will
try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out
reforms to U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil
liberties and national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits. Many of the key reforms he’s expected to
endorse — including changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the
U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks, all
hell’s liable to break loose on the Hill,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who will be
voting against it because Obama’s reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it because it
doesn’t defend us enough and other people voting against it because it outsources espionage.” It’s
another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks for issues that aides want to highlight in
Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and immigration. The snooping saga has been a
loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret
documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the international community. And disclosures that
widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation as a reformer who would end over-the-top
anti-terrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — denounced under
President George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain surveillance practices altogether.
For instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so it can be used to trace potential
contacts of terrorism suspects. But
the president has said he’s considering replacing that program with a privatewould require
Congress to step in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some
court — involvement in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis
sector-based arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That
told NPR News last week. “But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral
authority to impose dramatic reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White
House has signaled that much of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of
foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile
phone. Administration officials say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he
set up to dig into the issue: the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the
NSA’s program that has collected information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that
the metadata program — aimed at running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges
have concluded that the effort is lawful. The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the
government on a case-by-case basis with individual court warrants, something
likely to require Congress to impose new
requirements on the firms. The review group also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, so judges could hear from an attorney advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for Americans
whose data is swept up in surveillance programs. And the panel urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the chief justice
no longer has the sole power to make such picks. Those changes, too, would need legislation. All five review group members are set to publicly
promote their plans at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. “There
are a few big things you really need Congress
to do. If you want to change the appointment mechanism for the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do any kind of structural reform
of the FISC, you need it. If you want to continue the metadata program in some form, but reform it in any way,
you need an act of Congress,” said Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – NSLs/Search + Disclosure of Organizational Records
Curtailing law enforcement NSL surveillance drains PC – perception of ties to antiterror efforts and difficulties of repealing existing laws ensure stickiness – despite
powerful political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to
modify or repeal portions can prove challenging. An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th
terrorist attacks.[5] At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous
letters containing weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within
the United States, began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded
the definition of terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury
(DOT), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the
recent NSA surveillance revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the
Act, which relates directly to the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another
contentious area is the Act’s permitting searches of personal library records and other organizational
files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand disclosure of
certain records from an organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without
judicial review.[8] The number of NSLs drastically increased after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued
approximately 8,000 NSLs. In
2004, by contrast, the FBI issued 56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been
issued NSLs, though secrecy rules bar their lawyers from discussing the nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve years since the Act’s
entrance into use, governments, civic organizations, and citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal
portions of the Act without success. Two years after the Act became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New
York, and Philadelphia passed resolutions against it.[9] Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced
separate pieces of legislation seeking to scale back the Act’s original scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe v. Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious
questions about the Act’s constitutionality. Yet despite this steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of
government power, both Republican and Democratic administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set
to expire. This brief history reflects the difficulties governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting
to modify or repeal portions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason. Al-Qaeda has been
degraded significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing
vividly illustrates. In
light of the continuing threat of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why antiterrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act can prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not
meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism
laws in place.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Trick – Patriot Act – Docket Crowd Out – TPA Specific
modifying Patriot act surveillance specifically derails trade authority, TPP and econ PC loss, GOP division, house backlash, legislative stalemate, gridlock, and independent
docket crowd out - even extended House vote delay is enough
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and a
trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time. Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act
used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs
— though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it is
an
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
collection program are running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle. McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve. McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the
trade fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in
the House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security. Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time so
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna have. I
Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone records
and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a short-term
reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP and
the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
think that is unfortunate.” Top
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link/Turn Shield – Patriot Act – Ratchet Effect
Limiting Patriot Act drains PC – link only goes one way – ratchet effect – inertia and
terrorism fears outweigh, strong political support only makes fight bigger
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance
Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had been gathering the
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and
only targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence
or law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that
a request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as
part of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original
intended scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it
can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements
may have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that
Sensenbrenner describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the
“ratchet effect” in legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can
become entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely.[1] For
example, some scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline
of legal “normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent
with the ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on
how powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the
ratchet effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet
effect], it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor
do I debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Altering existing Patriot Act provisions drains PC – link only one way – ratchet effect,
political inertia, terror fears
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
What the NSA Surveillance
Controversy Can Teach Us about the Ratchet Effect and Anti-Terrorism Laws After a
terrorist attack, creating laws quickly to contend with terrorism is reasonable and appropriate. It is equally reasonable and appropriate, however, to build hedges
into those laws to guard against unsound initial judgments or assumptions. The set of policy recommendations below provides a starting point to mitigate the
potential impact of the ratchet effect upon anti-terrorism laws. Taking these steps does not guarantee that anti-terrorism laws will be easy to scale-back or reverse,
nor can it completely prevent unintentional interpretations of anti-terrorism laws. But these recommendations can increase policymakers’ awareness of the ratchet
effect, which can lead to more thoughtfully crafted and effective anti-terrorism laws. First, initial
changes may be difficult to undo. The
early legislative moves after a terrorist attack are pivotal. They set the tone for future, related
legislation. Moreover, as argued earlier in this article, changing laws can be difficult under normal circumstances,
let alone when the laws concern an issue as serious as terrorism. It is vital for leaders to get the beginning stages of a nation’s
anti-terrorism legislation right; a bad start can lead to a pattern of subsequent bad laws. This is not a call for perfection, but a plea for greater awareness of this
reality and for leaders to use this awareness when drafting laws. Second, policymakers should beware of reflexive legislation. Terror attacks create conditions in
which emotions can run high; feelings of terror, anger, sadness, confusion, and frustration are natural consequences of these circumstances. Behavioral psychology
teaches us that human beings’ higher-order thinking skills (e.g. logic, reasoning, analysis, reflection) are poorly integrated with baser, emotionally-rooted thinking
(e.g. irrational prejudices, unreasonable fears, self-destructive desires).[11] One researcher has gone so far as to say that the amygdala—the portion of the brain
that controls reactive emotion—can hijack the higher-order parts of the brain, impeding effective decision-making in crises.[12] Considering this, it is reasonable to
suggest that laws passed in the immediate aftermath of terrorist attacks may be rooted more in baser, emotionally-driven thinking than in careful, analytical,
higher-order thinking. In other words, they may be mostly reflexive, not reflective. This is not to say that all laws passed after terrorist attacks are emotionallydriven. Nor is it the case that all laws created in these circumstances are somehow “bad” laws. But during and after terrorist attacks, leaders’
judgment
of what may or may not be good law can become clouded by emotion. Similarly, terrorist attacks can drive
public support for reflexive anti-terrorism legislation. And this is not an instinct that can be somehow
“shut off” or “tuned out.” Legislators and citizens should be aware of this potential, and must walk a fine line between meeting immediate post-crisis
needs and championing laws that will remain effective for the long haul. Third, “sunset” provisions are prudent and reasonable. Given that anti-terrorism laws
passed in the wake of terrorist attacks may be partly driven by emotion and that initial
laws may prove difficult to undo, it is wise for
government leaders to include “sunset” provisions in new anti-terrorism laws. Generally “sunset” provisions allow portions of a
law to expire if not renewed by a pre-determined date. In a sense, democracies must deliver a new mandate for the law—or at least part of the
law—to avoid this expiration. With “sunset” provisions in place, unwise, irrelevant, or ineffective components of a law can be allowed to wither and die when
Letting these provisions lapse requires virtually no political capital from government leaders, unlike actively
changing or removing a law, which can require a great deal. For elected officials, this means that letting part of an anti-terrorism
necessary.
law expire is relatively easy. Re-examining and pruning anti-terrorism laws in this way is a healthy practice. It can head off potential abuses of particularly aggressive
anti-terrorism measures and forces a continual re-thinking of anti-terrorism laws as circumstances change over time. The
recent NSA surveillance
controversy highlights the relevance of the ratchet effect to broader discussions of anti-terrorism laws.
The ratchet effect can affect anti-terrorism laws generally, entrenching and expanding them over time and
potentially leading to those laws being interpreted in unexpected and undesirable ways. The USA PATRIOT Act, developed in the aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks, has been difficult to scale back since then, and has now been interpreted in a way that at least one of the Act’s authors did not
intend. This unintended interpretation of the Act led, in part, to today’s NSA surveillance controversy. Scholars can benefit from
future explorations of the ratchet effect, which may help illuminate further why anti-terrorism laws remain in place
and how their influence can expand in unanticipated ways.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Modifying Patriot Act drains PC – perception of ties to anti-terror efforts ensure
stickiness – outweighs political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to modify
or repeal portions can prove challenging. An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th terrorist attacks.[5]
At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous letters containing
weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within the United States,
began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded the definition of
terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the Department
of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the recent NSA surveillance
revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act, which relates directly to the NSA’s
collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area is the Act’s permitting searches of personal library records and
other organizational files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand disclosure of certain records
from an organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without judicial review.[8] The number of NSLs drastically
increased after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 8,000 NSLs. In 2004, by contrast, the FBI
issued 56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs, though secrecy rules bar their lawyers from discussing
the nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve
years since the Act’s entrance into use, governments, civic organizations, and
citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the Act without success. Two years after the Act
became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia passed resolutions against it.[9] Members of
the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of legislation seeking to scale back the Act’s original
scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe v.
Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the Act’s constitutionality. Yet despite this
steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both Republican and Democratic
administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history reflects the difficulties
governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or repeal portions of the USA
PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason. Al-Qaeda has been degraded significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a
significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly illustrates. In light of the continuing
threat of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why anti-terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT
Act can prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a
constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism laws in place.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Patriot Act
Expanding scope of Patriot Act reforms drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership
and requires political concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The
House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would
reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a
vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act.
... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications
without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather
data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet.
The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee
member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the
overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by many in
positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without
changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said,
because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an
amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should
force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that
provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth
Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Plan’s unpopular – divides Congress and requires Obama’s push – FREEDOM Act
proves
DeBonis, 15 (Mike DeBonis and Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post political writers, 5-23-2015,
"Senate rejects compromise bill on surveillance", Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-is-playing-chicken-with-nsa-spy-program-whitehouse-says/2015/05/22/796e3574-00af-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html, DA: 5-23-2015) – this
evidence has been [modified] for ableist language
Senators left Capitol Hill early Saturday morning without taking action to extend or replace a controversial
surveillance program set to expire at month’s end, paralyzed [immobilized] by a debate over the proper balance between
civil liberties and national security. In an after-midnight vote, the Senate turned back a House-passed bill that would end the
National Security Agency’s bulk collection of private telephone records, the only legislation that offered a smooth transition ahead of a June 1
deadline. A small cadre of senators,
led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.), then rejected a variety of short-term extensions to the
current authority in a dramatic floor exchange. That led Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to recall senators to the Capitol a
day earlier than planned, on May 31, for a rare Sunday session hours ahead of the deadline. An Obama administration official said Saturday that
because Senate did not take action, the process of winding down the surveillance program is now underway. The
rejection of the
compromise legislation was the latest turn in a complex standoff over government surveillance
authority that has pitted Democrats, House Republican leaders, Senate Republican leaders and Paul, a
presidential candidate, against one another as members of Congress eyed a week-long holiday break. It is unclear what difference a
week will make. The positions of national security hawks like McConnell and civil libertarians like Paul have
barely softened, while the House-passed, White House-supported compromise measure was unable to gain
the 60 votes necessary to proceed. A procedural vote on the bill failed 57-42. “Sometimes things change as deadlines approach,” Paul said as
he left the Capitol early Saturday. In floor remarks, he demanded simple-majority votes on two amendments to the House bill, known as the
USA Freedom Act, in order to drop his opposition to moving it forward. “Our forefathers would be aghast,” he said about the spy program.
After McConnell ended debate, Paul tweeted, “The Senate will return one week from Sunday. With your help we can end illegal NSA spying
once and for all.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), McConnell’s top leadership deputy, said after the votes that “Sen. Paul
is asking for
something that nobody will agree to.” The amendments Paul is seeking, he said, would not comport with Senate rules. “My hope
is in the meantime ... after everybody gets a good night sleep and is thinking clearly, that we can figure a way forward on this,” Cornyn said.
Frustration with Paul — especially from fellow Republicans — became increasingly obvious as the long night wore on. Paul held the Senate floor
for nearly 11 hours Wednesday to decry any extension of current law, and many had hoped that “performance,” as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
called it, would suffice. It did not. Paul objected to a 7-day extension to the current law, taking advantage of Senate rules protecting the right of
an individual senator to oppose quick action on any question. McConnell then proposed, in turn, four-day and two-day extensions, which were
opposed by Democrats Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (N.M.), respectively. When McConnell finally offered a one-day extension, Paul
objected again, prompting the unusual Sunday session. “There’s
a new breed in the Senate, and we have seen the manifestation of
it,” McCain said.” One or two or three are willing to stand up against the will of the majority. Some time ago, the
Senate people would sit down and try to work things out. And obviously these individuals don’t believe in that. But I’m sure it’s a great revenue
raiser.” Throughout recent days, Paul’s presidential campaign issued a steady stream of e-mail solicitations to supporters and a flurry of tweets
to the world highlighting his efforts to end the NSA surveillance program. Aside from Paul’s parliamentary maneuvers, intrigue surrounded
whether the Senate’s action, when it comes, would gain House approval before the surveillance authority’s expiration. The
House, now on
the White House-backed bill replacing the existing program with one that would keep the
phone records in private hands except under limited circumstances. But McConnell and most fellow Senate Republicans
fiercely opposed that legislation, calling it untested and potentially harmful to national security. In
unusually lengthy floor remarks kicking off the Senate’s business Friday morning, McConnell said the system established under the
House bill is “untried” and would be “slower and more cumbersome than the one that currently helps keep
us safe.” “At a moment of elevated threat, it would be a mistake to take from our intelligence community any of
the valuable tools needed to build a complete picture of terrorist networks and their plans,” McConnell said. “The
intelligence community needs these tools to protect Americans.” Later in the day, White House press secretary Josh Earnest renewed
an extended recess of its own, passed
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
calls to pass the USA Freedom Act, saying any other legislation would lead to a lapse in legal authority for the phone records
program — which would phase out over a six-month period — as well as other less-controversial investigative tools. “The fact is, we’ve got
people in the United States Senate right now who are playing chicken with this,” he said, adding that “there is no plan B” if the
House bill is not passed. The controversy began in June 2013, when The Guardian newspaper published a document that revealed the National
Security Agency was collecting “all call detail records” from Verizon. The document, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and the
government’s subsequent acknowledgment of the program, touched off a national debate about the proper scale of U.S. surveillance. In
December that year, a presidentially appointed review group recommended that the government end NSA’s storage of phone data, citing
“potential risks to public trust, personal privacy and civil liberty.” In January, 2014, President Obama called for an end to the agency’s bulk
collection and essentially left it to Congress to come up with a replacement that would protect national security while respecting privacy. A year
ago, the House passed a version of the USA Freedom Act, but later that year the Senate failed by two votes to advance its own version — after
McConnell led a filibuster to block it. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Thursday proposed extending the USA
Freedom Act’s six-month transition away from bulk data collection to two years. But Democrats and many House Republicans oppose any
extension to the current legal authority, initially passed under Section 215 of the 2001 Patriot Act, or any substantive changes to the USA
Freedom Act. Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. -(R-Wis.), a lead author of the USA Freedom Act, called Burr’s proposal a “last-ditch effort to kill”
the House bill. “If the Senate coalesces around this approach, the result will be the expiration of important authorities needed to keep our
country safe,” he said in a statement. “[T]he Senate should make no mistake, if it does not pass the bill and the provisions expire — it will have
a lot of questions to answer about why it decided to play legislative chicken with important intelligence tools,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (DCalif.), ranking Democrat of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. But Cornyn said Thursday he believed the other chamber would flinch:
“The House isn’t going to let this go dark,” he said, exiting a lunchtime Republican caucus meeting Friday. The Obama administration has
spent days calling and briefing senators and reporters, arguing that the only path forward that avoids legal
and operational uncertainty is to pass the USA Freedom Act. Extending Section 215 as it is, they say, would be risky legally. This
month, a federal appeals court in New York ruled that the NSA program was unlawful because it was not supported by that statute. It held off
on halting the program only because it recognized that Congress was debating its future and might change the program or change the law to
expressly authorize it. Even a short-term reauthorization, administration officials say, would risk a federal court stopping the program — and
there would be nothing at that point to replace it. The American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiff in the case heard by the appeals court, would
likely seek an injunction if Congress passes a stopgap. “If this program is in place for any longer than June 1, our goal is to get a court order
shutting the program down,” said ACLU staff attorney Alex Abdo. Operationally, officials say, if it is not clear that they will have authority to
continue running the program past June 1, they will have to begin dismantling it in the coming days lest they “run the risk of . . . continuing to
collect without the authority” to do so, according to an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. McConnell has
criticized the USA Freedom Act for not mandating that companies retain phone records for any period of
time, thus risking that records that might prove important could be lost if they are not all collected upfront, as they are under the
current program.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – PRISM – Post Freedom Act
PRISM reforms drain PC post Freedom Act – uniquely unpopular and lack constituency
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest
overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views,
calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone
records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database
from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts
when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released
to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data
collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and
NSA from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define
“specific search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term
and give the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to
congressional intent, but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the
old version of the Patriot Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom
Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of
overseas Internet traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called
Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about
the privacy rights of people who don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act that authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress
to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the expiring sections of the
Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the
committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican
leaders opposed to more
changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional leadership, however. Senate
Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused to allow amendments
that would require further changes at the NSA. In the House, Republican leaders threatened to kill the
USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to address other surveillance programs. Still,
many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new surveillance limits, with lawmakers adding an amendment to
end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill this week. Obama’s administration has
threatened to veto the appropriations bill for several unrelated reasons, but several House members have pledged to push hard to prohibit the
FBI and CIA from searching the content of reportedly tens of thousands of U.S. communications swept up in an NSA surveillance program
targeting overseas terrorism suspects. Closing that surveillance backdoor is a top priority for civil liberties groups, said Neema Singh Guliani, a
legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C., legislative office. “We’ve had this statute that masquerades as
affecting only people abroad, but the reality is that it sweeps up large numbers of U.S. persons,” she said. Other changes possible Advocates
and lawmakers will also push for a handful of other surveillance reforms in the coming months. The changes most
likely to pass make limited changes to surveillance programs, however. While not tied to NSA surveillance, lawmakers
will press for changes to the 29-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a wiretap law that gives law enforcement agencies
warrantless access to emails and other communications stored in the cloud for more than six months. A House version of ECPA reform counts
more than half the body as co-sponsors. Still, tech companies and civil liberties groups have been pushing since 2010 to have those
law enforcement agencies and some Republican lawmakers have
successfully opposed the changes. Another bill that may gain traction in coming months is the Judicial Redress Act, a bill that
communications protected by warrants, but
would allow citizens of some countries to file lawsuits under the U.S. Privacy Act if government agencies misuse their records. “The Privacy Act
offers limited protections, even to Americans, but passage of this bill would be an important first step to addressing especially European
concerns that US privacy reforms won’t help them,” said Berin Szoka, president of free market think tank TechFreedom. Public pressure, along
with potentially new leaks, will be the key to driving any more surveillance changes, advocates said. “The public will for mass surveillance laws
was made very clear recently, and that’s partly why we saw much of Congress flock to whatever could be called surveillance reform,” said
Tiffiniy Cheng, a founder of digital rights group Fight for the Future. “No one is fooled by USA
Freedom—it’s a weak piece of
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
legislation that uses exceptions in legislative language to codify the NSA’s practice of surveilling most
people.” Congress has much work left to do, Cheng said by email. “After the recent showdown and public outcry, USA Freedom is at best,
seen as a beginning of surveillance reform, not the end,” she said.
Restricting PRISM drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership, sparks powerful
opposition, legislative gridlock, and requires political concessions despite popularity –
empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The
House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would
reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a
vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act.
... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (RTexas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to
collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of
Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the
Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their
devices, so that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our
intelligence agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search
of American citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse
into the political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While
every committee member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear
that it would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is
going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to
by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act
without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate
effort would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the
amendment said, because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be
when the House of Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought
up as an amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which
should force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
that provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the
Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
PRISM reforms drain PC – 7 reasons - lack of looming sunset, national security fears,
committee opposition, loss for obama, flip flop, bipartisan leaders oppose, supporters
only trigger larger fight
Sasso, 14 -- Brendan Sasso, National Journal, 3/25/14, Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed
Their Minds, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds20140325
It was only months ago that President Obama,
with bipartisan backing from the heads of Congress's Intelligence
committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program was key to keeping Americans safe from the
next major terrorist attack. They were also dismissing privacy concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the
necessary safeguards were already in place. But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and the NSA's
top supporters in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. And civil-liberties groups—awash in
their newly won clout—are declaring victory. The
question is no longer whether to change the program, but how
dramatically to overhaul it. So what changed? It's not that Obama and his Hill allies suddenly saw the error
of their ways and became born-again privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical section of the Patriot
Act set to expire next year, they realized they had no choice but to negotiate. If Congress fails to
reauthorize that provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's collection of U.S. records would have
to end entirely. And the growing outrage prompted by the Snowden leaks means that the NSA's supporters would almost certainly lose
an up-or-down vote on the program. Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that looming
sunset is what forced lawmakers to the bargaining table. "I think what has changed is the growing realization that the
votes are simply not there for reauthorization," he said in an interview. "I think that more than anything else,
that is galvanizing us into action." Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their
proposals are now the NSA's best bet to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror
plots. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated
she is on board with the changes, saying the president's proposal is a "worthy effort." And though the Hill's NSA allies are
now proposing reforms to the agency, they don't seem particularly excited about it. At a Capitol Hill press
conference Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep.
Dutch Ruppersberger, the panel's top Democrat, often sounded like they were arguing against their own
bill that they were unveiling. "I passionately believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said.
Ruppersberger said if the program had been in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11
attacks. But the lawmakers acknowledged there is broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently
structured. "We need to do something about bulk collection because of the perception of our constituents," Ruppersberger admitted.
Under their legislation, the vast database of phone records would stay in the hands of the phone companies. The NSA could force the phone
companies to turn over particular records, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact. But
Rogers rejected a reporter's suggestion that the NSA should have never had control of the massive database of phone records in the first place.
"There was no abuse, no illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said. For
all their hesitance, however, Rogers and company
much prefer their version to a competing proposal to change the way the government gathers information. That would
be the USA Freedom Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that
Rogers and his ilk fear would go too far in hamstringing the NSA. The USA Freedom Act would require
the NSA to meet a tougher standard for the data searches and would limit other NSA programs, such as
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Internet surveillance of people overseas. Additionally, President Obama is expected to unveil his own plan to reform the
controversial phone data collection program this week. According to The New York Times, Obama's proposal would also keep the
database in the hands of the phone companies. His plan would have tougher judicial oversight than the
House bill by requiring pre-approval from the court for every targeted phone number, the newspaper reported. But though the
momentum has shifted and officials seem to be coalescing around a framework for overhauling the NSA
program, the question is far from settled. Leahy and Sensenbrenner are not backing off from their USA
Freedom Act, and outside groups will continue their policy push as well.
drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership and requires political concessions
despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The
House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would
reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a
vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act.
... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications
without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather
data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet.
The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee
member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the
overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by many in
positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without
changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said,
because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an
amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should
force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth
Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new limits drain PC
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what critics
have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be
reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA
Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours
later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to
resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers,
including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be
difficult to get “broad, sweeping
reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the
office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance
reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other
activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more
restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—
that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for
low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater
we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass
surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual
physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link/Turn Shield – PRISM – Ratchet Effect
Limiting PRISM drains PC – link only goes one way – ratchet effect – inertia and
terrorism fears outweigh, strong political support only makes fight bigger
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had been gathering the metadata
of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that PRISM, a top
secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known information
technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only targeted non-US
citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly opposing the
NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times condemned the NSA
surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the constitutionality of the
NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely outrageous” on Twitter. But
others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t bother me one bit for the
NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, credited
the NSA
surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the attacks of September 11,
2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among the American
public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the surveillance
debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC)
interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far came from
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first drafted, one of
the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or law
enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a
request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as
part of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original
intended scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it
can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements
may have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that
Sensenbrenner describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the
“ratchet effect” in legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can
become entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely.[1] For
example, some scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline
of legal “normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent
with the ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on
how powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the
ratchet effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet
effect], it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor
do I debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to unwind.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – PRISM – Fights
Curtailing internet surveillance triggers massive fights in congress—backlash from
hawks over national security – PRISM uniquely controversial
*note – also under “Link – Soft on Terror”
Volz and Fox, Reporters for the National Journal, 6-3-2015
(Dustin and Lauren, “THE WAR OVER NSA SPYING IS JUST BEGINNING,”
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2015/06/war-over-nsa-spying-just-beginning/114394/)
But while reformers hope Tuesday's victory is an appetizer to a multiple-course meal to rein in the NSA, security
hawks—many of them
Republicans vying for the White House—hope to halt the post-Snowden momentum behind surveillance
reform. And some already are talking about unraveling the Freedom Act. "What you are seeing on the floor of the Senate is just the beginning," said Sen. Ron
Wyden, a civil-liberties stalwart in the upper chamber who serves on the intelligence committee and has worked for more than a decade to reform government
surveillance. "There is a lot more to do when—in effect—you can ensure you protect the country's safety without sacrificing our liberty." Wyden used the Freedom
Act's passage to call for additional intelligence-gathering reforms that he has long advocated, such as closing the so-called "backdoor search loophole" that allows
U.S. spies to "incidentally" and warrantlessly sweep up the email and phone communications—including some content—of Americans who correspond with
foreigners. He added he plans to move quickly on reworking Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before Congress is up backed up against its
renewal deadline in 2017. The Oregon Democrat also supports tech companies in their ongoing tussle with the administration over smartphone encryption as a key
priority. While Google and Apple have begun to build their phones with "too-tough-to-crack" encryption standards, the FBI has warned that the technology locks
out the bad guys and the good—and can impede law-enforcement investigations. Wyden and his allies, though, are bumping up against an impending presidential
campaign, where many Republicans will jockey with one another to look toughest on national security. Few issues divide the GOP White House contenders more
than NSA surveillance, as defense hawks such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio continue to defend the NSA bulk metadata program as
necessary to protect the homeland, while libertarian-leaning agitators such as Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz warn voters of the privacy perils associated with the
government's prying eyes. Rubio, who has said he'd prefer that the NSA's phone dragnet be made permanent, issued a statement after the Freedom Act's passage
saying it fell to the next president to undo its policies. "The
failure to renew the expiring components of the PATRIOT Act
was a mistake," Rubio said in a statement after the vote. "The 'USA Freedom Act' weakens U.S. national security by outlawing the very programs our
intelligence community and the FBI have used to protect us time and time again. A major challenge for the next president will be to fix the significantly
weakened intelligence system that the current one is leaving behind." Paul, meanwhile, continues to fundraise on social media and in campaign emails off his
hardline opposition to "illegal NSA bulk data collection." The Kentucky senator succeeded in drawing enormous attention to the issue by forcing a temporary lapse
this week of the Patriot Act's spy authorities, and has vowed to limit the agency's mass surveillance practices "on day one" if elected president. But Paul also was a
major obstacle for the Freedom Act's passage, repeatedly voting against it and helping delay its consideration on grounds it didn't go far enough—and codified parts
of the Patriot Act he thinks should stay dead. Cruz, meanwhile, represented the middle ground and was a chief GOP backer of the legislation, setting up a potential
argument with Paul debate stages about who has done more to fight against mass surveillance. Any jockeying between the two will expose them to sniping from
candidates on the other side of the debate, including potential candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who often goes out of his way to condemn those who
criticize government snooping. Rand Paul
already has become a regular punching bag for the GOP field's security
hawks. Back on Capitol Hill, many of the same members who were engaged in defeating metadata reform warn
that it only takes one security setback for Congress to stop taking powers away from the NSA. "The next time
there is a terrorist act within the United States, the same people are going to be coming to the floor seeking changes to the tools that our intelligence community,
our law enforcement community has at their disposal because the American people will demand it," said Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee. Sen. Susan Collins, who also serves on the intelligence panel, recognized that reforms and oversight will likely continue now that the USA Freedom Act
has passed, but she said she's not so sure supporters of the Freedom Act won't have buyer's remorse down the line. "I believe it is actually going to expose
Americans' data to greater privacy risk and to vulnerability from computer data breaches," Collins said. The
momentum to end the NSA's
phone dragnet snowballed over the past year and a half as two review panels deemed it ineffective. President Obama pledged to end it "as it
currently exists" and a federal appeals court deemed it illegal. But further reforms—such as to the Internet surveillance program known as PRISM, which
Snowden also revealed—are likely to be tougher sells in Congress. For PRISM especially, that's in part because the program is
considered more useful and because it deals primarily with surveillance of foreigners. U.S. tech companies that are subject to PRISM, including
Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, have called for changes to the program. Yet when asked about whether he would work to take down PRISM, even Wyden bristled at
the question. "I am going to keep it to the three that I am going to change," Wyden said. Even reformers outside the confines of the Senate recognize that ending
PRISM is a complicated pursuit. "It is not going to be quite as easy to drum up the same support," says Liza Goitein, codirector for the Liberty & National Security
Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Though PRISM may prove difficult to upend, other efforts, such as a broadly supported push to update the decades-old
Electronic Privacy Communications Act, may prove more palatable. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee, the lead authors of the Freedom Act in the upper chamber,
indicated their desire to move quickly on passing legislation that would update the law to require law enforcement obtain warrants before accessing the content of
Americans' old emails. The
immediate next battlefield for civil liberties groups will find them on the defense, as
they attempt to prevent legislation that would increase the sharing of certain cyber data among the private sector
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
and the government in order to better fend off data breaches. Such proposals, which already passed the
House and are likely to be before the Senate in the coming weeks, could grant the NSA access to more personal data, privacy
advocates warn. No matter how the looming debates shake out, for now, one thing is clear: the fight over the government's
surveillance operations is far from over.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – PRISM – Inertia
Plan’s unpopular – no Congressional support for reforming internet surveillance
Wagenseil, 13 (Paul Wagenseil, 12-9-2013, "6 Ways Tech Companies' 'Reform Government
Surveillance' Fails", Tom's Guide, http://www.tomsguide.com/us/reform-nsa-fail,news-17959.html, DA:
6-5-2015)
The newly unveiled public-relations campaign by top technology companies urging governments to
reform Internet surveillance
sounds noble, but other than to reassure foreign customers that American companies aren't the bad guys, it won't achieve much. "It is
time for the world's governments to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their
information," states ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com, a website sponsored and signed by AOL, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft,
Twitter and Yahoo. The same seven companies, plus Apple, placed a full-page advertisement in major American newspapers today (Dec. 9),
consisting of an open letter to President Barack Obama and Congress asking the political leaders "to take the lead and make reforms that
ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law." Neither the website nor the ad mention the National Security Agency
(NSA) by name, but the open letter says "the balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the
individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution." "While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take
action to protect their citizens' safety and security," the website says. "We strongly believe that current laws and practices need to be
reformed." The website lists five principles, some directed at foreign governments, that the seven companies would like to see enshrined in
surveillance reform: — "Sensible" limits on governmental authority to collect user information. — More independent legal oversight of
information gathering by intelligence agencies. — "Transparency about government demands" for information from private companies. —
Fewer government restrictions on "the free flow of information" (i.e. no Internet censorship) and no requirements for "service providers to
locate infrastructure within a country's borders" (as Brazil may soon require). — Standardization of national laws concerning government
requests for user information. It's hard to argue against any of those principles, which are so vague and universally acknowledged that it'd be
easy for the NSA and its backers to argue that the agency already espouses them. "The NSA believes it already complies with points 1-2-3," said
Robert Graham, co-founder and CEO of Errata Security in Atlanta. "Point 4 is a direct response to Brazil's proposed laws to relocate data. Point 5
is asking for increased government control." Furthermore, there are several reasons this ad, website and set of principles will add little to the
effort to substantially reform the NSA, and do nothing to spread that effort overseas. "It's crap marketing, [written] by marketing departments
rather than revolutionaries," Graham said. "We don't need reform making it easier for corporations to comply with government surveillance,
but a dismantling of the surveillance state." 1)The NSA will continue to find ways around encryption and other forms of communications
secrecy. Finding out things that other people don't want anyone to know is the agency's primary job, and it spends billions of dollars each year
cracking encryption. No amount of protest from Silicon Valley will change that. 2) Despite the
constant chatter of concern in
the highbrow media, there doesn't seem to be a lot of outrage among ordinary Americans about NSA spying. Nor is there
much support among U.S. politicians for limiting the NSA's abilities, which have been carefully designed to
be entirely legal. A handful of congressmen on the left and right have called for reform, but the majority will
be content to let the status quo continue. Obama has called for "self-restraint" on the part of the NSA, and he will push for
minor changes, such as an adversarial process at the secret court that oversees NSA operations inside the United States. But the essential
structure of NSA surveillance will remain the same. The next president, whether a Democrat or a Republican, will be no different. Libertarians
don't win many elections, and few
politicians get votes by promising to expand civil rights when none have
been demonstrably broken.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – PRISM – Security
There’s congressional consensus against curtailing internet surveillance – national
security outweighs privacy concerns
Davis, 13 (Julie Davis, Bloomberg Business writer, 6-8-2013, "Privacy Confronts National Security in
Obama Surveillance", Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-07/privacyconfronts-national-security-in-obama-surveillance, DA: 6-5-2015)
June 8 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s newly revealed telephone and Internet
surveillance have reopened a
national debate over balancing personal liberty with security, underscoring the degree to which
American worries about terrorism have trumped concerns about sacrificing privacy. The conversation -quiet if not dormant until recently in the absence of a terrorist attack in the U.S. -- has re-emerged in the wake of the Boston Marathon
bombings and escalated in recent days with
revelations that Obama’s administration is mining phone and Internet
data for terrorism clues. Yet amid the criticism, there’s little sign of a broader backlash against the
president or his approach, say public opinion analysts and political observers, given that Americans have
grown accustomed to the idea of sacrificing some personal liberty in the interest of staying safe from
terrorism. “There’s a lot of opposition to the specific surveillance tactics, but in general, the balance of opinion is in favor
of protection from terrorism, even at the expense of civil liberties,” said Carroll Doherty, associate director at the
Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling and public policy institute. What’s more, in a digital-technology age in
which it is commonplace for people to instantaneously post photographs and share personal accounts of
their activities on social-media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, Americans no longer expect that much of their lives
will stay private. Personal Boundaries That follows reports in recent years of new and different ways in which private companies and even
political campaigns are collecting and using personal data for marketing and other purposes, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “The difficulty
is that the world has so changed, and for the public, we’ve gone from a sense of privacy to a sense that we have lost control of our own
information, our own lives,” said Hart, chairman of Washington-based Hart Research and Associates. “To a certain extent, Americans have
created their own set of problems by using social media, and when we voluntarily give up information, we’re more accepting of this invasion,”
Hart said. “But when it’s not being given up of our own volition, we find it more threatening.” Obama, responding publicly to the controversy
for the first time yesterday, said he welcomed the debate and considered it “a sign of maturity” in the post-9/11 age. Democrats and
Republicans who “weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president” in control of government surveillance are now asking
questions, he said. Still, in defending the programs, Obama suggested
that individual rights sometimes must be
compromised for American’s safety. No 100-Percent “It’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and
then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience -- we’re going to have to make some choices as a society,” Obama told reporters in San
Jose, California. “In the abstract, you can complain about ‘Big Brother’ or how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look
at the details, then I think we’ve struck the right balance.” Some prominent
members of Congress in both parties say
they agree. The leaders of the congressional intelligence committees issued joint statements this week
defending the telephone-surveillance program and asserting its legality, saying they had been monitoring the activities regularly. “It has
proved meritorious because we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years,” said Saxby Chambliss
of Georgia, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The panel’s chairwoman, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California,
summed it up this way: “It’s called protecting America.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – Section 702 (FISA Amendment Act)
Restricting Section 702 powers drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership, sparks
powerful opposition, legislative gridlock, and requires political concessions despite
popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The
House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would
reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a
vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act.
... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (RTexas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to
collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of
Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the
Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to
include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit
searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it
without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during
Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make
in order to advance legislation. While every committee member who spoke up was in support of the amendment,
it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if this
amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
said. “This amendment is objected to by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In
the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced
legislation to renew the Patriot Act without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new
amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was
all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a
defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s
amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702
powers are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged
to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at
least two years,” said Poe.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link – “Upstream” Program
Restricting “Upstream” surveillance program drains PC – alienates Congressional
leadership, sparks powerful opposition, legislative gridlock, and requires political
concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The
House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would
reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a
vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,” said
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act.
... If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (RTexas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to
collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of
Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the
Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their
devices, so that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our
intelligence agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search
of American citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse
into the political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While
every committee member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear
that it would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is
going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to
by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act
without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate
effort would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the
amendment said, because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be
when the House of Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought
up as an amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which
should force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But
that provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the
Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Politics—ECPA Reform Unpopular
ECPA reform is a huge political fight
Rosenblatt 14 (Senior writer Seth Rosenblatt covered Google and security for CNET News, with
occasional forays into tech and pop culture. Formerly a CNET Reviews senior editor for software, he has
written about nearly every category of software and app available, “Google cheers growing support for
ECPA reform,” June 18, http://www.cnet.com/news/google-cheers-growing-support-for-ecpa-reform/,
CMR)
The ECPA changes
still face a long road ahead. While Google says that it agrees with the 2010 federal appeals court ruling that
reform bill now has a slim bipartisan
majority of support in the House, it still must be voted on by a Congress notorious for its inaction. Furthermore,
the bill is likely to face political opposition from the Justice Department, which has argued against
reform.
declared unconstitutional the portions of ECPA that pertain to email storage, and the
ECPA reform empirically unpopular – GOP resistance
Gross 14 (Grant, “Republican gains in Congress would have limited impact on big tech issues,” IDG
News Service, Oct 30, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2841572/republican-gains-in-congress-wouldhave-limited-impact-on-big-tech-issues.html, CMR)
Anticipated Republican gains in the U.S. Congress after next Tuesday’s election have limited implications for techrelated issues like net neutrality and reform of National Security Agency surveillance programs, with some observers
expecting no huge changes. Many pollsters and prognosticators are predicting Republicans will add to their majority in the House of
Representatives and possibly take over majority control of the Senate, allowing Republicans to set the legislative agenda for the next two years.
In recent years, with split party control in the two chambers of Congress, it’s been difficult for lawmakers to pass any major pieces of legislation,
particularly involving anything controversial. That may not change with Republican majorities, with many in their ranks resisting new
regulations, with a few exceptions. On many tech issues, however, there isn’t a clear partisan breakdown and trade groups have worked to
court lawmakers in both parties. Here’s how Republican control of Congress could affect several major tech-related issues. Net neutrality
Majority Republicans in the House have attempted several times in recent years to stop the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from
creating net neutrality rules. Those efforts have gone nowhere, partly because of a Democratic majority in the Senate that supports new rules.
If Republicans take control of the Senate, there may be a new push to stop the FCC’s current net neutrality rulemaking proceeding. The
Democratic minority in the Senate would have the numbers to filibuster any legislation, however, and President Barack Obama almost certainly
would veto any legislative efforts to sidetrack the FCC’s proceeding. Some observers say they don’t expect Congress to focus on the issue,
because it’s in the FCC’s hands. If the FCC’s rules don’t heavily regulate broadband providers, Republicans in Congress may see little benefit to
pushing against net neutrality rules when their efforts would be unlikely to become law, some observers said. Nearly 4 million people filed
comments in the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding and it appears that a large majority of those support net neutrality rules, noted Althea
Erickson, policy director at Etsy, an online marketplace that has supported strong rules. On any attempts to overturn FCC net neutrality rules,
advocates and members of the public “would have their back and take that fight to the Senate and the House to protect the rules,” Erickson
said. The people who’ve filed millions of comments at the FCC “could easily turn their attention to the folks ... who might try to overturn those
protections.” That said, if Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress this year, then maintain that majority, and if a Republican
president is also elected in 2016, then net neutrality rules could be in trouble. Surveillance reform NSA reform isn’t a partisan issue, with liberal
Democrats joining with Tea Party and libertarian-leaning Republicans to push for major changes in surveillance programs. Lawmakers are likely
to push for a vote on the USA Freedom Act in a lame-duck session of the current Congress, following Tuesday’s elections. Some of the loudest
voices against sweeping reform have come from Republicans, including Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan. But Rogers, chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee, announced earlier this year he’s leaving Congress to become a radio talk show host. On the other side, the
Senate may lose one of its loudest voices for surveillance reform. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, faces a tough re-election fight. Still,
Republican gains in Congress could come from the Tea Party and libertarian wings of the party, with many new lawmakers generally skeptical of
government surveillance programs. “I think this is actually an opportunity for the Republican party in a big way,” said Chris Calabrese, senior
policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a digital rights group that supports surveillance reform. Republicans, by
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
passing surveillance reform, can “put their stamp on privacy and become the libertarian privacy party that core parts of the Republican party
would like it to become.” CDT
and several other tech groups would also like to see Congress update the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to give more privacy protections for stored electronic communications. The
Email Privacy Act, an ECPA reform bill introduced in the House last year, had 270 cosponsors, more than half of all House
members, but failed to move forward. Tech groups have been pushing for ECPA reform since early 2010, but
Congress has failed to pass legislation.
