Aff Politics

Link Answers

Generic Aff = Bipart

Wide support for privacy over security – Bill developed bipartisan support and 163 sponsorsBarfield in 2014 (Claude, Resident scholar at AEI, “NSA surveillance reform: A tilt toward privacy over security?”, techpolicydaily.com, http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/nsa-surveillance-reform-tilt-toward-privacy-security/)

Several months ago, I predicted that in the debate over proposed NSA surveillance reform, NSA’s security defenders would ultimately hold the

line against significant changes in the current mode of operation. Traditionally, security trumps privacy. But at this point in time, the tide seems to be going the other way. Last week, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), introduced a version of the USA Freedom Act that is far more restrictive on intelligence agencies’ operations than any other competing bill. Surprisingly, given the deep political

divisions, Leahy’s bill seems to have swept the field. As Jodie Liu and Benjamin Wittes write in Lawfare, “It’s the bill. It represents a compromise between the intelligence community, the administration more generally, civil liberties groups, industry, and a fairly wide range of senators. And it will be the legislation that moves forward with the sometimes nose-holding support of most of the major parties.” What follows is a brief review of how we got here – and the future prospects for

NSA surveillance reform. On the other side, numerous privacy and civil liberties organizations – the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, et. al. – immediately clamored for legally binding, tighter restrictions on NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance activities. They were joined by a Who’s Who of high-tech companies, including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Jockeying among congressional committees provides one central focus for the narrative over the past six months.

Jurisdiction over NSA/FISA reform is split between the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees in both houses, with primary power traditionally residing in the Intelligence Committees. Pursuant to the president’s proposals, the House Intelligence Committee began working on a bill to partially revamp intelligence community and FISA Court procedures. But in a surprising turn of events, a competing bill from the House Judiciary Committee developed strong bipartisan support and 163 sponsors. At that point, House Intelligence Committee leadership capitulated and entered into negotiations with the administration and with Rep. Sensenbrenner and others on the Judiciary Committee. This in turn led to a Judiciary Committee version of the USA Freedom Act that was revised in late negotiations to assuage concerns among both the administration and Intelligence committee members. This bill passed the House on May 21, 303-121.

Both parties want Domestic Surveillance downsizingJaycox 14Jaycox, Mark. He is a Legislative Analyst for EFF whose issues include user privacy, civil liberties, surveillance law, and "cybersecurity." "Update: Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying." Electronic Frontier Foundation. N.p., 22 Jan. 2014. Web. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying 05 July 2015.

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails

using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued. Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped . For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60

percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in

opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June. What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy

rights. Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight. In a recent poll, Rasmusson—though sometimes known for push polling—revealed that there's been a 30 percent increase in people who believe it is now more likely that the government will monitor their phone calls. Maybe even more significant is that this skepticism carries over into whether or not Americans believe the government's claim that it "robustly oversees" the NSA's programs. In a Huffpost/You Gov poll, 53 percent of respondents said they think "the federal courts and rules put in place by Congress" do not provide "adequate oversight." Only 18 percent of people agreed with the statement. Americans seem to be waking up from its surveillance state slumber as the leaks around the illegal and unconstitutional NSA spying continue. The anger Americans—especially younger Americans—have

around the NSA spying is starting to show. President Obama has seen a 14-point swing in his approval and disapproval rating among voters aged 18-29 after the NSA spying.

Republicans and democrats both want Obama to limit domestic surveillance but the public is more concerned with safetyDavis 13Davis, Julie. "Privacy Confronts National Security in Obama Surveillance." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 7 June 2013. Web. 05 July 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-07/privacy-confronts-national-security-in-obama-surveillance

Still, Obama faces criticism both from Democrats alleging his administration is trampling civil liberties and Republicans who say his anti-terror tactics are just the latest example of his government overreaching.

“If the seizure and surveillance of Americans’ phone records -- across the board and with little to no discrimination -- is now considered a legitimate security precaution, there is literally no protection of any kind guaranteed anymore to American citizens,” Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote in an opinion piece yesterday in The Guardian, which first reported the phone-data collection program. “In their actions, more outrageous and numerous by the day, this

administration continues to treat the U.S. Constitution as a dead letter.” Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia called for an end to the broad surveillance in an interview on “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing on Bloomberg

Television this weekend. “I’m wanting to do everything I can to fight the war on terror,” Manchin said. “But do you give up everything as an American?”

Generic Aff = Tech Lobby

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

Apple, Amazon and Facebook shelled out record amounts to influence Washington; Google posted one of its biggest lobbying years ever; and a slew of new tech companies dipped their toes into politics for the first time in 2014 — a sign of the industry’s deepening effort to shape policymaking in D.C. The sharp uptick in spending reflects the tech sector’s evolution from an industry that once shunned Washington into a powerful interest that’s willing to lobby extensively to advance the debates that matter most to companies’ bottom lines — from clamping down on patent lawsuits to restricting NSA surveillance to obtaining more high-skilled immigration visas and green cards. “There is increasingly a sense from companies that they need to engage earlier and smarter,” said Ryan Triplette, a Republican lobbyist for Franklin Square Group, which represents companies like Apple and Google. “They began

opening up their view as their businesses have grown … and not just looking at traditional technology issues.” Apple, which mostly avoided