Huge backlash – err neg on empirics
Molly 14 (MS, “Over Easy: Reform the ECPA,” June 20, http://firedoglake.com/2014/06/20/over-easyreform-the-ecpa/, CMR)
The bill is still stalled out, because the SEC and the IRS have scared off the House leadership. Attempts to
update the law — including from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — have been largely supported by law
enforcement agencies but have faced backlash from some agencies, like the SEC, which as a civil agency relies on subpoenas to
obtain information. At a hearing in April, SEC Chairperson Mary Jo White could not explain why they think paper documents require a warrant,
but yet the SEC doesn’t bother with the much higher standard (including judicial review) of a warrant for electronic documents. A big collection
of organizations and companies, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, Free Press, EFF, Fight for the Future, Demand Progress,
and the ACLU — got together last year to establish VanishingRights.com, committed to working for a long overdue update to ECPA’s archaic
rules. The NSA revelations have helped give House bill 1852 extra momentum, but it’s important to note that this is separate from the NSA
reform issue. ECPA
reform is an effort that’s been ongoing for more than ten years, and with more than half the
House now backing it, when will the Congressional leadership finally take it up? The bill still must be voted on by a Congress
infamous for its inaction, and it is likely to face political opposition from the Justice Department, which
has argued against reform. I’m hopeful, but I’m not holding my breath!
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Politics—LEADS Act Unpopular
Plan ensures bruising political fights
Schultheis 15 (Ned, Summer Associate at Ropes & Gray LLP, “WARRANTS IN THE CLOUDS: HOW
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT THREATENS THE UNITED
STATES’ CLOUD STORAGE INDUSTRY,” Volume 9 Issue 2, CMR)
The introduction of
the LEADS Act into the Senate floor is a start to clarifying and narrowing the scope of the
SCA.241 However, the LEADS Act is only the beginning of what is a long process of overhauling data
privacy statutes written during the Internet’s mainstream conception in the Regan-Era. Beyond making congressional statutes more
relevant to modern times, however, the U.S. government must also assist U.S. Technology Companies by updating its own cross-border
processes as well. The U.S. government should take advantage of the technological advances available in order to improve the efficiency of the
international exchange of online information and evidence for criminal proceedings. The world will only continue to become more and more
globally dependent. Issues
of crossborder conflict over the exchange of online information will be a
continuously heated issue of contention unless steps are taken now to catch up to the realities of the global infrastructure of
electronic information.
LEADS Act is controversial – lack of support and debates over MLATs
Schultheis 15 (Ned, Summer Associate at Ropes & Gray LLP, “WARRANTS IN THE CLOUDS: HOW
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT THREATENS THE UNITED
STATES’ CLOUD STORAGE INDUSTRY,” Volume 9 Issue 2, CMR)
As previously discussed, a clear indication of Congress’s extraterritorial intent is worriedly missing from SCA itself.227 The language
of
the SCA is vague at best, and its legislative history does not give insight as to whether Congress intended
the SCA warrant to apply so broadly when it was First drafted in 1986. The LEADS Act seeks to clarify Congress’s intention of the
extraterritorial application of the SCA and to limit the judicial warrant’s international scope and reach. The courts should not be forced to
interpret the SCA as it is currently written with as much discretion as they are forced to use since the statute is dated and presently insufficient.
The reactions from U.S. Technology Companies and nations abroad from the current SCA warrant interpretation shows that clarification and
limitations on the United States’ extraterritorial warrant powers on electronic data is necessary going forward.228 Whether
the LEADS
Act clarifies the SCA enough or whether it will be passed by the Senate and ratified at all remains to be seen. In
addition, the LEADS Act seeks to improve the MLAT process. The U.S. government’s decision to seek an SCA warrant for the
e-mails in Ireland, as opposed to following MLAT procedure for production, was largely based on the MLAT’s inefficiencies, especially in matters
of high security.229 The LEADS Act would “require the Department of Justice to create an online intake form through which foreign
governments could request mutual legal assistance, and it would permit the DOJ to give preference to requests made on-line.”230 The LEADS
Act seeks to modernize the MLAT process so that countries can more easily obtain evidence abroad through their respective treaties.'31
However, such computerization of the MLAT requires money, and this is subject to the politics of obtaining
sufficient federal funding.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Politics—Link Alone Turns Case
Huge opposition to reform – ensures watered-down version of the plan, kills solvency
Stanley 13 (Mark Stanley is currently an Account Supervisor at Edelman, “Five Reasons to Reform
ECPA Now,” Sept 4, https://cdt.org/blog/five-reasons-to-reform-ecpa-now/, CMR)
After years of inertia, ECPA reform legislation is moving. In the Senate, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen.
Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced the ECPA Amendments Act, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee this spring with bipartisan support
and is poised to go to a floor vote this fall. In the House, the Email Privacy Act, introduced by Representatives Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and Sam
Graves (R-GA), now has 137 bipartisan co-sponsors. 5. We’re close, but
opposition is working to derail reform. Despite all of
have been hurdles. The biggest has been an ongoing attempt by the SEC
to attach a provision to the Leahy-Lee bill that would give regulatory agencies authority to access digital
communications without a warrant. As CDT Senior Counsel Greg Nojeim warns, while the Leahy-Lee bill is a crucial and long
overdue reform, the SEC exception would “neuter” the bill from a privacy standpoint. The attempts by the SEC to hijack the
Senate bill illustrate an important point: If advocates and all of those who care about digital rights stand on the sidelines this fall
without pushing for clean legislation, we could get stuck with a bad bill or no bill at all. Now’s not the time to sit
the progress on ECPA this year, there
back – it’s time we finally update ECPA.
Link -- Agriculture
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1NC Link Wall
Aff is unpopular- support for the program is growing
Mayday 5/27 (John- Editor, Bovine Veterinarian, 2015, “ADT Update”,
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/news/industry/adt-update)
The federal Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program is up and running, but challenges including inconsistencies in state requirements
and mixed messages regarding program goals continue to slow progress toward true traceability. Those points were clear during the recent
National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) conference in Indianapolis where the NIAA Animal Identification and Information Systems
Council received an update from USDA officials and others. Neil Hammerschmidt, ADT program manager for the USDA’s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) provided a program overview and update. The ADT rule was published in January 2013 and the rule became
effective on March 11, 2013. Today the program continues to build on the original program guidelines, Hammerschmidt says. The ADT rule
specifies that several classes of cattle travelling in interstate commerce must be identified with official ID and accompanied by traceability
documents acceptable to the shipping and receiving states. These include all sexually intact cattle and bison over 18 months of age, all female
dairy cattle of any age, all dairy males (intact or castrated) born after March 11, 2013 and cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo, shows,
exhibition and recreational events. Feeder cattle under 18 months of age, by far the most common class of cattle traveling across state lines,
are currently exempt from the ADT rule. March 11, 2015 marked the end of a 24-month phase-out period during which producers could
continue to use various identification tags, such as those using a “900” numeric prefix, as official identification. As of that date, only tags
beginning with the 840 prefix and using the program’s official Animal Identification Number (AIN) system and the U.S. shield will be in
compliance with the program for non-exempt cattle moving across state lines. Others such as 900 tags remain acceptable only if the animal was
tagged prior to March 11. Currently, APHIS is engaged in assessing the effectiveness of the ADT system in tracing cattle in the case of an animaldisease outbreak. These assessments include several performance measures such as determining the ability and time it takes to determine the
state and premises of origin for an animal based on its ID and shipping documentation Early in the program, APHIS conducted 255 trace
exercises on cattle shipped interstate to establish baseline performance data. In determining the premises of origin, the success rate was 77
percent, but at an average time of 264 hours – far longer than the program’s goal of 24-hour traceback. APHIS now is running a news series of
trace exercises using updated standards and a new software system. By this August, the agency plans to have new assessment data to compare
with the baseline performance numbers. As for enforcement of ADT requirements, APHIS initially focused on educating producers and markets
when animals were out of compliance, and began phasing in enforcement procedures in March 2014. Enforcement focused on repeat
offenders, and so far, APHIS has issued 1,015 letters of information and initiated 33 cases with its Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES).
Hammerschmidt also outlined a number of ongoing challenges including inconsistencies between states in terms of required documents for
importing animals and lack of producer awareness of program requirements, such as that they need to obtain an official premises identification
number (PIN) to purchase official program ID tags. Jack Shere, DVM, associate deputy administrator for APHIS Veterinary Services also
addressed some of the program’s challenges. He indicated USDA
administrators and Congress want to see faster
progress in the program at the state level, and said USDA currently is implementing a review of the ADT
program. A high percentage of states, he says, have fallen behind in updating their ADT plans or “road
maps,’ which serve as the basis for cooperative agreements with APHIS. Shere also pointed out that APHIS is under pressure from
other government agencies and industry over the lack of a comprehensive farm-to-fork traceability
system and its impact on trade. Most of our competitors for international meat exports have such a system, and
use it as leverage against the United States in trade negotiations. Some critical import markets, including China, cite our lack of
traceability in refusing imports of U.S. beef. International trade falls outside the official goals of the ADT program, which was designed to help
minimize and contain potential disease outbreaks. Many in the
industry however, believe we need a more comprehensive
traceability program to help ensure future competitiveness in international markets. Shere says unnamed
independent beef supply chains have approached USDA with proposals for pilot projects to demonstrate their birth-to-slaughter traceability
systems, with the goal of gaining access to the Chinese market for their branded beef.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NC Link Wall
Aff’s been shot down in congress before
Greene 10 (Joel- analyst in ag policy for congress, 11/29, “Animal Identification and Traceability:
Overview and Issues “, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R40832.pdf)
USDA has claimed it has existing authority, under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), to implement
an animal ID program. In the 110th Congress, several bills were proposed (but not adopted) aimed at
clarifying USDA’s authority or spelling out what type of program should be established. They included H.R. 1018, prohibiting
USDA from carrying out a mandatory program and also seeking to protect the privacy of producer information under a
voluntary system; H.R. 2301, establishing an industry-led Livestock Identification Board to manage a national ID system; and S. 1292, requiring
USDA to implement a more comprehensive farm-to-consumer animal ID and meat traceability program. H.R. 3485 would have required
comprehensive new traceability systems both for USDA-regulated meat and poultry and for other foods regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). In
the 111th Congress, the broader food traceability provisions of H.R. 814 (DeGette) and S. 425
the requirement that FSIS establish, within one year, a system that can trace each animal to any
premises in which it was held at any time prior to slaughter, and each carcass, carcass part, or meat/poultry product from
slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer. The bills also would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to require records to be maintained and to provide access to them for purposes of
traceability. Traceability provisions have been incorporated into food safety legislation (H.R. 2749) approved by the
House and into a bill (S. 510) expected to be the markup vehicle in the Senate, but these provisions would apply to FDA-regulated
(Brown) both include
foods, not to FSIS-regulated meat and poultry products.62
NCBA hates the aff
Fatka 11 (Jacqui- Policy Editor at Feedstuffs/Farm Futures, August 12, “National Animal Traceability
Rule Finally Released”, http://farmfutures.com/blogs-national-animal-traceability-rule-finally-released2540)
Currently the cattle industry is one of animal sectors that would require the most change. The proposed
rule would remove the hot-iron brand from among the list of official identification devices that cattle
producers could choose to comply with the new federal mandate. It also encompasses cattle less than 18 months of
age that would be triggered at USDA’s discretion one-year after USDA determines that older-aged cattle are substantially identified. Both of
these requirements are concerns for R-CALF USA. Clifford responded to the brands, stating that there are only about 14 brand states in the
United States. And to effectively have brands to high level, it's important that you have a good system in place within those states. The other 36
states in this country do not have that system in place. “Basically if
we allow brands to stay official we would be saying to
those other 36 states you would have to implement a system that's not in place in those and put
additional burden on those states and those producers within those states,” Clifford said. The National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association said it is supportive of an Animal Disease Traceability program for cattle
health purposes. NCBA has worked “diligently with other cattle groups and USDA’s APHIS to ensure
cattlemen’s concerns are addressed in a new ADT program,” said NCBA Chief Veterinarian Elizabeth
Parker.
They’ve got influence
Johnson 12 (Steve- PBS, co-producer of “Modern Meat”, 2012, “The Politics of Meat”,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/)
The meat industry in the United States is a powerful political force, both in the legislative and the
regulatory arena, even though the way they wield that power is different from many industries on
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Capitol Hill. Instead of spreading lots of money around to many different lawmakers in an attempt to
gain access and influence -- the traditional method used by many large corporations -- the meat industry
targets their approach to a small number of key lawmakers and regulators that have a direct impact on
their business interests. Yet despite the relatively low level of financial contributions, the industry has succeeded in
weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years. Most of the companies
involved in the meat business, including the big meatpackers, are represented by one or more of the powerful meat trade
and lobbying organizations: the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association. They're a powerful group and they know they have a strong voice in decision-making in
Washington. "I think the ultimate objective of a lobbying organization such as the American Meat Institute is to be
sure that when the legislators enact bills, or when a regulator finalizes a regulation, our expertise, our
experience, our insight, is part of their decision-making process," says Patrick Boyle, CEO of the American Meat
Institute. Over the last 50 years, the meat industry grew accustomed to having powerful friends in the upper
levels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Some of that changed in the Clinton administration in the 1990s. When Michael
Taylor, a lawyer by training who didn't have a meat-industry background, became the new head of the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), the USDA's meat-inspection arm, he was surprised at what he saw on the telephone in his new office. "On the telephone there were two
speed dials with names by them. And one was to the American Meat Institute and the other was to the National Cattlemen's Association."
Taylor says this is emblematic of the cozy relationship the meat industry had with the government
agency in charge of regulating it. "It is just a political context, a culture that has developed over the
years at the political level, the food safety program at the USDA thinking of the industry as the customer
rather than the consumer, and thinking in terms of efficient inspection rather than protecting public
health."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Welfare Surveillance Links
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1NC Link
Congressional desire for INCREASED welfare surveillance – the plan draws in huge
fights with Obama
Fobes 6-10 [Aaron-press secretary for Orrin Hatch, 6-10-15, “Hatch Urges Administration to Work with Congress on Child Support
Enforcement”, http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=98f2986e-fb54-4d21-aa67-f090533e4fa7, date accessed:
7/8/15]Kruger
Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called on the Obama
Administration to work with Congress on welfare reform and child support enforcement. Earlier this week, Hatch, along with
Finance Committee member Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways & Means Committee member Charles
Boustany (R-La.) introduced legislation to prevent the Obama Administration from bypassing the Congress on
welfare reform policy. “I firmly believe that there is room for common ground. In fact, there are a
number of features of the administration’s proposed rule that could generate bipartisan support. But any
workable solution would have to include the full participation and ultimate consent of the Legislative Branch. Any changes to the law would have to go
through Congress and not simply be dictated by the administration,” Hatch said.The complete speech, as prepared for delivery, is
below: Mr. President, I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about another matter of great importance. Last year, after the mid-term elections, the Obama Administration – quietly and
without much fan-fare – proposed a massive, far-reaching rule that would overturn a number of bedrock principles of child
support enforcement and welfare reform. Chief among them being the principle that parents should be financially responsible for their children. This
was just the latest attempt on the part of the Obama Administration to bypass Congress in order to
enact policies through executive fiat. And, sadly, it wasn’t even the first time this administration has tried to gut welfare reform. Indeed, we all remember a few
WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor today,
years back when the administration granted itself the unprecedented authority to waive critical welfare work requirements. Put simply, this latest rule would make it easier for non-custodial
I am
fundamentally opposed to policies that allow parents to abdicate their responsibilities, which, in turn, results in more
families having to go on welfare. I think most Americans would agree with me. That is why I, joined by Senator Cornyn and House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, have introduced legislation that would prevent the Obama
Administration from bypassing Congress in yet another attempt to subvert key features of welfare
reform.
parents to evade paying child support. It would undermine a key feature of welfare reform, which is that single mothers can avoid welfare if fathers comply with child support orders.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2NC Link
Republicans love welfare surveillance –perceived as good for the economy
Seymour 12 [Don-Reporter for the speaker of the house.gov, 7/13/12, “With No Jobs in Obama Economy, White House Guts Clinton
Welfare Work Requirement”,http://www.speaker.gov/general/no-jobs-obama-economy-white-house-guts-clinton-welfare-work-requirement,
date accessed: 7/8/15]Kruger
The Heritage Foundation says the “rigorous new federal work standards that state governments were
required to implement” were the core of the welfare reform law. Whereas “[i]n the four decades prior to welfare reform, the
welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline,” the work requirements were “very successful” in reducing welfare
rolls and getting Americans back to work. In an op-ed marking welfare reform’s 10-year anniversary, President Clinton said the
law and its work requirements “create[ed] a new beginning for millions of Americans.” Welfare rolls “dropped
substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million” in 2006, and “more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients.” But with the
Obama economy hung over from a failed ‘stimulus’ spending binge, job creators handcuffed by
excessive regulations, and small businesses frightened by the president’s tax hike plan, jobs are hard to
come by. So the White House simply gutted the work requirements that have been so successful.
Instead of creating new jobs, the Obama administration is creating more dependency.
The pursuit of deadbeat dads is massively popular
Baskerville 8 Stephen Baskerville is Ph.D. in Government, London School of Economics & Political
Science, Professor of Political Science at Patrick Henry College Pub Date: 01/01/2008 Independent
Review Wntr, 2008 Source Volume: 12 Source Issue: 3,
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Independent-Review/172775627.html
Child support became politicized by the early 1990s, when parents who allegedly fail to pay--"deadbeat dads'--became the subjects
of a national demonology, and child support went from being a minor matter affecting a few people on the
margins of society to a sacred political cow in the national vocabulary. "On the left and on the right, the
new phrase to conjure with is 'child support,'" writes Bryce Christensen, who notes that politicians see it as "the
best rhetoric in the world": "a rhetoric unifying political figures" from both parties (2001, 63). Although Ronald
Reagan seems to have coined the term deadbeat dads, it was Bill Clinton who took it on the campaign trail. "We will find you!" he
famously intoned at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. "We will make you pay!" During the debate leading up to welfare reform,
George Gilder
warned of the bipartisan bandwagon being marshaled to punish private citizens who had
been pronounced guilty by general acclaim: (Presidential candidate Barack Obama recently revived this political
line. "We have too many children in poverty in this country," he told a civil rights group in early 2007. "And don't tell me it doesn't have a little
to do with the fact that we got too many daddies not acting like daddies.")
Pursuing dads who don’t pay child support has bipartisan support
Baskerville 8 Stephen Baskerville is Ph.D. in Government, London School of Economics & Political
Science, Professor of Political Science at Patrick Henry College Pub Date: 01/01/2008 Independent
Review Wntr, 2008 Source Volume: 12 Source Issue: 3,
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Independent-Review/172775627.html
The campaign escalated dramatically during the Clinton years, especially following
PRWORA. In 1998, Clinton signed the
Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, which enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. In that same year, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Donna Shalala announced the Federal Case Registry, a massive system of
government surveillance that aimed to include 16-19 million citizens, even those current in their payments. "Combined with the
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
National Directory of New Hires," Shalala said, "HHS now has the
strongest child support enforcement resource in the
history of the program" (U.S. HHS 1998b). Clinton announced soon afterward yet another "new child support crackdown." "This effort
will include new investigative teams in five regions of the country to identify, analyze, and investigate cases [that is, parents[ for criminal
prosecution, and an eightfold increase in legal support personnel to help prosecute these cases" (U.S. HHS 1998a).
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Obama Doesn’t get the Blame (Also a good link)
Republicans loves welfare reform–removal gets blamed on Obama
Rubin 12 [Jennifer-opinion writer for the Washington post that is an expert on congressional republicans,7/15/12, “Obama to Clinton
welfare reform: Drop dead”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-to-clinton-welfare-reformdrop-dead/2012/07/14/gJQAM49XkW_blog.html, date accessed: 7/8/15]Kruger
ABC News explained: “After
the Obama administration announced this week that it is opening up waivers to
states from the work requirements contained in welfare reform, Republicans began to speak out
against the move, complaining it completely undercuts the law. . . . Congressional Republicans decried
the move as ‘a blatant violation of the law’ and contend the waivers will actually cause harm to the
impoverished Americans because beneficiaries will come to rely on the handout with little motivation to
seek employment.” The outrage is bipartisan. Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) released a furious
statement : By gutting the work requirements in President Clinton’s signature welfare reform law,
President Obama is admitting his economic policies have failed. “While President Clinton worked with
Congress in a bipartisan way on welfare reform and economic opportunity, President Obama has
routinely ignored Republican proposals, rejected House-passed jobs bills, and imposed an agenda that’s
helped keep the unemployment rate above eight percent for 41 months. Instead of working with Republicans to boost job creation,
the president is simply disregarding the requirement that welfare recipients find work. “Welfare reform was an historic, bipartisan
success – this move by the Obama administration is a partisan disgrace.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turns Case
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turns Case
Link alone turns case – fights cause the aff to get watered-down and circumvented in
implementation
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, 11-19-2014, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevanceu-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought
to change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while
leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,
based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95 percent of
the planet called “non-Americans”). There were some mildly positive provisions in the USA Freedom Act: the placement of “public advocates”
at the FISA court to contest the claims of the government; the prohibition on the NSA holding Americans’ phone records, requiring instead that
they obtain FISA court approval before seeking specific records from the telecoms (which already hold those records for at least 18 months);
and reducing the agency’s “contact chaining” analysis from three hops to two. One could reasonably argue (as the ACLU and EFF did) that,
though woefully inadequate, the bill was a net-positive as a first step toward real reform, but one could also reasonably argue, as Marcy
Wheeler has with characteristic insight, that the bill is so larded with ambiguities and fundamental inadequacies that it would forestall better
options and advocates for real reform should thus root for its defeat. When
pro-privacy members of Congress first unveiled
the bill many months ago, it was actually a good bill: real reform. But the White House worked very hard— in
partnership with the House GOP—to water that bill down so severely that what the House ended up
passing over the summer did more to strengthen the NSA than rein it in, which caused even the ACLU and
EFF to withdraw their support. The Senate bill rejected last night was basically a middle ground between that
original, good bill and the anti-reform bill passed by the House. * * * * * All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most
important point from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S.
government is . . . the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and
that’s particularly true of empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform. This
Congress is not going to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance.
Even if it somehow did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the
fact that the U.S. intelligence community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means
they’d easily co-opt the entire reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of
the mid-1970s led to the establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight”
court—the committees were instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence
community like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chambliss, and Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court
quickly became a rubber stamp with subservient judges who operate in total secrecy. Ever since the Snowden reporting
began and public opinion (in both the U.S. and globally) began radically changing, the White House’s strategy has been
obvious. It’s vintage Obama: Enact something that is called “reform”—so that he can give a pretty speech telling the
world that he heard and responded to their concerns—but that in actuality changes almost nothing, thus
strengthening the very system he can pretend he “changed.” That’s the same tactic as Silicon Valley, which also
supported this bill: Be able to point to something called “reform” so they can trick hundreds of millions of current and future
users around the world into believing that their communications are now safe if they use Facebook, Google, Skype
and the rest. In pretty much every interview I’ve done over the last year, I’ve been asked why there haven’t been significant changes from all
the disclosures. I
vehemently disagree with the premise of the question, which equates “U.S. legislative
changes” with “meaningful changes.” But it has been clear from the start that U.S. legislation is not
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance, at least not
fundamentally. Those limitations are going to come from—are now coming from —very different places:
Politics link takes out the aff – fears of terrorism means Congress won’t enforce the
plan – they will allow circumvention.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and representation professor with
the Phil Lind Chair, and Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, “Secrecy and negligence: How Congress lost control of domestic
surveillance” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf, p.14, accessed 7-15-15, TAP]
These debating points demonstrate the rhetorical advantage of concern for security, over that for
privacy, in surveillance policy: the dangers of terrorist attacks are obvious and salient; those of intrusive
surveillance are speculative and invisible. In the current environment, not only do many members
simply accept the executive and FISA Court nullification of the statutory limits on businessrecords
seizures, they reject all legislative constraints on the collection, storage, and use of phone metadata.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Losers-Lose Link
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1nc Losers-Lose Link
***insert evidence that Obama opposes the plan***
This means the plan is a perceived loss for Obama that saps his capital and derails the
agenda
Loomis, 7 --- Department of Government at Georgetown
(3/2/2007, Dr. Andrew J. Loomis is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Leveraging legitimacy in the crafting of U.S. foreign policy,” pg 3536, http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/9/4/8/pages179487/p179487-36.php)
Declining political authority encourages defection. American political analyst Norman Ornstein
writes of the domestic context,
In a system where a President has limited formal power, perception matters. The reputation for
success—the belief by other political actors that even when he looks down, a president will find a way to pull out a victory—is the most valuable
resource a chief executive can have. Conversely, the widespread belief that the Oval Office occupant is
on the defensive, on the wane or without the ability to win under adversity can lead to disaster, as
individual lawmakers calculate who will be on the winning side and negotiate accordingly. In simple terms,
winners win and losers lose more often than not.
Failure begets failure. In short, a president experiencing declining amounts of political capital has
diminished capacity to advance his goals. As a result, political allies perceive a decreasing benefit in publicly
tying themselves to the president, and an increasing benefit in allying with rising centers of authority. A president’s incapacity and his record of
success are interlocked and reinforce each other. Incapacity leads to political failure, which reinforces perceptions of
incapacity. This feedback loop accelerates decay both in leadership capacity and defection by key allies.
The central point of this review of the presidential literature is that the
sources of presidential influence—and thus their
prospects for enjoying success in pursuing preferred foreign policies—go beyond the structural factors
imbued by the Constitution. Presidential authority is affected by ideational resources in the form of public perceptions of legitimacy. The public
offers and rescinds its support in accordance with normative trends and historical patterns, non-material sources of power that affects the character of U.S. policy,
foreign and domestic.
This brief review of the literature suggests how legitimacy
norms enhance presidential influence in ways that structural
powers cannot explain. Correspondingly, increased executive power improves the prospects for policy success.
As a variety of cases indicate—from Woodrow Wilson’s failure to generate domestic support for the League of Nations to public pressure that is changing the
current course of U.S. involvement in Iraq—the effective execution of foreign policy depends on public support. Public support turns on perceptions of policy
legitimacy. As a result, policymakers—starting with the president—pay close attention to the receptivity that U.S. policy has with the domestic public. In this way,
normative influences infiltrate policy-making processes and affect the character of policy decisions.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2nc Losers Lose Link
The plan wrecks Obama’s political power --- having executive power stripped from
him, despite his opposition, would represent a significant loss that spills over to
undermine congressional support for other priorities. That’s Loomis.
Our 1nc link evidence proves that Obama would fight to retain the surveillance the
plan eliminates. Any Obama veto would have to be overridden by fiat to guarantee
passage of the plan.
Covington, 12 --- School of Engineering, Vanderbilt University (Spring 2012, Megan, Vanderbilt Undergraduate Research Journal, “Executive Legislation
and the Expansion of Presidential Power,” http://ejournals.library.vanderbuilt.edu)
In actuality, however, Congress is generally unwilling or unable to respond to the president’s use of executive legislation. Congress
can override a
presidential veto but does not do it very often; of 2,564 presidential vetoes in our nation’s history, only 110 have ever been overridden. 44 The 2/3 vote of
both houses needed to override a veto basically means that unless the president’s executive order is grossly unconstitutional – and thus capable of earning
bipartisan opposition - one party needs to have a supermajority of both houses. Even passing legislation to nullify an executive order can be difficult to accomplish,
especially with Congress as polarized and bitterly divided along party lines as it is today. Congress
could pass legislation designed to limit
the power of the president, but such a bill would be difficult to pass and any veto on it – which would
be guaranteed – would be hard to override. In addition, if such legislation was passed over a veto, there is no
guarantee that the bill would successfully limit the president’s actions; the War Powers Act does little to
restrain the president’s ability to wage war.45 Impeachment is always an option, but the gravity of such a charge would prevent many from
supporting it unless the president was very unpopular and truly abused his power. 46
That veto override will destroy the agenda
Slezak, 7 --- Center for the Study of the Presidency Fellow 2006-2007 at UCLA and MA in Security Studies at Georgetown (Nicole L., “The Presidential Veto: A
Strategic Asset” https://host.genesis4100.net/thepresidency/pubs/fellows2007/Slezak.pdf)
Although the veto offers the president a significant advantage in dealing with a sometimes combative and divisive Congress, James Gattuso discusses four “caveats”
that should be considered by presidents when devising a veto strategy. First, presidents
should not veto without care, for if Congress
overrides it is politically damaging to the president.8 This means that if the president does not garner the required one-third plus one
in either house of Congress and his veto is overridden, he will not only lose face, but lose political capital that gives him
leverage in dealing with Congress. If the president loses political capital he can put himself at a
disadvantage for future interactions with Congress; hence, when vetoing he must consider his support
in Congress and the potential ramifications of an override. However, Gattuso adds that worse than having a veto overridden is a
president who threatens to veto and does not follow through once Congress has passed legislation.9 This is even more damaging than an override because the
president is caught making “empty threats.” Therefore, Congress will continue to produce legislation to their liking rather than revising it because Congress is
inclined to believe the president is no longer serious about his veto threats.
Forcing Obama’s to accommodate Congressional wishes will demonstrate he doesn’t
have power
Posner & Vermeule, 8 --- *Professor of Law at U Chicago, AND **Professor of Law at Harvard (April 2008, Eric A. and Adrian, University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, “CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWNS,” 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 991))
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
On the other hand, if the President's claim that he benefits from the testimony is obviously false, then his authority will be accordingly diminished. This is why
ambiguous acquiescence is not a credible strategy when the President and Congress disagree about the policy outcome. If
the President thinks the
war should continue, Congress thinks the war should end, and the President acquiesces to a statute that
terminates the war, then he can hardly argue that he is acting out of comity. He could only be acting
because he lacks power. But an agent can lack authority in more complicated settings where no serious [*1017] policy conflict exists. If the President
makes officials available for testimony every time Congress asks for such testimony, and if the testimony usually or always damages the President, then his claim to
be acting out of comity rather than lack of authority eventually loses its credibility. Repeated ambiguous acquiescence to repeated claims over time will eventually
be taken as unambiguous acquiescence and hence a loss of authority. For this reason, a President who cares about maintaining his constitutional powers will need
to refuse to allow people to testify even when testimony would be in his short-term interest.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1nc Surveillance Link
Obama will fight stronger surveillance reforms --- the USA Freedom Act was exactly
what he wanted
Shear 6/3 (MICHAEL D. SHEAR, “In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance”, New York Times, 6/3/2015,
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-program-own.html?_r=1)//MBB
WASHINGTON — For
more than six years, President Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists
around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a program that was conceived and put
in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Now, after
successfully badgering Congress into reauthorizing the program, with new safeguards the president says will
protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question that he owns it.
The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency.
But it will make records already held by telephone companies available for broad searches by government officials with a court order.
“The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year
and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She called the bill the product of a
“robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate finally passed it.”
The president is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of equilibrium he has talked
about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government overreach.
Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in part
because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the president was also “very, very focused on the threats” to Americans.
“He weighs the balance every day,” she said.
The compromise on collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans
predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can intrude on the lives of
innocent Americans.
Either way, Mr. Obama’s signature on the law late Tuesday night ensures that he will
deliver to the next president a method of
hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A.
contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program.
“He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just
didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.”
Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a very small step
forward.” He said his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance programs.
“Obama has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or are you going
to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the
president is willing to spend political capital changing those programs.”
In the case of the telephone program, Mr. Obama’s preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the
public’s privacy concerns without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly.
In the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown, Mr. Obama
and his national security team insisted that broad
surveillance powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats , while admitting that the new approach to data collection would not
harm that effort.
White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right balance.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
“To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the
president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed records.
“This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially
different than the program that he inherited.”
Mr. Obama’s
advocacy put him at the center of a fierce congressional debate over the surveillance
program, which officially expired early Monday morning before lawmakers approved changes on Tuesday.
In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, railed against the president’s compromise proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming
unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive.”
At the same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, excoriated Mr. Obama, saying, “The president continues to conduct an illegal program,” a reference
to a recent ruling by a federal appeals court that the original N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law.
What emerged from that debate was a rare bipartisan victory for the president, whose approach was
met with approval by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Even some of the
president’s most ardent critics in the Republican Party endorsed the approach.
“This is a good day for the American people, whose rights will be protected,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example of Mr.
Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama.
The compromise on the telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and-pull for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national security infrastructure from
Mr. Bush.
As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that infrastructure, pledging at the time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush “to
determine which of those have undermined civil liberties, which are unconstitutional, and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen.”
Once in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s decisions — in one of his first acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his
national security team has also embraced some of Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing that they are necessary to
protect Americans against attacks and to fight threats abroad.
Mr. Obama talked about “putting careful constraints” on surveillance even before Mr. Snowden revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year,
Mr. Obama
explained how his thinking had evolved.
“I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Mr. Obama said. “My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them
thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment
was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on the privacy that are
involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content,
that on net, it was worth us doing.”
With the passage of the USA Freedom Act nearly two years later, Mr. Obama must make his new approach work by maintaining a focus on security while doing
more to respect privacy.
“Certainly,” Ms. Monaco said, “we are going to be focused on that.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2nc Surveillance Link
Obama is in favor of surveillance – unwilling to end bulk data collection
Straehley 6/15 – (Steve Straehley, “Obama Asks for 6 more Months of NSA Bulk Surveillance Collection”, AlGov, 6/15/2015,
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/obama-asks-for-6-more-months-of-nsa-bulk-surveillance-collection-150615?news=856724)//MBB
It’s the oldest trick in the book—when Dad tells you no, ask Mom if you can do it. Now President Barack
Obama is playing that game with the surveillance of Americans’ phone records
The Obama administration, on the same day the USA Freedom Act became law on June 2, went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISA court) with a request (pdf) to continue sweeping up phone records during a six-month “transition”
period before the Freedom Act provisions take effect.
The USA Freedom Act specifies that call records be maintained by the phone companies, and the
government may access them only with a warrant from the FISA court. That’s evidently not good
enough for the Obama administration.
Obama aggressively defends NSA surveillance
Ghazali 14 (Abdus Sattar Ghazali, “Obama’s cosmetic changes for NSA surveillance”, American Muslim Perspective, 1/18/2014,
http://www.amperspective.com/obamas-cosmetic-changes-for-nsa-surveillance/)//MBB
President Obama’s Friday, January 17, 2014 speech
on NSA surveillance was a calculated endeavor to calm a furor at
home and abroad over the US dragnet surveillance. However, the proposed changes do not provide any
fundamental changes in the intelligence gathering activities.
The president called for an end to the government’s current storage of “metadata,” information about many millions of calls made by ordinary Americans. He
emphasized that the capacity to search metadata is one that must be preserved, but without government itself holding it. The president directed the U.S. attorney
general and the intelligence community to report on the best way to transfer the metadata out of government hands, before the program comes up for
reauthorization on March 28. He said during this transition period, the government shouldn’t have access to metadata without judicial approval.
The president endorsed the proposal to appoint a public advocate to represent privacy and civil liberties interests before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The president called for more transparency with respect to National Security letters, which allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation, without court approval, to
obtain access to people’s records (such as their bank and credit card information).
In his 43 minutes speech President Obama
aggressively defended the NSA surveillance programs as important tools
to combat terrorism.
Obama committed to maintaining surveillance powers
Fox News 6/2 (Fox News, “Obama signs bill to resume, overhaul NSA surveillance”, Fox News, 6/2/2015,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/02/legislation-to-resume-overhaul-nsa-surveillance-clears-key-senate-hurdle/)//MBB
President Obama Tuesday night signed
legislation that passed Congress only hours earlier, restarting -- but also overhauling -controversial government surveillance programs that went dark over the weekend after lawmakers
missed a key deadline.
The White House confirmed in a statement that Obama signed the measure Tuesday night. Obama
as soon as it reached his desk.
previously said he would sign the bill
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
"After a needless delay and inexcusable lapse in important national security authorities, my
Administration will work expeditiously to
ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue
protecting the country," Obama said.
In a 67-32 vote, the Senate approved the so-called USA Freedom Act. The legislation had already won approval in the House.
Obama strongly opposes curtailing surveillance
Davis 5/29 (JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, “Obama Warns the Senate to Pass Surveillance Law”, New York Times, 5/29/2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/obama-warns-the-senate-to-pass-surveillance-law.html)
WASHINGTON — President Obama
suggested ominously on Friday that allowing domestic surveillance programs to
expire at a Sunday deadline could lead to a terrorist attack on the United States.
Pushing the Senate to break a logjam on legislation, Mr. Obama warned in the Oval Office that,
“I don’t want us to be in a situation
in which, for a certain period of time, those authorities go away and suddenly we’re dark.”
“Heaven forbid we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended
someone who was engaged in dangerous activity, but we didn’t do so simply because of inaction in the
Senate,” Mr. Obama added.
The comments were the most explicit warning to date from the Obama administration about the consequences
of allowing the surveillance powers to lapse. Administration officials have been pressing lawmakers for weeks to pass the legislation, called
the USA Freedom Act, and in recent days have stepped up their efforts to portray it as a national security imperative.
The measure, passed overwhelmingly by the House this month, would extend the government’s authority to obtain business and other records pertaining to a
specific investigative subject, to secure so-called roving wiretaps to track potential terrorists or spies who switch telephones to avoid detection, and to wiretap a
terrorism suspect who is not part of a particular group.
But the controversy has centered on the National Security Agency program that collects bulk telephone records, which the bill would eliminate. Instead, under a
bipartisan compromise backed by the Obama administration, telephone companies would retain the data, and the N.S.A. could gain access to it by obtaining an
order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
That provision has been strongly opposed by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, who wants to maintain the current
program, and some libertarians, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican candidate for president, who want more substantial restrictions.
The president singled out Mr. McConnell on Friday, saying he had conveyed to him and other senators that “I expect them to take action, and take action swiftly.”
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell, noted that Mr. McConnell had scheduled a rare Sunday session of the Senate “to make every effort to provide the
intelligence community with the tools it needs to combat terror.”
For the last week, Senate Republicans have been furiously trying to come up with legislation that can win the support of 60 senators, pass muster in the House —
which is reluctant to change the measure it passed — and keep Mr. Paul at bay.
Mr. Obama
has kept up pressure on the Senate to pass the legislation by arguing that the surveillance it authorizes is vital to
thwarting a terrorist attack, despite a lack of evidence that it has ever done so.
In a statement issued shortly before Mr. Obama spoke, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said that intelligence professionals “will lose
important capabilities” if the authorities expire.
Senior administration officials say that even if the programs cannot be shown to have foiled any attacks,
they provide essential “building blocks” on which terrorism investigations are built, akin to grand juries, which are an
integral part of criminal cases even if they never themselves stop a crime.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2nc NSA Links
***note when prepping file --- against NSA you should read the 1nc Surveillance Link
Obama will fight to retain NSA surveillance --- reaction to recent court case proves
Ackerman 6/9 – national security editor for Guardian (Spencer Ackerman, “Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court's decision on
spying”, The Guardian, 6/9/2015/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/09/obama-fisa-court-surveillance-phone-records)//MBB
The Obama administration has
asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk
surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records
of millions of Americans for six months.
The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also
suggests that the
administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that
the collection stop.
US officials confirmed last week that they would ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court – better
known as the Fisa court, a panel that meets in secret as a step in the surveillance process and thus far has only ever had the government argue before it – to
turn the domestic bulk collection spigot back on.
Obama supports expanding the NSA’s power
Savage et al 6/4 – Washington correspondent for The New York Times (CHARLIE SAVAGE, JULIA ANGWIN, JEFF LARSON and HENRIK MOLTKE,
“Hunting for Hackers, N.S.A. Secretly Expands Internet Spying at U.S. Border”, The New York Times, 6/4/2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/huntingfor-hackers-nsa-secretly-expands-internet-spying-at-us-border.html?emc=edit_na_20150604&nlid=63233355&_r=1)//MBB
WASHINGTON — Without public notice or debate, the
Obama administration has expanded the National Security Agency‘s
warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic to search for evidence of malicious
computer hacking, according to classified N.S.A. documents.
In mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables, without a warrant and on
American soil, for data linked to computer intrusions originating abroad — including traffic that flows to suspicious Internet addresses or contains malware, the
documents show.
The Justice Department allowed the agency to monitor only addresses and “cybersignatures” — patterns associated with computer intrusions — that it could tie to
foreign governments. But the documents also note that the
N.S.A. sought permission to target hackers even when it could
not establish any links to foreign powers.
The disclosures, based on documents provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, and shared with The New York Times and ProPublica, come at a
time of unprecedented cyberattacks on American financial institutions, businesses and government agencies, but also of greater scrutiny of secret legal
justifications for broader government surveillance.
While the Senate passed legislation this week limiting some of the N.S.A.’s authority, the measure involved provisions in the
U.S.A. Patriot Act and
did not apply to the warrantless wiretapping program.
Government officials defended the N.S.A.’s monitoring of suspected hackers as necessary to shield
Americans from the increasingly aggressive activities of foreign governments. But critics say it raises difficult trade-offs
that should be subject to public debate.
The N.S.A.’s activities run “smack into law enforcement land,” said Jonathan Mayer, a cybersecurity scholar at Stanford Law School who has researched privacy
issues and who reviewed several of the documents. “That’s a major policy decision about how to structure cybersecurity in the U.S. and not a conversation that has
been had in public.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
It is not clear what standards the agency is using to select targets. It can be hard to know for sure who is behind a particular intrusion — a foreign government or a
criminal gang — and the N.S.A. is supposed to focus on foreign intelligence, not law enforcement.
The government can also gather significant volumes of Americans’ information — anything from private emails to trade
secrets and business dealings — through Internet surveillance because monitoring the data flowing to a hacker involves copying that information as the hacker
steals it.
One internal N.S.A. document notes that agency surveillance activities through “hacker signatures pull in a lot.”
Brian Hale, the spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said, “It should come as no surprise that the U.S. government gathers intelligence
on foreign powers that attempt to penetrate U.S. networks and steal the private information of U.S. citizens and companies.” He added that “targeting overseas
individuals engaging in hostile cyberactivities on behalf of a foreign power is a lawful foreign intelligence purpose.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Zero Day Links
Obama supports maintaining zero-day exploits
Zetter 14 (Kim Zetter, “Obama: NSA Must Reveal Bugs Like Heartbleed, Unless They Help the NSA”, WIRED, 4/15/2014,
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/obama-zero-day/)//MBB
AFTER YEARS OF studied silence on the government’s secret and controversial use of security vulnerabilities, the White House has finally acknowledged that the
NSA and other agencies exploit some of the software holes they uncover, rather than disclose them to vendors to be fixed.
The acknowledgement comes in a news report indicating that President Obama decided in January that from now on any time the NSA discovers a major flaw in
software, it must disclose the vulnerability to vendors and others so that it can be patched, according to the New York Times.
But Obama
included a major loophole in his decision, which falls far short of recommendations made by a
presidential review board last December: According to Obama, any flaws that have “a clear national
security or law enforcement” use can be kept secret and exploited.
This, of course, gives the government wide latitude to remain silent on critical flaws like the recent Heartbleed vulnerability if the NSA, FBI, or other government
agencies can justify their exploitation.
A so-called zero-day vulnerability is one that’s unknown to the software vendor and for which no patch
therefore exists. The U.S. has long wielded zero-day exploits for espionage and sabotage purposes, but
has never publicly stated its policy on their use. Stuxnet, a digital weapon used by the U.S. and Israel to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment
program, used five zero-day exploits to spread.
Last December, the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies declared that only in rare instances should the U.S. government
authorize the use of zero-day exploits for “high priority intelligence collection.” The review board, which was convened in response to reports of widespread NSA
surveillance revealed in the Edward Snowden documents, also said that decisions about the use of zero-day attacks should only be made “following senior,
interagency review involving all appropriate departments.”
Obama allows for zero-day exploits – national security interest
Khandelwal 14 – (Swati Khandelwal, The Hacker News, 4/13/2014, http://thehackernews.com/2014/04/Obama-NSA-Review-policy-Zero-dayExploit.html)//MBB
On Saturday, the Senior Administration Officials cast light on the subject of Internet Security and said President Obama
has clearly decided that
whenever the U.S. Intelligence agency like NSA discovers major vulnerabilities, in most of the situations
the agency should reveal them rather than exploiting for national purpose, according to The New York Times.
OBAMA's POLICY WITH LOOPHOLE FOR NSA
Yet, there
is an exception to the above statement, as Mr. President carved a detailed exception to the
policy “Unless there is a clear national security or law enforcement need,” which means that the policy
creates a loophole for the spying agencies like NSA to sustain their surveillance programs by exploiting
security vulnerabilities to create Cyber Weapons.
After three-month review of recommendations [PDF-file], the Final Report of the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies was submitted to
Mr. Obama on last December, out of which one of the recommendation on page no. 37 states that, “In rare instances, US
policy may briefly authorize
using a Zero Day for high priority intelligence collection, following senior, interagency review involving all appropriate departments.”
Obama took this new decision in January this year, but the elements of decision disclosed just one day after the story of HeartBleed OpenSSL Security Bug broke last
week and Bloomberg reported that the NSA may have known about the flaw for last two years and using it continuously to gain information instead of disclosing it.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Secure Data Act Link
Obama is against restricting backdoor access
Bennet, 15 (Cory Bennet, 3/22/15, “Silicon Valley spars with Obama over ‘backdoor’ surveillance”, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/236512-silicon-valley-spars-with-obama-over-backdoor-surveillance)//Jmoney
Silicon Valley and a bipartisan group of lawmakers are lining up against the Obama administration,
criticizing what they see as a lack of support for total online privacy.
The steady rise of sophisticated privacy techniques such as encryption and anonymity software has put
the government in a difficult position — trying to support the right to privacy while figuring out how to prevent people from evading law
enforcement.
“The technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier,” President Obama said during a January news
conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.
The conundrum has led to a heated debate in Washington: Should law enforcement have guaranteed
access to data?
“I think there’s
a little bit of a tug of war happening in the government,” said Jay Kaplan, co-founder of the security firm Synack and a
former National Security Agency (NSA) cyber analyst.
The Obama administration — from officials with FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) to the president himself — has come out in
favor of some form of guaranteed access while still endorsing strong encryption.
“If we get into a situation in which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that we're
confident is a terrorist,” Obama said, “that's a problem.”
What shape that access takes, however, is unclear.
“The dialogue that we're engaged in is designed to make sure that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out there, our law enforcement and our
intelligence officers can identify that threat and track that threat at the same time that our governments are not going around phishing into whatever text you
might be sending on your smartphone,” Obama said. “And I think that's something that can be achieved.”
Privacy hawks on Capitol Hill aren’t buying it.
“I don’t think much of that,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), co-founder of the Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, told The Hill. “We have a huge homeland security
apparatus with almost unlimited authority to — with some sort of a reasonable suspicion — check almost any type of communication, whether it’s voice, Internet,
telephonic, electronic, you name it.”
“Those were positions that did not receive rave reviews here in Silicon Valley,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes parts of tech-heavy San Jose.
Many believe the administration’s stance is inherently at odds with robust digital protection.
“In order to fully implement what he's suggesting, you would need one of two things,” Lofgren said.
One would be installing
so-called “backdoors” in encryption — an access point known only to law
enforcement agencies. Security experts find this concept abhorrent, since cyber crooks or foreign intelligence agencies would likely exploit it.
“There’s no safe way to do that,” Kaplan said. “It’s just an impossible task. Just a bad idea all together.”
The second would be to have a third-party company hold all user data, with some sort of agreement to disclose information to the government, Lofgren said.
“I think actually the trend line is in a different direction, which is encryption that is not accessible to the companies that provide it, either,” she added.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Obama remains adamant about keeping backdoor access --- even at the risk of
alienating the tech communities and lawmakers
Open Technology Institute, 15 (5/19/15, “MASSIVE COALITION OF SECURITY EXPERTS, TECH COMPANIES AND PRIVACY ADVOCATES
PRESSES OBAMA TO OPPOSE SURVEILLANCE BACKDOORS”, Open Technology Institute, https://www.newamerica.org/oti/massive-coalition-of-security-expertstech-companies-and-privacy-advocates-presses-obama-to-oppose-surveillance-backdoors/)//Jmoney
Washington, DC - This morning, New
America’s Open Technology Institute sent a joint letter to the White House
which was signed by nearly 150 privacy and human rights organizations, technology companies and
trade associations, and individual security and policy experts. The letter defends Americans’ right to use
strong encryption to protect their data and opposes the idea of mandatory “backdoors” to enable
government access to encrypted data.
The letter, signers of which include technology industry giants such as Apple and Google, is the latest round in the ongoing debate over encryption first sparked by
Apple’s announcement last fall that new iPhones would be encrypted by default. Responding to statements by law enforcement and intelligence officials such as FBI
Director James Comey, who have criticized companies’ deployment of encryption and suggested that Congress should legislate to prevent access to encryption that
the government can’t break, the letter explains:
Strong encryption is the cornerstone of the modern information economy’s security. Encryption protects billions of people every day against countless threats—be
they street criminals trying to steal our phones and laptops, computer criminals trying to defraud us, corporate spies trying to obtain our companies’ most valuable
trade secrets, repressive governments trying to stifle dissent, or foreign intelligence agencies trying to compromise our and our allies’ most sensitive national
security secrets.
Therefore, says the letter to the President,
We urge you to reject any proposal that U.S. companies deliberately weaken the security of their products. We request that the White House instead focus on
developing policies that will promote rather than undermine the wide adoption of strong encryption technology. Such policies will in turn help to promote and
protect cybersecurity, economic growth, and human rights, both here and abroad.
The letter, in addition to being signed by leading Internet, software, and hardware companies such as Adobe, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, Facebook, and Microsoft, is
also signed by a range of trade associations such as the Internet Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, and dozens of civil society organizations
devoted to civil liberties, human rights, and press freedom, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch and the Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press. It also is signed by nearly sixty individual computer security and policy experts including Whitfield Diffie, one of the inventors of modern
public key cryptography, and former White House anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke. The Center for Democracy & Technology, one of the signing civil society
organizations, also played a critical role in recruiting and organizing the many computer security experts that lent their voices to the effort.
The following can be attributed to Kevin Bankston, Policy Director of New America’s Open Technology Institute and Co-Director of New America’s Cybersecurity
Initiative:
Knowing that the White House is currently weighing the issue, we thought it important to ensure that President Obama heard now a clear and unified message from
the Internet community: encryption backdoors are bad for privacy, bad for security, bad for human rights, and bad for business. They're just bad policy, period,
which is exactly the same answer that policymakers arrived at during the Crypto Wars of the 90s after many years of informed debate, and the same answer the the
House of Representatives arrived at just last year when it voted to stop the NSA from mandating or even requesting that companies weaken the security of their
products for surveillance’s sake.
Since last fall, the
President has been letting his top intelligence and law enforcement officials criticize
companies for making their devices more secure, and letting them suggest that Congress should pass
anti-encryption, pro-backdoor legislation. That's despite unanimous consensus in the technical
community that backdoors are bad for security, and despite lawmakers clearly signaling that they think
it's a bad idea--most recently in a House oversight hearing where every lawmaker in attendance was
critical of the government's position, one of them going so far as to call the idea of
backdoors "technologically stupid".
We decided it was time for the Internet community--industry, advocates, and experts--to draw a line in the sand. We're calling on Obama to put an end to these
dangerous suggestions that we should deliberately weaken the cybersecurity of American products and services. We’re asking the White House to instead throw its
weight behind the recommendation of the President's own hand-picked NSA review group, several of whom signed today’s letter: it should be the policy of the US
government to support rather than undermine the availability and use of strongly encrypted products.
Put simply, it's time for the White House to come out strong in support of strong encryption, here in the U.S. and around the globe. Securing cyberspace is hard
enough without shooting ourselves in the foot with government-mandated vulnerabilities. It's time for America to help lead the world toward a more secure future,
rather than toward a digital ecosystem riddled with vulnerabilities of our own making."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Obama supports anti-encryption and mandatory backdoor access
Oremus, 15 --- Slate’s senior technology writer (Will Oremus, 1/19/15, “Obama wants tech companies to install backdoors for government spying”, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/19/obama_wants_backdoors_in_encrypted_messaging_to_allow_government_spying.html)//Jmoney
Last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron incensed the Internet by proposing to ban secure
messaging applications, like WhatsApp and Snapchat, unless they install backdoors to allow government spying. Plenty
of other services, including Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime, might also run afoul of such a law, the Independent pointed out.
Cameron’s call for mandatory backdoors offended online privacy advocates, but it couldn’t have shocked them. This is
the same leader who ignored censorship cries and installed porn filters on the country’s Internet services, with some rather predictable unintended consequences.
In a press conference with Cameron on Friday, however, President Obama
agreed with his British counterpart that the absence
of backdoors is “a problem.” As reported by The Hill, he said:
Social media and the Internet is the primary way in which these terrorist organizations are
communicating. That’s not different from anybody else, but they’re good at it. And when we have the
ability to track that in a way that is legal, conforms with due process, rule of law and presents oversight,
then that’s a capability that we have to preserve.
More specifically, he added, according to the Wall Street Journal:
If we find evidence of a terrorist plot … and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we
can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem.
Obama stopped short of joining Cameron in an explicit call for legislation that would ban services that don’t build in a way for the government to spy on their users.
Instead he said:
The laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. How we do that needs to be debated both here in the United States and in
the U.K.
On its face, it’s not absurd that the government should have a way to intercept electronic communications in rare cases to stop suspected terrorists. As the
Economist points out in an editorial supporting backdoors, “every previous form of communication—from the conversation to the letter to the phone—has been
open to some form of eavesdropping.”
On the other hand, privacy and security experts argue that backdoors are bound to be exploited for nefarious purposes. That could happen through government
abuse of its surveillance powers. Or the backdoors might inadvertently make it easier for nongovernment hackers to compromise people’s privacy. “There’s no back
door that only lets good guys go through it,” Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow argues. As Brian Duggan explained in Slate in 2013:
Creating a back door in software is like creating a lock to which multiple people hold the keys. The more people who have a key, the higher the likelihood that one
will get lost.
Legislation like what Cameron has proposed would undermine encryption at just the time when the tech
industry is beginning to embrace it. In September, Apple and Google announced plans to strengthen
encryption of data stored on smartphones that use their operating systems. The move was cheered by a public shaken by the recent iCloud celebrity
photo hack. But it was harshly criticized by FBI director James Comey. Now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, it
seems Obama is in Comey’s camp.
The president says he understands the need to balance security with privacy. The problem is that, as we’ve seen with the Snowden leaks, the government officials,
intelligence officers, and contractors entrusted with finding that balance tend to be far more concerned with one than the other.
Obama remains committed to resisting encryption
Volz, 15 --- Staff Correspondent for Technology for the National Journal (Dustin Volz, 1/16/15, “Obama: If we can’t read terrorist suspect emails, ‘That’s a
problem’”, National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116)//Jmoney
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
President Obama
opened the door Friday to adopting a tougher position against strong encryption technology,
warning that too-tough-to-crack protections could threaten national security.
"If we get into a situation which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody we're
confident is a terrorist … and despite knowing that information, despite having a phone number or a social-media address or email address, that
we can't penetrate that, that's a problem," Obama said during a press conference held with British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Obama's comment came at the tail end of the White House conference, in which the
two jointly announced a new partnership that
seeks to bolster cyberdefense cooperation between the two allies and deepen collaboration among each
country's intelligence agencies.
Cameron is at the White House on a two-day trip that has reportedly included heavy lobbying for cooperation with the
U.S. to work together to halt the expansion of strongly encrypted messaging platforms in order to better
respond to terrorist threats.
When asked specifically about encryption, Obama neither directly endorsed nor condemned Cameron's position, acknowledging that Europe faces "particular
challenges" due in part to the lack of assimilation of certain Muslim populations.
"Our Muslim populations, they feel themselves to be Americans," Obama said. "There are parts of Europe in which that's not the case."
But Obama admitted that the struggle to balance privacy and security is ongoing, and twice mentioned former NSA contractor Edward Snowden by name.
"This is a challenge that we have been working on since I've been president," Obama said. "Obviously, it was amplified when Mr. Snowden did what he did. It's gone
off the front pages of the news, but we haven't stopped working on it. And we've been in dialogue with companies and have systematically worked through ways in
which we can meet legitimate privacy concerns."
Cameron also largely avoided specifics, saying, "I don't think either of us are trying to enunciate some new doctrine" on surveillance.
Privacy advocates and security analysts have taken umbrage with the suggestion that too-tough-to-crack technology poses insurmountable hurdles for law enforcement agencies and could undermine national security.
A secret 2009 U.S. cybersecurity report—released publicly Thursday by The Guardian, which obtained the document from fugitive leaker Snowden—warned that
government and private computers are vulnerable to hacks from Russia, China, and criminals if better encryption technologies were not implemented.
But senior
officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey, criticized
moves by Apple and Google last year to tighten encryption on their mobile devices, warning that such protections could
impede criminal investigations.
But U.S. officials have not gone as far as Cameron, who earlier this week called for banning certain encryption techniques that he believes hamper government
snooping. The British leader also suggested that certain messaging services, including Snapchat and WhatsApp, could be outlawed.
"Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn't possible to read?" Cameron said in a speech Monday. "My answer to that question is: 'No,
we must not.' "
The announcement of the new bilateral cyberdefense partnership caps a week that saw the White
House mount an aggressive policy push
on cybersecurity in advance of President Obama's State of the Union next week, during which the
president is expected to call on Congress to pass his legislative proposals on information-sharing and
data security. It also follows terrorist attacks in France earlier this year that killed 17 and have much of Europe clamoring for more-robust counterterrorism
measures.
As part of the agreement, the U.S. and the United Kingdom will conduct a series of cyber war games later this year to test and improve each nation's ability to
defend and respond to cyberattacks.
The program calls for increased information-sharing and "joint cybersecurity and network defense exercises," with the first such rehearsals focusing on the financial
sector. As part of the new initiative, intelligence agencies—including the National Security Agency and Britain's Government Communications Headquarters—will
establish a "joint cyber cell" to have an operating presence in each country to allow for more rapid sharing of cyber defense data.
"With regard to security, American-British unity is enabling us to meet challenges in Europe and beyond," Obama said.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Obama will resist efforts to prevent backdoor tech access
Albanesius, 15 --- Executive Editor for News and Features for PCMag (Chloe Albanesius, 1/16/15, “Obama: Tech That prevents us from stopping an
attack is a problem”, pcmag, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2475343,00.asp)//Jmoney
President Obama today stopped
short of calling for a ban on encryption, but said that technology that
prevents law enforcement officials from halting terrorist activity is a "problem."
"If we get into a situation where the technology does not allow us at all to track somebody that's a terrorist, if we find evidence of a terrorist plot somewhere in the
Middle East that traces directly back to London or New York, [and] we can't penetrate that, that's a problem," Obama said during
a joint press
conference with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron at the White House.
His comments come shortly after Cameron suggested that the U.K. might, in fact,ban encryption technology that prevents officials from tracking criminals via their
phones, PCs, or other gadgets. That would likely be rather difficult given that iOS 8 and Android 5.0 Lollipop are encrypted by default, and the majority of U.K.
citizens use either iOS or Android devices. Not to mention the fact that popular apps like WhatsApp are also encrypted.
Today, Cameron said that his objective is to "avoid the safe havens that could otherwise be created for terrorists to talk to each other."
Obama acknowledged that the evolution of technology makes it "trickier" to balance security and
privacy. "The laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated,"
Obama said today.
"How we do that needs to be debated, here in the U.S. and in the U.K.," he continued. "I think we're getting better at it."
Tech companies recognize that they have a responsibility to the public but also want to protect their customers' privacy, the president said.
"The dialogue we're engaged in is designed to make
sure that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out
there, our law enforcement and our intelligence officers can identify that threat and track that threat
[without the government] fishing into whatever text you might be sending on your smartphone," Obama said. "I think that's something that can achieved, [though
there are] going to be hard cases."
The FBI has echoed Obama's concerns about encryption technology.
To that end, the
White House and U.K. today announced several steps they will take to enhance coordination
on cyber-security issues. That includes increased threat information sharing and joint cyber-security and network defense exercises, the first of which
will focus on the financial sector.
Meanwhile, the U.K.'s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and Security Service (MI5) will team with the NSA and FBI on a joint cyber cell, which will
allow staff from each agency to be co-located for easier information sharing.
Finally, the U.S. and U.K. will fund a new Fulbright Cyber Security Award for up to six months of research. Applications will be accepted later this year for a 2016-17
session.
MIT has also invited the University of Cambridge to participate in a "Cambridge vs. Cambridge" cyber-security contest.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
1nc Border Surveillance Link
Obama will fight to maintain border control
Wolfgang 14 (Ben Wolfgang, “Obama: I’ve fought against activists who believe there should be open borders”, The Washington Times, 12/9/2014,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/obama-ive-fought-against-activists-open-borders/)//MBB s/o to faith
Critics say President Obama went too far with his executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants — but behind the scenes, the
president said he’s pushed back against those who believe the U.S. should have an open border with
Mexico.
At a town-hall meeting in Nashville on Tuesday, Mr.
Obama defended the idea of a strong U.S-Mexico border and said
he’s had heated debates with activists who want that border to disappear.
“There have been times, honestly, I’ve had arguments with immigration rights activists who say, effectively, ‘There shouldn’t be any rules. These are good people.
Why should we have any enforcement like this?’ My response is, ‘In the eyes of God, everybody is equal … I don’t make any claims my child is superior to anybody
else’s child. But I’m the president of the United States, and nation states have borders,’” the
president said. “If we had no system of
enforcing our borders and our laws, I promise you, everybody would try to come here.”
Mr. Obama
added that it would be fundamentally unfair to erase the nation’s southern border.
“Sometimes it’s just an accident that one person lives in a country that has a border with the U.S. and another person — in Somalia, it’s a lot harder to get here,” he
said.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2nc Border Surveillance Link
Obama will fight the plan --- he supports border surveillance now
Preston 10 (Julia Preston, “Obama Signs Border Bill to Increase Surveillance”, The New York Times, 7/13/2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14immig.html?_r=0)//MBB
President Obama
signed into law a $600 million bill on Friday to pay for 1,500 new border agents, additional
unmanned surveillance drones and new Border Patrol stations along the southwest border.
The measure sailed through Congress in little more than a week with broad bipartisan support, demonstrating the pressure on politicians to look strong on border
enforcement. Introduced on Aug. 5, the bill was approved the same day by the Senate by unanimous consent, and passed again by the Senate on Thursday in a
special session during the Congressional recess. The House had passed the bill in a special session on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama
requested the funds in June, after he announced he would send 1,200 National Guard troops
to support agents along the border.
The administration has been under pressure to strengthen border enforcement since Arizona adopted a tough law in April to crack down on illegal immigration,
saying the federal government was failing to do its job. After the administration sued Arizona, a federal court stayed important parts of that law.
Obama will fight the plan --- he is requesting more money for border surveillance
Knauth 14 (Dietrich Knauth, “Obama Seeks $39M In Drone Funding For Border Surveillance”, Law360, 7/9/2014,
http://www.law360.com/articles/555799/obama-seeks-39m-in-drone-funding-for-border-surveillance)//MBB
Law360, New York (July 9, 2014, 5:08 PM ET) -- The Obama
administration on Tuesday requested $39 million for aerial
surveillance, including unmanned aircraft operations, as part of an effort to stop an influx of refugee
children from crossing the U.S.'s southern border.
The administration has called on Congress to provide $3.7 billion in emergency funding, spread out among the U.S.
Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services and State, to combat what it called a “humanitarian crisis.”
The White House said that children, both accompanied and on their own, are
fleeing Central America in alarming numbers and
that as a result, it needs more border surveillance and security, as well as a surge in enforcement
personnel, from immigration judges to asylum officers.
The DHS would get a significant portion of the president's request, with $1.1 billion going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $433 million going to
Customs and Border Protection. The CBP's share includes $39.4 million to increase air surveillance capabilities that would support 16,526 additional flight hours for
border surveillance and 16 additional crews for unmanned aerial systems to improve detection and interdiction of illegal activity, according to a White House fact
sheet.
Obama advocates for tight border patrol
The Economist 14 – (The Economist, “The border is not the problem”, The Economist, 11/21/2014,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/barack-obama-and-immigration)//MBB s/o to Faith
BARACK OBAMA gives a good speech: that much is clear. For your British correspondent, inured to the lazy xenophobic rhetoric of his country’s politicians, it is hard
not to be uplifted by the president’s appeal to Americans to accept immigrants as equals. Giving the example of a brilliant young girl from Nevada, he asked
Americans: “Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant…or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?” A British politician would never
ask such a question, for fear that the answer would be “nope, kick her out.”
But, for all of the inspiring rhetoric Mr Obama produces, his speech underlined the way all politicians
seem to approach immigration in broadly the same way, regardless of where they are from. For example, take the obsession with
borders. The very first thing that Mr Obama said that he has done is tighten border security: “Today, we have
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history.” This
supports the common idea—reinforced by Republican complaints—that most illegal immigrants smuggle themselves over the border. In America nearly
any time immigration is discussed, so too is border security. Yet this connection is not as obvious as it sounds.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Religious Surveillance Link
Obama will fight the plan --- he defends surveillance of Muslims
Blumenthal 14 – (Max Blumenthal, “Obama Humiliates Muslim Guests at White House Ramadan Event, Endorses Israel’s Gaza Assault and NSA Surveillance”,
Alternet, 7/17/2014, http://www.alternet.org/world/obama-humiliates-muslim-white-house-guests-endorsing-israels-gaza-assault-defending-nsa)//MBB
At the annual White House Iftar dinner commemorating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, President Barack Obama endorsed Israel’s ongoing assault on the
Gaza Strip and defended
government spying on Muslim-Americans. Alongside dozens of Muslim-American community activists and
Muslim diplomats, the White House welcomed Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer, an outspoken advocate of
Israel's settlement enterprise who has claimed Muslim and Arab culture is endemically violent.
In the past, the annual Iftar dinner passed without much notice. Last year, President Barack Obama delivered a boilerplate speech to the assembled crowd of
Muslim-American community activists and Middle Eastern ambassadors about his efforts to spur entrepreneurship. But this time, amidst a one-sided Israeli assault
on the Gaza Strip that was about to claim its 200th death in just a week, and which the US had backed to the hilt, the heat was on.
While Obama prepared his remarks, calls rang out with unprecedented intensity for invitees to boycott the July 14 ceremony. Among those who urged a boycott in
protest of the Gaza assault and ongoing government spying on Muslim-Americans was the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), an established
presence in Washington representing the country’s largest Arab-American advocacy group.
Joining the boycott call was Mariam Abu-Ali, the sister of Ahmed Abu Ali, a US citizen renditioned to Saudi Arabia for torture before being sentenced to life in prison
on dubious charges of threatening to kill George W. Bush. “The
White House Iftar is a slap in the face to those in the Muslim
community who have been victims of U.S. civil-rights and human-rights abuses,” Abu Ali wrote. “It is an
attempt by administration after administration to whitewash the crimes of the U.S. government against
Muslims by painting a less-than-accurate picture of their relationship with the American Muslim
community.”
As established Muslim-American leaders like Laila Al-Marayati lined up to boycott (Al-Marayati rejected an invitation to the State Department’s Iftar), others
defended their presence at the ceremony. Most vocal among them was Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), one of the two Muslim members of Congress. “I disagree with the
tactic,” Ellison remarked in a statement released by his office. “It will not close Guantanamo Bay, guarantee a cease-fire between Israel and Palestine or undo the
NSA’s targeting of Muslims.”
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) echoed Ellison, insisting that the event would “allow [them] to engage with senior White House officials for a decent
amount of time on substantive issues.”
While Muslim-American civil rights groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations have assumed a more confrontational posture towards the White House
and boycotted a prayer breakfast with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in protest of his support for NYPD surveillance of Muslims, MPAC has taken
an altogether different tack. Its role as a paid consultant on the cable TV series, “Tyrant,” was perhaps the best example of its accommodationist stance.
Produced by Howard Gordon, the creator of “24” and “Homeland,” the show starred a white actor playing a pathological Arab dictator who ruled over the deeply
dysfunctional fictional nation of Abuddin. Even mainstream TV critics derided the series as unbearably Orientalist, with the Washington Post’s Hank Stuever
describing it as a “stultifyingly acted TV drama stocked with tired and terribly broad notions of Muslim culture in a make-believe nation on the brink.” Leading up to
the White House Iftar, a leader of a major Muslim advocacy organization told me on background that MPAC was bleeding support, especially from younger activists.
At the Iftar dinner, Obama launched into a defense of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip, declaring, “I will say very clearly, no country can accept rockets fired
indiscriminately at citizens. And so, we’ve been very clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against what I consider to be inexcusable attacks from Hamas.”
He went on to claim against all evidence that his administration had “worked long and hard to alleviate” the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and that it had
“emphasized the need to protect civilians, regardless of who they are or where they live.”
Ali Kurnaz, the central regional director for the Florida-based Emerge USA, was in the audience. He told me that Obama’s
remarks provoked deep
discomfort, with attendees exchanging disturbed looks and rolling their eyes in astonishment. No one walked
out in protest, however.
“After the dinner, I overheard at least three different exchanges attendees pointing out that Palestinians should have a right to defend themselves too,” Kurnaz
recalled.
Like many others who joined the dinner, Kurnaz was not aware that Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer had been invited. Dermer was a longtime confidant of Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the son of the Republican former Mayor of Miami Beach. This year, Dermer broke diplomatic protocol by appearing at a
fundraiser for the Republican Jewish Committee, helping to raise money for a partisan organization dedicated to undermining Obama’s agenda.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Perhaps the most startling aspect of Dermer’s presence at the Iftar dinner was his stated belief that “a
cultural tendency towards belligerency” is “deeply embedded in the culture of the Arab world and its
foremost religion.”
According to Kurnaz, Dermer spent the evening isolated in the White House’s Green Room adjacent to the main reception area, where he milled around mostly
without company. None of the activists invited to the dinner approached him.
When dinner began, Kurnaz said Obama was unusually candid with those seated at his table. They
confronted him on the issue of
domestic spying, an issue that took on renewed immediacy after revelations by the Intercept that the
NSA and FBI has spied on leading Muslim-American civil rights activists. Obama attempted to remind
them that the spying had begun under his predecessor, Bush, but defended the practice nonetheless,
denying that the NSA had violated any laws.
Obama not willing to curtail Muslim surveillance
Ackerman 14 – (Spencer Ackerman, “White House Iftar dinner guests press Obama on surveillance of Muslims”, The Guardian, 7/16/2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/white-house-iftar-obama-surveillance-muslims)//MBB
Attendees of a White House dinner this week celebrating a Muslim holiday attempted to leverage their direct
interaction with Barack Obama into a presidential commitment to discuss widespread and controversial
surveillance of their communities.
They left feeling they had Obama's interest, but not much more.
Less than a week after the Intercept, based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, showed US Muslim activists and attorneys had been targeted for
surveillance, Obama gathered legislators, diplomats and US Muslim community leaders to the White House on Monday night for an Iftar dinner, the sunset meal
during Ramadan. In remarks released by the White House, Obama
stressed the value of pluralism, sidestepping the
surveillance controversy.
Not everyone was satisfied with the omission.
Some of the people who attended were signatories of a letter sent to the White House in the wake of the Intercept story urgently requesting a meeting with
Obama. Without that commitment yet in hand, took the opportunity to raise the issue with Obama personally at the Monday dinner.
"I specifically asked the president if he would meet with us to discuss NSA spying on the American Muslim community. The president seemed to perk up and
proceeded to discuss the issue, saying that he takes it very seriously," said Junaid Sulahry, the outreach manager for Muslim Advocates, a legal and civil rights group.
Obama was non-committal, Sulahry said, but displayed "a clear willingness to discuss the issue."
Hoda Elshishtawy, the national policy analyst for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said that she brought it up as part of a "table-wide discussion" on post-9/11
surveillance of US Muslims.
"Our communities can't be seen as suspects and partners at the same time," Elshishtawy said.
That tension has plagued the Obama administration's domestic counterterrorism – or, as it prefers,
"countering violent extremism" – for its entire tenure. The departments of justice and homeland security lead outreach efforts in
Muslim and other local communities, stressing vigilance against radicalizing influences and dialogue with law enforcement.
Yet Muslim communities labor under widespread suspicion of incubating terrorism. Surveillance from law enforcement and US intelligence is robust, from the
harvesting of digital communications to the recruitment of informants inside mosques. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation compiles
maps of Muslim businesses and religious institutions, without suspicion of specific crimes.
The mixed message comes amidst the freight of a foreign policy featuring drone strikes in Muslim countries, a reluctance to foreclose on indefinite detention that
functionally is only aimed at Muslims, and difficulty concluding the war in Afghanistan – all of which have strained relations with American-Muslim communities.
Some of those community leaders have already come under fire for attending the White House dinner. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee urged a
boycott over the surveillance and administration support for Israel during the current Gaza offensive, rejecting what it called "normalization of the continuous
breach of our fundamental rights."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Representatives of organizations that rejected the boycott argued that they can exercise greater influence through access than through rejection.
"Our strategy is to worth through the system," said Farhana Khera, Muslim Advocates' executive director.
The White House declined comment on what it called "private conversations at a closed press event."
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Foreign Embassy Link
Obama will oppose the curtailing of Foreign Embassy spying
Miranda 13 --- (Luis Miranda, October 13, 2013, “Obama Encourages Spying on world leaders”, real-agenda.com, http://realagenda.com/obama-encourages-spying-on-world-leaders/)//Jmoney
US government spies with the complicity of its European partners
He lied claiming otherwise. He’s a serial liar. He’s a moral coward. He’s a war criminal multiple times
over. He did what supporters thought impossible.
He exceeds the worst of George Bush. He plans lots more ways to prove it through 2016. Humanity may
not survive the ordeal.
On October 27, Deutche Welle (DW) headlined “Media reports suggest Obama
knew NSA spied on Merkel.”
Der Spiegel said NSA’s Special Collection Service (SCS) monitored her cell phone conversations since 2002. Obama
lied telling Merkel he knew
nothing about it.
He encourages global spying. He wants world leaders monitored. He wants stepped up surveillance
doing it.
According to DW, “a report in Bild am Sonntag published Sunday cites an
unnamed NSA official who said (Obama) ordered the
program be escalated.”
NSA chief Keith Alexander told Obama about monitoring Merkel’s phone calls. It hacked into her “supposedly secure phone”
“Only a special, secure landline phone in her office was reportedly not accessible to electronic tapping.”
Hacked information was reported directly to the White House. Evidence suggests monitoring Merkel continued at least through the “immediate past.”
Despite official disclaimers, most likely it continues. A previous article discussing spying on 35 world
leaders. They weren’t named. It’s not hard imagining likely targets.
Perhaps lots more than 35 are monitored. NSA may add others to its list. Global
spying is official US policy. No one’s safe from
intrusion.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “it’s very, very difficult to defend yourself.” At most, you can make it tougher, more time consuming and
expensive to do it. More on that below.
On October 27, Der Spiegel headlined “Embassy Espionage: The NSA’s Secret Spy Hub in Berlin,” saying:
Its research shows “United States intelligence agencies have not only targeted Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone, but they
have also used the
American Embassy in Berlin as a listening station.”
Obama refuses to stop spying on foreign embassies
RT 14 (RT News, “NSA spying on foreign embassies helped US 'develop' strategy”, RT News, 5/13/2014, http://rt.com/usa/158608-nsa-greenwald-unsnowden/)//MBB
The National Security Agency in 2010 provided the US ambassador to the United Nations with background information on several governments and their embassies
that were undecided on the question of Iranian sanctions.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
In May 2010, as the UN Security Council was attempting to win support for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear-energy program, which some say is a front for a
nuclear weapons program, several members were undecided as to how they would vote. At this point, the US ambassador to the world body, Susan Rice, asked the
NSA for assistance in her efforts to “develop a strategy,” leaked NSA documents reveal.
The NSA swung into action, aiming their powerful surveillance apparatus at the personal
communications of diplomats from four non-permanent Security Council members — Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda. This gave Rice an
apparent upper-hand in the course of the negotiations.
In June, 12 of the 15-member Security Council voted in favor of new sanctions.
Later, Rice extended her gratitude to the US spy agency, saying its surveillance had helped her to
know when diplomats from the
other permanent representatives — China, England, France and Russia — “were telling the truth ... revealed their real
position on sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various
countries’ ‘red lines’.”
The information comes from a new book by journalist Glenn Greenwald, ‘No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State’, the New York
Times reported.
Rice’s request for assistance was discovered in an internal report by the security agency’s Special Source Operations division, which cooperates with US
telecommunications companies in the event a request for information is deemed necessary.
Greenwald’s book goes on sale Tuesday.
The book also provides a
list of embassies around the world that had been infiltrated by the US spy agency,
including those of Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, the European Union, France, Georgia, Greece, India, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela and Vietnam.
News of the NSA’s vast surveillance network, which targets friends and enemies of the United States
with equanimity, were revealed in June when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided
Greenwald with thousands of files on the program.
Despite promises by President Obama for greater safeguards on the invasive system, which has infuriated
people around the world, the NSA seems determined not to let international public opinion block its
spying efforts.
“While our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of
governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the world, in the same way that the
intelligence services of every other nation do, we will not apologize because our services may be more
effective,” according to a White House statement.
The latest revelations detailing how the NSA gives American diplomats an unfair advantage raises the question as to how such orders passed legal muster in the first
place.
According to the documents, a legal team went to work on May 22 building the case to electronically eavesdrop on diplomats and envoys from Bosnia, Gabon,
Nigeria and Uganda whose embassies were apparently not yet covered by the NSA.
A judge from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the request on May 26.
The Obama administration has faced fierce criticism following revelations of the global surveillance program, which was used not simply to identify potential
terrorists, but to eavesdrop on the communications of world leaders.
Following revelations that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s private cell phone communications were being hacked by the NSA, Germany
pushed for
a ‘no-spy’ agreement with the United States to restore the trust.
The Obama administration, however, rejected
the offer.
Now Europe has announced plans to construct a new Internet network that bypasses the United States and the NSA, a move the US Trade Representative labeled
“draconian.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AFF Links
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turns
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turn – Generic
There’s bipartisan momentum for curtailing surveillance
Weisman, 13 (Jonathan Weisman, political writer for NYT, 7-28-2013, "Momentum Builds against
N.S.A. Surveillance", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/politics/momentumbuilds-against-nsa-surveillance.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — The movement to crack down on government surveillance started with an odd couple from Michigan,
Representatives Justin Amash, a young libertarian Republican known even to his friends as “chief wing nut,” and John Conyers Jr., an elder of
the liberal left in his 25th House term. But what began on the political fringes only a week ago has
built a momentum that even
critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting
moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the
House. The rapidly shifting politics were reflected clearly in the House on Wednesday, when a plan to defund the National Security Agency’s
telephone data collection program fell just seven votes short of passage. Now, after initially signaling that they were comfortable with the
scope of the N.S.A.’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet activities, but not their content, revealed last month by Edward J. Snowden,
lawmakers are showing an increasing willingness to use legislation to curb those actions. Representatives Jim
Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, have begun work on legislation in the
House Judiciary Committee to significantly rein in N.S.A. telephone surveillance. Mr. Sensenbrenner said on Friday that he
would have a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of
a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft
and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court. “There
is a growing sense that things have really gone akilter here,” Ms. Lofgren said. The sudden reconsideration of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism policy has taken much of Washington by
surprise. As the revelations by Mr. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, were gaining attention in the news media, the White House and
leaders in both parties stood united behind the programs he had unmasked. They were focused mostly on bringing the leaker to justice.
Backers of sweeping surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain
control over the extent of any revisions. Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee met on Wednesday as the House deliberated to try to
find accommodations to growing public misgivings about the programs, said the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat
of California. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat and longtime critic of the N.S.A. surveillance programs, said he had taken part in serious
meetings to discuss changes. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the panel, said, “We’re talking through it right
now.” He added, “There are a lot of ideas on the table, and it’s pretty obvious that we’ve got some uneasy folks.” Representative Mike Rogers,
a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has assured House colleagues that an intelligence policy bill he
plans to draft in mid-September will include new privacy safeguards. Aides familiar with his efforts said the House Intelligence Committee was
focusing on more transparency for the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees data gathering, including possibly
declassifying that court’s orders, and changes to the way the surveillance data is stored. The legislation may order such data to be held by the
telecommunications companies that produce them or by an independent entity, not the government. Lawmakers say their votes to
restrain the N.S.A. reflect a gut-level concern among voters about personal privacy. “I represent a very
reasonable district in suburban Philadelphia, and my constituents are expressing a growing concern on the sweeping
amounts of data that the government is compiling,” said Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican
who represents one of the few true swing districts left in the House and who voted on Wednesday to limit N.S.A. surveillance. Votes from the
likes of Mr. Fitzpatrick were not initially anticipated when Republican leaders chided reporters for their interest in legislation that they said
would go nowhere. As the House slowly worked its way on Wednesday toward an evening vote to curb government surveillance, even
proponents of the legislation jokingly predicted that only the “wing nuts” — the libertarians of the right, the most ardent liberals on the left —
would support the measure. Then Mr. Sensenbrenner, a Republican veteran and one of the primary authors of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act,
stepped to a microphone on the House floor. Never, he said, did he intend to allow the wholesale vacuuming up of domestic phone records,
nor did his legislation envision that data dragnets would go beyond specific targets of terrorism investigations. “The time has come to stop it,
and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said. He had not intended to speak, and when he did, he did not say
much, just seven brief sentences. “I was able to say what needed to be said in a minute,” he said Friday. Lawmakers from both parties said the
brief speech was a pivotal moment. When the tally was final, the effort to end the N.S.A.’s programs had fallen short, 205 to 217. Supporters
included Republican leaders like Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington and Democratic leaders like Representative James E.