D.C. under the watch of late CEO Steve Jobs, grew its lobbying balance sheet to just over $4.1 million last year from $3.3 million in 2013, according to an analysis of lobbying reports, the latest of which were filed midnight Tuesday. The iPhone giant recently has shown a greater willingness to engage Washington under CEO Tim Cook: It even dispatched executives to Capitol Hill in September to talk about its new smart watch and health tracking tools hoping to assuage lawmakers’ fears about the new technology’s data-tracking

abilities. Amazon’s lobbying expenses — more than $4.7 million, up from around $3.5 million in 2013 — correspond with the company’s own Washington makeover. The e-commerce giant last year jumped into new lines of business, expanding its pursuit of government contracts while eyeing a new drone delivery service, prompting it to hire a slew of new lobbyists and move to a bigger downtown D.C. office. Amazon is also fighting the Federal Trade Commission over how it handled app purchases made by kids. Apple, Amazon and Google declined to comment on the record. Facebook did not reply to a request for comment. For all their efforts, these tech giants failed to advance their political priorities in the last Congress — but the fights are sure to return in 2015 under the Republican-majority Congress. GOP leaders in both chambers have already promised to revive the debate over patent litigation reform — a critical issue for tech companies like Google that want to curb lawsuits from so-called patent trolls. There’s also talk of boosting the number of foreign high-skilled workers,

something industry titans have coveted as part of broader immigration reform. The looming expiration of key Patriot Act surveillance authorities means Congress must also wade back into the fight over what data the NSA can collect — a major issue for tech companies stung by Edward Snowden’s leaks about the agency’s spying via popular Internet services. And lawmakers are plugging into new issues like drones and wearable technology that are important to Silicon Valley. “No doubt, Internet and tech companies are a bigger and more important part of the economy — period. It’s natural they’re going to be more involved in the political process,” said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group whose members include Amazon, Facebook and Google. “There’s been a growing realization that not only do tech companies have to be in there [in D.C.], to make a fair pitch, they have to be more actively involved because they have to fight off hostile efforts.“ Google is the leader of the tech pack when it comes to lobbying: The company, which until October owned Motorola Mobility, spent more than $17 million in 2014 — its second-most expensive year after 2012, when it battled back a federal antitrust investigation. The search giant’s D.C. operation, led by former GOP Rep. Susan Molinari, relocated last year to a new, sprawling 54,000-square-foot office steps from the Capitol. Facebook, for its part, spent more than $9.3 million in 2014, up from $6.4 million in 2013. The company’s most recent lobbying report points to its work on privacy and security issues along with Internet access and trade, as Facebook aims to expand its service worldwide and avoid foreign rules that might restrict where it stores user data. Companies like Belkin, a major player in the emerging sector of connected home devices, and Snapchat, an app for disappearing photo messages, each registered their first-ever lobbyists last year. Snapchat hired its new consultants from the firm Heather Podesta + Partners after a major data breach registered on Washington’s radar. Other prominent tech companies retained new help, as well. Netflix grew its lobbying roster amid the fight at the FCC over net neutrality. And Uber added D.C. lobbyists to win new allies for its ride-

hailing app, which has triggered fights with state and local regulators and cab operators nationwide. And a coalition of tech titans like Apple, Google and Microsoft banded together to invest in an anti-NSA snooping coalition, Reform Government Surveillance, which spent $230,000 in 2014. Many of those companies’ executives regularly traveled to Washington to press President Barack Obama on surveillance reforms, and the group ran frequent advertisements highlighting the need for more NSA transparency.

Generic Aff- GOP Supports PlanThe GOP is opposed to domestic Surveillance Miller, 2014 Miller, Zeke J. "Exclusive: Republican Party Calls For End To NSA Domestic Phone Records Program." Time. Time News, 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 03 July 2015.

In the latest indication of a growing libertarian wing of the GOP, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution Friday

calling for an investigation into the “gross infringement” of Americans’ rights by National Security Agency programs that were revealed by Edward Snowden. The resolution also calls on on Republican members of Congress to enact amendments to the Section 215 law that currently allows the spy agency to collect records of almost every domestic telephone call. The amendment should make clear that “blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence — electronic, physical, and otherwise — of any person residing in the U.S. is

prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court,” the resolution reads. The measure, the “Resolution to Renounce the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Program,” passed by an “overwhelming majority” by voice vote, along with resolutions calling for the repeal of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance

Act and reaffirming the party’s pro-life stance, according to Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman. Among other points, the resolution declares “the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” a claim embraced by civil libertarians of both parties. The revelation of the NSA programs has caused deepened a rift within the Republican Party between national security hawks and

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

Surveillance Reform = Popular

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

A bipartisan group of senators announced a comprehensive surveillance reform bill on Wednesday, but their effort may encounter resistance from the powerful Intelligence Committee chairwoman, who steadfastly supports the National Security

Agency. The legislation "expresses our bipartisan view of what Congress must do to enact real, not cosmetic,

intelligence reform," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Intelligence Committee. "The disclosures over the last

hundred days have caused a sea change in the way the public views the surveillance system." Wyden was joined by fellow committee

member Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). The senators said that their bill, whose full text was not immediately available, would end bulk collection of Americans' phone records, close a loophole that allows the NSA to conduct "backdoor searches" of Americans' communications without a warrant, and create a "constitutional advocate" to argue against the government before the secretive court that oversees foreign surveillance. The bill would also permit private companies like Google, which has complained that its hands are tied, to disclose more information about what kind of data they are forced to give the government. And it would create a right to sue for individuals who are "professionally impacted" by surveillance -- an issue core to a lawsuit against the government that the Supreme Court swatted down in February for lack of legal standing. All of those proposals are indebted to the revelations of NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Since June, when Snowden's disclosures started appearing in the world press, the NSA has weathered a steady drip of damaging stories. Recently it was revealed that the agency has violated privacy rules thousands of times a year and that it has misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "The significant reforms in this bill are especially important in light of recent declassified reports that show what Senator Wyden and I have known for years," said Udall, who was privy to the secret reports as a member of

the Intelligence Committee but not allowed to reveal their contents. "The National Security Agency has been unable to properly manage existing surveillance programs," he said. "This has led to the abuse of Americans' privacy and misleading statements made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the pro-surveillance reform Electronic Frontier Foundation, applauded the bill's

introduction Wednesday. "The Senators' move is yet another reassuring sign -- which ranges from public opinion to the

Amash amendment -- that Congress will try to fix the NSA spying," he said via email. "Now it's time for the Senators' fellow members to get behind these reforms and make sure that the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the NSA end." Although Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has already introduced legislation to increase oversight on some of the NSA's programs, the larger, comprehensive reform bill likely needs to move through the Intelligence Committee. The latter panel is chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has repeatedly expressed her support of the NSA's efforts and, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has shown little inclination to allow reform bills to advance. "We have a number of fronts on which we're going to operate, and quite frankly fight,

because this is not going to be easy," Udall acknowledged. Civil libertarians have scored one victory: With polls showing a broad majority of Americans concerned there are not enough checks on the NSA's powers, and with the House nearly passing an amendment in July meant to curb the bulk collection of phone call data, the Senate Intelligence Committee is allowing rare public hearings on the NSA's programs. Wyden said the bill's introduction was an attempt to set a high bar for debate ahead of the Intelligence Committee's first public hearing since Snowden's leaks. That hearing on Thursday will feature testimony from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

Privacy = Bipart

Privacy-protecting legislation has bipartisan support—polls prove the public opposes spyingJaycox ‘14 [Mark M. Jaycox, Jaycox is a Legislative Analyst for EFF, specializing in user privacy, civil liberties, surveillance law, and

cybersecurity, 1/22/14, Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Update: Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying”] Accessed Online: 7/05/15 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying,

which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails using

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and

September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued. Since July, many of the polls not

only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their

telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion

polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June. What's also important is that it crosses political party lines.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy rights. Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight.

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

The White House is working with bipartisan sponsors on a bill to protect data collected from students through educational apps - the first of President Barack Obama's "Big Data" privacy plans to gain traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. Obama has pushed to do more to protect privacy in an age when consumers leave a trail of digital footprints through smart phones, personal devices and social media - information that can be collected, analyzed and sold. He has proposed action on a series of laws to address "Big Data" concerns, but most have yet to find momentum. That could change, given public concerns over privacy and cybersecurity that have been amplified by high-profile hacking of credit card data at companies such as Target and Home Depot, said top Obama adviser John Podesta. "I think there's much more pressure now to move legislation and we're certainly going to use all of the resources we have, including the president's time, to ensure that the Congress takes this up," Podesta told Reuters in an interview. In the next couple of weeks, Indiana Congressman Luke Messer, the chairman of the House of Representatives Republican Policy Committee, and Democrat Jared Polis of Colorado,

an Internet entrepreneur who founded a network of charter schools, will unveil a student privacy bill. "Protecting America's children

from Big Data shouldn't be a partisan issue," Messer said in a statement. "I'm glad to work across the aisle to find the appropriate balance between technology in the classroom and a parent's right to protect their child's privacy." The lawmakers have long worked on the issue with privacy advocates and more than 100 companies including Microsoft, Google, and News Corp subsidiary Amplify to develop a privacy pledge to prevent misuse of data collected in classrooms.

Telephone Aff = Bipart

Ending telephone collection programs has bipartisan support—similar bills have passed easily in both the house and the senateReuters 6/2 [Reuters, 6/02/15, Business Insider, “U.S. Congress passes bill to limit domestic surveillance”] http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-congress-passes-bill-to-limit-domestic-surveillance-2015-6

The U.S. Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that ends spy agencies' bulk collection of Americans' telephone records, a vote that reversed national security policy that had been in place since shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. After

weeks of often angry debate over how to balance concerns about privacy with worries about terrorist attacks, the Senate passed the USA

Freedom Act by a vote of 67-32, with support from both Democrats and Republicans. Because the House of Representatives passed the bill last month, the Senate vote sends the bill to the White House, where President Barack Obama has promised to sign it into law.

The measure replaces a program in which the National Security Agency sweeps up data about Americans' telephone calls with a more targeted system.