Clyburn of South Carolina. Republican moderates like Mr. Fitzpatrick and Blue Dog Democrats like Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon
joined with respected voices on national security matters like Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren. Besides Ms. McMorris Rodgers,
Representative Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, another member of the Republican leadership, voted yes. On the Democratic side, the chairman of the
House Democratic Caucus, Representative Xavier Becerra of California, and his vice chairman, Representative Joseph Crowley of New York,
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
broke with the top two Democrats, Representatives Nancy Pelosi of California and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who pressed hard for no votes.
On Friday, Ms. Pelosi, the House minority leader and a veteran of the Intelligence Committee, and Mr. Hoyer
dashed off a letter
to the president warning that even those Democrats who had stayed with him on the issue on Wednesday would
be seeking changes. That letter included the signature of Mr. Conyers, who is rallying an increasingly unified
Democratic caucus to his side, as well as 61 House Democrats who voted no on Wednesday but are now publicly signaling their
discontent. “Although some of us voted for and others against the amendment, we all agree that there are lingering questions and concerns
about the current” data collection program, the letter stated. Representative Reid Ribble of Wisconsin, a Republican who voted for the curbs
and predicted that changes to the N.S.A. surveillance programs were now unstoppable, said: “This was in many respects a vote intended to
send a message. The vote was just too strong.” Ms. Lofgren said the White House and Democratic and Republican leaders had not come to grips
with what she called “a grave sense of betrayal” that greeted Mr. Snowden’s revelations. Since the Bush administration, lawmakers had been
repeatedly assured that such indiscriminate collection of data did not exist, and that when targeting was unspecific, it was aimed at people
abroad. The movement against the N.S.A. began with the fringes of each party. Mr. Amash of Michigan began pressing for an amendment on
the annual military spending bill aimed at the N.S.A. Leaders of the Intelligence Committee argued strenuously that such an amendment was
not relevant to military spending and should be ruled out of order. But Mr. Amash, an acolyte of Ron Paul, a libertarian former congressman,
persisted and rallied support. Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren said they were willing to work with the House and Senate intelligence panels
to overhaul the surveillance programs, but indicated that they did not believe those panels were ready to go far enough. “I would just hope the
Intelligence Committees will not stick their heads in the sand on this,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turn – Generic – Tech Lobbies
The tech sector loves and will push for the plan – they’re a key lobby group
Romm, 15 (Tony Romm, senior technology reporter for Politico, 1-21-2015, "Tech giants get deeper
into D.C. influence game", POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tech-lobby-appleamazon-facebook-google-114468.html, DA: 6-2-2015)
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. Story Continued Below “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.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turn – Generic – Public
Plan’s popular – there’s overwhelming, bipartisan public support for reducing
surveillance – it directly affects Obama’s approval rating
Jaycox, 14 (MARK JAYCOX, Legislative Analyst for EFF, 22-2014, "Update: Polls Continue to Show
Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying", Electronic Frontier Foundation,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying,
DA: 5-30-2015)
Update, January 2014: Polls
continue to confirm the trend. In a poll conducted in December 2013 by the Washington Post,
66% of Americans were concerned "about the collection and use of [their] personal information by the
National Security Agency." Americans aren't only concerned about the collection. A recent Pew poll found—yet again—that a
majority of Americans oppose the government's collection of phone and Internet data as a part of anti-terrorism
efforts. Since Americans are both concerned with, and opposed to, the spying, it's no surprise that they also
want reform. In a November 2013 poll by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research,1 59% of respondents noted that they wanted
surveillance reform and 63% said they wanted more oversight of the spying programs. While these polls focused on the
larger population of Americans, a Harvard University Insitute of Politics poll focusing on younger Americans (aged 18-29 years old)
reaffirmed younger Americans are both wary of the NSA's activities and that a majority do not want the
government to collect personal information about them. 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—
around the NSA spying is starting to show. President Obama has seen a 14point swing in his approval and disapproval rating among voters aged 18-29 after the NSA spying. These recent
round of polls confirm that Americans are not only concerned with the fact that the spying infringes their privacy, but also that they want
the spying to stop. And this is even more so for younger Americans. Now is the time for Congress to act: join the
especially younger Americans—have
StopWatching.Us coalition.
That shields the link and builds political capital
Page, 09 – cites H.W. Brands, professor at UTA, and presidential historian who has met privately with
Obama (Susan Page, USA Today reporter, 7-20-2009, "Polls can affect president's hold on party", USA
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Today, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm, DA: 5-302015)
WASHINGTON — A
president's standing after his first six months in office doesn't forecast whether he'll have a successful four-year
how much political juice he'll have for his second six months in office. That's the lesson of
term, but it does signal
history. Barack Obama, who completed six months in office Monday, has a 55% approval rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, putting him
10th among the dozen presidents who have served since World War II at this point in their tenures. That's not as bad for Obama as it may
sound: The six-month mark hasn't proved to be a particularly good indicator of how a president ultimately will fare. Two-thirds of Americans
approved of the jobs Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were doing at six months, but both would lose their bids for re-election. And though
the younger Bush and Bill Clinton had significantly lower ratings at 180 days — Clinton had sunk to 41% approval — both won second terms.
Even so, a
president's standing at the moment is more than a matter of vanity. It affects his ability to hold the
members of his own party and persuade those on the other side to support him, at least on the
occasional issue. "Approval ratings are absolutely critical for a president achieving his agenda," says
Republican pollster Whit Ayres. For Obama, the timing of his slide in ratings is particularly unhelpful: He's intensified his push to pass health
care bills in the House and Senate before Congress leaves on its August recess. He'll press his case at a news conference at 8 p.m. Wednesday.
His overall approval rating has dropped 9 percentage points since his inauguration in January, and his disapproval rate has jumped 16 points, to
41%. Trouble at home More people disapprove than approve of Obama on four domestic issues: the economy, taxes, health care and the
federal budget deficit. He scores majority approval on handling Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign affairs. The biggest drop has been on his handling
of the economy, down 12 points since February; his disapproval is up 19 points. The most erosion has come not from Republicans or
independents but among his own Democrats. Support from conservative and moderate Democrats is down by 18 points. Another group in the
party's political base — those earning $20,000 to $50,000 a year — had a drop of 15 percentage points, to 47%. That could reflect one reason
why moderate Democratic senators and the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House are demanding more cost controls in the
health care plan before they'll sign on. "It's
important if a president is trying to accomplish some big stuff
legislatively," H.W. Brands, a professor at the University of Texas-Austin, says of the approval rating. He was one of
several presidential historians who sat down with Obama at a private White House dinner this month.
"Members of Congress are somewhat reluctant to tangle with a president who seems to have the backing
of the American people." At 55% overall, Obama's approval rating is a tick below that of George W. Bush at six months. It is well
above Clinton and Gerald Ford, who was hammered for his pardon of Richard Nixon. At the top of the list is Harry Truman at 82% — buoyed by
the end of World War II — followed by Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower. The fact that presidents from the 1950s and
1960s scored better than more recent ones could mean the public's assessments are getting tougher. "Mid-20th-century presidents had higher
political capital and more stable political capital than presidents of the last 20 years," says Steven Schier, a political scientist who is studying
presidential job approval since modern polling began in the 1930s. He wrote Panorama of a Presidency: How George W. Bush Acquired and
Spent His Political Capital. Schier theorizes that the difference in ratings is due to the accelerating speed with which information is
disseminated, the declining number of Americans firmly tied to a political party and a growing desire to see quick results. "There's
less
patience with presidents than there used to be," he says. What's popularity for? Savvy presidents understand
that pursuing big policies will cost them popularity, Brands says. "Presidents have to decide what their
popularity is for," he says. "Lyndon Johnson probably understood best that political popularity is a wasting asset. You had to use it when
you had it." Johnson was inaugurated after Kennedy's assassination in 1963 and then crushed Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964
presidential race. LBJ used his high approval ratings — they didn't fall below 60% for more than two years after his inauguration — and big
majorities in the House and Senate to enact his Great Society programs. Amid growing opposition to the Vietnam War, Johnson's standing fell
so low that he decided not to seek another term. Ronald Reagan may provide a closer parallel to Obama. Both took office as the nation's
economy was in perilous times. Reagan was at 60% at six months, but his standing slipped below 50% by the end of his first year in office as the
jobless rate swelled. It would take two years and economic recovery before a majority of Americans would approve of his presidency again.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
---Public Support Key
Most qualified evidence proves the link between popular approval and political capital
– they’re directly influenced by policies
Clawson and Oxley, 13 (Rosalee A. Clawson, Department Head and Professor of Poli Sci at Purdue,
Ph.D. Ohio State, AND Zoe M. Oxley, Professor of Political Science and American Studies at Union
College, Public Opinion: Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice, pp. 109-112, Google Books, DA:
5/30/2015)
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL One of the
most important political attitudes studied by political scientists is
presidential approval.18 Politicians, journalists, and political junkies are also quite interested in this concept. Presidential approval
refers to the public’s level of approval or disapproval of the president’s job performance . For decades, the Gallup
organization has conducted daily telephone surveys with national, representative samples of U.S. citizens to track approval of the president.
Gallup asks, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the incumbent] is handling his job as president?”19 Each day Gallup releases its latest
approval numbers for the president based on a three-day rolling average of these tracking polls. The data are posted online at 1:00 p.m. EST on
the Gallup Web site. Some political observers are so obsessed with these numbers that they glue themselves to their computers or
smartphones each afternoon waiting anxiously for the data to be released. Why are these
approval ratings so important? Because they
speak volumes about a president’s political power. Strong approval ratings are good news for a president’s
reelection chances, and they boost the electoral fortunes of members of Congress in his party who support his
agenda.20 Higher approval ratings also enable the president to be more successful in his interactions with
Congress.21 In general, high approval ratings can be thought of as a form of political capital that allows the
president to pursue his goals. Presidential approval ratings for George W. Bush and Barack Obama are presented in Figure 4-2. (Take
a look at the Presidential Job Approval Center on the Gallup Web site for job approval ratings from Truman to Obama.22) The first thing that
jumps out about these ratings is the way in which presidential approval declines over time. President George W. Bush started his presidency
with approval ratings in the high 50s and low 60s, but ended eight years later in the high 20s and low 30s. President Obama took office with
approval ratings in the mid-6os, but those declined over time as well. This initial popularity is often referred to as the honeymoon period.
Presidents take office with substantial goodwill from the public and, quite important, from other political elites. As time goes by however, the
president is faced with many difficult and controversial problems, and inevitably he makes decisions that tick off one group of people or
another.23 Although
the average citizen may not track a president’s every move, political elites are paying
close attention, and some begin to complain about the president’s decisions. The media transmit, and may
even exaggerate, those criticisms, so that citizens are increasingly exposed to negative coverage of the president. As a result, public
approval for the president falls over time.24 Another noticeable feature of the presidential approval data is the way the public reacts to foreign
policy events. Specifically, a
rally round the flag effect occurs when presidential popularity surges in the wake of
a foreign policy event involving the United States, especially an unexpected crisis.25 After the 9/11 attacks, President George W.
Bush’s ratings soared to 90 percent approval as citizens’ patriotism and feelings of unity were activated by the tragedy of that day.26 As
expected, over time President Bush’s ratings declined from this extraordinarily high level, but he received another boost when he ordered the
invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The capture of Saddam Hussein also provided a small lift to President Bush’s ratings in December 2003, and as
we already mentioned, President Obama’s ratings rose in response to the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Foreign policy events clearly
benefited President George W. Bush’s approval ratings on several occasions, but war also took a toll on his popularity. Battle deaths in Iraq, for
example, had a significant negative effect on Bush’s approval ratings.27 More generally, a study of presidential approval ratings from 1948
through 2008 demonstrates that war casualties and the financial costs of war can dampen a president’s popularity.28 Citizens’
views of
presidential job performance are influenced by another crucial factor—the economy. Whether scholars use
objective measures of economic well-being, such as the unemployment rate, or citizens’ perceptions of the state of the economy or both to
explain presidential approval, it is clear that economic variables have a significant impact on citizens’ evaluations.29 As President Obama is well
aware, a poor economy wreaks havoc on a president’s popularity. The bump in approval President Obama experienced as a result of bin
Laden’s death quickly dissipated as economic conditions weighed heavily on many U.S. citizens during summer 2011. In fact, Obama’s approval
ratings reached all-time lows in fall 2011 as citizens reacted to the acrimonious debate over raising the debt ceiling and the economy continued
to sputter. Overall, this aggregate-level
research on presidential approval shows that it is not as stable as collective public
in presidential approval are not random but are reactions
to political events and economic conditions, suggesting at least a somewhat sophisticated and capable citizenry.
opinion on issues tends to be. Yet at the same time, changes
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
There is a caveat, however. Political
elites and media organizations play a critical role in interpreting events and
conditions for citizens as they evaluate the president.30 For example, when a group of political elites start
hammering a president on a particular issue and the media pick up that story line and run with it, an issue can quickly
become prominent in the minds of citizens and influence their judgment of presidential performance.
This is fine from a participatory democratic viewpoint if the media and political elites are focusing on important issues in an honest fashion, but
what about when trivial issues arc emphasized or reality is distorted? Citizens are ill served by such discourse and may find their evaluations of
the president’s job performance influenced by faulty evidence and reasoning.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turn – Generic – Congress/Lobbies
Reform’s popular and builds political support – lobbies, lawmakers – their evidence
doesn’t assume new changes in the political environment
Barfield, 14 (Claude Barfield, resident scholar at AEI who researches international trade policy, the
WTO, IP, and science and tech policy, and is former consultant to the Office of the US Trade
Representative, 8-6-2014, "NSA surveillance reform: A tilt toward privacy over security?-CICTP", Tech
Policy Daily, http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/nsa-surveillance-reform-tilt-toward-privacysecurity/, DA: 5-23-2015)
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. One can start with President Obama’s much heralded but ultimately
noncommittal speech on NSA and FISA court reforms in January. In
his “leading from behind” mode, the president laid
down general principles but left it to Congress and various interest groups to fill in the specifics. Reactions to the
president’s speech were decidedly mixed and reflected the strong, opposing viewpoints across the security-privacy spectrum.
Then NSA Director General Keith Alexander had already publicly stated his opposition to ending the government’s control of the metadata
program. His skepticism regarding this and other elements of the administration’s proposed FISA reforms was echoed publicly by the chairmen
and ranking members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. 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. Giving
evidence of how far the pendulum has swung in recent
months, however, both civil libertarian groups and high-tech companies came down hard against the House bill as passed,
and demanded further restrictions and changes in current policy and practice. This set the stage for Senate
Judiciary Chairman Leahy to seize the lead and rally a broad political coalition behind his own revised bill.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Link Turn – Generic/FISA
Plan’s popular – new Congressional support for curtailing surveillance – momentum
goes aff
*specific lawmakers – Lee (R-UT), Durbin (D-IL), Merkley (D-OR), Wyden (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Udall (DCO), Leahy (D-VT)
Everett, 13 (Burgess Everett, congressional reporter for POLITICO, 6-7-2013, "Mounting concern over
NSA in Congress", POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/mounting-concern-over-nsa-incongress-92422.html, DA: 5-23-2015)
Concern in Congress is mounting over broad surveillance by the Obama administration as new revelations
surfaced that the National Security Administration is monitoring Internet usage. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is shopping bills
that would address some portions of the government monitoring, an aide said, particularly the NSA collection of Verizon
phone records. His legislation would likely be similar to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments that he pushed last year
with fellow senators like Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The measures, both of which failed last December,
would require the declassification of certain FISA court opinions and require reports on the impact of FISA surveillance on Americans. The Lee
aide said that with
government surveillance so prominent in the news, the legislation may find itself some
new supporters. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he’s likely to support that legislation. “We should have
done this,” Durbin said of increasing oversight and transparency on government surveillance. “We may not have run into this
surprise breaking story these past few days if we did.” Durbin voted against FISA reauthorization and has worked on transparency issues with
Lee. In
the past, he said, amendments to broaden oversight were “clearly an idea that didn’t sell.” In the wake of the
initial revelations about Verizon records, the general reaction on Capitol Hill was muted. Members of the intelligence
committees said they knew about the surveillance and weren’t alarmed, and that they had been routinely consulted. Civil libertarians
such as Lee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called for strengthening privacy protections. After staying largely quiet this week,
Wyden and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement on Friday afternoon blasting the administration’s use of the
Patriot Act. The two have hinted for years that Americans would be shocked at how some of its provisions are used. “We respectfully but
firmly disagree with the way that this program has been described by senior administration officials. After years of review, we believe
statements that this very broad Patriot Act collection has been ‘a critical tool in protecting the nation’ do not appear to hold up under close
scrutiny,” the two Intelligence Committee members said. “We also disagree with the statement that the broad Patriot Act collection strikes the
‘right balance’ between protecting American security and protecting Americans’ privacy. In our view it does not,” they added. Amid the new
reports, there
are new calls for at least further debate about how FISA and the Patriot Act are being
implemented. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lamented that lawmakers were too consumed
by the fiscal cliff last December when FISA came up for renewal. Leahy and Lee both voted against the FISA extension, and
Leahy offered a substitute that failed. “I wish they had paid attention to what I tried to put in legislation,” Leahy said Friday.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Links
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Soft on Terror Link
Curtailing security isn’t perceived as being soft on terror
Alexander, Editor for the Southern, 5-14-2015
(Jon, Alexander: Durbin, Congress must defend Edward Snowden,
http://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/editorial/alexander/alexander-durbin-congress-must-defendedward-snowden/article_e17a5dfa-6be4-549c-a2c8-fe65275e6d7d.html)
Snowden, a lowly analyst for a private contractor, saw his government abusing its power and did something about it. The shear guts
required to grab the reams of classified documents and bolt is mind-blowing. It's something out of a James Bond film. Yet he pulled it off.
And, 14 years after the 9/11 attacks, he's forcing the U.S. to grapple with what it has become. The 9/11 terrorists
didn't expect to conquer the U.S. or topple the government. They only hoped to force us to surrender core values out of fear. And,
on that level, they won. Americans gladly surrendered freedom for a false sense of security. For a short time, we turned on liberty
because any open state will, by definition, be a vulnerable one. But it doesn't have to be a long-term victory for the religious radicals.
Snowden's leaks are returning the U.S. to normalcy, where the First and Fourth Amendments again
mean something. Just a decade ago, any lawmaker who dared question the Orwellian U.S. spy network
was branded either soft on terror or naive. Not any more.
Link’s inevitable – politics are ever changing
Collinson, CNN Reporter and Correspondent, 6-2-2015
(Stephen, Are post-9/11 politics shifting? http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/rand-paul-nsa2016-politics/)
Washington (CNN) Rand Paul has made his point: the
sands are shifting in Washington's perennial debate over the
balance between national security and privacy. In the post-9/11 era, the Kentucky senator's battle over ending
the NSA's phone data collection program would typically set off a familiar convulsion with critics of the
national security state facing accusations that they are willing to forgo America's safety. But while
opponents are flinging such charges Paul's way, they are finding that simply branding him as weak on keeping
America safe is not a sufficient response to the changing politics on the issue.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 Flip Flop Link
Plan’s not a flip flop – Obama already supports curtailing surveillance
*specifically for metadata, Section 215, and FISA reform
Lewis and Ackerman, 13 (Paul Lewis, Washington correspondent for the Guardian, AND Spencer
Ackerman, national security editor for The Guardian, 8-1-2013, "Obama touts NSA surveillance reforms
to quell growing unease over programs", Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/obama-nsa-surveillance-reforms-press-conference,
DA: 5-30-2015)
Barack Obama
announced the first public review of US surveillance programs since 9/11 on Friday, in what amounts
president's first concession that the mounting public concern in response to disclosures by whistleblower
Edward Snowden justifies reform. After weeks in which the Obama and senior intelligence officials have insisted that the
privacy of US citizens was sufficiently protected, the president announced a series of measures aimed at
containing the controversy prompted by the Guardian's revelations. At a White House press conference – his first full
question-and-answer session in three months – Obama said that revelations about the National Security Agency's activities had led
Americans to question their trust in government and damaged the country's reputation abroad. But he made it clear that the
programs themselves would remain in place. Announcing that a panel of independent figures would "review our
entire intelligence and communications technologies", reporting before the end of the year, Obama said: "We need new
to the
thinking for a new era." In an apparent reference to the series of disclosures by the Guardian over the last two months, the president said the
"drip by drip" cascade of stories based on documents provided by Snowden had "changed the environment" and impacted public perceptions.
"It
is not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. The American people need to have
specific steps"
designed to reassure the public and improve the US's reputation abroad. The proposals included a
commitment to work with Congress to "pursue appropriate reforms" to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which
has been used to authorise the bulk collection of millions of US phone records. He said he would work with legislators to
revamp the secretive foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court, which grants the NSA legal authorization for its mass collection, to
confidence in them as well," he said. Obama began his press conference by announcing what he described as "four
make it more adverserial. Obama conceded the court worked on the basis of biased proceedings which "only hear one side of the story" and
"may tilt it too far in favour of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty". Obama's suggestion that "privacy advocates" would be
introduced to some Fisa court proceedings was not unexpected. Three senators, Richard Blumenthal, Mark Udall and Ron Wyden, last week
introduced a bill to create such an advocate – a proposal that appears to have wide support. Nothing Obama announced is likely to materially
alter the NSA's ongoing mass collection of phone data and surveillance of internet communications in the short term. Neither did the president
exhibit much appetite for significantly altering the surveillance capabilities of the US intelligence community, saying at one point the aim might
be to "jigger slightly" the balance between the intelligence and "the incremental encroachment on privacy". But the
announcement,
made shortly before the president departed for his vacation, represents a significant climbdown for the White House,
which for two months has maintained that it has struck the right balance between privacy and security.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2 McConnell Link
McConnell’s toothless on surveillance and outweighed by the majority – Freedom Act
proves
Rosenthal, 15 (Max J. Rosenthal, 6-2-2015, "Congress just passed NSA reform. Here’s how Mitch
McConnell tried—and failed—to thwart it.", Mother Jones,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/mitch-mcconnell-nsa-reform-freedom-act, DA: 6-52015)
The USA Freedom Act, the bill that reforms the Patriot Act and stops the US government's bulk collection of phone records, finally
passed the Senate on Tuesday after the chamber rejected three amendments from GOP Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) aimed at weakening the bill's reforms. McConnell originally supported leaving the Patriot Act
with all of its surveillance powers intact, but he faced resistance from both Democrats and Republicans, including
die-hards such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who were happy to let bulk collection simply disappear without creating a
replacement. So McConnell agreed to proceed with the USA Freedom Act, but proposed four amendments to address
what he called the bill's "serious flaws." (He withdrew one of them.) Harley Geiger, chief counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology,
called McConnell's amendments "unnecessary for national security" and said that they would "erode both privacy and transparency." The
Senate agreed, rejecting the three amendments that came to a vote on Tuesday afternoon. McConnell's proposed changes would have:
Delayed the shutdown of bulk collection: The USA Freedom Act calls for bulk collection to shut down within six months of the law's passage.
One of McConnell's amendments would have stretched that out to a full year. Kept arguments before the FISA court a one-sided affair: The
FISA court reviews—and essentially always approves—requests for surveillance from government agencies. Its business is classified, and the
only arguments presented are by government lawyers. The USA Freedom Act establishes a panel of experts to argue privacy concerns before
the court, a move that one of McConnell's amendments would have tried to limit. Offered a potential backdoor for anti-reform efforts: Under
the USA Freedom Act, bulk collection will be replaced by a "query-based" system, in which intelligence agencies would have to ask phone
companies for records. That will take place six months after the bill is signed into law, but McConnell wanted to make the attorney general
certify one month before the end of bulk collection that the new system would not harm national security. That may have given anti-reform
lawmakers a final chance to scuttle the USA Freedom Act if the attorney general's certification didn't happen, or even raised any concerns at all.
Even if the amendments had passed, McConnell faced an uphill battle in the House: House Judiciary Committee
chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and ranking member Rep. John Conyers (D-Ill.) said in a statement on Monday that "[t]he
House is not likely to accept the changes proposed by Senator McConnell." Other House leaders also warned the
Senate away from making changes to the bill. Geiger called the USA Freedom Act's passage "the most significant national security surveillance
reform measure in the past three decades," and it may be only a matter of hours before President Barack Obama signs it into law. And while
privacy advocates didn't get everything they wanted from surveillance reform, McConnell got nothing.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
POLITICS INTERNAL LINKS CORE
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
***NEG POLITICAL CAPITAL***
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Obama Gets Credit/Blame
Obama is the Velcro president – all agency action links.
Nicholas and Hook 10. (Peter and Janet, Staff Writers – LA Times, “Obama the Velcro president”, LA Times, 7-30,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730/3)
If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the
responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate
Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting
But Obama remains the colossus of his administration
— to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf
new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public.
Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department
official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent
predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead,
voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a
toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's
daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for
jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner
table conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a
small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983
terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most
of the blame fell on lieutenants. Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he
reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comicbook superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said.
But as a candidate in
2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the
Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and
good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long
way off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup
poll showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7%
cited healthcare — a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved
lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work.
There's evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other
measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize.
Unemployment has been rising — from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in
various stages of foreclosure — up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when
Insulating the president from bad news has
proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the
blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man. Obama is the White
House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has
emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary
Steven Chu is prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end. So,
more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him. He has opined on virtually everything
unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit.
in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding.
Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from Democratic Pennsylvania Gov.
Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. "Stylistically
he creates some of
those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you position
yourself as being all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity
to fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen." A new White
House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead, aides want to market policies as more digestible pieces.
So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing and understandable
— such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. But at this stage, it
downsize either the president or his agenda.
may be late in the game to
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "The man came in promising change. He has a
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
higher profile than some presidents because of his youth, his race and the way he came to the White House with the message he brought in.
It's naive to believe he can step back and have some Cabinet secretary be the face of the oil spill. The
buck stops with his office."
Obama will get the blame for all policies passed – the hill is too polarized for any
blame deflection.
Politico 9. [2-13-09 -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18827.html]
The Washington climate, which led to a party-line vote on the stimulus, has big political implications: It means that Obama
will have sole ownership -- whether that means credit or blame -- for all the massive changes in government he
envisions over the coming year.
Presidents are the focal point of politics – they get the credit/blame.
CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer 4/28/02
Bruce Morton, Cnn Correspondent:
Networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising the Easter
Bunny. Blitzer: Competing for face time on the cable news networks. Stay with us. Blitzer: Welcome back. Time now for Bruce Morton's essay
on the struggle for balanced coverage on the cable networks. Morton: The Democrats have written the three cable news networks -- CNN, Fox
and MSNBC -- complaining that the Bush administration gets much more coverage than elected Democrats. They cite CNN, which they say,
from January 1 through March 21, aired 157 live events involving the Bush administration, and 7 involving elected Democrats. Fox and MS, they
say, did much the same thing. The coverage gap is certainly real, for several reasons. First, since September 11, the U.S. has been at war in
Afghanistan, so the president has been an active commander in chief. And covering the war, networks will often air whatever the president
says, even if he's praising the Easter Bunny. Plus, the White House press secretary's briefing, the Pentagon's, maybe the State Department's.
Why not? It's easy, it's cheap, the cameras are pooled, and in war time, the briefings may make major news. You never know. But there's
a
reason for the coverage gap that's older than Mr. Bush's administration. In war or peace, the president is a
commanding figure -- one man to whose politics and character and, nowadays, sex life, endless attention is paid. Congress is 535
people. What it does is complicated, compromises on budget items done in private, and lacks the drama of the White
House. There's a primetime TV show about a president. None about the Congress. If a small newspaper has one reporter in Washington, he'll
cover two things, the local congressional delegation and, on big occasions, the White House. So the complaining Democrats have a point, but
it's worth remembering that coverage of a president, while always intense, isn't always positive. You could ask the
Clintons. 9 Presidents will always get more coverage than Congresses. They're sexier. But it won't always be
coverage they like.
Presidency is the focal point of politics – president gets the credit or the blame,
deserved or not
Rosati 4. [Jerel A., University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor THE
POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 80]
Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents
receive credit when things are perceived as going well
and are blamed when things go badly. Unfortunately, American politics and the policy process are
incredibly complex and beyond considerable presidential control. With so many complex issues and
problems to address – the debt problem, the economy, energy, welfare, education, the environment,
foreign policy – this is a very demanding time to be president. As long as presidential promises and public expectations
remain high, the president’s job becomes virtually an impossible task. Should success occur, given the lack of presidential power, it is probably
not by the president’s own design. Nonetheless, the
president – the person perceived to be the leader of the country – will be
rewarded in terms of public prestige, greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor).
However, if the president is perceived as unsuccessful – a failure – this results not only in a weakened
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
president but one the public wants replaced, creating the opportunity to challenge an incumbent
president or his heir as presidential nominee.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: He’ll Avoid the Plan- Thumper Proves
Our story on the thumper is consistent – presidents make choices about which
initiatives to push and spend capital on.
Beckmann and Kumar 11. [Matthew, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, Vimal, econ prof at the Indian
Institute of Tech, “Opportunism in Polarization”, Presidential Studies Quarterly; Sep 2011; 41, 3]
Returning to our model and its implications, we see a
prerequisite to presidential influence is the president's
willingness and ability to spend political capital lobbying lawmakers. When a president either chooses
not to get involved (A = 0) or lacks political capital to spend (B = 0), the pivotal senator will propose and pass her preferred bill. In such
circumstances, the chamber's preference distribution does not matter; the president will have no influence. In other
circumstances - ones commonplace since Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the Oval Office - the president not only seeks to
exert influence on Capitol Hill, but also wields some political capital to invest to that end. We now turn to
these cases and in doing so uncover how presidents' influence turns on more than his supply of political capital and the location of the pivotal
voter; it also depends on the level ideological polarization. Let us explain.
This agenda prioritization is key to passage.
Beckmann and Kumar 11. [Matthew, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, Vimal, econ prof at the Indian
Institute of Tech, “How presidents pus, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking” Journal of Theoretical
Politics, Vol 23 Issue 1]
The first and perhaps most important prescription is that the White House does not treat all presidential
positions equally: most receive nothing more than a mere comment, a precious few get the White
House’s ‘full court press’, and such prioritizing matters. Specifically, our basic hypothesis holds that
presidents’ positive influence depends heavily on lobbying to work. The corollary, therefore, is that the crucial test of
presidents’ influence is not whether ‘skilled’ presidents fare better than their ‘unskilled’ counterparts, but rather whether Congress responds
differently to bills depending on the presidents’ lobbying, all else being equal.
President has to push the plan – otherwise it never makes the agenda
Cohen and Collier 99 – Jeffrey Cohen, professor of political science at Fordham University, and Ken Collier, assistant professor at
the University of Kansas, 1999, Presidential Policymaking: An End of Century Assessment, ed. Shull, p. 45
Presidential influence over the congressional agenda aims not only to open the gates for some issues
but to block other issues from progressing through the policymaking process. Presidents may try to
block some issues by not addressing them, by being inattentive. Often presidential involvement is
required for a policy to get onto the agenda. Lack of presidential attention may signal that the problem
is not as important as others. Policy advocates seek to prove that their issue is worthy of national
attention; getting the presidential “stamp of approval,” may be a necessary step in making an issue
“national.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Normal Means = Obama Push – Bulk Data
Obama will push Congress to reform – that links
(1) Empirics (2) Gridlock (3) GOP majority (4) Terrorism fears
Hattern 15 [Julian Hattem, Staff Writer at The Hill 2-11-2015
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/232437-obama-defers-to-congress-to-end-nsa-phone-tracking]
President Obama
won’t end the government’s controversial collection of data about millions of Americans on his own, because he’d
rather the matter be dealt with by Congress. “I’m still hopeful that we can actually get a bill passed,” Obama told BuzzFeed News in an
interview this week. “There is bipartisan support for the bill, and, as has been true in a lot of instances — including on immigration — my preference is always to
actually get legislation passed because it’s a little longer lasting.” In the year and a half since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s leaks
revealed how the NSA was secretly collecting “metadata” about Americans’ phone calls — including information about who was calling whom and when — civil
liberties advocates have called on Obama to end the program with the stroke of a pen. The programs needs to be continually reauthorized by the courts every 90
days. If he wanted to, critics say, Obama could simply end it by neglecting to have it renewed. Instead, he has made some minor changes to the structure of the
program, such as limiting searches to records about people two steps removed from a target, instead of the previous three. In the meantime, Congress
has
struggled with legislation to effectively end the program and require the government to get data from private phone companies. The USA Freedom
Act came two votes shy of overcoming a GOP-led filibuster in the Senate last year, serving as a bitter reminder of the high
hurdles NSA critics need to surmount to rein in the agency. The issue is likely to come to a head in the next four months, before
the current legislative authorization for the program runs out, when a critical part of the Patriot Act expires on June 1. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the head of the
House Judiciary Committee, said on Wednesday that that deadline “will help focus both the House and the Senate on passing this.” Speaking to a tech lobbying
group’s breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill, Goodlatte predicted that final legislation would look “quite similar” to a version of the USA Freedom Act that passed
through the House last year. Civil libertarians said the bill had effectively been gutted by the time it hit the floor of the chamber by including broad definitions that
would have allowed the NSA to search for everyone in a certain area code or some other large category. Goodlatte pledged that new legislation would address
some of its critics’ fears about the definitions in the law. “Stay tuned on that one,” he said. Still, Congress’s
inability to pass reform last year
and the new Republican majority in both chambers have darkened the prospects of significant reform in
coming weeks, especially given rising fears about terrorism around the globe.
Obama pushing legislative action – causes backlash
Cassidy 14 [John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He joined the Sunday
Times, in London, in 1986, and served as the paper’s Washington bureau chief for three years, and then
as its business editor, from 1991 to 1993. From 1993 to 1995, he was at the New York Post, where he
edited the Business section and then served as the deputy editor. 1-17-2014
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-n-s-a-strategy-over-to-you-congress]
That was President Obama today, delivering his much anticipated policy response to Edward Snowden’s revelations and to last month’s report by his own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. Credit where credit is due: some of th e President’s proposals went
The main takeaway
Congress is
divided
further than I had suggested in a post on Thursday that was based on some news reports about the speech.
toss this hot potato to Congress
. And since
from Obama’s speech, though, was that
hopelessly
the White House is seeking to
, it is perfectly possible that nothing very meaningful will change. The President’s overarching message was that practically all
of the N.S.A.’s activities are necessary for national-security reasons, but some of them need to be tweaked to reflect concerns about privacy, oversight, and public trust. His address was somewhat short on specifics. On all the main issues—the future of the Prism program, in which the
N.S.A. sweeps up the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans; the government’s use of national-security letters to obtain private data without a court warrant; and the operations of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court—the President, rather than spelling
out his own reforms, said that he wanted to work with Congress to map out a way forward. The immediate headline was that Obama accepted his Review Group’s call for a restructuring of the Prism program, and would begin a “transition” toward moving over-all custody of telephone
metadata out of the hands of the N.S.A. But he didn’t spell out how this should be done, and it’s far from clear what, if anything, will end up happening. Under the current system, the phone companies hand over their customer records to the agency at regular intervals, pursuant to
orders from the FISA court. Once the N.S.A. obtains the metadata, its analysts can examine it more or less at will, if they c ome up with a reason to do so. To prevent possible abuses, the Review Group called for the telephone companies, or a third party of some sort, to store the phone
logs, and it also said that the N.S.A. should have to obtain court approval each time it wants to run queries through them. Obama called for a “mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.” As a first step, he said, the
Administration would limit the number of individuals that N.S.A. analysts can target when querying the Prism databases, and he asked the Attorney General, Eric Holder, “to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that, during this transition period, the database can be
queried only after a judicial finding, or in a true emergency.” If that sounded a bit vague, it was crystal clear compared with how the second stage of the reform process will proceed. Acknowledging that the phone companies don’t want to act as a government storage depot, and that
setting up a third party to do the job would create some “legal ambiguities,” Obama said that he had asked Holder to consult with the intelligence agencies. “They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March
28th,” he said. “During this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.” Privacy advocates were disappointed that he didn’t go still further. “The president’s decision not to
end bulk collection and retention of all Americans’ data remains highly troubling,” the A.C.L.U. said, in a statement. It went on, “The president should end—not mend—the government’s collection and retention of all law-abiding Americans’ data. When the government collects and stores
every American’s phone call data, it is engaging in a textbook example of an ‘unreasonable search’ that violates the Constitution.” As expected, Obama also called for the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy interests in the FISA court, but, evidently, not in all cases, or even in
most of them. And, once again, he put the burden on Capitol Hill: “I am calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a pan el of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” In other
important areas, the President didn’t announce any new proposals. Going ahead, agencies like the N.S.A. and the F.B.I. will still be able to obtain personal data from communications companies without a court order, by issuing national-security letters. Obama rejected the suggestion that
the FISA courts should have to approve such letters, saying that “we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime.” (As you may have guessed, this was another area in which he said he was “prepared to work
with Congress.”) And from what Obama said, or didn’t say, the N.S.A. still appears to be free to hack into the data centers of companies like Google and Yahoo, which, according to documents released by Edward Snowden, it does routinely. Politically, the White House’s strategy is not
many senior Democrats and Republicans on the Hill including the heads of the
intelligence committees, don’t think any big changes are necessary
If the congressional opponents of reform hold their ground, we
end up with political
stalemate that resembles
Guantánamo Bay,
lacking in cunning. As the President knows all too well,
,
. In asking for their coöperation and putting them in the firing line, he is clearly hoping to defuse some
of the criticisms that he has faced.
could even
the one surrounding
with the White House conveniently able to blame Congress for frustrating its publicly stated intentions.
a
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Theory
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Theory True – General
Consensus of studies
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia 1025-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
The selection of Supreme Court justices is just one of several key powers afforded to the¶ modern presidency. Presidents
use a wide
range of tactics to set policy, including their¶ ability to influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to
key independent boards and¶ lower level federal courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents¶ introduce
legislation and define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995;¶ Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). The State of the
Union Address and other public speeches are¶ important venues for this activity (Canes-Wrone 2001; Cohen 1995, 1997; Light
1999; Yates¶ and Whitford 2005), but they are not the only means through which presidents outline their¶ legislative goals.
Presidents also add items to the legislative agenda intermittently in response¶ to issues or events that they believe require
attention. This may be done either by sending¶ messages to Congress or through presidential communication to legislators'
constituents.¶ While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and resources to secure the passage¶ of key
policy proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt 1955, 1960).
PC theory true for Obama- empirics
Color Lines, 10-14-2011
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_working.html
But what Obama’s new insistence
on a jobs agenda proves is this: the presidency is, in fact, a powerful bully pulpit.
No, he can’t just wave a magic wand and pass bills. No one credible has ever argued that. What he can do is use the
substantial power of his office to bully Congress into action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The
first step in doing so is, as the president has said, taking the discussion to the voters. Every time a president speaks, it’s news. So he
controls the news cycle every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks about jobs every day, that’s what we’ll all be talking
about. The second step is negotiating from the place of strength that this rhetorical bullying creates. And we will all
desperately need that strength when the deficit-reduction process reaches its grim climax this winter. So let’s hope Marshall is onto something
when he says we might be at a turning point in Washington.
Your evidence oversimplifies political capital- it’s not just about personality and
likeability- it’s about the structural advantages of the presidency
Light 99 – Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the President’s Agenda, p. 24-25)
Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout – they all mean the same thing. The most basic and most important of
all presidential resources is capital. Though the internal resources time, information, expertise, and energy all have
an impact on the domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital. And capital is directly linked to the
congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the composition and the success of the domestic
agenda, without
the necessary party support, no amount of expertise or charm can make a difference.
Though bargaining is an important tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and disadvantages to the table.
Also- studies prove the theory of political capital
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). Policy Priorities and Presidential Success in Congress. Conference Papers
-- American Political Science Association, 1-26. Retrieved from Political Science Complete database.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Presidential-congressional relations are a central topic in the scientific study of politics. The literature is clear that a handful of variables
Of these variables, party control of Congress is
most important (Bond and Fleisher 1990), in that conditions of unified government increase, while
conditions of divided government decrease presidential success, all else equal. The president’s approval ratings
strongly influence the likelihood of presidential success on legislation.