Lobbying Influences AgendaLobbying has considerable influence on policy makers studies showDr. Schwalbe in 2015 (Stephen is a faculty Member at the American Public University; “Special Commentary: Lobbying in America” Published: July 2, 2015 Accessed: 7/5/15; http://inhomelandsecurity.com/special-commentary-lobbying-in-america/)

There is a debate among political scholars as to which type of lobbying is more effective – direct or indirect. Before addressing this question, let

me provide some background on lobbying. Lobbyists are knowledgeable people, many of them lawyers. They meet with advocates and other organizations on Capitol Hill to support specific legislation . Lobbying Congress often involves lobbyists doing the leg work that can’t be completed by congressional staff members because there are not enough of them with the requisite

expertise. Lobbyists compile evidence for congressional hearings. They attend hearings to keep members and staff well abreast of what is going on. Despite the great work lobbyists generally do, political lobbying generally does not have a good reputation primarily due to negative media reporting. It only takes a few corrupt lobbyists (see Jack Abramoff, Rep. Randy Cunningham, and Charles Keating) to sour people on lobbying efforts in Congress. Lobbying has its roots in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The most current law regarding lobbying is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which is intended to keep members of Congress from accepting gifts from lobbyists, and requires them to disclose more information related to their lobbyists. In 2009, President Obama signed two Executive Orders and three presidential memoranda which restricted how former members of Congress could be employed as lobbyists in the government. However, lobbying is not restricted to just members of Congress. It occurs at every level of government, and also is done within the executive branch where policies are implemented. Since 1998, 43 percent of the members who left Congress registered to become lobbyists. The Center for Responsive Politics reported on opensecrets.org, a site that tracks the flow of money in Washington, that there are currently 12,000 lobbyists registered federally. Of the 81 former members of the 111th Congress with new jobs, 25 of them are now lobbyists. Among current congressional staffers, 120 are former lobbyists. Among current lobbyists, 890 are former congressional staffers. Yet,

there are an estimated 261,000-plus people involved in lobbying when you count all of the assistants, lawyers, et al. And, the amount of money spent lobbying in federal government ranges from $2 billion to $3.5 billion annually . (Open Secret

2013) Direct lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation between a lobbyist and anyone involved in making laws and policy. Usually, before meetings take place between lobbyists and lawmakers, lobbyists must have knowledge of not only the subject, but also of the lawmaker with whom they will be speaking, their voting history, and their stance on a particular subject. The communication between a lobbyist and lawmaker must be related to specific legislation and involve a position on it to legally be considered lobbying. The majority of lobbying is done directly. Alternatively, there is indirect lobbying , also known as “grassroots” lobbying. This is referred to as “grassroots” because lobbyists appeal directly to the public with a “call to action” to influence the elected official to vote in their favor on some legislation. There is also something known as “AstroTurf” lobbying which is

grassroots lobbying sponsored by corporations. Using indirect lobbying, lobbyists get citizens to write letters, sign petitions, call their representatives, and even stage public demonstrations for their particular cause. The indirect approach also involves sending faxes and emails, writing editorials, advertising, holding fundraisers, and holding public meetings to bring attention to their point of view. In a 2000 Gallop Poll survey of Congress, “more than 70 percent rated personal letters from the constituents as having a great deal of influence on their legislative decisions” (Brown M.D., J. & Evens M.D., R. 2000). However, there is much more time and effort involved in indirect, compared to direct, lobbying. Just as there is corruption associated with direct lobbying (e.g., bribes, favors, entertainment), so is there with indirect lobbying. Fraudulent grassroots lobbying could include sending communications from a nonexistent person, or knowingly submitting false information to an official or to the public. According to Ron Jacobs, et al, of Venable.com, “The more an organization controls and/or directs the grassroots activities, the less genuine the resulting communication may appear in the eyes of the official and public.” So, the question is which approach is more effective? Since this is a political question, the answer is the standard, “It depends.” It depends on a few key factors, including the lawmaker, the legislation and contextual variables. The first factor is who are the lawmakers one is trying to influence. Sometimes the direct approach is more effective as it is more tailored to the lawmakers, their personalities or their political affinity. On the other hand, seeing massive demonstrations on an issue in a member’s home district or state both in person and on the national news, or receiving hundreds of phone calls or emails daily could have the decisive impact. Lawmakers are human, so there are many variables that affect how they might be influenced. Then, there is the legislation itself being considered. Some issues are easier than others to get citizens motivated to petition for. Finally, there are contextual variables that could affect which type of lobbying might be more effective. For example, if there is limited time before a vote on a controversial bill, then direct lobbying would likely be more effective

as indirect lobbying takes more time to organize and execute. Another example would be who the stakeholders are in favor of and against the bill. The greater the stature of the stakeholders, the more likely that grassroots lobbying would be more effective. A third example would be the availability of resources. Indirect lobbying usually requires more resources (i.e., time and money) than direct lobbying.

At: Dems LinksThe Dems are silent on NSA surveillance Zelizer, 2013 Julian. "The NSA Spies and Democrats Look Away." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 09 July 2013. Web. 3 July 2015.

During the weeks of debates triggered by Edward Snowden and his release of information about a classified National Security Agency spying program, the story has moved further and further from the actual surveillance and centered instead on the international cat-and-mouse game

to find him. What has been remarkable is how Democrats have expressed little opposition to the surveillance program. Many Democrats have simply remained silent as these revelations have emerged while others, like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, have openly defended the program. President Barack Obama, while initially acknowledging the need for a proper balance between civil liberties and national security, has increasingly focused on defending the government and targeting Snowden. When former President George W. Bush offered comments that echoed much of the president's sentiment, some of his supporters couldn't

help but cringe as these two one-time adversaries came together on the issue of counterterrorism. Julian Zelizer Julian Zelizer The loss of a Democratic opposition to the framework of counterterrorism policy has been one of the most notable aspects of Obama's term in office. Although Obama ran in 2008 as a candidate who would change the way the government conducted its business and restore a better balance with civil liberties, it has not turned out that way. Obama has barely dismantled any of the Bush programs, and sometimes even expanded their reach in the use of drone strikes and the targeting of American citizens. He has also undertaken an aggressive posture toward those who criticize his program. Opinion: Why we're all stuck in the digital transit zone with Snowden

Equally notable has been how silent many liberals, who once railed against Bush for similar activities, have become in recent years. Whenever Obama has encountered conservative pushback for minor efforts to change national security operations, there has been little pressure from liberals for him to move in a different direction. If there was any moment when liberals might use a scandal to pressure the president into reforms, this was it. But there is little evidence that this will happen. Where is the outrage? Where has the Democratic opposition gone? Part of the story simply has to do with political hypocrisy. Whether or not we like it, partisans tend to be harder on the opposition party than their own. This was clear when Republican opponents of a strong national security system, who gave then-President Bill Clinton trouble when he went after home-bred white extremists in 1995 and 1996 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, remained silent when President Bush took the same steps against terrorism after 9/11 -- such as in the use of roving wiretaps on cell phones. Democrats have been reluctant to weaken a president who has moved forward on domestic policies they care about by giving him trouble on an issue where their party has traditionally been vulnerable. The silence on national security is also a product of presidential leadership. One of the functions of a president, as party leader, is to send strong signals about what the party should focus on. When Obama backed away from closing Guantanamo early in his first term, and has been reluctant to do much about the issues of interrogation and aggressive use of American power, he made it much harder for Democratic liberals to do this on their own. By embracing so much of President Bush's national security program, Obama has forged a bipartisan consensus that further marginalized the left and made it harder for them to gain much traction. Opinion: Edward Snowden, want my advice? Finally, liberals have been split on this issue. The intense animosity toward Bush created the appearance of unanimity, but, in reality, divisions loomed all along. Now that Democrats have been able to debate national security with their own president in the White House, it is clear that many liberals, like Feinstein, believe the government needs to take these steps. Efforts to attack the United States, ranging from the failed plot to bomb the New York City subways to the Boston bombings, have offered a reminder of the chronic risks the nation faces. "What do you think would happen if Najibulla Zazi was successful?" Feinstein asked, referring to his effort to bomb a New York subway. "There would be unbridled criticism. Didn't we learn anything? Can't we protect our homeland?" But Democrats must also remember that too much consensus can lead to bad decisions. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, many liberal Democrats feared being seen as "soft on communism," and allowed reckless and random attacks on Americans accused of allying with the Soviets. This dangerously eroded civil liberties and destroyed many lives. During the early 1960s, Lyndon Johnson's refusal to listen to the many critics of his Vietnam policies led him deeper and deeper into the quagmire of that war. And during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Democratic fears of being seen as weak on defense led to a ratcheting up of concern about Iraq that helped give Bush the political space he needed to send American troops off to war. It is possible that further revelations supplied by Snowden to The Guardian newspaper's Glenn Greenwald will energize liberal opponents of national security policy and build pressure in

Congress for serious investigations and possible reform. But the odds are slim. Opinion: U.S. intelligence community is out of control It's more likely that most liberal critics of the administration will remain silent and our equivalent of what President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 called the military-industrial complex -- the intricate web connecting defense contractors, the military, members of Congress and the executive branch -- will continue to grow.

Internals/Winners Win

Winners WinPolitical capital doesn’t exist and isn’t key to their DA- more likely winners winMichael Hirsch 2/7/2013 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-such-thing-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 reasons 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 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 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 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. Certainly, 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 fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “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 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 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, 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 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 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

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.” 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.¶ 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 financial-reform 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 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 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

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 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 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.

At: Political Capital LinkObama won’t use PC effectivelyPittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/22/15 (“Wish list: Obama and Congress must work from the center,” http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/01/22/Wish-list-Obama-and-Congress-must-work-from-the-center/stories/201501220136 //Red)

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union message Tuesday could have been more conciliatory than defiant to the new Republican majority in Congress if he really believed that body might cooperate with him — and if he really wanted to work with them on achieving solutions. Instead, he made popular proposals that Congress is not likely to approve — free community college, a tripled child care tax credit and paid sick leave, all funded in part by raising the capital gains tax on the rich. Along the way, he cited achievements during his administration: the Affordable Care Act, which has given health insurance to an additional 10 million Americans; the surge in new jobs; the drop in the unemployment rate to 5.6 percent and, more disputably, U.S. successes in fighting terrorism around the world. The Democrats’ assets in any political showdowns are the presidential veto and enough seats in the Senate to sustain a filibuster. The Republicans’ strengths are majorities in the House and Senate, as a result of gains in the midterm elections. Despite his dead-on-arrival wish list, Mr. Obama’s overall target is a worthy one: improving the lagging economic situation of America’s middle class. Wages have failed to rise, manufacturing isn’t what it used to be and two spouses must work these days to provide what one brought home in the past. There are plenty of opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to address the plight of working Americans, if they’d work realistically. It’s one thing to wave “income inequality” as a political slogan, but Mr. Obama’s pledge to pursue “middle class economics” is worth the attention of everyone in Washington. The president, no doubt, will do what he can by working around Congress, but he could accomplish more if he worked with it. He also is trying to set an agenda, as head of his party, that will shape the platforms of Democratic candidates in 2016. On foreign policy, he called for easing relations with Cuba, pursuing the Iran nuclear talks, increasing cyber protection, addressing climate change, closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and seeking fast-track trade authority. He also sought congressional approval to wage war against the Islamic State group. Regardless of the issue, the Democratic president and Republican Congress will achieve more for the country if they work from the center. Hollow talking points won’t help the middle class.