(Edwards 1989) and a favorable honeymoon (Dominguez 2005) period may also increase presidential success on legislation. In addition,
presidential speeches that reference policies or roll-call votes tend to increase the president’s legislative success rate (Barrett 2004; Canes-
In their landmark examination of presidential success in Congress, Bond
and Fleisher (1990, 230) identify yet another condition that may facilitate presidential success on
legislation when they write that “the president’s greatest influence over policy comes from the
agenda he pursues and the way it is packaged.” Moreover, the policies that the president prioritizes
have “a major impact on the president’s relationship with Congress.” Taken together, these
assertions strongly suggest that the policy content of the president’s legislative agenda—what
policies the president prioritizes before Congress—should be a primary determinant of presidential
success in Congress.
Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-Soha 2006).
Sequencing means bargaining chips are limited – plan trades off
Bernstein, 8/20/11
Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who writes about American politics, especially the presidency, Congress, parties and elections,
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/20/bernstein_presidential_power/index.html
Moreover, the positions of the president and most everyone else are, to look at it one way, sort of opposites. The
president has
potential influence over an astonishing number of things -- not only every single policy of the U.S. government, but policy
by state and local governments, foreign governments, and actions of private citizens and groups. Most other political actors have influence over
a very narrow range of stuff. What that means is that while the president's overall influence is certainly far greater than that of a House
subcommittee chair or a midlevel civil servant in some agency, his influence over any specific policy may well not be greater than that of such a
no-name nobody. A
lot of good presidential skills have to do with figuring out how to leverage that overall
influence into victories in specific battles, and if we look at presidential history, there are lots of records of successes and
failures. In other words, it's hard. It involves difficult choices -- not (primarily) policy choices, but choices in which policies
to fight for and which not to, and when and where and how to use the various bargaining chips that
are available.
And- our controversy aversion link—
Empirics prove – it’s not just question of capital - forcing votes on highly a
controversial item means they won't be willing to on others - accesses structural
factors and anticipated voter reaction warrants
Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E reporters, 11-2-2010 Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E
reporters
After Obama was inaugurated as president in 2009, House Democrats unleashed a formidable agenda consisting of
a two-month blitz to pass a $787 billion stimulus bill, which passed in February 2009; four months of pushing the cap-and-trade climate bill,
which passed in June 2009; and, finally, an eight-month slog to pass a financial regulation reform bill in December 2009 and a health care
reform bill in February 2010. But
only the stimulus, health care reform and financial regulation bills made it
through the "wet cement" that is the Senate, as Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has described it. After months of talks,
Senate negotiations on climate came to a standstill this summer as partisan bickering kept the upper
chamber from passing even the smallest of energy bills. Many lawmakers have criticized House leadership
for forcing them to take a hard vote on a cap-and-trade bill without knowing whether Senate Democrats would also be
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
able to take up and pass the bill. "I frankly don't think the House gave it that much thought. I think they acted on what they thought was an
important initiative at a time when the perception was that the new president and the Democrats in Congress had a lot of momentum," said
Leon Billings, a retired lobbyist and former Democratic Senate staffer who helped write the Clean Air Act in 1970. "It was only later that the
leadership in the House began to realize ... that the Senate was going to become a cemetery rather than a maternity ward," Billings added. "It
took awhile, way too long, for the Democrats in the House, Senate and White House to realize the magnitude of the assault that was going to
be launched by the radical right and even longer to realize that it was going to take a real toll on the country." Frost also blasted Democrats'
costly political oversight, saying the
cap-and-trade vote was "much harder" than health care.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Theory True – Dems
Consistent White House pressure key to keep Dems in line.
Lee and Soloman 3-29. [Carol, WH correspondent, Jay, national security reporter, "Barack Obama ramps up lobbying on Iran as
deadline looms" Wall Street Journal -- www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427]
Meanwhile, White House officials are plowing ahead with a behind-the-scenes strategy, tailored more than a year
ago, with key groups who might help overcome opposition to an Iran nuclear agreement.∂ For example, White House officials have encouraged
liberal groups to put U.S. lawmakers on the spot with the question: “Are you for solving this diplomatically or being forced…to war?” Ben
Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s closest foreign-policy advisers, used those words at a January 2014 meeting with dozens of representatives from
liberal political organizations, according to a transcript reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.∂ At the time, the Obama administration had just
signed an interim agreement with Iran that called for Tehran to freeze parts of its nuclear program in return for suspension of some economic
sanctions.∂ While a coalition in the Senate, including some Democrats, was pushing for more financial penalties in an effort to win additional
concessions from Iran, Mr. Rhodes told attendees that lobbying against more sanctions wouldn’t be politically effective. Instead, lawmakers
had to be challenged on whether or not they supported another war, he said at the meeting.∂ That message
helped delay
congressional action on a sanctions bill, allowing the diplomacy to continue. “When the White House
decides to firmly and consistently press their case, they are successful in getting Democrats to give
them latitude,” said Mr. Murphy, the Democrat from Connecticut.
Obama cultivating better ties with Dems and GOP leaders ensure successful outcomes
with Congress
Eilperin, 12/3/14 --- White House correspondent for The Washington Post (Juliet, “Obama, looking to
mend fences with Congress, is reaching out. To Democrats,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-looking-to-mend-fences-with-congress-is-reachingout-to-democrats/2014/12/03/3fdf9078-7a40-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html, JMP)
Obama and his closest aides have determined that their best chance of success in the next two
years will depend on improved relationships on Capitol Hill, but their behind-the-scenes efforts are more focused on Obama’s own party rather than the
President
Republicans who are about to take full charge of Congress in January. Obama’s attention on congressional Democrats, allies whom he once regarded as needing little attention, marks a shift in his view on how to deal with
The president now sees his path to success as running through Hill Democrats, a group that has been disenchanted by the
treatment it has received from the White House over the years. The remedial work has included frequent calls to Democratic leaders since the
Congress.
midterm elections and comes as Republicans prepare to take control of both chambers for the first time since Obama took office. While the president and GOP leaders have pledged to seek common ground, Obama’s use of
White House officials
are looking to Hill Democrats as a defense against Republican efforts to undo key elements of Obama’s
legislative legacy, including the Affordable Care Act, his immigration action and climate policy. The president’s ability to sustain the vetoes he is
likely to issue will depend on whether he is able to mend relations with congressional Democrats — many of
whom blame the president for the party’s large midterm losses — and persuade Republican legislators to work with him in a way that has
eluded the two parties for the past six years. On Wednesday, the outreach effort began publicly as Obama hosted Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who will lead the Senate
executive action to alter immigration enforcement procedures and other steps have already angered Republicans, making significant legislative accomplishments more difficult. And
starting in January — in the Oval Office. It was the first time the two have met one on one for an extended period in more than four years. The most recent small gathering they had was with Vice President Biden, nearly 3 1/2 years
House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has been
in near-constant communication with the White House since the midterm elections. He received backto-back calls from Obama on Nov. 24 and 25, the first to discuss the administration’s handling of sanctions against
Iran amid ongoing negotiations over that nation’s nuclear program, and the second to confer on the two men’s shared opposition to a pending proposal extending a series of federal tax breaks. “In the past couple of months,
I’ve seen heightened outreach,” Hoyer said in an interview Tuesday. “To some degree, we become even more relevant than we were before. Now he needs to rely on both houses to
sustain a veto.” Those are not the only calls Hoyer has received from the White House recently. Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough — who paid a visit to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on
ago. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart called the session “a good meeting” but did not release additional details. By contrast,
Tuesday — called Hoyer on Nov. 13 to discuss an effort by lawmakers to force federal approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and on Nov. 25 to talk about tax policy. The White House legislative-affairs staff also called him Nov. 6
to discuss immigration policy, a day after Obama called him at home in the evening to discuss immigration and ongoing efforts to counter the Islamic State. Hoyer, who was also part of a group of Democratic leaders who had
dinner with the president last month in advance of his immigration announcement, said those discussions have allowed him to have an impact on issues such as how the administration is working to fund its military strategy in Iraq
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), another
White House ally, said there have been “substantial improvements” in the president’s legislative
and Syria. “I do believe I was part of the conversation that has hopefully focused us all on accomplishing the president’s objectives,” he said. Outreach efforts
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
outreach, in large part because Obama’s director of legislative affairs, Katie Beirne Fallon, has revived an operation that had been moribund for an extended period. “Just speaking as a Democratic senator, that was not a
problem-free area,” Casey said, adding that he had this advice for the White House a few months ago: “My main suggestion is they needed to have more ‘What do you think?’ meetings instead of ‘Here’s what we’re doing’
meetings.” Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), who co-chairs the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, got McDonough to meet with about a dozen members of the bipartisan group in late May. Crowley said the group
pushed for more of a focus on India. “Obviously, there has been a tremendous enhancement in that relationship,” he said.
The White House has dramatically stepped up its
use of perks for lawmakers in the past year. At the president’s request, his staff is making more room for members on Air Force One (eight lawmakers flew with him to Las Vegas
for his immigration event there last month), and he now gives a shout-out to nearly all lawmakers who attend his public speeches. This year his staff issued more than 4,270 invitations to come to the White House, travel with the
president or attend his events, almost double the number handed out in 2012, and it is letting lawmakers use the President’s Box at the Kennedy Center more often.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Alter
Prefer our evidence- Alter is old- talking about Obama before health care and stimulus
successes- Obama has been able to use PC empirically
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Beckman and Kumar
Beckman and Kumar conclude neg- proves that PC is key in close votes and, in fact, is
the ONLY thing to explain why there is success given polarization in congress- PC is a
vital determinant
Matthew N Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine,
econ prof at the Indian Institute of Tech, “Opportunism in Polarization”, Presidential Studies Quarterly;
Sep 2011; 41, 3
The final important piece in our theoretical model—presidents’ political capital— also finds support in these analyses, though the results here
are less reliable. Presidents operating under the specter of strong economy and high approval ratings get an important, albeit moderate,
increase in their chances for prevailing on “key” Senate roll-call votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .10). Figure 4 displays the substantive implications of
these results in the context of polarization, showing that going from the lower third of political capital to the upper third increases presidents’
chances for success by 8 percentage points (in a setting like 2008). Thus, political capital’s impact does provide an important boost to
presidents’ success on Capitol Hill, but it is certainly not potent enough to overcome basic congressional realities. Political
capital is just
strong enough to put a presidential thumb on the congressional scales, which often will not matter, but
can in close cases.
---their card ends---
Lastly, two of the control variables are particularly noteworthy. The first is the president’s public declaration of his preferred outcome (b = .64,
se = .26, p < .05), which shows that presidents fare far better on publicized positions—24 points better, holding all else at its 2008 values. While
this relationship may partly be causal, it is more likely reflects the fact that presidents tend to publicize popular policies (see Canes-Wrone
2005) and also that public statements are symptomatic of a broader lobbying campaign (see Beckmann 2010). The other significant control
variable is the one accounting for nonideological polarization changes occurring inWashington over the last50years (a secular trend captured by
the natural log of the number of Congresses since the 83rd). Results for this variable show more recent senators have been more willing to
defeat the president on key, contested roll-call votes, all else equal (b = -0.42, se = 0.13, p < .05). To the extent senators’ ideological polarization
has intertwined with the postwar Washington’s more politicized environment, it has muted presidents’ ability to exploit centrist senators’
increased isolation. All told, the multiple regression results corroborate the basic model and its principal hypothesis: ideological polarization
around that pivotal voter’s position provides presidents with a better opportunity to win key roll-call votes. This is especially true if the
president is backed by high public approval and buoyed by a strong economy. By contrast, a president confronting a far-off pivotal voter
surrounded by like-minded colleagues has few options for achieving legislative success, regardless of his political potency. Discussion The
United States’ founders never intended federal lawmaking to be easy and, in fact, fashioned a constitutional design—including bicameralism
and vetoes, staggered terms and separated constituencies—to ensure the nation’s elected officials could not easily impose new laws on their
constituents. As a first point, therefore, it is worth underscoring that disagreements across Pennsylvania are not necessarily symptomatic of a
poorly functioning republic. If anything, George Will’s insight is apt: “Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement”
(Washington Post, November 4, 1999, A 35). Yet widespread disagreement does not necessarily indicate a broken policy-making process, nor
are legislative failures always benign. For even though the framers did not want congressional coalition-building to be easy, nor did they want it
to be impossible— not in addressing the nation’s pressing problems, not in answering citizens’ considered demands. And this is why the
polarization that currently grips the nation’s capital matters. By making winning coalitions so hard to assemble, a broad swath of status quos
effectively impossible to replace, polarization presents a comparable challenge for practitioners and political scientists alike: understanding
how, even amidst vast divisions, the nation’s representatives can corral the votes needed to avoid “doing nothing.” A modest step in this
direction is what this paper sought to offer. First, building on previous research that shows congressional polarization frequently produces
legislative gridlock, we augmented this work in ways that helped uncover polarization’s conditional impact on lawmaking. We did so by first
highlighting presidents’ key coalition-building role in postwar America and second, incorporating it into familiar voting models while varying
both presidents’ political capital and Congress’s polarization. Theoretical
results showed that even as polarization renders
coalition building more difficult when the president lacks political capital (or chooses not to use it promoting
legislation), also uncovered was an interesting and somewhat counterintuitive prediction: polarization around the pivotal voter can
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
actually provide presidents a unique opportunity to win key votes, secure legislative success, and
influence national legislation. Using CQ’s key Senate votes from 1954 to 2008, a first test of our opportunism in polarization model
corroborated these principal hypotheses, including the prediction that polarization qua polarization can actually boost presidents’ chances for
prevailing on important, contested roll-call votes,
especially when enjoying high approval ratings and strong economic
growth. In doing so, these results also shed light on familiar empirical findings showing presidents often, but not
always, help pass important legislation even when confronted with substantial polarization, divided
government, or both (Beckmann 2010; Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Mayhew 2005; Peterson 1990). Going forward, then, we hope
this study spawns follow-up work on the relationship between polarization, presidents, and policy making. For our argument and evidence
suggest that in today’s polarized political environment—where winning coalitions rarely emerge effortlessly—key
to understanding
policy-making outcomes is understanding what policies presidents support and, even more, what policies
they are willing to invest resources promoting on Capitol Hill. Thus, research better capturing presidents’ lobbying and
political capital would offer more precise estimates of presidents’ attempts at exerting influence, while developing better measures of policy
outcomes (especially ones not inferred from roll-call votes) would permit more robust tests of those efforts’ effectiveness. All of this would
shine new light on the conditions that shape national policy making in today’s polarized environment, particularly presidents’ vital role therein.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Bouie
Prefer our evidence to Bouie
This is talking exclusively about the popularity of the president- doesn’t account for
other factors in political capital
It’s written by a blogger- we have qualified studies that prove the president is relevant
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Cameron and Park Study
it’s about Supreme Court nominations and ‘public appeals’ – presidents only go public
when the opposition is mobilized against their candidate which makes it harder to
win from the outset –that’s why there’s more negative results.
Bond and Fleisher 11. [Jon, Professor @ Texas A&M, Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Richard, Professor
of Political Science, Fordham University, “Editor’s Introduction” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 41 Issue 3 September -- p. 437-441]
In "Going Public When Opinion Is Contested: Evidence from Presidents' Campaigns for Supreme Court Nominees, 1930-2009," Charles Cameron
and Jee-Kwang Park add new insight to the analysis of going public. Two innovations advance our understanding. First, the analysis of Supreme
Court nominations permits examination of presidential and congressional behavior back to 1930, a longer period of time than usual. Second,
the analysis incorporates the observation that presidents' efforts to influence the public do not occur in a vacuum. Instead, going public is often
an "opinion contest" in which the president often competes against opponents who also go public. The
confirmation process for
Supreme Court nominees was traditionally low key, and we do not see presidents' going public in
support of their before the mid-1960s. The authors find that presidents go public when groups mobilize
against the nominee. As a result, going public is associated with more negative votes in the Senate,
because presidents go public over Supreme Court nominees only when battling active opposition to a
controversial nomination. This study shows the limits of the standard "political capital" model and helps explain why we
often fail to find the expected positive effects.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Dickinson/Ideology
Their ev is just a blog post, not peer reviewed and solely in the context of Supreme
court nominations – Dickinson concludes neg
Dickinson, 2009 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College. He taught previously at Harvard University, where he
also received his Ph.D., working under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New
Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research, Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 no4 736-70 D 2009)
Small wonder, then, that initial efforts to find evidence of presidential power centered on explaining legislative outcomes in Congress. Because
scholars found it difficult to directly and systematically measure presidential influence or "skill," however, they often tried to estimate it
indirectly, after first establishing a baseline model that explained these outcomes on other factors, including party strength in Congress,
members of Congress's ideology, the president's electoral support and/or popular approval, and various control variables related to time in
office and political and economic context. With the baseline established, one could then presumably see how much of the unexplained variance
might be attributed to presidents, and whether individual presidents did better or worse than the model predicted. Despite differences in
modeling assumptions and measurements, however, these studies came to remarkably similar conclusions: individual presidents did not seem
to matter very much in explaining legislators' voting behavior or lawmaking outcomes (but see Lockerbie and Borrelli 1989, 97-106). As Richard
Fleisher, Jon Bond, and B. Dan Wood summarized, "[S]tudies that compare presidential success to some baseline fail to find evidence that
To some
scholars, these results indicate that Neustadt's "president-centered" perspective is incorrect (Bond and Fleisher
perceptions of skill have systematic effects" (2008, 197; see also Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996, 127; Edwards 1989, 212).
1990, 221-23). In fact, the aggregate results reinforce Neustadt's recurring refrain that presidents are weak and that, when dealing with
Congress, a president's power is "comparably limited" (Neustadt 1990, 184). The misinterpretation of the
findings as they relate
to PP stems in part from scholars' difficulty in defining and operationalizing presidential influence (Cameron
2000b; Dietz 2002, 105-6; Edwards 2000, 12; Shull and Shaw 1999). But it is also that case that scholars often misconstrue Neustadt's analytic
perspective; his description of what presidents must do to influence policy making does not mean that he believes presidents are the dominant
influence on that process. Neustadt writes from the president's perspective, but without adopting a president-centered explanation of power.
Nonetheless, if Neustadt clearly recognizes that a president's influence in Congress is exercised mostly, as George Edwards (1989) puts it, "at
the margins," his case studies in PP also suggest that, within this limited bound, presidents do strive to influence legislative outcomes. But how?
Scholars often argue that a president's most direct means of influence is to directly lobby certain
members of Congress, often through quid pro quo exchanges, at critical junctures during the lawmaking
sequence. Spatial models of legislative voting suggest that these lobbying efforts are most effective
when presidents target the median, veto, and filibuster "pivots" within Congress. This logic finds
empirical support in vote-switching studies that indicate that presidents do direct lobbying efforts at
these pivotal voters, and with positive legislative results. Keith Krehbiel analyzes successive votes by legislators in the
context of a presidential veto and finds "modest support for the sometimes doubted stylized fact of presidential power as
persuasion" (1998,153-54). Similarly, David Brady and Craig Volden look at vote switching by members of
Congress in successive Congresses on nearly identical legislation and also conclude that presidents do
influence the votes of at least some legislators (1998, 125-36). In his study of presidential lobbying on key votes on important domestic
legislation during the 83rd (1953-54) through 108th (2003-04) Congresses, Matthew Beckman shows that in addition to these
pivotal voters, presidents also lobby leaders in both congressional parties in order to control what
legislative alternatives make it onto the congressional agenda (more on this later). These lobbying efforts are
correlated with a greater likelihood that a president's legislative preferences will come to a vote (Beckmann 2008, n.d.). In one of the most
concerted efforts to model how bargaining takes place at the individual level, Terry Sullivan examines presidential archives containing
administrative headcounts to identify instances in which members of Congress switched positions during legislative debate, from initially
opposing the president to supporting him in the final roll call (Sullivan 1988,1990,1991). Sullivan shows that in a bargaining game with
incomplete information regarding the preferences of the president and members of Congress, there are a number of possible bargaining
outcomes for a given distribution of legislative and presidential policy preferences. These outcomes depend in part on legislators' success in bartering their
potential support for the president's policy for additional concessions from the president. In threatening to withhold support, however, members of Congress run the risk that the president
will call their bluff and turn elsewhere for the necessary votes .
By capitalizing on members' uncertainty regarding whether their support is necessary to form a
winning coalition, Sullivan theorizes that presidents can reduce members of Congress's penchant for strategic bluffing and increase the
likelihood of a legislative outcome closer to the president's preference. "Hence, the
skill to bargain successfully becomes a
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
foundation for presidential power even within the context of electorally determined opportunities,"
Sullivan concludes (1991, 1188). Most of these studies infer presidential influence, rather than measuring it directly (Bond, Fleisher,
and Krutz 1996,128-29; see also Edwards 1991). Interestingly, however, although the vote "buying" approach is certainly consistent with
Neustadt's bargaining model, none of his case studies in PP show presidents employing this tactic. The reason may be that Neustadt
concentrates his analysis on the strategic level: "Strategically the question is not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he
does to boost his mastery in any instance" (Neustadt 1990, 4). For Neustadt, whether
a president's lobbying efforts bear
fruit in any particular circumstance depends in large part on the broader pattern created by a
president's prior actions when dealing with members of Congress (and "Washingtonians" more generally). These
previous interactions determine a president's professional reputation--the "residual impressions of [a
president's] tenacity and skill" that accumulate in Washingtonians' minds, helping to "heighten or diminish" a
president's bargaining advantages. "Reputation, of itself, does not persuade, but it can make
persuasions easier, or harder, or impossible" (Neustadt 1990, 54).
Ideology doesn’t outweigh – presidential success dictates votes
Lebo, 2010 (Matthew J. Lebo, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD
Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Journal of Politics, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional
Arena” forthcoming, google)
Keeping this centrality in mind, we
use established theories of congressional parties to model the president’s
role as an actor within the constraints of the partisan environment of Congress. We also find a role for the
president's approval level, a variable of some controversy in the presidential success literature. Further, we are interested in both the causes
the president’s record as a key component of the party
politics that are so important to both the passage of legislation and the electoral outcomes that
follow. Specifically, theories of partisan politics in Congress argue that cross-pressured legislators will side
with their parties in order to enhance the collective reputation of their party (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005),
but no empirical research has answered the question: "of what are collective reputations made?" We demonstrate that it is the success
of the president – not parties in Congress – that predicts rewards and punishments to parties in
Congress. This allows us to neatly fit the president into existing theories of party competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential
and consequences of success. We develop a theory that views
success enable us to fit existing theories of party politics into the literature on the presidency.
Prefer our studies – examines both presidential and congressional influence – their
studies don’t.
Lebo 10. [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate,
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena” Journal of Politics -- online]
A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. His observation that
‘‘When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally,’’ is indicative of a view in Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative
outcomes. This view is echoed in theories of political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger
2007). But the
consequences of presidential failure to members of his party are largely unexplored in
empirical research. Also, while the fairly deep literature on the causes of presidential success has focused a
lot on the partisan environment within which the president’s legislative battles are won and lost, it pays
less attention to theories of congressional parties. Our attempt to combine these theories with a view
of the president as the central actor in the partisan wars is meant to integrate the literatures on the two
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
institutions. Even as the study of parties in Congress continues to deepen our understanding of that branch, the
role of the president
is usually left out or marginalized. At the same time, research that centers on the president’s success has developed with little
crossover. The result is that well-developed theories of parties in Congress exist but we know much less
about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between models of conditional party government (Aldrich and
Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008), we have an advanced
understanding of how parties are important in Congress, but little knowledge of where the president
fits. As the head of his party, the president’s role in the partisan politics of Congress should be central.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Edwards
Presidential leadership still key- facilitates coalition building and important at the
margins- conclusion of their card
Edwards, 9 – Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, holds the George
and Julia Blucher Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies and has served as the Olin Professor of American
Government at Oxford [George, “The Strategic President”, Printed by the Princeton University Press, pg.
149-150]
Even presidents who
appeared to dominate Congress were actually facilitators rather than directors of change. They
understood their own limitations and explicitly took advantage of opportunities in their environments. Working at the
margins, they successfully guided legislation through Congress. When their resources diminished, they reverted to the
stalemate that usually characterizes presidential-congressional relations. As legendary management expert Peter Drucker put it about Ronald
Reagan, "His great strength was not charisma, as is commonly thought, but his awareness and acceptance of exactly what he could and what he
could not do."134 These conclusions are consistent with systematic research by Jon Bond, Richard Fleisher, and B. Dan Wood. They have
focused on determining whether the presidents to whom we attribute the greatest skills in dealing with Congress were more successful in
obtaining legislative support for their policies than were other presidents. After carefully controlling for other influences on congressional
voting, they found no evidence that those presidents who supposedly were the most proficient in persuading Congress were more successful
than chief executives with less aptitude at influencing legislators.135 Scholars studying leadership within Congress have reached similar
conclusions about the limits on personal leadership. Cooper and Brady found that institutional context is more important than personal
leadership skills or traits in determining the influence of leaders and that there is no relationship between leadership style and
effectiveness.136 Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the president's control and must compete with
other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in addition to party. These include ideology, personal views and commitments on
specific policies, and the interests of constituencies. By the time a president tries to exercise influence on a vote, most members of Congress
have made up their minds on the basis of these other factors. Thus, a president's legislative leadership is likely to be critical only for those
members of Congress who remain open to conversion after other influences have had their impact. Although the size and composition of this
group varies from issue to issue, it will almost always be a minority in each chamber.
<<<their card ends>>>
It is important to note that it is not necessary to take an ex-treme position to obtain a better understanding of the nature of presidential
leadership. There
are times, of course, when presidents do persuade some members of Congress to
change their votes. A famous example of apparent large-scale changeoccurred over the Panama Canal treaties, ratified in 1978. Inthe
fall of 1976, shortly before Jimmy Carter became president,forty-eightsenatorsintroducedaresolutionpledgingnottoap-prove any change in the
existing treaties regarding the canal. After a full-court press, Carter obtained the two-thirds vote inthe Senate to ratify the new treaties.¶ 137¶
The issue for us is not whether persuasion is¶ ever ¶ successful in moving a member of Congress. Instead, the question is whether persuasion is
typically the key to presidential success in Congress. Examples such as the Panama Canal treaties are rare. Whatever the circumstances, the
impact of persuasion on the outcome is usually relatively modest. As Calvin Mouw and Michael MacKuen concluded, “presidential
influence in Congress does not rely on persuasion.”¶ 138¶ Although potentially important, conversion is likely to be
at the margins of coalition building rather than at the core of policy change. Presidential legislative leadership is
more useful in exploiting discrete op-portunities than in creating broad possibilities for policy change
And- Edwards votes neg- agenda setting is critical given finite PC
Edwards, 9 – Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, holds the George
and Julia Blucher Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies and has served as the Olin Professor of American
Government at Oxford [George, “The Strategic President”, Printed by the Princeton University Press, pg.
149-150]
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Setting priorities.¶ New presidents are wise to resist the tempta-tions to try to deliver on all their
campaign promises immedi-ately following their elections and to accede to the many de-mands that interests make on a new
administration. Instead, it is important to establish priorities among legislative proposals.In addition, because the
Washington community pays dispro-portionate attention to the first major legislative initiatives, it is especially critical to choose early
battles wisely. Setting priorities in the early weeks of a new administrationis also important because during the first months in office
thepresident has the greatest latitude in focusing on priority legis-lation. After the transition period, other interests have moreinfluence on the
White House agenda. Congress is quite capa-ble of setting its own agenda and is unlikely to defer to thepresident for long. In addition, ongoing
policies continually force decisions to the president’s desk.If the president is not able to focus Congress’s attention onhis priority programs,
they may become lost in the complex and overloaded legislative process. Congress needs time to di-gest what the president sends, to engage in
independent analy-ses, and to schedule hearings and markups. Unless the presi-dent clarifies his priorities, Congress may put the WhiteHouse’s
proposals in a queue. Setting
priorities is also important because presidents and their staff can lobby
effectively for only a few bills at a time. The president’s political capital is inevitably limited, and it is
sensible to focus on the issues he cares about most. Setting priorities early also can reduce intra-administration warfareover
the essence of the administration
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Hirsch
Hirsh is just an internet “correspondent” bitching about the term political capitala. There’s still an agenda crowd out link- concedes tradeoffs happen - especially if a policy is
unpopular and out of sync with the country’s mood—ie the plan
b. Despite the ev’s hype, it concedes it is a real thing
c. Concludes Obama messaging on immigration is a relevant factor for GOP support
Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as
the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also
Newsweek’s Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, “The World from Washington.” Earlier
on, he was Newsweek’s foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war on terror.
He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based
Asia Bureau Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-suchthing-as-political-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In
response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have
no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at
the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized
country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up
gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reas ons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in
terms of a “mandate” or “political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality
of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after anot her. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments
soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to
the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way
people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new
possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he
would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71
percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a
surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without
The point is not
that “political capital” is meaningless Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum
and just about every politician
has tried to claim a mandate
Many still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. It’s an
unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Ornstein
You can’t
say he’s got
such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.
a
term.
election—
” in the aftermath of a decisive
ever elected
wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction.
more of
than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney
pundits
“
Norman
of the American Enterprise Institute. “
really look at a president and
37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and
momentum
Presidents
The real problem is that
over-estimate it,”
on your side.”
wrong. “
usually
the idea of
political capital
—or mandates, or momentum—
is poorly defined
so
some
that presidents and pundits often get it
says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never
happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts
the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his
account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.
Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits
. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a
cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done.
Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new
ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending
on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly
woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature
successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far
more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he
a clever
practitioner can get more done because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well
Edwards is right
gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.” ¶ ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes,
of power
A&M’s
just
. Texas
to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition t o Goldwater’s ineptitude
as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert
Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations
bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you ough tn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson
replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the
momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that
moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George
W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in
the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across
the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of
Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t
trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it.
The mistake
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
that Bush made with Social Security says Sides, an associate professor of political science
there was no sense of
urgency on Social Security
I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake Bush decided he
wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the hill was Obama has more
momentum
because of the
Latino vote
¶ THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER¶ Presidents are limited in
what they can do by time and attention
just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House
and Senate
health care
problem
was that the plan was unpopular
,
John
at George Washington University and a
well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But
any kind of public
reform. It’s like he went
into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one.
.…
. I think
on his side
Republican Party’s concerns about the
and the shooting at Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but
because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls.
span, of course,
. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the
law in his first term. But the real
, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt
about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was
simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling.
was out of sync with the country’s mood
reform
was that it distracted
the government’s attention
Obama
, like Bush,
. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But
had settled on pushing an issue that
the
bigger
political problem with health care
from other issues people cared about
that
more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform.
Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes.
the oxygen out of the room,
Health care was sucking all
the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best
practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts
to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. “The
reason I think the idea of
political capital
is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really
oversimplifies
why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former
political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through
a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his
infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and
conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and infl uence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital.
But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.
In
terms of Obama’s second-term agenda what all these shifting tides of momentum and political
calculation mean is this:
Obama
needs to worry about the support he will have in the
House and Senate
,
Anything goes.
has no more elections to win, and he
only
after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political
capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he
can get some early wins—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.” Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the
political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan” president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama
tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more
government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly
with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal imprimatur on any plan—from deficit reduction, to health
care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans
When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered
another new message
take a hard look at where I’m saying
you
lost because of the rising Hispanic vote Obama was pointing the GOP toward
conclusions
needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit.
as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t worry about who’s got the political capital. Just
this: in a state
were supposed to have won but
.
cleverly
that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.
Wins don’t spill over- bruising effort doesn’t generate capital- their author
Michael Hirsch, Daily Beast, 1-19-2010 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/19/thepolitics-of-hubris.html
There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got Achilles and Agamemnon in trouble with the
gods. Obama apparently did
buy into the idea that he was a Man of Destiny and, being one, possessed bottomless supplies of
political capital. But he really had no more political capital than any first-year president, and he was straining his reserves just dealing
with the stimulus and financial reform, much less fixing Afghanistan.¶ I first became worried about this bridge-too-far problem last year while
covering financial reform on the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby
was riddling the legislation with loopholes. Health
care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room—and from their brains, the
aides said. Obama and his team seemed barely focused on transforming the financial system—except now, belatedly—and left a lot of the infighting to regulators
like Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald Reagan as a transformational president.
And yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection point—what should have been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a laserlike
scourging of Wall Street—Obama seemed to put this once-in-a-lifetime task on a back burner.¶ It is only now, a year later, when he
has a terrific fight
on his hands over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will dig in big time
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
of course, and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill, which means that the president will need even more political capital that he no longer has.¶ Just as bad,
when the president did do health care—whatever version of it squeaks through now—he seemed to be getting such a
meager result for so bruising an effort that it will be a long time before anyone has the stomach to set it right
legislatively.
<<INSERT AT: WINNERS WIN, PC FINITE AND PC KEY TO IMMIGRATION>>
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Jacobs and King
Jacobs and King does NOT say that political capital is irrelevant-Proves our argument that it’s about more than personality but also structural factors
Concludes that presidential leadership DOES matter in close votes
Criticisms of Obama’s PC are from people who expected him to be the secular
messiah- there ARE instances where he can seize opportunities and be successful
Jacobs and King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, (Lawrence and Desmond, “Varieties of
Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,” Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 793-802)
But personality is not a solid foundation for a persuasive explanation of presidential impact and the shortfalls or accomplishments of Obama's
presidency. Modern presidents have brought divergent individual traits to their jobs and yet they have routinely failed to enact much of their
agendas. Preeminent policy goals of Bill Clinton (health reform) and George W. Bush (Social Security privatization) met the same fate, though
these presidents' personalities vary widely. And presidents like Jimmy Carter—whose personality traits have been criticized as ill-suited for
effective leadership—enjoyed comparable or stronger success in Congress than presidents lauded for their personal knack for leadership—from
Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan.7 Indeed, a personalistic account provides little leverage for explaining the disparities in Obama's record—
for example why he succeeded legislatively in restructuring health care and higher education, failed in other areas, and often accommodated
stakeholders. Decades of rigorous research find that impersonal, structural
forces offer the most compelling explanations
for presidential impact.8 Quantitative research that compares legislative success and presidential personality finds no overall
relationship.9 In his magisterial qualitative and historical study, Stephen Skowronek reveals that institutional dynamics and ideological
commitments structure presidential choice and success in ways that trump the personal predilections of individual presidents.10 Findings point
to the predominant influence on presidential legislative success of the ideological and partisan composition of Congress, entrenched interests,
identities, and institutional design, and a constitutional order that invites multiple and competing lines of authority. The widespread
presumption, then, that Obama's personal traits or leadership style account for the obstacles to his policy proposals is called into question by a
generation of scholarship on the presidency. Indeed, the presumption is not simply problematic analytically, but practically as well. For the
misdiagnosis of the source of presidential weakness may, paradoxically, induce failure by distracting the White House from strategies and
tactics where presidents can make a difference. Following a meeting with Obama shortly after Brown's win, one Democratic senator lamented
the White House's delusion that a presidential sales pitch will pass health reform—“Just declaring that he's still for it doesn't mean that it
comes off life support.”11 Although Obama's
re-engagement after the Brown victory did contribute to restarting
reform, the senator's comment points to the importance of ideological and partisan coalitions in Congress, organizational combat,
institutional roadblocks, and anticipated voter reactions. Presidential sales pitches go only so far.
---their card ends---
Yet if presidential personality and leadership style come up short as primary explanations for presidential success and failure,
this does not render them irrelevant. There is no need to accept the false choice between volition and structure—between
explanations that reduce politics to personality and those that focus only on system imperatives and contradictions. The most satisfying
explanations lie at the intersection of agency and structure—what we describe as structured agency. Presidents
have opportunities
to lead, but not under the circumstances they choose or control. These circumstances both restrict the parameters of presidential impact
and highlight the significance of presidential skill in accurately identifying and exploiting opportunities. Indeed, Obama himself talks about
walking this tightrope—exercising “ruthless pragmatism” in seizing opportunities for reform while accepting the limits and seeking to “bridge
that gap between the status quo and what we know we have to do for our future”.12 The extraordinary economic and political circumstances
under which Obama took office as well as the dramatic disparity between his administration's successes and failures underscore the need to
synthesize the study of presidency with the analysis of political economy, American political development, and comparative policy analysis.13
Such an analysis would focus on the intermeshing of government policy making with differentially organized interests; the relative advantages
or disadvantages that different institutional settings provide to different organized groups; and the ways in which substantive policy decisions
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
both reflect and shape political struggles. Such structural constraints and differences in organizational power do not literally prohibit Obama, or
any president, from taking initiatives—say, nationalizing the banks—but they do create two significant barriers to dramatic policy change: a
political environment in which members of Congress, independent regulatory bodies, and officials in his administration (especially in the
Department of Treasury) can reject, stymie, or sabotage policies that threaten key relationships (such as sources of campaign contributions or
future employment); and an economic environment in which private firms and their customers could respond to policy proposals by taking
actions that drive down profitability or by shifting capital out of the US, as happened in Latin America during its debt crisis and in France after
the election of Socialist Francois Mitterrand as president. Obama's presidency can thus be viewed as a delicate dance to formulate policies that
navigate these barriers and blunt conflicts with established economic/political relationships. Such a politics of compromise has thus far
generated dueling frustrations: liberals and progressives steam that Obama's policy proposals are too tepid and too easily stymied by
stakeholders, while conservatives fume at his temerity in successfully challenging the basic market-deferring precepts of American political
economy. In short, the structured agency perspective integrates two critical components of social science analysis. First, it situates Obama's
initiatives within the existing political economic structure of organizational combat, institutions, and policy. Second, it scrutinizes Obama's
strategic and tactical decisions to mobilize coalitions that are targeted at points of political economic vulnerability and to use his expressive
powers to manage the political narrative, to control expectations, and to frame challenges to the existing power structure in ways that sustain
and broaden support. A political economy perspective offers distinct contributions to analyzing the Obama presidency and especially his
domestic policies. The first is to recalibrate expectations of presidential leadership and, in particular, Obama's capacity for change. The
initial expectation that Obama would transform America—which he himself encouraged—needs to be refocused
on the opportunities and constraints within the existing US political economy. This shifts attention from Obama
as a kind of secular messiah to the strategic challenge of seizing opportunities within existing institutional
and economic structures and instituting changes that instigate future developmental paths in desired directions.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Klein
PC theory true- empirics prove deal making matters- Klein is overly pessimistic
Seth Mandel is Assistant Editor of Commentary magazine. He was a 2011 National Security Fellow at
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Prior to that, Mandel was Managing Editor of The Jewish
State, The Jewish Journal, and The Speaker, where he won Investigative Reporting awards for his
coverage of the Second Lebanon War and the Iranian nuclear program, as well as Column Writing and
Editorial Writing awards for his coverage of the Middle East. His work has also been published by
National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, and many other publications. 3-23-2012
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/23/presidential-persuasion-commander-in-chiefobama-reagan-clinton/
I finally got around to reading Ezra Klein’s interesting take on what I consider to be a fascinating subject: the power of
presidents to persuade the public. Klein’s piece, in the March 19 New Yorker, takes a dim view of the practical uses of
presidential rhetoric, using mostly presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama as case studies. Reagan, Klein
notes, was considered to be a great communicator (or, as he is remembered, the Great Communicator), yet his approval ratings were average
and many of his primary policy prescriptions never caught on with the public. Overall, he writes, the same is true of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Bush was unable to convince the country to accept social security reform, and Obama has been unable to sell additional fiscal stimulus and
most notably his health care reform law, which remains broadly unpopular. The overestimation of the power of the bully pulpit, he finds, is
more likely to harm a president’s domestic policy agenda than advance it. But I think the key word there is “domestic.” Switch the subject to
foreign policy, and the power is somewhat restored. Bush may not have been able to sell Social Security reform, but it would be difficult to
conjure a more memorable scene from Bush’s eight years in office than his speech atop the fire truck at Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 terror
attacks. It was—and remains—both moving and inspiring to hear the president emerge brilliantly from the shell of his tendency toward the
folksy, and sometimes awkward, when ad-libbing, at that scene. It all could have gone very differently, since the bullhorn he was using worked
only intermittently, and the crowd began losing patience. Yet, as they shouted that they couldn’t hear him, Bush remained calm, steady, and
delivered a fine moment when he responded, “I can hear you. I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked
these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” Reagan’s most famous line, obviously, was “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” It is what he is
remembered for as well—not just the words, but the sentiment, and the political risk involved. Very few conversations about Reagan center on
what he said before or after his first-term tax deal with the Democrats. It’s fitting, because though presidential elections usually turn on the
economy, the chief executive has more influence on foreign affairs. This is no different for Obama. After Obama announced a troop “surge” in
Afghanistan in December 2009, polls showed a 9-percent jump in Americans who thought staying in Afghanistan was the right course of action,
and a 6-percent drop in those who opposed the war. Americans favored the speech itself by a 23-point margin. And the president saw a 7-point
jump in public approval of his handling of the war. None of this is out of the ordinary. When I interviewed James Robbins about his book on
Vietnam, This Time We Win, he argued that polls at the time showed Lyndon Johnson to have more support for the war effort—especially its
escalation—than most people think in retrospect. “According to opinion polls at the time taken directly after Tet and a few weeks after Tet, the
American people wanted to escalate the war,” Robbins told me. “They understand that the enemy had suffered a terrible defeat, so there was
an opportunity if we had taken concerted action to actually win this thing.” Even on college campuses, he said, more people identified as hawks
than doves: “The notion that young people were long-haired dope smoking draft resisters in 1967-68 is not true. The ‘Forrest Gump’ view of
history is wrong.” If you expand the category to national security in general, Clinton gets a boost as well. This one is more difficult to measure
than support for a war, but leading up the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton had been marginalized to such a degree by Newt Gingrich’s
masterful ability to control the narrative that Clinton offered his much-mocked plea at a briefing: “The president is still relevant here.” The
bombing happened the next day, and Clinton’s ability to project empathy and his portrayal of opposition to his presidency as right-wing antigovernment excess partly to blame for any dark mood in which someone bombs a federal building completely changed the pace and tone of
the coverage of his presidency. Speeches delivered in the service of selling a tax increase or even solving a debt-ceiling showdown are often
treated as the president taking his eye off the ball. The president as commander-in-chief, however, is a role for which voters consistently
express their support. I
want to offer Klein one more note of optimism. He writes: Back-room bargains and quiet
negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring vision of the Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama
spent much of last summer sitting in a room together, but, ultimately, the Speaker didn’t make a private deal with the President for the same
reason that Republican legislators don’t swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and if he wins they lose.