Studies prove political capital makes no differenceRockman 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.

Neg Politics

PC/Controversy Links

Generic Surveillance

No matter what Obama does to reform surveillance it will cause fights in congress- he can’t please every one Liebelson, 2014 Danna. "Obama's NSA Reforms Are Going to Tick Off Everyone." Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 July 2015.

On Friday, President Barack Obama is expected to unveil changes to the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance programs. The announcement comes weeks after a post-Snowden advisory panel appointed by the president issued a whopping 300-plus pages of pro-

transparency recommendations that, if taken up, would radically alter how the NSA does business. But according to early reports, Obama will only be implementing small reforms. He will punt the bigger decisions to Congress—with the hope of

partially appeasing lawmakers, voters, privacy advocates, and the national security community. From the looks of it, pretty much everyone is going to be mad at him. If Obama Lets the NSA Continue Sweeping Up Vast Information on Americans' Phone Calls… Who gets mad? Sixty percent of America, privacy advocates, FreedomWorks; some members of Congress Right now, the NSA collects Americans' phone metadata in bulk. (Metadata, which includes call dates and phone numbers, is revealing, but it doesn't include the contents of the actual conversations.) For privacy advocates, ceasing the practice is a top priority. "Ending bulk collection is essential to effective reform," says Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology

Center. "I can't imagine anyone who's concerned about these programs is going to be satisfied by a bunch of cosmetic tweaks that leave bulk collection in place," adds Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. The conservative activist group FreedomWorks will also be mad if Obama doesn't repeal bulk surveillance. "The NSA's unconstitutional surveillance must be stopped to safeguard our civil liberties," the group writes. Julie Borowski, policy analyst for FreedomWorks, said in a press call on Thursday that the group supports the USA Freedom Act, which would end bulk collection of phone data. Obama's advisory panel recommended the government accede to privacy activists' demands and terminate the NSA's expansive collection and storage of phone metadata. The panel proposed that a party other than the government, such as a phone company, hold on to Americans' phone records, and it suggested that the NSA should have to seek a court order to access that data. (The NSA currently doesn't need a judge's

permission each time it dips into this data.) But civil liberties advocates should prepare to be disappointed. The New York Times reported that Obama will not end this bulk collection of phone metadata . Nor is Obama likely to

accept the panel's recommendation that phone companies become the guardians of this trove of data. It appears he will leave the big decisions regarding phone metadata to a polarized Congress, which is currently fighting over two bills. One introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) would end bulk collection, and another, from

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would codify the practice. 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. If Obama Allows the NSA to Continue Hacking Internet Encryption… Who gets mad? Tech geeks, Lavabit, Google engineers, and journalists The NSA will be delighted if Obama eschews his panel's recommendation that the agency cease undermining the encryption and security of tech companies, as leaked documents have revealed. It's not clear yet what Obama administration will do regarding this recommendation. But if doesn't restrain the NSA on this front, tech geeks everywhere will be angry. When the news broke in October that the NSA had hacked into Google, a security engineer for the company wrote, "Fuck these guys." (Google and other tech companies have since bulked up their encryption to keep out the NSA.) Many journalists and lawyers also rely on the promise of secure encryption to do their jobs. They're hoping that the president sides with civil libertarians and members of the tech industry who want to make sure that the NSA does not

have the authority to defeat all forms of encryption. 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 bad, he 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.

Curtailing domestic surveillance causes a lot of Political Capital- sunset negotiations ensure political battlesGivens in 2013 (Austen D. Givens, a PhD student in the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London, “The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws”, July 2, 2013, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/, 7/5/15)

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 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.

Curtailing domestic surveillance policies is controversial- policies are too politically entrenchedGivens in 2013 (Austen D. Givens, a PhD student in the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London, “The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws”, July 2, 2013, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/, 7/5/15)

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 anti-terrorism 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 exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to unwind.

The plan is unpopular—Congress loves domestic surveillance Timm 3/14 [Trevor Timm, 3/14/15, The Gaurdian, “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-the-surveillance-state-theyll-enhance-it

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, 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.

Generic Surveillance- GOP

The GOP is split on surveillance – causes political infightingAssociated Press. 2015"Republicans Clash Over NSA Surveillance Powers." NY Times. The New York Times, 18 May 2015. Web. 3 July 2015.

PHILADELPHIA — 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-in-the-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.

The GOP is split on the NSA- splits hawks from libertarians Jager, Elliot. "Ted Cruz, Rand Paul Push NSA Surveillance as GOP Campaign Issue News Max. NewsMax Media, 06 Apr. 2015. Web. 3 July 2015.

The controversy surrounding domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) is expected to divide hawks from libertarians in the 2016 race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to the National Journal. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, both staking out a libertarian/tea party position, are strong opponents of the NSA vacuuming up phone records of Americans in search of terrorist or espionage threats. Paul would dismantle the NSA; Cruz would reform the agency. Cruz backed the USA Freedom Act sponsored by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont which — had it passed — would have reformed but not gutted the Patriot Act. Paul, the singular presidential contender who uncompromisingly opposes NSA surveillance, voted against the measure because he

wanted to altogether de-authorize the Patriot Act, according to the Journal. Other likely Republican Party hopefuls are either less clear-cut on the issue or supportive of NSA surveillance. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been critical of both the NSA and

the Obama administration's handling of the agency, but has offered few specifics. National security, in contrast, informs the positions of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — and they all categorically support the agency's collection of phone metadata, the Journal reported. Latest News Update Get Newsmax TV At Home » Special: Some 70 percent of Republicans have told Pew pollsters that they were losing faith in the NSA's surveillance programs in the wake of revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the extent of the government's domestic eavesdropping. Still other Republican candidates, among them Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Dr. Ben Carson, have yet to enunciate a

detailed position on the NSA. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry appear to fall more in the national security camp while some of them express concerns that the NSA may have gone too far in some instances, the Journal reported. Congress must again take up the metadata collection program of the Patriot Act before June 1. That's when its part of the Patriot Act, Section 215, is due to expire, the Journal reported.

There is infighting in the GOP over surveillance Flores, 2015 Reena. "GOP Infighting over NSA Surveillance Program Renewal." CBS News. CBS Interactive INC, 17 May 2015. Web. 3 July 2015.

Just as a key provision in the Patriot Act -- which allows the National Security Agency to collect Americans' telephone

data en masse -- faces expiration at the end of the month, the party in control of Congress remains divided about its reauthorization. Will Congress reauthorize the NSA's phone data collection program? At the heart of the debate is the renewal of Section 215, which the National Security Agency has used as a legal justification for their bulk phone data collection program. The provision is set to expire on May 31 unless Congress takes steps to renew it. The NSA's telephone metadata collection program was also recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court -- to the ire and bewilderment of some in the Senate, and to the applause of others. "The court has ruled that the bulk collection of all our phone records all of the time is illegal so really it ought to stop," Republican presidential candidate and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday on NBC News. With time running out on the provision, some in the Republican party are launching

their own efforts to prevent what they view as a gutting of the Patriot Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has recently proposed his own renewal of the bill that would last until 2020. "This has been a very important part of our effort to defend the homeland since 9/11," McConnell said Sunday on ABC News.

"I don't want us to go dark, in effect, and I'm afraid that the House-passed bill will basically be the end of the program, and we'll not be able to have yet another tool that we need to combat this terrorist threat from overseas." Last week, the House passed an NSA reform bill, setting up the Senate for a similar showdown. But before a version of the administration-backed House legislation -- called the USA Freedom Act -- can be taken up by the Senate, McConnell has filed for a temporary two-month reauthorization for the Patriot Act's sunsetting provisions. The majority leader said that he would rather see "a couple of months extension of the existing program so we can get reassurance that this new bill that passed the House can actually work." But Sen. Paul expressed dismay at his colleague's idea. "I don't want to replace it with another system," Paul said, answering a question about the temporary extension. "I really think that we could get along with a Constitution just fine. We did for over 200 years -- you can catch terrorists." Paul further alluded to the Tsarnaev brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, saying that there was a possibility of preventing the tragedy if the U.S.

were "not spending so much time and money collecting the information of innocent Americans." "I want to spend more time on people we have suspicion of and we have probable cause of and less time on innocent Americans," Paul said. "It distracts us from the job of getting terrorists." Paul even took to Twitter last week announcing his plans to end the agency's dragnet program -- even if he has to go it alone. screen-shot-2015-05-17-at-3-26-21-pm.png Twitter.com/RandPaul Paul has also found a supporter in his Democratic colleague from Oregon, Sen. Ron Wyden. Wyden, a vocal critic of NSA surveillance, said last week that he too would participate in a filibuster of the Patriot Act extension. And though Paul has batted at Congressional leadership over privacy issues in the past, his fellow Kentucky senator this time around has dismissed the presidential candidate's rhetoric. "Everybody threatens to filibuster," McConnell added Sunday. "We'll see what happens. But this is the security of the country that we're talking about here. This is no small matter." "Rand Paul and I agree on most things," the Kentucky Republican said. "We don't agree on this."

Republicans are at sharp odds over domestic surveillance Clarke, 2015 Lesley. "NSA Surveillance Ruling Splits GOP Presidential Hopefuls." McClatchy DC. McClatchy DC, 07 May 2015. Web. 3 July 2015.