This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may become increasingly difficult for a President to govern—and there’s
little that he can do about it. I
disagree. The details of the deal matter, not just the party lines about the
dispute. There is no way the backroom negotiations Clinton conducted with Gingrich over social security
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
reform could
have been possible if we had prime ministers, instead of presidents. The president possesses
political capital Congress doesn’t. History tells us there are effective ways to use that capital. One lesson:
quiet action on domestic policy, visible and audible leadership on national security.
Klein is quite wrong – empirics cuts both ways.
Drum 3-12. [Kevin, political blogger, “Presidents and the Bully Pulpit” Mother Jones -- http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2012/03/presidents-and-bully-pulpit]
I also think that Ezra
doesn't really grapple with the strongest arguments on the other side. For one thing,
although there are examples of presidential offensives that failed (George Bush on Social Security privatization),
there are also example of presidential offensives that succeeded (George Bush on going to war with Iraq).
The same is true for broader themes. For example, Edwards found that "surveys of public opinion have
found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education,
environmental protection and aid to minorities increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure." OK. But what
about the notion that tax cuts are good for the economy? The public may have already been primed to believe this by the
tax revolts of the late '70s, but I'll bet Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the Republican
tax jihad has been one of the most influential political movements of the past three decades. More generally,
I think it's a mistake to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of legislation . Maybe
those really don't do any good. But presidents do have the ability to rally their own troops, and that matters. That's
largely what Obama has done in the contraception debate. Presidents also have the ability to set agendas. Nobody was
talking about invading Iraq until George Bush revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly
seemed like the most natural thing in the world to a lot of people. Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of the bully pulpit as
just the president, just giving a few speeches. It's more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and
his supporters and doing it over the course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as much influence
there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do. Truman made containment national policy for 40 years, JFK
made the moon program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made working-class resentment the driving spirit of the
Republican Party, Reagan channeled the rising tide of the Christian right and turned that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and
George Bush forged a bipartisan consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense. It's true
that in all of these cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think it's also true that different presidents might
have shaped different consensuses.
Partisanship is about politics not ideology – proves our link story true – this cites the
study your card cites.
Mellow 11. [Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @ Williams College, “Book Reviews:
American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate” Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723]
In 2008, Barack Obama's calls for a new postpartisan era struck a chord with many Americans. Yet President Obama has struggled with
Congress to produce even bipartisan outcomes. The reigning wisdom on partisanship would suggest that this is because the ideological divide
between the parties is simply too stark. Frances Lee's thoughtful new book, which is a study of Senate voting behavior from 1981 through
2004, offers an
alternative interpretation, one that validates public skepticism of inside-the-beltway party politics. Her claim is that
much of the congressional partisanship is about politics and power, rather than ideological differences.
Collective political interests within each party predispose Democrats and Republicans to oppose each other, even on votes with no ideological
content. If true, then public distaste for “partisan bickering” is reasonable, and much of the conventional scholarly understanding of
congressional partisanship is wrong. Lee begins by historicizing and challenging the methodological individualism now dominating studies of
Congress for ascribing
legislator vote behavior to individual policy preference and treating party cohesion as
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
ideological cohesion and party difference as ideological difference. As she astutely points out, the problem with
this conceptualization is that it reads ideology into every partisan dispute. Rather than assuming ideological content
based on the observed behavioral patterns of votes, Lee uses legislative language and Congressional Record debates to distinguish, a priori,
those roll call votes that bear on liberal/conservative debates over the economy, social issues, and foreign policy from those that do not. What
she discovers is that a
full 44% of party votes are over issues of no identifiable ideological significance (p. 65).
Fights occur to score political points – context of each particular fight is key – prefer
our issue specific capital key warrants.
Mellow 11. [Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @ Williams College, “Book Reviews:
American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate” Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723]
Lee's findings lead her to conclude that Democrats
and Republicans often fight to advance their party's political
interests in being perceived as effective or being associated with popular outcomes. The party, in her view, is a “political institution” (p.
182), a team of members who have gotten better at working together to advance collective electoral and political goals. Thus, one party
will regularly disagree with the other simply to make the president look bad (or good), to discredit the
opposition's integrity, to attempt to control the debate, or to burnish its image. In short, today's parties fight because
there is political payoff even if there is no ideological reward. When we understand this, we see why bipartisanship is so
hard to come by. Lee designs her research carefully and rigorously. For example, in determining whether to count a vote as ideological, she digs
deeply into the public record to learn if senators discussed any aspect in ideologically identifiable terms. In coding nonideological votes, such as
“good government” votes, Lee excludes those that may be even partially about ideology, such as nomination fights in which part of the debate
was about the nominee's policy views and part was about credentials or ethics. Expansive ideological categories make for a harder test of her
argument, as do narrower nonideological categories. There are some elements of the research, though, where greater clarification would be
especially useful (some might claim critical). Most important is the description of nonideological votes. According to the author's method, these
votes account for a sizable majority—nearly 60%—of all Senate votes in her time period (p. 65), and thus are central to her argument. She
provides some textual description of the types of issues included (e.g., good government, institutional powers, some federal programs), but
knowing more about these votes and how they break down, similar to what she usefully provides for ideological votes, would be helpful in
evaluating her argument. One suspects that in any given political moment, a putatively “nonideological” partisan battle over an ethics
investigation or presidential power is actually a proxy war about the party-in-power's liberal (or conservative) agenda. While the nominal issue
at hand may, in principle, defy left/right categorization, the vote is nevertheless very much about ideological commitments. Context
is
everything, and without knowing more details of this broad category, it is difficult to ascertain whether
an issue is as free of ideological portent as the public record suggests.
Public appeals aren’t even the main source of capital – your article’s generalizations
are wrong.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism,
and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770]
If higher approval ratings can augment a president's persuasive power in select cases, Neustadt
remains skeptical that
presidents can substitute "going public" for bargaining as a general means of influence. "Public appeals,"
he argues instead, "are part of bargaining, albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than before in reputation" (Neustadt
1990, xv). A key reason why presidents cannot expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that
approval levels are largely governed by factors outside their control. "[L]arge and relatively lasting changes [in Gallup
Polls measuring popular approval] come at the same time as great events with widespread consequences" (81).
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext: Klein = Wrong
Reagan disproves Klein’s arguments.
Drum 3-13. [Kevin, political blogger, “Presidential Persuasion, Take 2” Mother Jones -- http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2012/03/presidential-persuasion-take-2]
There are some important points to be made about this. First: we
should be careful not to take opinion polls too
seriously. Gallup may say that attitudes toward taxes didn't change a lot pre- and post-Reagan, but the
real world says different. Before 1980, it was possible to raise taxes both locally and at the federal level. After 1980
it became virtually impossible, and after the early 90s it became very nearly literally impossible. In Congress and at the polling
place, where it really matters, public opinion was loud and clear: higher taxes were a killer. Second: it's not just
broad public opinion that matters. Persuading the base matters. Ramping up intensity matters, even among a minority.
Raising money matters. And persuading the chattering classes matters. Those are all things that presidential
persuasion can affect, even if they don't get picked up in the latest Gallup poll. Third, there's always a pendulum effect. If
your campaign to lower taxes succeeds in lowering taxes, it's natural that even the tax fighters will start to
relax some and become more open to the idea that existing tax rates are OK. That doesn't mean persuasion on taxes has
failed. Just the opposite: it means it worked! But no amount of persuasion will keep people heated up no matter how low
taxes go. That's just not a realistic bar. Now, I don't want to pretend that the tax revolt of the past 30 years was all Ronald
Reagan's doing. It wasn't. He came into office on a wave of anti-tax sentiment that was already ramping up, and there was a big
institutional movement to back him up. But did he really have no effect at all? That's a tough nut to swallow. He was
the most important public face of the anti-tax crusade, and I think his choice to talk about taxes endlessly
for eight years made a difference. Three decades later, it still does.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Going Public
Going public works- public opinion critical to determining presidential success- gives
leverage as Congressional members try to avoid electoral repercussions
Gibbs, '09, Christine, James H. Dunn Memorial Fellowship Program in Illinois government, a political
science and international studies double major at Wesleyan Illinois 'Presidential Success in Congress:
Factors that Determine the President's Ability to Influcence Congressional¶ Voting"¶
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/polisci_honproi/35
The weakening of president -party relations has given more leverage to the president to act independently.
This has allowed the president to use his unique resources, such as media attention, to further policy
proposals. It has also allowed the president to bully members of Congress by essentially threatening their
popularity in their electoral districts if they do not support the president. It is necessary to understand how the president can
boost the office's powers in the legislative arena to increase voting preferences for his policies in order to understand how the president, in
general, can influence policies.¶ Presidential Effort¶ Scholars have also attributed presidential success
to the president's
ability to "go over the heads" of members of Congress to take their message directly to the people (Tulis
1987,4). Jeffrey Tulis states that the President acts as a spokesperson for "the people," bringing their proposals not only to the people but also
to members of Congress. Edwards and Wood claimthat presidents have the ability to use their elevated position to create attention where
none exists (Edwards and Wood 1999).¶ Due
to the limited resources of presidents, Steger, Prins and Marshall have stated that
presidents need to allocate their resources carefully in order to make them useful. Steger claims that
"[resource] limitations compel presidents to set priorities and choose fights selectively [because] they
cannot afford to waste scarce resources and political capital pursuing futile legislation" (Steger 2005, 315). If a
president is using his resources on a particular policy measure, it can be assumed that the issue is of particular importance to the president.¶
Samuel Kernell has stated that presidents
will use their "bully pulpit" powers to influence the populace to
become more activated on a particular topic or to influence Congress directly. In similar studies, Jacobs and Shapiro
have found that politicians "attempt to change public opinion not by directly persuading the public on the merits of the policy choices" but by
priming public opinion (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000, xiv). Priming refers to the politicians' aim to increase publicity of certain poticy themes in
order to boost favor for particular policies (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000). Jacobs and Shapiro came to the conclusion that presidents use public
opinion polls not to create policies that reflect the opinions of the nation, but in order to craft speeches and allocate resources to package their
proposals in a way that will convince the public and members of Congress to support their proposals (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000).¶ By
taking
his influence directly to the people, the president has the ability to target constituents of the politicians
who depend on their vote. This puts significant power in the hands of the president in that what he needs to do
"is convince a sufficient number of politicians that the political cost of resisting his policy is greater than any potential gain" (Kernell 1997,250).
This power is so strong, says Kernell, that at times, even when the representatives knows that their position is not the same as the president's,
they may vote with the president in order to avoid the poEtical backlash that may occur should the
president 'lake his case to the people" (Kernell 1997, 250). The assumption that Kernell makes is that when the president takes his
message directly to the people, they will be more aware of how their representative will vote in regards to the policy issue. The
representative, being aware of this increased focus on the issue, will feel pressured to vote in favor with the president
in order to avoid electoral repercussions.¶ Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were two of the first to use the
strategy of "going public" to win favor for poEcy measures. The diverging strategy, as opposed to simple negotiations that were
previously used, was necessary to use for these presidents due to their progressive proposed reforms that would have stripped power from the
politicians that would need to vote to enact them (Kernell 1997). Since it was first employed by these presidents, it is now seen to be used by
presidents to appeal to the public for support and in turn to influence Congress to support the president's policies.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Aff’s generalizations about going public are irrelevant – not the only factor.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism,
and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770]
More systematic efforts to
test the utility of going public produce mixed empirical results. Again, much of the
research employs quantitative analysis and focuses on legislative outcomes as a measure of presidential influence. Some studies claim a
positive correlation between increases in aggregate levels of presidential approval and presidential
influence in Congress (Brace and Hinckley 1992, Rivers and Rose 1985). But others find a more variable effect, with the
impact of presidential approval depending on the legislators' partisan affiliation (Edwards 1989; Bond and Fleisher 1990), and some see no
relationship at all (Mouw and MacKuen 1992b; see also Collier and Sullivan 1995). It
is not clear, however, whether studies
utilizing aggregate levels of presidential popularity are appropriate tests of Neustadt's more nuanced claim
regarding the power of a president's public prestige. Neustadt warns that "one rarely finds a one-to-one
relationship between appraisals of his general popularity and responses from some public in
particular" (1990, 77). Instead, he argues that the relationship between a president's public prestige and
bargaining effectiveness varies based on several factors, including the parties involved, the issue saliency and
complexity, the affected publics' level of interest and knowledge, and prior presidential statements (78-85). The latest scholarly
studies support Neustadt's more textured assessment; they find that rather than a direct
correspondence between presidential popularity and legislative outcomes, a president's prestige
influences congressional behavior in a more nuanced, less direct fashion. Simple generalizations
regarding prestige and power, then, are difficult to make.
Public appeals aren’t even the main source of capital – your article’s generalizations
are wrong.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism,
and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770]
If higher approval ratings can augment a president's persuasive power in select cases, Neustadt
remains skeptical that
presidents can substitute "going public" for bargaining as a general means of influence. "Public appeals,"
he argues instead, "are part of bargaining, albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than before in reputation" (Neustadt
1990, xv). A key reason why presidents cannot expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that
approval levels are largely governed by factors outside their control. "[L]arge and relatively lasting changes [in Gallup
Polls measuring popular approval] come at the same time as great events with widespread consequences" (81).
Going public is not the same as political capital theory – doesn’t disprove it.
Cameron and Park 11. [Charles, jointly appointed in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, M.P.A. and Ph.D. (Public Affairs) from Princeton University, Jee-Kwang, Associate Professor of Political Science at Penn
State, “Going Public When Opinion Is Contested: Evidence from Presidents' Campaigns for Supreme Court Nominees, 1930-2009” Presidential
Studies Quarterly41. 3 (Sep 2011): 442-470.]
Progress in theory development has been somewhat slower. Early
studies of going public adopted a "political capital"
theory in which the president could move public opinion rather easily, simply through the exertion of effort (Kernell 1986). A major
refinement came with conditional escalation theory in which the popularity of issues acts as a constraint on the tactic's effectiveness and hence
the president's willingness to employ it (Canes- Wrone 2001b, 2006). However, both approaches implicitly
assume an uncontested
information environment - the president's opponents do not initiate a public fight or countermobilize in
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
response to a presidential initiative. Some scholars have begun to explore a further development, which we call opinion contest
theory. This approach assumes the president faces competition in messages and hence a struggle over
public opinion (see, e.g., Jacobs and Shapiro 2000; Rottinghaus 2010). Contested opinion theory adds a new level of strategic complexity
to going public and makes its effectiveness more problematic. In this article, we explore opinion contest theory and contrast
it with political capital theory,
using new data on going public and new data on interest group mobilization against the president. The data come from the same policy event repeated many times across multiple presidencies:
presidential nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. This research design may be distinguished from those involving repeated i nstances of the same speech (e.g., the State of the Union speech; see Cohen 1997), repeated instances of the same type of rhetoric (e.g., economic appeals; see
Wood 2007), or multiple kinds of rhetoric across many programs or events (Canes- Wrone 2006; Edwards 2003; Rottinghaus 2010). By focusing on the same policy event, we implicitly control for many factors that vary across issues, programs, or policy arenas. In addition, we can tailor the
predictions and our empirical models to the specific context of Supreme Court nominations. By the same token, however, our findings may be somewhat special to Supreme Court nominations. That acknowledged, we examine the triggers for going public over Supreme Court nominees,
the content of the president's messages, and their impact on Senate voting on nominees. Because we collect consistent data on interest group mobilization, we are able to explicitly address opinion contest theory. In addition, the length of our data - covering some 80 years, from 1930 to
2009 - allows us to examine the historical development of going public over much of the 20th century and into the early 21st century, at least in this one arena. There is little prior research on presidents going public on behalf of Supreme Court nominees. We discuss the principal study,
Johnson and Roberts (2004), below. However, useful comparisons come from work examining going public on lower court nominations (Holmes 2007, 2008) and work examining interest group activity during nominations (Scherer 2005); for broader comparisons across types of
nominations, see Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond 1998. More generally, we know of no other work that contrasts the predictions of political capital theory and opinion contest theory and applies them systematically to data from a single frequently recurring policy event. Our principal empirical
findings are the following. Prior to about 1965, presidents virtually never went public over Supreme Court nominees, even (as in the case of Herbert Hoover's 1930 nominee, Judge Parker) when the nominee ran into serious trouble. But this changed thereafter, with presidents going
public defensively when interest groups mobilized against the nominee. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, presidential efforts became significantly more intense. In addition, Republican presidents went public more aggressively when their nominee would move the median justice on the
Supreme Court in a conservative direction. In explaining the intensity of going public,
models based on opinion contest theory substantially out-perform
political capital models. In fact, formal nonnested F-tests reject political capital models based on filibuster pivots or opposition seats in favor of an opinion contest model
based on interest group mobilization against the nominee. In essence, presidents went public over Supreme Court nominees when - and almost only when - groups mobilized against the
nominee. We also find that when presidents do go public over the nominee, they engage in what Jacobs and Shapiro call "crafted talk": they emphasize the nominee's professional
qualifications and positive personal qualities, not his or her often extreme ideological commitments. Finally, as predicted by opinion contest theory, going public in an opinion contest is
associated with more negative votes in the Senate, not fewer. This is because presidents go public over Supreme Court nominees only when battling a vigorous and active opposition. In short,
at least for understanding going public over Supreme Court nominees, the data strongly favor an
opinion contest perspective.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Newsweek
This card is just an editorial reflective of one journalist’s opinion – it cites no statistical
facts or even credible data – if we win Obama is fighting for and pushing our agenda
item it disproves this argument.
Pepsi challenge – the card doesn’t even say political capital.
Newsweek concludes neg- Obama’s strategy is a nuanced and successful deployment
of PC- campaign-style presidency is his strong suit- contextualizes to our jobs internal
link
Newsweek 10 (“Learning from LBJ,” 3-25, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/25/learning-fromlbj.html)
Obama entered politics as a community organizer, and as a presidential candidate he oversaw an operation that brilliantly organized from the
ground up. So it was a puzzle to Marshall Ganz, a longtime community organizer, that Obama seemed to neglect the basic rule of a grassroots
organizer: to mobilize and, if necessary, polarize your popular base against a common enemy. Instead, President Obama seemed to withdraw
and seek not to offend while Congress squabbled. "It was a curiously passive strategy," says Ganz, who worked for 16 years with Cesar Chavez
and the United Farm Workers and now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School. In a way, he says, Obama's "fear of a small conflict made a big
conflict inevitable."
---their card ends---
The health-care battle "was a political near-death experience for the president and congressional leaders," says Bill
Galston, formerly Clinton's domestic adviser and now an old Washington hand at the Brookings Institution. Galston describes
Obama's style as "drift and mastery." He recalls early in Obama's presidential campaign, in the summer of 2007, when the
candidate seemed oddly inert as he dropped in the polls. Then he perfected a rousing stump speech, just in time for the run-up to the Iowa
caucuses. Obama, says Galston, seems to have his own "inner gyroscope," but he also shows a distaste for the messy business
of governing in fractious Washington. "He has something approaching contempt for the hyperreactional government in Washington, where
people pay way too much attention to the crisis of the moment," says Galston. The president doesn't have all that much use for the niceties of
international diplomacy, either. Early in his term, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke of renewing the "special relationship" between
Britain and the U.S. When he came calling in Washington in the winter of 2009, Brown brought a penholder crafted from the timbers of a 19thcentury British ship that blockaded the African slave trade. Obama's Oval Office desk is made from the timbers of a sister ship. In return, Obama
gave Brown a lame gift of some Hollywood DVDs and blew him off without a dinner or press conference. Brown has stayed miffed. More
recently, Obama has given the cold shoulder to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. That may have been more calculated—a rebuff intended
to get Israel to act more in line with U.S. interests. One can imagine LBJ exercising the same manipulative disdain. Even on
domestic
issues, Obama may be playing a more subtle game than is readily apparent. Presidential historian Doris Kearns
Goodwin recalls that when she met with candidate Obama in 2007, she expected to talk about his hero Lincoln, the subject of Goodwin's book
Team of Rivals. Yet he also quizzed her and her husband, former Kennedy and Johnson speechwriter Richard Goodwin, about LBJ. He was
interested in learning about Johnson's philosophy for dealing with Congress. Goodwin says she now realizes that by working so closely and
deferentially with Congress on health care, Obama was taking a page from LBJ's oft-expressed philosophy: "If they're with you at the takeoff,
they'll be with you in the landing." At
times the haggling irked him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recalled for journalists that in midJanuary, when health reform seemed nearly sunk, Obama grew impatient as she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bickered
before him. Pelosi said she told the president he should "ignore some of our, shall we say, frankness with each other." But all the while
Obama was paying close attention, says his chief adviser, David Axelrod. "Most people treat lulls when they're not speaking as a
place to rest and gather their thoughts until they make the next point. He actually listens," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. In the afterglow of the
health-care success, Goodwin thinks that Obama has amassed some good will and mo-mentum he can use to gain more victories. "The telling
moment was in the signing ceremony when [Obama] said, 'You've taken your lumps.' And then a congressman yelled out, 'You're right, we did,
and we still stood.' When you've been in the trenches together as they were in this fight, it does create relationships that he can now build on
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
and they can build on too," she says. Goodwin also expects
Obama to have a stronger appetite for change now that
he's had one big success. "Once you've achieved something that everyone admits is a historic achievement, it does something, I think,
inside a president's heart," she says. "LBJ said after he got the Civil Rights Act through in 1964, knowing that he had done something that would
be remembered in time only emboldened him to want to do more, because the feeling was so extraordinary…cThe next year, when he
proposed voting rights, people around him said, 'No way, you have to let the country heal'…cjust as people might be saying that about Obama.
My guess is that what happens when you feel that sense of fulfillment inside is that it makes you remember what the presidency is about, to
use power to change the lives of people in a positive way. It
will only, it seems to me, make it more likely that he will continue
now to go forward with the rest of his agenda." A knowledgeable White House aide, who did not want to be
named, expects Obama to get financial reform out of the Senate—"and then we'll have to surprise everyone on energy."
(Translation: getting a climate-change bill through Congress is a much bigger challenge.) But going forward, listening won't be enough.
Obama will need to feel the passion of the presidency. At some point he is going to have to go to the people
in full campaign mode, and he may have to learn to twist arms, LBJ style, even if he doesn't like to.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Neustadt Study
Neustadt outdated- newest consensus is PC theory is true
Gibbs, '09, Christine, James H. Dunn Memorial Fellowship Program in Illinois government, a political
science and international studies double major at Wesleyan Illinois 'Presidential Success in Congress:
Factors that Determine the President's Ability to Influcence Congressional¶ Voting"¶
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/polisci_honproi/35
Richard Neustadt's Presidential
Power\ published in 1962, set the basis for continued studies on the president, the
president's authority and the factors limiting his authority. Although he claimed that the presidency "amounted to little
more than a clerkship," it appears that scholarly thought has moved away from that idea towards the thought
that the president has significant legislative powers, but that those powers are often very limited by Congress (Pika, Thomas
and Watson 1994, 207). By clerkship, Neustadt meant that the president was expected to be at the service of the rest of the government. He
wrote that the president's "authority and status" were his means to getting his legislation passed through Congress by way of negotiation and
persuasion (Neustadt 1962, 35). As
time has progressed and new studies have been done on the presidency and
presidential powers, scholars have come to believe that the president is much stronger than Neustadt gave
the position credit for. Stephen Skowronek describes the president as having the ability to "seize control of the powers of his office to
try... to establish order anew on his own terms" (Skowronek 1994, 20). Baumgartner and Jones have found that the "president
is the dominant leader if he wants to be" indicating that the president is able to be a powerful legislator if he possesses the will
and creates the environment to be successful (Thurber 1996,113). Rudalevige claims that the president has more influence
in legislative agenda setting than any other political actor. He has written that "the president's legislative initiatives almost
invariably receive congressional attention and agenda space - and that the scope and content of the president's program will frequently form
the backbone of national policy debate" (Rudalevige 2002, 3). If this is true, it
puts significant power in the hands of the
president, not only in forming policy but also in capturing the demands of the electorate.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Ornstein
Ornstein concludes neg- there is an agenda setting impact and the president matter in
close votes
Norman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a contributing editor and
columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an election eve analyst for BBC News. He served
as codirector of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch
series. 5-8-2013 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-ofpresidential-leadership/
The theme of presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an enduring mythology about great figures rising to the occasion. The term
“mythology” doesn’t mean that the stories are inaccurate; Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real sense of that president’s remarkable character and drive, as well as
his ability to shape important events. Every president is compared to the Lincoln leadership standard and to those set by other presidents, and the first 100 days of every term becomes a
measure of how a president is doing.¶ I have been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obama’s failure to lead. Of
course, that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed
in his fundamental leadership task—not building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not “working his will” the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did.¶ Now, after
the failure to get the background-check bill through the Senate, other reporters and columnists have picked up on the same theme, and I have grown increasingly frustrated with how the
mythology of leadership has been spread in recent weeks. I have yelled at the television set, “Didn’t any of you ever read Richard Neustadt’s classic Presidential Leadership? Haven’t any of you
taken Politics 101 and read about the limits of presidential power in a separation-of-powers system?Ӧ But the issue goes beyond that, to a willful ignorance of history. No one schmoozed
more or better with legislators in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican votes did it get him on his signature initial priority, an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight
months to get enough Democrats to limp over the finish line. How did things work out on his health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House?¶ No one knew Congress, or the
buttons to push with every key lawmaker, better than LBJ. It worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress, largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own party
in both houses. But after the awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen majorities receded, LBJ’s mastery of Congress didn’t mean squat.¶ No one defined the agenda or negotiated more
brilliantly than Reagan. Did he “work his will”? On almost every major issue, he had to make major compromises with Democrats, including five straight years with significant tax increases. But
he was able to do it—as he was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reform—because he had key Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises.¶ For Obama, we knew
from the get-go that he had no Republicans willing to work with him. As Robert Draper pointed out in his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, key GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor and Paul
Ryan determined on inauguration eve in January 2009 that they would work to keep Obama and his congressional Democratic allies from getting any Republican votes for any of his priorities
or initiatives. Schmoozing was not going to change that.¶ Nor would arm-twisting. On the gun-control vote in the Senate, the press has focused on the four apostate Democrats who voted
against the Manchin-Toomey plan, and the unwillingness of the White House to play hardball with Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska. But even if Obama had bludgeoned Begich and his three
colleagues to vote for the plan, the Democrats would still have fallen short of the 60 votes that are now the routine hurdle in the Senate—because 41 of 45 Republicans voted no. And as Sen.
Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has said, several did so just to deny Obama a victory.¶ Indeed, the theme of presidential arm-twisting again ignores history. Clinton once taught Sen. Richard Shelby of
Alabama a lesson, cutting out jobs in Huntsville, Ala. That worked well enough that Shelby switched parties, joined the Republicans, and became a reliable vote against Clinton. George W. Bush
and Karl Rove decided to teach Sen. Jim Jeffords a lesson, punishing dairy interests in Vermont. That worked even better—he switched to independent status and cost the Republicans their
Senate majority. Myths are so much easier than reality.
---their card ends--All this is not to say that leadership is meaningless and the situation hopeless. Obama has failed to use
the bully pulpit as effectively as he could, not to change votes but to help define the agenda, while his adversaries
have often—on health care, the economy, stimulus, and other issues—defined it instead. Shaping the agenda can give your allies
traction and legitimize your policy choices and put your opponents on defense. And any of us could quibble
with some of the strategic choices and timing emanating from the White House. But it is past time to abandon selective history
and wishful thinking, and realize the inherent limits of presidential power, and the very different tribal politics that Obama faces compared with
his predecessors.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
AT: Rockman
Their Rockman evidence is a straw-person argument- Rockman votes neg- thinks that
presidential influence is OBVIOUSLY relevant and that strategies matter
Rockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”, volume
39, issue 4, Academic OneFile. accessed 7-15-10)
There is, however, a matter that he and I are apt to continue to disagree about, and that is the role of
individual leaders. This is a focus that Moe tends to heavily discount or perhaps disparage. This should hardly come as
a surprise to anyone who is familiar with Moe’s work or his efforts over the years to set presidential studies on a more theoretical course. I
think I am not stretching matters too far to say that Moe believes that theorizing and research in presidency studies ought to proceed without
presidents and that the “revolution” in presidential studies has succeeded precisely because it has. Correspondingly, although Richard
Neustadt’s reputation scarcely needs to be defended by me, Moe’s
behavior is, I think, misplaced.
long-standing critique of Neustadt on presidential
These differences reflect conversations, panel discussions, conference repartee, and the like that have been going on between us for more than two decades. Although I doubt that we are apt to change one
another’s minds, the fact is that we share quite a few critical assumptions about how to peel away the hard shell of presidential studies. We apparently differ as to whether or not we get to the spongier and softer stuff inside. I cannot speak for Terry on this, but it is possible that he thinks
we can forgo getting deeply inside the shell, if I may use that metaphor. I think that depends on what we want to find out. That certainly should be driven by theory, but it also may be driven by substantive importance or by a problem. I sympathize with Moe’s view that a focus on people
is apt to go nowhere if we begin with it. People are the residue left over from what it is we can explain in more coherent theoretical ways. Psychologists and biologists often use the language of “individual differences” when they have no theoretically coherent explanation of why some
seemingly like individuals, be they mice or men, respond differently to similar treatments or stimuli. The question is whether the residual variance is important at all. For most students of political leadership, we get to the individual only after we have gone through everything else. I would
argue that this was Neustadt’s premise when the iconic Presidential Power (1960) was first published. I am sure that Moe disagrees with that, and I doubt that there is any definitive way of settling this argument. Nevertheless, Neustadt begins Presidential Power with the contention that
because the system denies presidents straightforward levers of power, a president had better be politically adept if he (or she) is to figure out the levers and tactics that might enhance his (or her) capabilities. True enough, as Moe says, the insights that Neustadt gleans about the levers of
power derive from no systematic theory at all. Neustadt uses observations, some of which are the product of his own firsthand perceptions of how power was exercised or frustrated. I agree fully with Moe that while there is no specific theory here—and, to be sure, Neustadt intended
none—there is an effort to depart from the arid institutionalism of its day. Neustadt told us that his book was not about powers but about power. Moreover, his intent was not to build a theory for political scientists but to provide advice to a real-world occupant of the White House and,
indirectly, to those who help choose new presidents. Neustadt was a fox, not a hedgehog—to use Sir Isaiah Berlin’s metaphor (derived from Tolstoy) to distinguish between those who see complexity in their environment (the foxes) and those who see the big and overarching picture (the
hedgehogs). He was interested in the particulars and the nuances. That, to my mind, is no criticism at all once it is placed in an institutional context—a context that Neustadt hammers home as the source of the president’s power problem. Taking him for what I believe he intended,
Presidential Power remains a brilliant, if sometimes flawed, book. People, he claimed, are not just marginal elements in the successes or failures of leadership. The claim, of course, is not easily testable because it is often argued in the form of counterfactuals.We know what X did; we can
only speculate as to what Y might have done. Nor, as I previously pointed out (Rockman 1984), is it at all self-evident where the politically gifted are to be found. Fred Greenstein (1994) made the point even more directly in his book depicting Dwight D. Eisenhower as an astute politician
rather than the political oaf he resembles in Neustadt’s characterization. Neustadt concludes his book by noting that, more likely than not, the search for the politically adept would have to focus on a small subset of the class of professional politicians. In fact, the search may have to be
both more expansive and random than that. While the needle may still be tiny, the haystack is larger. Psychology (the individual) is likely to pr ovide more clues than recruitment pools predicated on professional experiences. Neustadt thought that the adept individuals would most likely
be found within the recruitment pool of professional politicians. Would that there were solid evidence of that. Political astuteness, incidentally, is not just a matter of getting your way, as I think Neustadt meant it; it is figuring out the long run, not painting yourself into a corner, and
working to keep your options open. It was not confidence that Neustadt was trying to instill in presidents; it was skepticism. Confidence can lead a president into being ambushed by reality. The second Bush presidency was a prime example of this. Skepticism about what others want and
about the likelihood that if anything can go awry, it will, leads a president to look at what is at stake for him (or her). Judicious assessment of the possibilities likely leads to better decisions, and optimizing information likely reduces the prospect that someone else’s “best case” scenario
may become the president’s “worst case” reality. Presidential Power was not a theory of the presidency. It was a response to a problem, and thus was problem driven rather than theory driven. If one goes back to the era in which Neustadt wrote Presidential Power, very little of what we
think of today as theory had actually made its way into political science. There were theoretical frameworks such as systems theory and communications theory but precious little theory, as Moe articulates that. Some middle-level theories did develop in political science, for example,
pluralism stemming especially from Robert Dahl’s analytic work A Preface to Democratic Theory (1963) and his empirical work Who Governs? (1961). And there were theories that drew from social and cognitive psychology that informed the studies of voting of Angus Campbell, Philip
Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes (1960, 1967). Some of that quartet also drew on probability theory and spatial theory, as well as the sociology of communication and the role of institutions, in producing more or less decisive political outcomes. I think it would be fair to say,
however, that none of these monumental empirical studies was driven purely by deductive or axiomatic theorizing other than the borrowing of Downsian spatial theory (1957) to demonstrate its limited empirical applicability. Only William Riker and Herbert Simon, as members of that
same generational cohort, might be said to have been theory driven in the fundamental sense that I think Moe means it, and Simon was certainly skeptical of the sort of assumption-heavy axiomatic theorizing reflected in homos economicus. Neustadt was problem driven, praxis oriented,
and, not surprisingly, essentially focused on knowing what could affect the wisdom of choices that leaders have to make. Presidential Power was not the only volume in which that orientation was at work. His book with Ernest May (1986), for example, was an effort to apply the lessons of
history to the avoidance of policy traps. For better or worse—and Moe, no doubt, believes for the worse—praxis continues to be an orientation that influences students of the presidency and undoubtedly also students of public administration, the latter of which Moe wrote about
critically in his notable 1985 essay on presidential politicization.
---their card starts--Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980,
1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990) have tested Neustadt’s ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with
other actors. In this, Neustadt’s ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of empirical scientists that
public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president’s agenda and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt—where they
are at all—among a president’s support base. We know now, too, that a president’s purported skills at schmoozing, twisting arms, and
congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from Congress. That was a lot more than we knew prior to the
publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a newer (and now older) generation of political scientists,
reared on Neustadt but armed with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test. That the empirical
tests demonstrate that several of these propositions are wrong comes with the territory. That is how science progresses. But the reality is that
there was almost nothing of a propositional nature prior to Neustadt.
---their card ends--As well, some of Neustadt’s examples are also misplaced. From an organizational standpoint, Neustadt’s story of Eisenhower’s lack of decisiveness in getting his treasury secretary, George Humphrey, on board with the
administration’s budget plans or making an example of Humphrey by dismissing him highlights the wrong lesson. Humphrey was obviously not speaking alone. He had a good bit of support from the congressional wing of his party
for a more austere budget than the administration recommended. Neustadt portrays Eisenhower as indecisive and incompetent at protecting his stakes by defending both his budget and Humphrey’s criticism of it. Eisenhower had
to contend with the Democrats’ criticism of too little spending and the congressional Republicans’ criticism of too much. As matters played out, Humphrey eventually left his post in less than a year’s time, and Eisenhower saw no
reason to heighten tensions over this controversy. Why make a bigger fuss when the objective is to reduce the fuss? Humphrey was gone after a decent interval without bloodletting. The contrast should be noted with Richard M.
Nixon’s firing of Walter Hickel, his first interior secretary, after Hickel publicly protested about never meeting alone with the president. All Nixon truly achieved, in the short run at least, was more adverse publicity. Nixon may have
been the more political of the two presidents, but Eisenhower probably was the more politically adept. Moe’s fundamental criticism of Neustadt and of those of us who found value in his book is that, objectively, it set presidency
scholars off in the wrong direction in pursuit of the personal, the idiosyncratic, and the complex when the objectives should have been on making the long story short by pursuing the “fundamentals.” Of course, the “fundamentals”
may change as they run into problems they are unable to resolve. That is, in part, also the message of Moe’s current essay. Nevertheless, in order to get anywhere, from Moe’s perspective, the presidency needs to be
depersonalized. Presidents need to be detached from the presidency. As I have indicated, I accept this notion—up to a point. Obviously, we need to know the forces that would constrain any president (and that conceivably would
lead them to try to find ways to overcome those constraints), as well as the cognitive regularities that would help us understand how presidents (as would any person) assess opportunities and risks in decision making and frame
incoming information. Such regularities certainly must be our starting point. Will they, in turn, be sufficient? That depends on what we want to find out. Surely, structures and rules set limits. Political outcomes, such as elections,
also set limits and, to a lesser degree, provide opportunities. In market transactions, a plethora of rules and restrictions are likely to lead either to black markets or loophole searching. When confronted with restrictions on their
discretion, presidents look for the loopholes. It is important to understand what the incentives are, and that is the underlying basis of structural choice. But the incentives may play out differently for presidents with different
agendas and strategic situations. Presidents of different parties, for example, tend to face different strategic situations because their agendas tend to differ, at least initially. They also tend to organize their presidencies differently
at the outset. One party’s presidents tend to focus on control and discipline; the other on an active flow of ideas, producing potentially less coherence and discipline. The reason mainly has to do with the parties having quite
different agendas and interests in public policy. One typically wants to do less, while the other typically wants to do more (Rockman 1993). The debate as to the extent to which leaders are incarcerated by nonmanipulables or are
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
able to see and take advantage of opportunities is an old one, even if the language with which it is being carried out is different. In a well-aged but still superb summary of these streams of theory, published more than 40 years ago,
Donald Searing (1969) divided theories of elites into ones that were organic and those that were mechanistic. Organic theories emphasized the deep structure of forces that determined elite behavior. Marxist theory fit that
pattern, but so, too, did classical theories of elites set forth by Mosca, Pareto, and Michels. Alternatively, mechanistic theories provided some play for voluntaristic behavior, strategic manipulation, and leadership. Pluralism, as
Dahl explained it in Who Governs? allowed for leadership. The initiatives that occurred in New Haven, according to Dahl, mainly were the product of the mayor’s persistence rather than some evident pent-up demand.
Alternatively, when leadership swings do bring about change, as Stephen Skowronek (2008) has pointed out, it may be principally because the leaders are the products of deeper currents in the political system rather than their
being attributable to the specific skill sets of the individuals brought to power by these currents. The arguments over how much is predetermined and how much remains open to manipulation continues. Another well-aged body of
work by Fred Greenstein (1969) notes upon reviewing the research literature underlying the interplay of personality and politics that the more a person’s role is structured, the less of an opportunity there is for individual
characteristics to come to the fore, and vice versa. Thus, one can infer that where presidents need the help of others, such as congressional support, their personal skills or temperaments matter little. The Lyndon B. Johnson and
Franklin D. Roosevelt mythologies of congressional mastery were the product of extraordinary majorities that had limited longevity. Jimmy Carter’s difficulties with Congress certainly were not eased by his lack of camaraderie with
its members, but they probably were not appreciably worsened by it either. In all likelihood, these problems had a lot to do with the complexity of Carter’s proposed legislative agenda, the interests antagonistic to it, and his being
Nevertheless, even here, presidents have choices to make—as do other
they try to build oversized coalitions and induce buy-in through compromises on controversial
legislation? Or do they seek a minimum winning coalition strategy to preserve the essentials or the purity of their
out of step with his party’s traditional labor and social welfare interests.
politicians. Do
ideas? Or will they govern by veto? Or, alternatively, will they employ executive-only strategies? It is hardly clear what one might do without
knowing the political circumstances. They obviously shape the choices. Does the president have majorities in his (or her) favor?
How big are they? What are the interchamber differences? A president without majorities more likely will have to use the veto chip to help
shape legislation. Or, plausibly, as George W. Bush did, use signing statements to avoid vetoes but also avoid legislative oversight. The
structural institutional literature that Moe cites certainly defines the strategic conditions, limits, and opportunities that inform presidential
choices. Individual variability, however, remains
relevant. Despite the fact that George W. Bush had working majorities in Congress for all but his last two
years, and despite the fact that all presidents have resorted to unilateralism, Bush did so to an unparalleled degree (Shane 2009). Several administration officials in the Justice Department
warned the White House against doing through the executive that which they could accomplish through legislative process (Goldsmith 2007). Their advice was spurned and the careers of
those advisors cut short. We can only speculate as to why, and this is not the place to engage in that. My point is that even though the logic of the president’s strategic situation may be clear, it
may not be consistent with the logic the president is carrying in his head (or, plausibly in this case, the vice president). Drawing from cultural anthropology, Fred Greenstein comments that
“[e]very human being is in certain ways like all other human beings, in certain ways more like some human beings than others, and in certain ways unique” (1992, 119). I suspect that Moe
would find extending beyond the first of these conditions to be unworthy of the hunt. There are instances in which presidents may take the advice of others and consult with others but
ultimately bear the burden of making the decisions that count. In fact, the situations in which the president is the “decider” are typically matters of life and death. They are less structured than
the conditions of mutual dependency that a president has with Congress. Given the constraints that otherwise govern a president’s legislative agenda, here is where a president earns his (or
her) spurs. How carefully does a president think about options? How open is a president to serious debate among his (or her) advisors? How likely is it that a president will think about what
can go wrong and either avoid it or prepare for it? Because a president’s legislative agenda can be regarded as iffy at best, it is these very limited but vitally important situations in which a
president’s intellect, wisdom, and temperament can make all the difference in the world. In other words, where structural constraints are limited, there is greater play for personal
characteristics to influence outcomes. Unfortunately, there is no theory that we can presently point to that helps us deal with individual differences of this nature. But it did not take a theory
to observe the differences between George Bush the former and George Bush the latter. One was prudent, and the other, to be charitable, less so. One understood the limits of power, while
the other tended to see the world as his oyster. Could we have seen it coming? I think we could see the characteristics of the first George Bush based on his experiences and diplomatic
engagements. It was probably less plausible that we could have detected the leadership theory of the younger George Bush and the confidence he placed in his judgments, which leaned
toward taking the bold stroke. His résumé was thin, and he left little on the public record. Observation rather than theory will be our best bet as to how any given president is apt to pan out in
the most singularly important aspects of the presidency. It may well be that our best sources for observation and clues as to future behavior will come from the journalists who covered the
prior beat of the particular president, as Lou Cannon (1982) had done for Reagan. I do not pretend that this is theoretical; I do claim that it is vitally critical to understanding the most important
There are circumstances in which the president
tends to be the exclusive decider, or at least the most critical one, and in which his (or her) interaction with
others comes on his (or her) terms. These occasions just happen to be the main reasons we need a
president, because this is where it counts. We have come to know more about crisis situations: fewer actors are involved, and
aspects of the presidency.We are now well past the hard shell and to the squishy but vital stuff inside.
interactions tend to have a very high density function around a core actor who just happens to be the president (Link 2000). We also know that
when presidents tip their hand at the outset, the incentive for an advisor to be an outlier is exceedingly low. Thus, we do need to know more
about how presidents act and, above all, think in these situations. Admittedly, theories of personality have gotten us nowhere because they
tend to be overdrawn, overly simple, frequently circular, and permanently fixed. We need to be more focused, first, in understanding the
organizational and communication logics of crisis situations; second, in thinking about the uniformities that influence choices; third, in thinking
about the historically conditioned patterns of thought influencing responses; and finally, in considering what it is that the decision makers,
preeminently the president, bring to the table. Moe emphasizes that the second and third conditions are likely to be essential components of
gaining a stronger theoretical grasp. I infer that he would accept the first condition as a plausible basis for theory. I am pretty sure that he
would reject the fourth. Ironically, no one has mined this condition better than Neustadt.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
***A2: Winners Win
PC finite- legislative wins don’t spillover –empirics, true for Obama, too polarizednewest ev
Todd Eberly is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of
Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is
excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular
Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_politicalsystem-party-support-public-opinion/2
Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to
accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like
so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s American
political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs
support — or at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with
contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the
prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions.¶ What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so
As Barack
much of what defines contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals and economic
uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The
two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that
resulted in intense polarization in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the
growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential
leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral victory margin. The components
election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the
of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times
past.
In recent years, presidents' political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making
the president a volatile player in the national political system. ¶ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his
most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest
legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000
having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform,
following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has increased
significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as
well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny
and often further erode political capital.¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50
percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early
into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were
accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided
government.¶ By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr.
Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to
help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He
used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers.
Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012
Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic
hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun
election as a means to break present trends. But Barack
majority Senate,
violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further
Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent
their political capital from eroding. When it did, their power assertions often got them into further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able
erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap.
to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed
short-term
legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining political
capital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or
avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily on the current
them to secure important policy changes — in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform — that at the time received popular approval.¶ However,
president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Uniquely true of second term presidents
Bert Atkinson Jr., Independent Review Journal, 3-12-2031 http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/41467love-affair-ending-obamas-political-capital-declining/
The second term is notoriously tough for two term candidates. Clinton had a little snafu on his …hands during his second term that led to
impeachment, and George W. Bush was demonized time and time again. ¶ Now, it could be that Barack Obama is facing a similar fate… ¶ If President Barack
Obama had piled up political capital with his impressive re-election, it’s largely gone.¶ His approval rating has dropped to the
lowest level in more than a year, with more voters now turning thumbs down on his performance than thumbs up, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll. The
measure of how much people like him also has dropped. ¶ He’s
still vastly more popular than Congress, particularly congressional
Republicans. But in the biggest political clash of the year – over the federal budget and how to curb deficits – voters split 44 percent to 42 percent between
preferring Congress or Obama.¶ What? There’s no Mitt Romney to be held up against? ¶ Blame Congressional Republicans all you want, but in 50 years when
children are reading American history books about the infamous fiscal cliff/debt ceiling/sequestration debacles of 2013, they will certainly not remember names like
Mitch McConnell or John Boehner; they will absolutely read about President Obama and how all of this happened under his lack of leadership.¶ “This may be the
downside of him coming out of the box stronger in the second term,” Miringoff said. “People are now looking for him to lead us out of this stalemate, provide more
leadership. People see him as a strong figure and in the driver’s seat. During the election, it was him versus Romney. Now it’s him versus people’s expectations for
the country.Ӧ Expectations: Obama
will have a tough time meeting them. I know the mainstream media has been in the tank for
Obama for a half-decade now, but they still answer to ratings. If I had to take a guess, I would say that there will be more negative news stemming from the growing
discontent of his ability to follow through on his promises. I’m not saying we’re about to see MSNBC go all Fox News on the guy, but the broken promises and
evolutions and flip-flops can only go on for so long before people start catching on. Let’s just say that if Obama is still sending a thrill up your leg at this point, you’ve
got some issues. (Looking at you, Chris Matthews.)
PC is finite- need to pick and choose battles to preserve capital
Sanghoee, 13 Sangay Sanghoee, Political Commentator, has worked at leading investment banks as
well as at a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. He has an MBA from Columbia Business School, Huffington
Post, 4/10/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/compromise-reform-howoba_b_3055100.html
There is only one thing that President Obama can truly rely on, and that is to get attacked no matter what he does. When he stands up for
Democratic principles, he is criticized by the Republicans for betraying the nation's values. When he tries to be bipartisan, he is criticized by the
Democrats for being weak and a turncoat. It
seems he just cannot win. But he can, and whether his critics realize it or not,
Obama is doing it right now. To understand this, however, it is important to recognize what motivates this particular president. Some
presidents are caretakers. In their view, the best leadership is to make sure that nothing goes terribly wrong and that the ship remains stable.
As long as they do that, they consider themselves successful. But that is not this president. This
president wants to accomplish
something tangible, dramatic, and lasting, and that is to institute reform. Reform in healthcare, reform in marriage equality,
reform in immigration, reform in education, reform in campaign finance, and reform in clean energy. In all these areas, Obama
sees the potential for dramatic change and lasting long-term effects, and that is why he is willing to go to
the mat on these issues. On other things, including Social Security and Medicare, the budget deficit, and even gun
control, he sees less room for dramatic improvement - either because of circumstances or political reality - and so is
more willing to compromise. Is this good or bad? It is neither, really. It is just the nature of this presidency and perhaps Obama's
destiny. Leaders pick and choose their battles based on the nation's circumstances, unexpected contingencies, and their own
instincts. President Obama's instincts led him to fight for healthcare, so he did - ferociously, and he will do the
same for immigration, education, and clean energy. He is being roundly criticized for proposing a budget that
agrees to cuts in Social Security by tying it to a Chained CPI, and for agreeing to a softer gun control bill than the
one his party promised after Newtown, in order to reach compromise with the Republicans. But what I believe is really happening is
that Obama is making some very tough choices. Political capital is a finite resource and this president
will use it where he feels it will do the most good. We can disagree with him on his priorities, but I also see where he is
coming from. Preserving Social Security is important but so is getting a budget passed and reaching some type of compromise to keep the
government running. Gun control is urgent but so are immigration and education. History
will decide whether the benefits of
Obama's reforms on some fronts will outweigh the costs of his bipartisan compromises on others, but in
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
the meantime, the Democrats should remember that governing
has always been about horse-trading, and that Obama
has only a short time left to address the major facets of his agenda. Obama is prepared to lose a few
battles in order to win the war. That is not being weak or a turncoat. It is being pragmatic and smart. It is also being
Presidential.
Their ev is only about CENTRAL Obama issues like health care and immigration- small,
single issues don’t spill over
Ryan Lizza, 1/7/13, Will Hagel Spike the G.O.P.’s Fever?,
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/how-much-will-the-nomination-of-chuck-hagelhurt-obamas-second-term-agenda.html
Obama’s victory has made almost no difference in changing the psychology or incentives of the
members of the G.O.P. who matter most: the House Republicans. The idea that a bloc of conservative, mostly Southern, Republicans would start to coöperate
with the President on issues like tax policy and immigration may have rested on a faulty assumption.¶ The past few weeks of fiscal-cliff drama have taught us that “breaking the
fever” was the wrong metaphor. There is no one event—even the election of a President—that can change a political
party overnight. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and House Republicans feel that they have as much of a mandate for their policies as Obama does for his. Shouldn’t
But
House Republicans care that their views on Obama’s priorities, like tax cuts for the rich and immigration, helped cost Romney the White House and will make it difficult for their party’s
nominee to win in 2016? In the abstract, many do, but that’s not enough to change the voting behavior of the average House Republican, who represents a gerrymandered and very
A better metaphor for the coming battles with Congress may be what Woody Hayes, the college-football coach,
famously called “three yards and a cloud of dust”: a series of grinding plays where small victories are earned
only after lots of intense combat. While the fiscal-cliff showdown demonstrated that there’s potential for
bipartisan deal-making in the Senate, passing any Obama priority through the House of Representatives
is nearly impossible unless the political pressure is extremely intense.¶ The fiscal-cliff bill passed the House only
conservative district.¶
when Speaker John Boehner’s members realized that their only alternative was blowing up the settlement negotiated by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell—and accepting all the blame and
offers the White House a general template for the coming fights over spending, immigration,
and gun control—three issues where there is very little consensus between Obama and most House Republicans.
Deals will have to be negotiated in the Senate and gain the imprimatur of some high-profile
Republicans. Then a pressure campaign will have to be mounted to convince Boehner to move the
legislation to the floor of the House under rules that allow it to pass with mostly Democratic votes. It’s
easier to see how this could happen with the coming budgetary issues, which have deadlines that force action, than for the rest of
consequences.¶ That episode
Obama’s agenda, which is more likely than not to simply die in the House.¶ Err neg- their ev is hype and wishful thinking¶ Jackie
Calmes, NYTimes, 11/12/12, In Debt Talks,
That story line, stoked by
Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is too passive and deferential to Congress, a legislative naïf who does little to
nurture personal relationships with potential allies in short, not a particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that
strong leadership was the most important quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney.¶ George C. Edwards III, a leading scholar of the presidency at
Texas A & M University who is currently teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such criticisms as shallow and generally wrong. Yet Mr.
Edwards, whose book on Mr. Obama's presidency is titled "Overreach," said, "He didn't understand the limits of what he
could do."¶ "They thought they could continuously create opportunities and they would succeed, and
then there would be more success and more success, and we'd build this advancing-tide theory of
legislation," Mr. Edwards said. "And that was very naïve, very silly. Well, they've learned a lot, I think."¶ "Effective leaders," he
added, "exploit opportunities rather than create them."¶ The budget showdown is an opportunity. But like many,
it holds risks as well as potential rewards.¶ "This election is the second chance to be what he promised in 2008, and that is to break the gridlock in Washington," said Kenneth M.
Obama Is Ready to Go Beyond Beltway, mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/politics/legacy-at-stake-obama-plans-broader-push-for-budget-deal.xml¶
Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff, who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and later expressed disappointment. "But it seems like this is a replay of 2009 and 2010, when he had huge
majorities in the House and Senate, rather than recognizing that 'we've got to figure out ways to work together and it's not just what I want.' "¶ For now, at least, Republican lawmakers say
they may be open to raising the tax bill for some earners. "We can increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody in this country," said Representative Tom Price, Republican of
The challenge for Mr. Obama is
to use his postelection leverage to persuade Republicans or to help Speaker John A. Boehner persuade
Georgia and a leader of House conservatives, on "Fox News Sunday." "We can lower the rates, broaden the base, close the loopholes."¶
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Republicans that a tax compromise is in their party's political interest since most Americans favor compromise and higher taxes on the
wealthy to reduce annual deficits.¶ Some of the business leaders the president will meet with on Wednesday are members of the new Fix the Debt coalition, which has raised about $40
million to urge lawmakers and their constituents to support a plan that combines spending cuts with new revenue. That session will follow Mr. Obama's meeting with labor leaders on
Tuesday.¶ His first trip outside Washington to engage the public will come after Thanksgiving, since Mr. Obama is scheduled to leave next weekend on a diplomatic trip to Asia. Travel plans are
still sketchy, partly because his December calendar is full of the traditional holiday parties.¶ Democrats said the White House's strategy of focusing both inside and outside of Washington was
smart. "You want to avoid getting sucked into the Beltway inside-baseball games," said Joel Johnson, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and the Senate. "You can still work toward
The president must use his leverage soon, some Democrats added,
because it could quickly wane as Republicans look to the 2014 midterm elections, when the opposition typically takes seats from the president's party in Congress.
solutions, but make sure you get out of Washington while you are doing that."¶
Win doesn’t spill over fast enough
Silber 07 [PhD Political Science & Communication – focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential Policy-Making
– Prof of Poli Sci – Samford, [Marissa, WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?, Prepared for delivery at the
2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007,
UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS]
Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term . If a
President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced? Light suggests that “capital declines over time
– public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur” (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent. The
decline of capital makes it difficult to access information, recruit more expertise and maintain energy.
If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital, this paper helps determine if such capital can
be replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President must be
developed.
Comparative- our internal link is MORE likely
David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 1/19/13, Obama 2.0: Smarter, tougher -but wiser?,
www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Smarter, tougher, bolder -his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps -and for the country's sake, let's
hope so. Yet, there
are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.¶ Ultimately, to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration,
guns and energy, the president and Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term.
Over the past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama, and
the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections.¶ But a growing number of
Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move away from extremism
toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama. It's not that they
suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail. ¶ House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes
on the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a
ruinous GOP stance.¶ One senses that the
hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to
tackle the big issues is now slipping away.¶ While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives
increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and
negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to
support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has
risen to 64%.¶ Conceivably, Obama's tactics
could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely,
they will be spoiling for more fights. Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a thread.
Obama thinks that pol cap is finite – he’ll back off subsequent controversial issues
even if he’s winning
Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos, author of "Obama's
Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, 4/28/’9
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
(Robert, “Obama Has Amassed Enormous Political Capital, But He Doesn't Know What to Do with It,”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/138641/obama_has_amassed_enormous_political_capital,_but_he_
doesn%27t_know_what_to_do_with_it/?page=entire)
We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the release
of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's torture policy, but then backtracked
and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama's political self
wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly
muted. Thus the most important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack
Obama's conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the
campaign that he would govern as a consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of achieving
consensus. One is to split the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is
to use presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days, Obama has
done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext. PC Finite – General
There is spillover --political capital is finite and the time and energy necessary to pass
the plan trades off with other priorities. Getting the plan makes Congress less likely to
grant Obama other favors.
Moore, 13 --Guardian's US finance and economics editor (Heidi, 9/10/2013, “Syria: the great
distraction; Obama is focused on a conflict abroad, but the fight he should be gearing up for is with
Congress on America's economic security,”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester, JMP)
Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite
resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but it also eats up credibility in
asking for the next favor. It's fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, have
no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the reason the White
House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the
domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time.
Most robust studies prove PC is finite and spills over- spending PC on controversial
items hurts Obama’s legislative agenda- err neg- likely that we UNDERESTIMATE that
impact
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia 1025-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
presidents are less likely to be successful enacting their policy proposals¶ and filling lower court vacancies
when they are forced to expend greater relative effort on¶ a Supreme Court nominee. Using data on all
presidential proposals from 1967 to 2010, our¶ results show that the more a president is forced to go public on a nominee's behalf, the
less¶ successful he is at enacting important policy initiatives from his agenda in the U.S. Senate.¶ Additionally, data on all
We have argued that
lower federal court nominations from 1977 to 2010 indicate that the¶ more effort a president dedicates to promoting a Supreme Court nominee, the less successful¶ he is at achieving
political capital is a valuable commodity for the
president.¶ Furthermore, because we include presidential proposals and nominations only after the¶ president has made them, it is likely that we
underestimate the collateral damage caused by¶ presidents' relative efforts on Supreme Court nominations. It seems likely that
senatorial consent to his district court nominees. All of this fits with the¶ broad idea that
presidents¶ faced with a Supreme Court vacancy are slower in proposing agenda-items and vetting po-¶ tential nominees to lower federal courts. Indeed, Republican senators criticized
President¶ Barack Obama for nominating potential judges more slowly than his predecessors. Respond-¶ ing to this, President Obama pointed to “other priorities," including the two Supreme
Court¶ nominations.20 Future work should consider the effect of Supreme Court vacancies on the¶ executive branch's output.¶ Our analysis highlights the important role played by
transaction costs and has important¶ implications for scholars who examine policy-making in either the U.S. Senate or separation¶ of powers context. There is overwhelming evidence
demonstrating that once a bill or nomination is on the ¶ floor, its success or failure is in large part determined by the underlying¶ content of the measure (or the ideal point of a nominee) in
no legislative or nomination battle is fought in a vacuum.¶ The
amount of time and resources devoted to the enactment of a given bill or nomination¶ directly influences the
success of pending agenda items. This implies that the enactment of a¶ particularly salient piece of legislation or a lengthy battle over a
controversial lower-court or¶ executive branch nomination likely has substantial consequences on the broader presidential
relation to the ideological loca-¶ tion of key legislative pivots. But
or legislative agenda.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Time and resources devoted to spending PC on items are finite and trade off with
Obama’s legislative agenda
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia 1025-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
When faced with aggressive opposition, presidents
can spend large amounts of political¶ capital to secure victory (Johnson and
Roberts 2004; Cameron and Park 2011). We argue¶ that this use of time and resources is not likely to be costless .10 A
confirmation process in¶ which the president frequently engages the public reduces his personal resources
and distracts¶ elites from other policy priorities. Thus, hard-fought wars over Supreme Court nominees can¶ cause
substantial collateral damage to both the president's legislative agenda and his ability¶ to fill vacancies on lower federal
courts. We hypothesize that presidents who expend more¶ effort, and thereby spend more political capital, to advocate
confirmation of a Supreme Court¶ nominee are less likely to experience success in enacting legislative agenda items
and getting¶ their nominees to lower federal courts confirmed than presidents who devote less effort to promote confirmation. This proposition is untested despite
widespread speculation that¶ the confirmation process weakens the president's bargaining position in other policy areas¶ (Groseclose and McCarty 2001;
Mackenzie 1981; Shipan and Shannon 2003).
Controversies hurt
Gerson 10– 12/19, Washington post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604039.html
In some areas - such as education reform or the tax deal - Obama's governing practice is better than his political
skills. But these skills matter precisely because political capital is limited. The early pursuit of ambitious
health-care reform was a political mistake, as former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel internally argued. But every president
has the right to spend his popularity on what he regards as matters of principle. Political risks, taken out
of conviction with open eyes, are an admirable element of leadership. Yet political errors made out of
pique or poor planning undermine the possibility of achievement. Rather than being spent, popularity is
squandered - something the Obama administration has often done.
Statistically proven
Bond & Fleisher 96 [Jon R. and Richard. professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham "The
President in Legislation" p.223]
Presidency-centered variables, however, provide an even weaker explanation of presidential success. We found little support for the thesis that
the weakness of legislative parties increases the importance of presidential skill or popularity for determining presidential success on roll call
votes. Our analysis
reveals that presidents reputed to be highly skilled do not win consistently more often
than should be expected given the conditions they faced. Similarly, presidents reputed to be unskilled
do not win significantly less often than expected. The analysis of presidential popularity reveals that the president's standing
in the polls has only a marginal impact on the probability of success or failure.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext. Not True – Long Term
Wins trigger backlash and only build long term capital
Purdum 10, Columnist for Vanity Fair, (Todd, “Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not
Despite Them,” 12-20 www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/12/obama-is-suffering-because-of-hisachievements-not-despite-them.html)
With this weekend’s decisive Senate repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gay service members, can anyone seriously doubt Barack Obama’s
patient willingness to play the long game? Or his remarkable success in doing so? In
less than two years in office—often against the odds and the
smart money’s predictions at any given moment—Obama has managed to achieve a landmark overhaul of the nation’s
health insurance system; the most sweeping change in the financial regulatory system since the Great
Depression; the stabilization of the domestic auto industry; and the repeal of a once well-intended
policy that even the military itself had come to see as unnecessary and unfair. So why isn’t his political
standing higher? Precisely because of the raft of legislative victories he’s achieved. Obama has pushed through
large and complicated new government initiatives at a time of record-low public trust in government (and in institutions of any sort, for that matter), and he has
suffered not because he hasn’t “done” anything but because he’s done so much—way, way too much in
the eyes of his most conservative critics. With each victory, Obama’s opponents grow more frustrated,
filling the airwaves and what passes for political discourse with fulminations about some supposed sin or another. Is it any wonder the guy is bleeding a
bit? For his part, Obama resists the pugilistic impulse. To him, the merit of all these programs has been self-evident, and he has been the first to acknowledge that
he has not always done all he could to explain them, sensibly and simply, to the American public. But Obama is nowhere near so politically maladroit as his
frustrated liberal supporters—or implacable right-wing opponents—like to claim. He proved as much, if nothing else, with his embrace of the one policy choice he
surely loathed: his agreement to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for wealthy people who don’t need and don’t deserve them. That broke one of the president’s
signature campaign promises and enraged the Democratic base and many members of his own party in Congress. But it was a cool-eyed reflection of political
reality: The midterm election results guaranteed that negotiations would only get tougher next month, and a delay in resolving the issue would have forced tax
increases for virtually everyone on January 1—creating nothing but uncertainty for taxpayers and accountants alike. Obama saw no point in trying to score political
debating points in an argument he knew he had no chance of winning. Moreover, as The Washington Post’s conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer bitterly
noted, Obama’s agreement to the tax deal amounted to a second economic stimulus measure—one that he could never otherwise have persuaded Congressional
Republicans to support. Krauthammer denounced it as the “swindle of the year,” and suggested that only Democrats could possibly be self-defeating enough to
reject it. In the end, of course, they did not. Obama
knows better than most people that politics is the art of the possible
(it’s no accident that he became the first black president after less than a single term in the Senate), and an endless cycle of two steps
forward, one step back. So he just keeps putting one foot in front of the other, confident that he can get where he wants to go, eventually. The
short-term results are often messy and confusing. Just months ago, gay rights advocates were distraught
because Obama wasn’t pressing harder to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now he is apparently paying a
price for his victory because some Republican Senators who’d promised to support ratification of the START arms-reduction treaty—identified by Obama
as a signal priority for this lame-duck session of Congress—are balking because Obama pressed ahead with repealing DADT against their wishes. There is a
price for everything in politics, and Obama knows that, too.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext. Not True – Obama
Winners-win empirically false for Obama
Klein, 10/10/14 (Ezra, “Obama ditched a key campaign promise. And it saved his presidency,”
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6953889/paul-krugman-obama-historic-success, JMP)
Hate Obama or love him, on this, Krugman is clearly correct. Obama
has passed more major legislation than perhaps any
president since Lyndon Johnson — and, at least as of yet, there's no Vietnam War to mar his legacy. The history of the Obama administration will
be hard to write, as so many of its chapters will demand their own books (indeed, some, like the stimulus, have already gotten them). Most crucially, Obamacare
itself looks headed for success — and that, plus preventing the financial crisis from turning into another Great Depression, is a legacy in itself. That said, Obama's
greatest successes — and his most serious failures — lie in the dense mass of his first two years. This is the time, in Krugman's telling, before Obama grokked the
nature of the Republican opposition and "began dealing with it realistically." I think the story there is more complicated — and more interesting. From 2009 to
2010, Obama, while seeking the post-partisan presidency he wanted, established the brutally partisan presidency he got. Virtually
every
achievement Krugman recounts — the health-care law, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, the financial rescue, the stimulus bill — passed in these
first two years when Democrats held huge majorities in congress. And every item on the list passed over screaming Republican opposition.
The first two years of the Obama administration are the story of Obama being haunted by his promises
of a postpartisan presidency, and choosing, again and again, to pass bills at the cost of worsening
partisanship. The irony of Obama's presidency As Reid Cherlin, a former Obama administration staffer, put it, "[T]hey have managed over six years to
accomplish much of what Obama promised to do, even if accomplishing it helped speed the process of partisan breakdown." The engine of Obama's political rise,
going all the way back to his 2004 keynote at the Democratic National Convention, was that the conflictual nature of politics was the product of the people who
knew no politics other than conflict. The central irony of Obama's presidency is he proved himself wrong. Obama promised to reform the health-care system and
regulate the financial sector by fixing American politics. Instead, he did it by breaking American politics further. The candidate who ran for office promising to heal
Washington's divisions became the most divisive president since the advent of polling: [graph omitted] It's not just partisanship. Obama ran as the scourge of
special interests. "We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result," he said. "Because it's a game
that ordinary Americans are losing. It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our
planet is put at risk." Lobbyists still write their checks in Obama's Washington. The health-reform bill got done by cutting side deals with pharmaceutical companies
and insurers. Dodd-Frank got done by cutting side deals with auto dealers and mutual funds. The Obama administration has put no political capital behind major
campaign-finance reforms or, really, any other ideas that would fundamentally change how Washington works. It's the same old Washington game with the same
old Washington players — but Obama, when he had his big congressional majorities, managed to secure a different result. Obama spent his first two years
keeping many of his policy promises by sacrificing his central political promise. That wasn't how it felt to the administration at the time. They thought
that
success would build momentum; that change would beget change. Obama talked of the "muscle
memory" Congress would rediscover as it passed big bills; he hoped that achievements would replenish
his political capital rather than drain it. In this, the Obama administration was wrong, and perhaps naive. They
overestimated their ability to convert the raw exercise of political power into more political power. It
was a mistake, but not a very postpartisan one. And, as a theory, it was the one they needed to build their legacy — a legacy, at this point, that even their
early critics admire.
Structurally impossible for Obama can’t generate more wins
RYAN 9. [1-18 -- Selwyn Professor of Social Science at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of West
Indies. Ph.D. in Political Science from Cornell, http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968]
Like many, I expect much from Obama, who for the time being, is my political beast of burden with whom every other politician in the world is
unfavourably compared. As a political scientist, I however know that given the structure of American and world politics, it would be difficult for
him to deliver half of what he has promised, let alone all of it. Reality will force him to make many "u" turns and detours which may well land
him in quick sand. Obama
will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps
more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe that his inauguration is
one of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in
today's world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political
leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did
not know how to husband the political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They squandered
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
it as quickly as they emptied the contents of the public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets
and liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's face inscribed with the plaintive
words, "I Trust You." Despite the general optimism about Obama's ability to deliver, many groups have already begun to complain about being
betrayed. Gays, union leaders, and women have been loud in their complaints about being by-passed or overlooked. Some radical blacks have
also complained about being disrespected. Where and when is Joshua going to lead them to the promised land, they ask? When is he going to
pull the troops out of Iraq? Civil rights groups also expect Obama to dis-establish Guantanamo as soon as he takes office to signal the formal
break with Dick Cheney and Bush. They also want him to discontinue the policy which allows intelligence analysts to spy on American citizens
without official authorisation. In fact, Obama startled supporters when he signalled that he might do an about-turn and continue this particular
policy. We note that Bush is signalling Obama that keeping America safe from terrorists should be his top priority item and that he, Bush, had
no regrets about violating the constitutional rights of Americans if he had to do so to keep them safe. Cheney has also said that he would do it
again if he had to. The safety of the republic is after all the highest law. Other groups-sub-prime home owners, workers in the automobile
sector, and the poor and unemployed generally all expect Obama to work miracles on their behalf, which of course he cannot do. Given the
problems of the economy which has not yet bottomed out, some promises have to be deferred beyond the first term. Groups, however, expect
that the promise made to them during the campaign must be kept. Part of the problem is that almost every significant social or ethnic group
believes that it was instrumental in Obama's victory. White women felt that they took Obama over the line, as did blacks generally, Jews,
Hispanics, Asians, rich white men, gays, and young college kids, to mention a few of those whose inputs were readily recognisable. Obama also
has a vast constituency in almost every country in the world, all of whom expect him to save the globe and the planet. Clearly, he is the
proverbial "Black Knight on a White Horse." One
of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is
not a winner-take-all system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done
politically, even when the President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups
to negotiate, bargain and engage in serious horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral
or political suasion and promises of future support for policies or projects. The system was in fact deliberately engineered to
prevent overbearing majorities from conspiring to tyrannise minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse
and plural, but socially and geographically so. As James Madison put it in Federalist No 10, one of the foundation documents of republicanism in
America, basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests, and regions do the same. All
are grounded in their own power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such
thing as party discipline which translated, means you do what I the leader say you do. Although Obama is fully aware of the political limitations
of the office which he holds, he is fully aware of the vast stock of political capital which he currently has in the bank and he evidently plans to
enlarge it by drawing from the stock held by other groups, dead and alive. He is clearly drawing heavily from the caparisoned cloaks of Lincoln
and Roosevelt. Obama seems to believe that by playing the all-inclusive, multipartisan, non-ideological card, he can get most of his programmes
through the Congress without having to spend capital by using vetoes, threats of veto, or appeals to his 15 million strong constituency in
cyberspace (the latent "Obama Party").
WINNERS WIN NOT TRUE FOR OBAMA.
GALSTON 10. [William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy
Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]
Second, the
administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative
The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became
harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House
members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation
turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.
victory would spill over into the next.
WINNERS LOSE FOR OBAMA – LOSES THE SPIN GAME.
BAKER 10. [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, “Education of a
President” New York Times]
But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game. In their darkest moments, White House aides
wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills
he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in
collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a culture that demands solutions yesterday, a
societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard. Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this environment,
they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be, at best, average. “We’re all a lot more cynical now,”
one aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at
their own misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. “It’s not that we believed our own press or
press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington,” another White House official told
me. “ ‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right word, but we were overconfident.” The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers was the
assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand
against Obama, his early efforts to woo the opposition also struck many as halfhearted. “If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to
roll over, we were just terribly mistaken,” former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside adviser to Obama, told me. “I’m not sure
anybody really thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the Republicans would go away. And obviously they didn’t do that.” Senator Dick
Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber and Obama’s ally from Illinois, said the Republicans were to blame for the absence of
bipartisanship. “I think his fate was sealed,” Durbin said. “Once the Republicans decided they would close ranks to defeat him, that just made it
extremely difficult and dragged it out for a longer period of time. The American people have a limited attention span. Once you convince them
there’s a problem, they want a solution.” Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who grade
Obama
harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition. “B-plus, A-minus on substantive
accomplishments,” he told me, “and a D-plus or C-minus on communication.” The health care legislation is “an
incredible achievement” and the stimulus program was “absolutely, unqualifiedly, enormously successful,” in Rendell’s
judgment, yet Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on
both major initiatives, and they lost it early,” said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who later became an Obama
supporter. “We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin
battle.”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext. Not True – Second Term
Wins don’t spillover—capital is finite and decreases—prioritizing it is key to 100-day
agenda success
David Schultz, professor at Hamline University School of Business, 1/22/13, Obama's dwindling
prospects in a second term, www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/obamas-dwindlingprospects-second-term
Four more years for Obama. Now
what? What does Barack Obama do in his second term and what can he
accomplish? Simply put, his options are limited and the prospects for major success quite limited. ¶ Presidential power is the power to
persuade, as Richard Neustadt famously stated. Many factors determine presidential power and the ability to
influence including personality (as James David Barber argued), attitude toward power, margin of victory, public support, support in Co ngress, and one’s sense
of narrative or purpose. ¶ Additionally, presidential power is temporal, often greatest when one is first elected, and it is
contextual, affected by competing items on an agenda. All of these factors affect the political power or
capital of a president.¶ Presidential power also is a finite and generally decreasing product. The first hundred
days in office – so marked forever by FDR’s first 100 in 1933 – are usually a honeymoon period, during which presidents
often get what they want. FDR gets the first New Deal, Ronald Reagan gets Kemp-Roth, George Bush in 2001 gets his tax cuts.¶ Presidents lose
political capital, support¶ But, over time, presidents lose political capital. Presidents get distracted by world and domestic
events, they lose support in Congress or among the American public, or they turn into lame ducks. This is the problem Obama now
faces.¶ Obama had a lot of political capital when sworn in as president in 2009. He won a decisive victory for change with
strong approval ratings and had majorities in Congress — with eventually a filibuster margin in the Senate, when Al Franken finally took office in July. Obama used
his political capital to secure a stimulus bill and then pass the Affordable Care Act. He eventually got rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and secured many other victories.
But Obama was a lousy salesman, and he lost what little control of Congress that he had in the 2010 elections.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ext. Not True – Too Partisan
WINNERS DON’T WIN ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES – THE HILL IS TOO POLARIZED.
MANN 10. [Thomas, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, “American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections” Brookings Institute -November]
That perception
of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by which Obama’s
initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years developed a highly polarised party
system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and unusual unity within each. But these parliamentary-like parties operate
in a governmental system in which majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place. Republicans adopted a strategy
of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major component of the President’s agenda,
eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has been the
indispensable weapon in killing, weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by
the Democratic majority.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Dickerson – Emory
Dickerson is a liberal hack- overstates Obama’s potential
Tom Blumer is president of Monetary Matters, a training and development company in Mason, Ohio.
He presents workshops on money management, retirement, and investing. 1-21-2013
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/01/21/cbs-political-director-john-dickerson-callsobama-declare-war-republican
These days, we usually don't have to wait too long for reporters' biases to show. Over the weekend at Slate, CBS Political Director John
Dickerson, whose leftist advocacy disguised as journalism has been evident for at least nine years, mapped out a strategy
for his beloved President Obama, writing a 2,000-word battle plan disguised as a column begging the president to "declare war on the Republican
Party'" (Slate's current headline tease on its "Most Popular" list is "Why Obama Should Seek To Destroy the Republican Party"; bolds are mine):¶ Go for the Throat!¶
Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party. ¶ ... A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is
being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the
election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House
Republicans will end soon.¶ ... The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks.
Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of
the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office
speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must
go for the throat.¶ ... Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to
delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme
elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.¶ ... This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires
confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture
is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed. ¶ The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has
admitted he’s not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans.
He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be affiliated with the
Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008
election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.¶ Readers with strong stomachs should read
the whole thing to comprehend the visceral disdain Dickerson has for Americans who have the nerve to point out that the nation can't possibly continue as it is if it
continues to run trillion-dollar annual deficits and pile up debt at an even greater rate. ¶ Dickerson's biases have been obvious since 2003, when he co-authored a hit
piece in Time Magazine trying to make something out of absolutely nothing in the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson affair.¶ In
addition to his favorable
views of thuggishness (only if practiced by his side, of course), Dickerson also has an active political fantasy life if he believes
Barack Obama ever had the least bit of interest in "bipartisanship" not involving the other side surrendering their principles.¶ Dickerson became Political Director at
CBS News in November 2011. Now we specifically know why that network's output was horribly biased during the 2012 primaries and presidential campaign.¶
The default assumption has to be that political coverage at CBS from here on out will complement, encourage, and even assist the
Obama administration if (really when, given the birth of Organizing for Action, "the next chapter") it implements the strategy Dickerson has articulated.
Obama can’t implement that Dickerson strategy effectively
Tom Blumer is president of Monetary Matters, a training and development company in Mason, Ohio.
He presents workshops on money management, retirement, and investing, 1-22-2013
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/obamas-startling-second-inaugural-admission/
Though it was indeed, as the Politico’s Glenn Thrush correctly noted, “the most liberal speech he has delivered as president,” it
clearly disappointed some of those in the establishment press who wanted to hear Obama go for his opponents’
jugulars. That group includes John Dickerson, who has been Political Director at CBS News since November 2011.¶ Dickerson put on his best game
face at Slate after the speech, but it’s clear from reading his previous 2,000-word battle plan disguised as a column on Friday that Obama didn’t go
as far as he would have liked.¶ The column’s headlines called for Obama to “Go for the Throat!” and “declare war on
the Republican Party.” In his content, Dickerson claimed that Republican recalcitrance meant that “Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize,” and that the
president “can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP.” Slate was so thrilled with the piece that it amped up its “most popular” tease list title to read: “Why
Obama Should Seek To Destroy the Republican Party.” Dickerson’s occupation of such an influential perch at CBS and the presence of so many others like him at
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
other news outlets largely explain why last year’s establishment press coverage of the GOP primaries and the general election was so ruthlessly biased against
Republicans and especially conservatives.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Fortier
Ununderlined parts prove overreach possible- especially true in second terms and that
you can only win with your own party on publicly popular items
Fortier 9 [John, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, January 14th, Spend Your Political
Capital Before It's Gone, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17395.html]
Bush came into the presidency after a protracted election dispute but acted like a man with a mandate. His election
victory, no matter how small, was a form of political capital to be spent, and he pushed his tax and education
reform packages through Congress. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Republican victories in the 2002 midterm election and the initial
phase of the Iraq war, Bush gained more political capital. And each time, he spent it, going to Congress for
more tax cuts, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and other domestic priorities. Bush developed the image of a
winner . Despite narrow Republican majorities in Congress, he succeeded in holding his party together
and pulling out one legislative victory after another. He famously did not veto a bill in his first term. Even when Bush
veered from a typical conservative agenda on education reform and Medicare prescription drugs, Republicans voted
with him, although some held their noses. Republicans in Congress did not want to break the string of Bush’s first-term
legislative juggernaut . Bush was spending his political capital and, by winning, was getting repaid . Bush’s
2004 reelection was the apex of his presidency. He won a spirited, high- turnout contest by a clear margin, he brought more
Republicans to Congress, and he was ready to spend his latest cache of political capital on two big domestic priorities: Social Security reform
But 2005 saw Bush lose all of his political capital. His domestic priorities were bold, but he
had overreached and did not have plans that Congress could get to work on immediately. The legislative vacuum in Congress
stood in contrast to Bush’s first term, where Congress was almost always busy at work on Bush priorities. More importantly, conditions in
Iraq deteriorated, and the public began to lose confidence in the president and his ability to win the war. Bush himself said
and tax reform.
that he had spent his political capital in Iraq and had lost it there. Republican scandals and the president’s lack of leadership immediately after
The winning streak was over, the president’s job approval numbers had
dropped and his days setting the legislative agenda were over. Even though Bush had his biggest Republican majorities in
the 109th Congress, Republican leaders staked out their own agenda, not wanting to tie themselves to a now
unpopular president. Bush never regained political capital after 2005. Ronald Reagan had early heady days when he
controlled the agenda; his popularity waned, but he was able to regain his footing. Bill Clinton famously
bounced from highs to lows and back again. But for Bush, there was no second act. Reagan and Clinton
could counterpunch and thrive as president without control of Congress. The Bush presidency had only two settings:
on and off. In his first term, Bush controlled the legislative agenda like a prime minister ; in the second,
others set the agenda. President-elect Barack Obama won election more convincingly than Bush, and he will have larger
congressional majorities than Republicans had. No doubt he will begin with some political capital of his own. But as the Bush
presidency has taught us, that capital will run out someday, and a real test of leadership will be how
Obama adjusts.
Hurricane Katrina further damaged Bush.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Green
Green is a NEG article- says Obama CAN’T effectively use wins to generate successhe’s too timid and deferential- it’s irreversible
Green 10 [David Michael, Professor of political science at Hofstra University, The Do-Nothing 44th
President, June 12th, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-DavidMichael-Gree-100611-648.html]
What do nine dead Gaza activists in the Mediterranean, nine-plus percent unemployment, and ninety years of oil catastrophe clean-up have in
common?¶ How about one
astonishingly tepid president?¶ How about one guy in the White House who squirms in
his chair anytime someone uses the word "bold" and actually means it?¶ How about one dude in the Oval Office who
seems much more interested in making deals to determine who should be the Democratic candidates for various state offices
than in actually solving national problems?¶ We could hardly have a president more ill-suited to our time if
we were to dig up Herbert Hoover and prop his weary bones up on the presidential throne.¶ Barack Obama has five major problems
as president. The first is that he doesn't understand priorities. The second is that he seems to have little strong
conviction on any given issue. The third is that to the extent he stands for anything, it is for maintenance of a status quo that
continues to wreck the country in order to service the greed of a few oligarchs. The fourth is that he fundamentally does not
understand the powers and the role of the modern presidency. And the fifth is that he maintains the worst
communications apparatus in the White House since Jimmy Carter prowled its corridors. In fairness to his
communications team, though, he has given them almost nothing to sell. You try singing the praises of bailing out Goldman Sachs one hundred
cents on the dollar, or of a health care plan that forces people to buy plans they don't want from hated insurance vultures. It ain't easy, pal. Yet,
on the other hand, Bush and Cheney had far less than nothing to sell when it came to the Iraq war indeed, they had nothing but lies and their
team handled that masterfully.¶ The fundamental characteristic of the Obama presidency is that the president is a
essentially the victim of events and other political forces, rather
reactive object,
than the single greatest center of power in the country, and arguably on the
planet. He is the Mr. Bill of politicians. People sometimes excuse the Obama torpor by making reference to all the problems on his plate, and all the enemies at his gate. But what they fail to
understand and, most crucially, what he fails to understand is the nature of the modern presidency. Successful presidents today (by which I mean those who get what they want) not only drive
outcomes in their preferred direction, but shape the very character of the debate itself. And they not only shape the character of the debate, but they determine which items are on the
docket.¶ Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success,
nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around.¶ This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in
the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents
understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave
such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of
being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.¶ But the game of successfully governing is
substantive as well as psychological. More often than not, timidity turns out not to yield the safe course anticipated by those with weak knees, but rather their subsequent undoing. The three
cases mentioned at the top of this essay are paradigmatic.¶ By far and away the most crucial problem on the minds of most Americans today is the economy, as is often the case, but now
more than ever. It's hard to quite figure where Barack Obama is on this issue. What is always most puzzling with this guy is reconciling the fundamentally irrational behavior of his presidency
with the obvious intellectual abilities of the president and the administrative masterfulness of the campaign he ran to obtain that office. It seems to me that there are four options for
understanding Obama's self-defeating tendency when it comes to the economic disaster he inherited. One is that he simply isn't so smart, and doesn't get the ramifications of continued
unemployment at the level it's currently running. The second option is that he's just a policy bungler, who has the right intentions but makes lousy choices for trying to get there. The third
possibility is that Obama recognizes this latest recession as the capstone (we hope) of a three decade long process by the economic oligarchy seeking nothing less than the downsizing of the
American middle class, and he simply lacks the courage to attempt any reversal of this tsunami of wealth redistribution. The final, and scariest but by no means least probable explanation for
Obama's timidity early
in his presidency not only failed to solve the problem, but more crucially, now precludes him from introducing any
meaningful subsequent attempt at solving the problem. Obama's management of the economic stimulus bill in the first
Obama's behavior is that he is ultimately no less a tool in that very piracy project than was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.¶ Whatever the explanation,
weeks of his presidency was the very model of how a president should govern provided, that is, that the nineteenth century hadn't actually
ended over a hundred years ago. This
art form,
president, who has turned deference to others including to his sworn enemies into an
told Congress that he wanted a stimulus bill and let them fill in the details. What he got, accordingly, was a giant monstrosity filled with pet projects for each congressional district in America, with about one-third of it constituted by tax cuts in order to buy
Republican votes which never came anyhow. Nor has there been, to this day, any urgency about the spending of those funds.¶ The upshot of all of this is threefold, all of it hugely negative. First, the government spent an enormous amount of money on the stimulus without solving the
problem of the recession and unemployment. Second, it therefore massively exacerbated the national debt problem, with little gain to show for it. And, third, the combination of the first two factors effectively precludes any subsequent stimulus package from emerging out of Congress
for the foreseeable future, the politics of spending in general and the stimulus in particular having become altogether radioactive.¶ And here we see how Obama's failure to lead in the first instance has succeeded above all in digging him into a hole subsequently. We are likely looking at
nine or ten percent unemployment for years to come, and Obama's legislative cowardice has created a situation in which the only remaining meaningful tool by which to transcend this deep recession has been taken off the table. The public looks around and asks, "Why should we spend
more money on economic stimulus, when all it does is fail to produce results, while simultaneously increasing the national debt?" It's a legitimate question, except that it omits consideration of a third alternative, which is to actually do a stimulus correctly, pumping money into
infrastructure, alternative energy projects, unemployment compensation, retraining programs and the like, all of which would positively impact the economy in both the short, medium and long terms.¶ You see the same phenomenon in virtually everything Obama touches. Lots of spiffy
rhetoric. But then lots of deference to every other actor in the play (except, of course, for the interests of the American public or for his base of progressive voters), including those who are overtly trying to destroy the president. "You say that Republicans want to remove the public option
from the health care bill? Okay, let's give that to them. It's bound to buy, golly, what? ... zero whole votes from their caucus!" "You say they demand yet more tax cuts be included in the stimulus bill? Let's do that! And watch them vote against it almost without exception." Brilliant.¶ In
the Middle East, Obama has spent his first year-and-a-half in office getting b*tch-slapped by Noxious Netanyahu, with nothing to show for it but total embarrassment. It's gotten so bad that you can no longer tell which country is the client state of the other. Is it the one with the
economy, military, territory, population and political power that dwarfs the other, or is it the one that continually receives financial, military and political support from the other, no matter what it does? Including, for example, regularly invading its neighbors, strangling a population of
over a million people, pissing off the whole world, and humiliating both the president and vice-president of its benefactor country by continuing to build more illegal, peace-preventing settlements, in direct, intentional and arrogant contravention of their expressed preference to the
contrary. If Obama could possibly be more passive in this situation, it's difficult to know how. Perhaps he could strap on a construction belt and assist the Israelis himself in building some apartment complexes in East Jerusalem. While he was at it, maybe he'd take his shirt off in the hot
Mediterranean sun, and get in another one of those hunky president photos he seems so fond of.¶ The story is the same back in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama recently had his very own Michael Dukakis moment. Trying to look tough, like Dukakis did haplessly riding around on that
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
tank in the picture that spoke a million words (and sank a presidential campaign), Obama decided to use a four-letter word to show how serious he is about those mean fellows at BP and their errant flow of oil. Except that this president is so inept that he could only manage three of the
requisite four letters. He told NBC's Matt Lauer that he has been visiting the oil spill region "so I know whose ass to kick" . I mean, raise your hand if you think that that little display of anger for the cameras was about as authentic as Cheese Whiz. And simultaneously both far less and far
more cheesy. But it gets worse. It then turns out that during all of the last 45 or so days, the president hasn't yet had a phone conversation with the CEO of British Petroleum. Turns out Obama traveled all that way to New Orleans and still couldn't get a postal code for the limey ar*e to
which to fax over his presidential boot.¶ Like he would use it if he had it, anyhow. Can you imagine the conversation he might have with Tony Hayward?¶ Obama: "Hey, Tony, your oil spill is really causing me problems, so I thought I'd call to kick your ass a little."¶ Hayward: "Screw you,
punk. You do what I tell you."¶ Obama: "Oh god, you're right. Christ! Sorry. I forgot myself. For a minute there I thought I was talking to my daughter about her homework."¶ Hayward: "Get your facts straight, pal. Starting with who here works for whom."¶ Obama: "Yes, sir. Right away,
sir. What can we do for you?"¶ Hayward: "Nothing at all would be perfect, just like you have been doing. Just let us drill where we want, s pill where want, thrill as is our wont to the sheer brazenness of our lies, and bill your account for the damages. We're not greedy we won't ask for
The only thing more grim than the visage of the pathetic Obama
administration in non-action is a consideration of the opportunity lost here. Obama had all the cards
stacked in his favor, ranging from a destroyed opposition party, to a series of crises, to a public demanding change, to massive majorities
in Congress, to global good will. He's pissed it all away in his unrelenting dedication to mediocrity and
inoffensiveness.¶ And the only thing more grim than that is to consider where this all leads. Every day I shudder a little more as yet
more than that."¶ Obama: "You got it, Mr. Hayward. We'll get right on it. Raaaahhm!!!"¶
another two-by-four is crow-barred out from the edifice of America's experiment in liberal democracy. Every time the Supreme Court hands
down a decision, it means more power for the state, more power for the imperial president (whom they also select when they feel like it), and
especially, more power for the rich. Every day more people are dying in the stupid and endless wars of the twilight empire, for which nobody
can even articulate a purpose. Every election cycle more lethally vicious regressives are victorious, crushing common sense and human rights in
tandem, moving the country further in the direction of mindless fascism.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Kuttner
This makes no sense- wins with Dems not key- this ev is from before the midterms
that the GOP made huge gains in- Obama CANT get wins in the House and Senate with
only Dem support any more
Increased partisanship means PC is finite- that’s Eberly
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Mitchell
Mitchell doesn’t assume second term president and it’s all about healthcare- the plan
isn’t the kind of win it’s talking about- only popular, moderate proposals build capital
Mitchell 9 [Lincon, Assistant Professor of International Law @ Columbia University, July 18th, Time for
Obama to Start Spending Political Capital, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/time-forobama-to-start-s_b_217235.html]
Throughout his presidential campaign, but more notably, during his presidency, President Obama
has shown himself to have an
impressive ability to accumulate political capital. During his tenure in the White House, Obama has done this by
reaching out to a range of constituencies, moderating some of his programs, pursuing middle of the road
approaches on key foreign policy questions and, not insignificantly, working to ensure that his approval rating remains
quite high.
---their card starts--Political capital is not, however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the right moment to spend it. Political
capital has a shelf life, and often not a very long one. If it is not used relatively quickly, it dissipates and becomes useless to its owner. This is the
moment in which Obama, who has spent the first few months of his presidency diligently accumulating political capital, now finds himself. The
next few months will be a key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this political capital during the next months, it will likely be gone by
the New Year anyway.¶ Much of what President Obama has done in his first six months or so in office has been designed to build political
capital, interestingly he has sought to build this capital from both domestic and foreign sources. He has done this by traveling extensively,
reintroducing to America to foreign audiences and by a governance style that has very cleverly succeeded in pushing his political opponents to
the fringes. This tactic was displayed during the effort to pass the stimulus package as Republican opposition was relegated to a loud and
annoying, but largely irrelevant, distraction. Building political capital was, or should have been, a major goal of Obama's recent speech in Cairo
as well.¶ Significantly, Obama has yet to spend any of his political capital by meaningfully taking on any powerful interests. He declined to take
Wall Street on regarding the financial crisis, has prepared to, but not yet fully, challenged the power of the AMA or the insurance companies,
nor has he really confronted any important Democratic Party groups such as organized labor.¶ This strategy, however, will not be fruitful for
much longer. There are now some very clear issues where Obama should be spending political capital. The most obvious of these is health care.
The battle for health care reform will be a major defining issue, not just for the Obama presidency, but for American society over the next
decades. It is imperative that Obama push for the best and most comprehensive health care reform possible. This will likely mean not just a
bruising legislative battle, but one that will pit powerful interests, not just angry Republican ideologues, against the President.¶ The legislative
struggle will also pull many Democrats between the President and powerful interest groups. Obama must make it clear that there will be an
enormous political cost which Democrats who vote against the bill will have to pay. Before any bill is voted upon, however, is perhaps an even
more critical time as pressure from insurance groups, business groups and doctors organizations will be brought to bear both on congress, but
also on the administration as it works with congress to craft the legislation. This is not the time when the administration must focus on making
friends and being liked, but on standing their ground and getting a strong and inclusive health care reform bill.¶ Obama will have to take a
similar approach to any other major domestic legislation as well. This is, of course, the way the presidency has worked for decades. Obama is in
an unusual situation because a similar dynamic is at work at the international level. A major part of Obama's first six months in office have
involved pursuing a foreign policy that implicitly has sought to rebuild both the image of the US abroad, but also American political capital. It is
less clear how Obama can use this capital, but now is the time to use it.¶ A cynical interpretation of the choice facing Obama is that he can
remain popular or he can have legislative and other policy accomplishments, but this interpretation would be wrong. By early 2010, Obama,
and his party will, fairly or not, be increasingly judged by what they have accomplished in office, not by how deftly they have handled political
challenges. Therefore, the only way he can remain popular and get new political capital is through converting his current political capital into
concrete legislative accomplishments. Health care will be the first and very likely most important, test.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Rachman
This is about INTERNATIONAL perception of weakness- no mention of legislative
victories- those don’t regenerate
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Intrinsicness
1. Intrinsicness arguments are bad—
a. Hurts neg ground—there is no brightline-they can just perm any disads
b. Fairness and reciprocity- no good way to test what advantages are intrinsic
to the aff
c. Logical policy maker argument isn’t objective- no reason that’s necessarily
better for debate
2. The disad IS intrinsic- our link and internal links prove that there is a germane
political backlash to doing the plan
3. Politics disads are good—
a. They are a key neg generic, and it is important to neg ground and flexibilityespecially on an aff- leaning topic
b. Real world education—process, current events and political system all have
unique educational benefits
c. We should have discussions about which CP or plan would cost the less
politically – we need the DA to do that
(optional)
4. Intrinsicness is dumb – a logical judge should evaluate the politics disad
VOLOKH 03 Professor of Law at UCLA – former clerk for Justice O’Connor [Eugene
Volokh, The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1026, 1136-37 (2003)]
When should you oppose one decision A, which you don't
much mind on its own, because of a concern that it might later lead others to enact another decision B,
which you strongly oppose? One possible answer is “never.” You should focus, the argument would go,
on one decision at a time. If you like it on its own terms, vote for it; if you don't, oppose it; but don't worry about the slippery
slope. And in the standard first-order approximation of human behavior, where people are perfectly informed, have firm,
well-developed opinions, and have single-peaked preferences, slippery slopes are indeed unlikely. People
Let me return to the question with which this article began:
decide whether they prefer 0, A, or B, and the majority's preferences become law without much risk that one decision will somehow trigger
another. Likewise, in
such a world, law has no expressive effect on people's attitudes, people's decisions are
context-independent, no one is ignorant, rationally or not, and people make decisions based on thorough analysis rather than
on heuristics. Policy decisions in that world end up being easier to make and to analyze. But as behavioral
economists, norms theorists, and others have pointed out, that is not the world we live in, even if it is
sometimes a useful first-order approximation. The real world is more complex, and this complexity makes possible
slippery slopes and their close relative,path dependence. We can't just dismiss slippery slope arguments as
illogical or paranoid,330 though we can't uncritically accept them, either.*1137 The slippery slope is in some ways a
helpful metaphor, but as with many metaphors, it starts by enriching our vision and ends by clouding it.331 We need
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
to go beyond the metaphor and examine the specific mechanisms that cause the phenomenon that the metaphor describes-mechanisms that connect to the nature of our political institutions, our judicial process, and possibly
even human reasoning. These mechanisms and their effects deserve further study, even if paying
attention to them will make policy analysis more complex.So long as our support of one political or
legal decision today can lead to other results tomorrow, wise judges, legislators, opinion leaders, interest group organizers,
and citizens have to take these mechanisms into account.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
A2: Thumpers- General
Can’t cost capital until it’s at the finish line
Drum, 10 (Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this
attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political
issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition
to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare
reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we
often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most
part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a
couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the
past year or two, but once
Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling
the
polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you
now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too
until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and
starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's when
without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in
2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal
immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
**AFF POLITICAL CAPITAL**
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
2AC
Political capital doesn’t exist and isn’t key to their DA- more likely winners win
Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as
the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also
Newsweek’s Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, “The World from Washington.” Earlier
on, he was Newsweek’s foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war on terror.
He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based
Asia Bureau Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-suchthing-as-political-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In
pundits will do what they always do
talk about
how
much political capital Obama possesses to push his program through this talk will have no bearing on
what actually happens
Three months ago
if someone had talked about
capital to oversee
both immigration and gun-control
this person would have been called crazy
In his first term
Obama
didn’t dare to even bring up gun control
And
yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s
political capital
chances are fair that both will now happen What changed In the case of gun control
Newtown
response, the
this time of year: They will
“
how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of
”
. Most of
over the next four years. Consider this:
having enough political
, just before the November election,
passage of
reform
seriously
Obama
legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage
points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—
and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.)
, in a starkly
polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two y ears.
, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law.
personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “
.
20 first-graders who were slaughtered in
?
”—
, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the
, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed
after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was
shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a res ult, momentum has appeared
to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun
laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile
, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit
immigration
turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence
It has almost entirely to do
with
the
Hispanic vote
movement on immigration has come out of the
Republican Party’s introspection
of compromise on
reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this
—his political mandate, as it were.
just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney,
breakdown of the
in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29
at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the
recent
mainly
, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic
death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for
“mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. C ertainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s
mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But
the idea of political capita
that presidents and pundits often get it wrong.
capital
we know more than we really do about ever-elusive
political power
suddenly change everything
the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that
l—or mandates, or momentum—
is so poorly defined
“Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of
an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political
the
conveys that
unforeseen events can
is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It
concept of
, and it discounts the way
the idea
. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and
the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in
the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make
him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as su ddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth
depending on Obama’s handling of
his second-term goals depending on
about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice,
any
issue, even in a polarized time he could still deliver on
the breaks
political capital is, at best, an empty concept that almost nothing in the academic
literature successfully quantifies or even defines it.
Winning on one issue often changes the calculation
for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital
Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change
particular
,
a lot of
,
his skill and
. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass
legislation and run successful presidencies say that
, and
“It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard
Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests.
. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he
wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors”
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s
aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in
addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The
Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in lat e 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support
for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was
called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but
also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal
to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a
second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush
declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that
included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that
was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in
most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The
mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind
of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the
Obama may get his way
not because of
his reelection,
but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal
policy is a good idea
¶
¶
hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.”
also
on the debt ceiling,
Sides says, “
,” as the party suffers in the polls.
THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER
Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this,
too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t
realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout,
aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the
debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the government’s attention from other
issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financialreform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its
best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent
attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horsetrading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington.
Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress,
assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All
of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abru ptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus
inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to
take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these
if he picks issues
there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than
careful
calculators of political capital believe is possible
If he can get some early wins
that
will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins
shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But
mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—
that the country’s
any of the
now
emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly.
, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be
—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—
.” Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the
falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan” president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all
people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging
in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and
following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal imprimatur on any plan—from deficit
reduction, to health care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that
the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t
worry about who’s got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where I’m saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If
you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Not Key – General
8% chance of the internal link
Beckman and Kumar, September 2011 (Matthew – associate professor of political science UC Irvine, and
VImal – economic professor at the Indian Institute of Tech, Opportunism in Polarization, Presidential
Studies Quarterly, 41.3)
The final important piece in our theoretical model—presidents'
political capital— also finds support in these analyses, though
less reliable. Presidents operating under the specter of strong economy and high
approval ratings get an important, albeit moderate, increase in their chances for prevailing on "key"
Senate roll-call votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .10). Figure 4 displays the substantive implications of these results in the context of
polarization, showing that going from the lower third of political capital to the upper third increases presidents'
chances for success by 8 percentage points (in a setting like 2008). Thus, political capital's impact does provide
an important boost to presidents' success on Capitol Hill, but it is certainly not potent enough to
overcome basic congressional realities. Political capital is just strong enough to put a presidential thumb
on the congressional scales, which often will not matter, but can in
the results here are
Capital not key to the agenda – limited impact.
SKOCPOL AND JACOBS 10. [Theda, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, former Director of the
Center for American Political Studies, Lawrence, Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the Center for the Study
of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, “Hard
Fought Legacy: Obama, congressional democrats, and the struggle for comprehensive health reform” Russell Sage Foundation -- October]
Although presidential
power is widely credited with dictating public policy, the truth is that presidential
influence over domestic law making is quite limited. Presidential speeches (as in the case of Obama‘s nationally
televised September address to restart health reform) can influence the agenda of issues for DC insiders and all
Americans. But Constitutional checks and balances prevent any president from having his way with
Congress – and this situation was exacerbated in 2009 and 2010 by Republican obstructionist tactics. In practice, Obama and his
aides were often little more than frustrated witnesses to Congressional maneuvers and delays.
Political capital is irrelevant -- empirically proven.
Bond & Fleisher 96. [Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham 1996. "The President in Legislation”]
In sum, the evidence presented in this chapter provides little support for the theory
that the president's perceived
leadership, skills are associated with success on roll call votes in Congress. Presidents reputed as highly skilled do
not win consistently more often than should be expected. Even the effects of the partisan balanced Congress, the president's
popularity, and, the cycle of decreasing influence over the course of his term. Presidents reputed as unskilled do not win
consistently less often relative to. Moreover, skilled presidents do not win significantly more often than unskilled
presidents on either important votes or close votes, in which skills have the greatest potential to affect the
outcome. Because of the difficulty of establishing a definitive test of the skills theory, some may argue that it is premature to reject this
explanation of presidential success based on the tests reported in this chapter. It might be argued that these findings by themselves do not
deny that leadership skill is an important component of presidential-congressional relations. Failure to find systematic effects in general does
not necessarily refute the anecdotes and case studies demonstrating the importance of skills.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Studies prove PC makes no difference
Rockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”, volume
39, issue 4, Academic OneFile. accessed 7-15-10)
Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more
scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980, 1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990)
have tested Neustadt's ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with other actors. In this,
Neustadt's ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of
empirical scientists that public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president's agenda
and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt--where they are at all--among a president's support
base. We know now, too, that a president's purported skills at schmoozing, twisting arms, and
congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from Congress. That was
a lot more than we knew prior to the publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to
work with, and a newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared on Neustadt but armed
with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test. That the
empirical tests demonstrate that several of these propositions are wrong comes with the territory. That
is how science progresses. But the reality is that there was almost nothing of a propositional nature
prior to Neustadt.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Not Key – Ideology
PC not real- it’s a myth- vote based on ideology
Frank Moraes is a freelance writer with broad interests. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in
Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, and throughout the computer
industry. And he has taught physics. 1-8-2013 http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2013/01/politicalcapital-is-myth.html
Yesterday, Jonathan Chait metaphorically scratched his head: "Nominating Hagel Most Un-Obama Thing Ever." He can't understand this nomination given that (1)
Hagel will be a hard sell and (2) Obama doesn't much listen to his advisers anyway. It is interesting speculation, but I wouldn't have even thought about it had he not
written, "Why
waste political capital picking a fight that isn't essential to any policy goals?"¶ This brought to mind something that
has been on my mind for a while, as in posts like "Bipartisan Consensus Can Bite Me." I'm afraid that just like Santa Claus and most conceptions of
God, "Political Capital" is a myth. I think it is just an idea that Villagers find comforting. It is a neat narrative in
which one can straightjacket a political fight. Otherwise, it is just bullshit.¶ Let's go back to late 2004, after Bush Jr was re-elected. He said, "I
earned capital in the political campaign and I intend to spend it." What was this thing that Bush intended to spend? It is usually said
that political capital is some kind of mandate from the masses. But that is clearly not what Bush meant. He got a mandate to fuck the poor and kill the gays. But he
used his political capital to privatize Social Security. One could say that this proves the point, but does anyone really think if Bush had decided to use his political
capital destroying food stamps and Medicaid that he would have succeeded any better? The truth was that Bush's political capital didn't exist.¶ Let's
look at
more recent events: the Fiscal Cliff. Obama didn't win that fight because the people who voted for him demanded it. He won
it because everyone knew that in the new year he would still be president. Tax rates were going up. Boehner took the Fiscal
Cliff deal because it was the best deal that he felt he could get. He didn't fold because of some magic
political capital that Obama could wave over him.¶ There is no doubt that public opinion does affect how politicians act. Even politicians in small safe
districts have to worry that larger political trends may end up making them look stupid, out of touch, or just cruel. But beyond that, they really don't
care. If they did, then everyone in the House would now be a Democrat: after all, Obama won a mandate and the associated political capital. But
they don't, because presidential elections have consequences -- for who's in the White House. They don't have much consequence for the
representative from the Third District of California.
Presidential capital isn’t significant – party support and divisions are key
Bond & Fleisher 96. [Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham 1996. "The President in Legislation”]
Neustadt is correct that weak
political parties in American politics do not bridge the gap created by the constitutional
separation of powers. We would add: neither does skilled presidential leadership or popularity with the public. In fact,
the forces that Neustadt stressed as the antidote for weak parties are even less successful in linking the president and Congress than are weak
parties. Our findings indicate that members
of Congress provide levels of support for the President that are
generally consistent with their partisan and ideological predispositions. Because party and ideology are relatively
stable, facing a Congress made up of more members predisposed to support the president does increase
the likelihood of success on the floor. There is, however, considerable variation in the behavior of the party factions. As expected,
cross-pressured members are typically divided, and when they unify, they unify against about as often as they unify for the president. Even
members of the party bases who have reinforcing partisan and ideological predispositions frequently fail
to unify for or against the president's position. Our analysis of party and committee leaders in Congress reveals that support
from congressional leaders is associated with unity of the party factions. The party bases are likely to unify only if the party and committee
leader of a party take the same position. But party and committee leaders within each party take opposing stands on a significant proportion of
presidential roll calls. Because
members of the party factions and their leaders frequently fail to unify around
a party position, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the outcome of presidential roll calls.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
Ideology statistically outweighs PC
Beckmann and Kumar 11(Matthew N Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Associate Professor of Political
Science at UC Irvine, econ prof at the Indian Institute of Tech, “Opportunism in Polarization”,
Presidential Studies Quarterly; Sep 2011; 41, 3)
First, as previous research has shown, the further away the pivotal voter's predisposition from the
president's side, the lower his chances for prevailing on "key" contested Senate votes (b = -2.53, se =
.79,p < -05). Holding everything else at its 2008 value, the president's predicted probability of winning a
key, contested vote runs from .42 to .77 across the observed range of filibuster pivot predispositions
(farthest to closest), with the median distance yielding a .56 predicted probability of presidential
success. Plainly, the greater the ideological distance between the president and pivotal voter, the worse
the president's prospects for winning an important, controversial floor vote in the Senate.
Prefer qualified evidence – PC is irrelevant
Dickinson 9 professor of political science at Middlebury College (Matthew, “Sotomayor, Obama and
Presidential Power,” May 26, 2009 Presidential Power
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidentialpower/]
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists,
like
baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence
in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative
“box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee
to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually
pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported
by roll call outcomes? These
measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a
better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or
legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists)
often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to
get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence.
Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings
of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote
without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a
president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential armtwisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But
this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their
ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential
power is largely an exercise in
agenda-setting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly
be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few
weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost
nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the decision to present
Sotomayor as his nominee. If we want to measure Obama’s “power”, then, we need to know what his real preference was and why he chose
Sotomayor. My guess – and it is only a guess – is that after conferring with leading Democrats and Republicans, he recognized the overriding
practical political advantages accruing from choosing an Hispanic woman, with left-leaning credentials. We cannot know if this would have been
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
his ideal choice based on judicial philosophy alone, but presidents
are never free to act on their ideal preferences.
Politics is the art of the possible. Whether Sotomayer is his first choice or not, however, her nomination is a reminder that the
power of the presidency often resides in the president’s ability to dictate the alternatives from which Congress (or in this case the Senate) must
choose. Although Republicans will undoubtedly attack Sotomayor for her judicial “activism” (citing in particular her decisions regarding
promotion and affirmative action), her comments regarding the importance of gender and ethnicity in influencing her decisions, and her views
regarding whether appellate courts “make” policy, they run the risk of alienating Hispanic voters – an increasingly influential voting bloc (to the
extent that one can view Hispanics as a voting bloc!) I find it very hard to believe she will not be easily confirmed. In structuring the alternative
before the Senate in this manner, then, Obama reveals an important aspect of presidential power that cannot be measured through legislative
boxscores.
Presidential leadership’s irrelevant
Jacobs and King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, (Lawrence and Desmond, “Varieties of
Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,” Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 793-802)
But personality is not a solid foundation for a persuasive explanation of presidential impact and the shortfalls or
accomplishments of Obama's presidency. Modern presidents have brought divergent individual traits to their jobs and yet they have
routinely failed to enact much of their agendas. Preeminent policy goals of Bill Clinton (health reform) and George W. Bush (Social Security
privatization) met the same fate, though these presidents' personalities vary widely. And presidents like Jimmy Carter—whose
personality traits have been criticized as ill-suited for effective leadership—enjoyed comparable or stronger success
in Congress than presidents lauded for their personal knack for leadership—from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald
Reagan.7 Indeed, a personalistic account provides little leverage for explaining the disparities in Obama's record—for example why he
succeeded legislatively in restructuring health care and higher education, failed in other areas, and often accommodated stakeholders.
Decades of rigorous research find that impersonal, structural forces offer the most compelling explanations for
presidential impact.8 Quantitative research that compares legislative success and presidential personality finds no
overall relationship.9 In his magisterial qualitative and historical study, Stephen Skowronek reveals that institutional dynamics and
ideological commitments structure presidential choice and success in ways that trump the personal predilections of
individual presidents.10 Findings point to the predominant influence on presidential legislative success of the
ideological and partisan composition of Congress, entrenched interests, identities, and institutional design, and a
constitutional order that invites multiple and competing lines of authority. The widespread presumption, then, that
Obama's personal traits or leadership style account for the obstacles to his policy proposals is called into question by
a generation of scholarship on the presidency. Indeed, the presumption is not simply problematic analytically, but practically as well.
For the misdiagnosis of the source of presidential weakness may, paradoxically, induce failure by distracting the White House from strategies
and tactics where presidents can make a difference. Following a meeting with Obama shortly after Brown's win, one Democratic senator
lamented the White House's delusion that a presidential sales pitch will pass health reform—“Just declaring that he's
still for it doesn't mean that it comes off life support.”11 Although Obama's re-engagement after the Brown victory
did contribute to restarting reform, the senator's comment points to the importance of ideological and partisan
coalitions in Congress, organizational combat, institutional roadblocks, and anticipated voter reactions. Presidential
sales pitches go only so far.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Not Key – Gridlock
PC fails – polarization and Obama controversy
PBS, 12-15 [2014 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-outlook-compromise-next-congress/]
On the Democratic side, there is much more unity around policies. Procedure, they may have differences. So that’s number one. The second part, when
we
talk about the polarization of Congress and why it’s getting to be as bad as it is, there just are simply no
moderates left. There are five Democrats in the House right now, five, who sit in a district that Barack Obama didn’t carry. When we talk about, how
does John Boehner find allies, how does Mitch McConnell find allies, they’re gone. The other big piece of this too is, in more than 100
years, we have never had this many House members serving in the United States Senate, which is why the House is looking — I mean the Senate — I’m sorry
— is looking a lot more like the House in terms of its behavior, the all or none, the not compromising, the
not working sort of behind the scenes in a clubby way. JUDY WOODRUFF: Taking it to the brink. AMY WALTER: Yes. JUDY
WOODRUFF: Taking it to the brink. AMY WALTER: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: And so that’s what we have to look forward to. TODD ZWILLICH:
Well, I think a lot of that, Barack Obama is controversial. He’s controversial on the right. He’s got two more years.
He still ties House Republicans especially, congressional Republicans, in knots. Look, they this know how
to make deals. Their base, their constituency — constituency doesn’t want any deals with Barack Obama. That’s not
going to change. And that’s going to pull both Speaker Boehner as he tries to deal with the reaction to immigration and Mitch
McConnell as he tries to steer his party towards a successful run in 2016, it’s going to pull them to the right. It’s not easy.
Obama PC fails post-election – low approval ratings, no compromise, controversial
XOs, summit travel and 2016 election focus
Clark and Kumar 11-4 [Lesley Clark and Anita Kumar, McClatchy Washington Bureau 11-4-2014
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/04/245686_president-obama-is-now-truly-a.html?rh=1]
Now, President Barack Obama limps
into his final two years in office. All second-term presidents lose considerable clout at this mark. But
Obama’s time as a lame duck comes amid a political climate so fractured that compromise between Congress
and him is all but impossible. And the Republican takeover of the Senate only further complicates his power to
confront a confounding array of foreign and domestic policy challenges. The range of crises is daunting. Though the U.S. economy is growing at a
healthy clip, wages are stagnant and the global economy is faltering. The Islamic State group has racked up
victories in Iraq and Syria, testing the administration’s policies, even as the U.S. rains down airstrikes. The appearance of the deadly Ebola virus in the United
States has rattled Americans and raised questions about whether a weary White House can handle several crises at once. A budget deal that
bought peace with Congress for a while is nearing its end. Against that backdrop, Obama will head to Asia and Australia next week
for summit meetings, even as the old Congress returns to Washington for its own lame-duck session to finish work on the budget and other
issues. And a new Republican-led Senate looms over the horizon. Obama will make one move without Congress. Aides said Tuesday that he’d sign an
executive order by the end of December giving temporary legal status to help some of the 11 million immigrants who are in the
country illegally stay and work in the U.S. He’d delayed the order earlier this fall, when endangered Democrats feared that a backlash would cost them their jobs.
With that, he might have little room left to work with a GOP-led Congress. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said after he won reelection Tuesday and appeared poised to become Senate majority leader that he and Obama “have an obligation to work together on issues on which we agree.”
But he also was defiant. “I don’t expect the president to wake up tomorrow morning and view the world any differently,” McConnell said. “He knows I won’t,
either.” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said after his party took control of the Senate that voters rejected Obama’s “failed polices” and
that he hoped Obama would “listen to the American people” just like the Republicans planned to do. Obama is likely to speak publicly Wednesday about the
election results. A meeting on Friday with congressional leaders at the White House could be chilly. “ There
would have to be some really
exceptional set of events to get people who have shown no interest in cooperating to get something
done,” said Ken Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies the presidency. “It is very hard to see
how there is any substantial legislation.” All this while much of Washington and the political world tunes
out Obama and starts looking in earnest for his successor. The political calendar renders the outgoing
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
president “yesterday’s news” as soon as the midterm elections are over and the 2016 presidential race begins, said Lou
D’Allesandro, a veteran New Hampshire state senator and Democratic operative. “If you’re the president, what big initiatives are you going to do here?” asked
D’Allesandro, who’s already seen a parade of 2016 hopefuls courting voters in New Hampshire. “Republicans
will do everything they can
to accomplish nothing.” Obama enters these final months already hampered by low approval ratings that made him
radioactive to most Democrats running in close elections this year. He spent the last two days leading up to Election Day in meetings at the White
House.
Nothing will pass and Obama PC fails
WSJ, 10-15 [Wall Street Journal, 2014 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/15/low-expectationsfor-congresss-lame-duck-session/]
There are two schools of thought about the coming lame-duck session. The Optimist School believes that
Congress will work on a whole slew of must-pass legislation, including an omnibus appropriations bill, a host of tax extenders,
terrorism risk insurance, perhaps some trade bills, and other cats and dogs. The optimists are all about scoring last-minute
touchdowns. The Pessimist School believes that nothing will get done during the lame duck, with the possible exception
of a continuing resolution that has some agreed-upon updated spending bills attached to it. The pessimists are all about punting. Over and over again. The optimists
think that the new Republican Senate majority would want to get several things off the docket so it can start fresh in the president’s final two years in office. The
pessimists think that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would burn up most of the time in the lame duck pushing through
nominations and judicial appointments, including the replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder. My heart
aligns me with the optimists, because I want to see Congress actually do its job. My head, however, has learned to be
realistic about the dysfunction that now rules the United States Senate. President Barack Obama should want
Congress to get the mundane stuff finished so that he can focus on his legacy in his final years in office. But he is so
ineffectual, beleaguered, and disengaged that his opinions are unlikely to matter much. With so much in the world
going to pieces these days, it’s hard to be optimistic about anything–especially the coming lame duck.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Not Key – Doesn’t Spillover
PC doesn’t spill over – compartmentalization
Timothy Sherratt 12-1, Capital Commentary, 12/1/14, “Governing After the Midterms: Intransigence
or Productivity?,” http://www.capitalcommentary.org/midterm-elections/governing-after-midtermsintransigence-or-productivity
There is reason to think that President Obama may survive his executive action on immigration given
the incentives for Republican leadership to lead the party firmly away from intransigence towards
productivity. What will guard against spillover effects from the immigration struggle is that each of the
congressional committees is a separate fiefdom with its own dynamics, and Republican committee
chairs will be eager to put their own imprint on their respective policy domains, especially in the Senate
where the G.O.P. assumes control in January. For some of those Republicans, among them Senators
Paul, Rubio, Cruz and a few others, presidential aspirations for 2016 will lend extra urgency to these
efforts.
So, Senator Hatch at Senate Finance will want repeal of the medical device tax whether or not Senator
Inhofe at Environment and Public Works successfully steers the Keystone XL Pipeline to the president.
The new House Ways and Means chair, Paul Ryan, will press for renewing Trade Promotion Authority,
which “fast tracks” trade agreements through a simple up-or-down vote in Congress. President Obama
will support such a move irrespective of attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Bipartisan support
for tax reform can survive Republican intransigence on judicial appointments.
Bauschard Debate
Consolidated Politics Links from Camps
PC Not Key – Obama Can’t Use
Obama won’t fight – he has never used political capital
Newsweek 10 (“Learning from LBJ,” 3-25, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/25/learning-fromlbj.html)
It's called "the treatment." All presidents administer it, one way or another. The trick is to use the perks
of the office and the power of personality to bring around doubters and foes. LBJ was the most outlandish and sometimes
outrageous practitioner. With three televisions blasting in the background, Johnson would get about six inches away from the face of some beleaguered or balky senator or cabinet secretary.
Sometimes LBJ would beckon the man into the bathroom and continue to cajole or harangue while he sat on the toilet. Air Force One is a favorite tool presidents use to inspire and overawe.
With much guffawing and backslapping, recalcitrant lawmakers are led to a luxurious cabin where they
are granted a presidential audience and bestowed with swag, like cuff links with the presidential seal (Johnson gave away plastic busts of
himself). Dennis Kucinich, seven-term congressman from Ohio and potential vote-switcher for health reform, was invited aboard Air Force One a couple of weeks before the climactic vote in
Obama was different. The president was sitting in shirt sleeves behind a desk, computer to
doesn't twist arms," recalls Kucinich. Rather, the president quietly listened. He was "all
business," and sat patiently while Kucinich expressed his concerns, which Obama already knew. Then the president
laid out his own arguments. Kucinich wasn't persuaded by the president, he told NEWSWEEK. But he voted for the
bill because he did not want the presidency to fail, and he was convinced Obama would work with him in future. A president's first year in office is
the House. He had dealt with Presidents Clinton and Bush before, but
one side, notepad and pen at the ready. "He
often a time for learning. The harshest lessons are beginners' mistakes, like the Bay of Pigs fiasco for JFK. The real key is to figure out how to use the prestige of the office to get things done:
when to conserve your political capital, and when and how to spend it. Judging from Obama's campaign, which revolutionized politics with its ability to tap grassroots networks of donors and
many expected President Obama to go over the heads of Congress and mobilize popular passions
to achieve his top priorities. But on what may be his signature issue, that wasn't really the case. Obama came
activists,
close to prematurely ending his effectiveness as president before finally pulling out the stops. In the last push for the health-care bill, he reminded voters of Obama the candidate, fiery and full
during the health-reform bill's long slog up and around Capitol Hill, Obama was a strangely
passive figure. He sometimes seemed more peeved than engaged. His backers naturally wondered why he seemed to abandon the field
to the tea partiers. The answer may be that at some level he just doesn't like politics, not the way Bill Clinton or LBJ or a
"happy warrior" like Hubert Humphrey thrived on the press of flesh, the backroom deal, and the roar of
the crowd. That doesn't mean Obama can't thrive or be successful—even Richard Nixon was elected to two terms. But it does mean that the country is run by what
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wryly called "the conquering professor"—a president who leads more from the head than the heart,
who often relies more on listening than preaching. Obama entered politics as a community organizer, and as a presidential candidate he oversaw an
operation that brilliantly organized from the ground up. So it was a puzzle to Marshall Ganz, a longtime community organizer, that Obama seemed to neglect the
basic rule of a grassroots organizer: to mobilize and, if necessary, polarize your popular base against a
common enemy. Instead, President Obama seemed to withdraw and seek not to offend while Congress
squabbled. "It was a curiously passive strategy," says Ganz, who worked for 16 years with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers and now teaches at Ha