A court decision Thursday that declared the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone metadata to be

illegal revealed a sharp split among several Republican presidential hopefuls over the scope of the surveillance. Minutes after

the court’s announcement, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has challenged the constitutionality of the program, called the ruling a “monumental decision for all lovers of liberty” and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the spying program. He also called on Congress to repeal the USA Patriot Act provision that permits the collection and said he’d “continue to fight to

prevent the Washington machine from illegally seizing any American’s personal communication.” That stance puts him at sharp odds with Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, one of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination next year, who took to the

Senate floor, along with Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to defend the program and accuse critics of “raising

hysteria.” Rubio charged that a perception has been created, “including by political figures that serve in this chamber, that the United States government is listening to your phone calls or going through your bills as a matter of course. That is absolutely, categorically false.” “The next time that any politician, senator, congressman, talking head, whatever it may be, stands up and says that the U.S. government is listening to your phone calls or going through your phone records, they’re lying,” Rubio said. On the Democratic side, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nod, tweeted, “It’s Time To End Orwellian Surveillance of Every American.” On his Senate website, he said: “Clearly we must do everything we can to protect our country from the serious potential of another terrorist attack, but we can and must do so in a way that also protects the constitutional rights of the American people and maintains our free society.” Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton had not commented on the ruling by early evening, but on Twitter she pledged her support for the USA Freedom Act, a possible replacement for the Patriot Act but without the provision allowing the bulk collection of data. “Congress should move ahead now with the USA Freedom Act – a good step forward in

ongoing efforts to protect our security & civil liberties,” Clinton tweeted. Likely Republican contender and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush last month said President Barack Obama’s support for using big metadata was the “best part” of the administration. “The first obligation of our national government is to keep us safe,” Bush said in a radio interview on “The Michael Medved Show.” “And the technology that now can be applied to make that so, while protecting civil liberties, are there and (Obama’s) not abandoned them even though there was some indication that he might.” The ruling from the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes as the Senate debates renewing the USA Patriot Act, which includes Section 215, which allows the government to bulk-collect metadata of phone records. The White House said Obama has privacy concerns about the bulk collection and is working with Congress on the USA Freedom Act to curb it. That put the administration in the same camp as another Republican 2016 hopeful, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who called for passage of the act. Cruz said the ruling “ends the NSA’s unfettered data collection program once and for all, while at the same time preserving the government’s ability to obtain information to track down terrorists when it has sufficient justification and support for doing so.”

Rubio has charged the USA Freedom Act could undercut the ability to track terrorists.

At: Plan is Bipart

It doesn’t matter if the plan has bipartisan support, surveillance reform fails to pass even with a veto-proof majorityVitka 6/2 [Sean Vitka, 10/10/14, Slate News, “This Meaningful Surveillance Reform Had Bipartisan Support. It Failed Anyway.”] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/10/massie_lofgren_surveillance_reform_amendment_fails_despite_bipartisan_support.html

At a time when Americans are frustrated over legislative gridlock, Congress has outdone itself. Congressional leadership is has killed the rarest

of birds: legislative reform of surveillance with overwhelming bipartisan support. At issue is an anti-surveillance amendment that passed the House of Representatives in June by a vote of 293 to 123—an overwhelming, veto-proof majority. It was the most significant post-Snowden reform to pass either the House of Representatives or Senate. Now, after ongoing secret leadership negotiations, it’s been switched out for a replicant that does little—if anything—but restate the status quo. The original Massie-Lofgren amendment would have instituted two of the many reforms needed to rein in dragnet surveillance. First, it would have defunded warrantless backdoor searches, which occur when the government searches already-harvested emails and other information. While the government has to do some extra work to target Americans specifically, it sweeps up vast swaths of our information through bulk (and bulky) surveillance anyway. When it searches that database for anyone communicating about, say, Osama Bin Laden, it returns the Americans’ information, including email messages themselves, with the other, non-American results. The intelligence community can retain, examine, and make use of the information in a broad variety of situations. As the Guardian reported in 2013, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court allows the government to “[r]etain and make use of ‘inadvertently acquired’ domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity.” The amendment would also have, via defunding, stopped the government from forcing companies to insert security vulnerabilities that make surveillance easier—no matter who is doing it. The amendment was written as a defunding because it was attached to the Defense Appropriations bill—generally considered a “must-pass” piece of legislation. Needless to say, activists were thrilled when the amendment made it through the House. Its reforms are particularly important given that the USA FREEDOM Act, another surveillance reform effort, failed to move through the Senate in November amid concerns that it didn’t do enough, sacrificed too much, and did too much. These varied disagreements show how extraordinary this amendment’s strength and success were—and why it’s so disturbing that secret dealing by leadership in Congress ripped the reform out of existence. Here’s why the amendment died: The so-called CRomnibus, a comprehensive bill to fund the government, supplants other spending legislation, including the Defense Appropriations bill to which this amendment was attached. And the CRomnibus did not contain amendment. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Thomas Massie, and Zoe Lofgren put out a statement Wednesday in response to the exclusion from the CRomnibus, saying, “Thus far, Congress has failed to rein in the Administration’s surveillance authorities and protect Americans’ civil liberties. Nevertheless, the Massie-Sensenbrenner-Lofgren amendment established an important record in the full House of Representatives—an overwhelming majority will no longer tolerate the status quo.” The three representatives also introduced a bill last week that would accomplish some of what the amendment did, by prohibiting agencies from “mandat[ing]” companies change their products’ security for the purposes of making surveillance easier (outside of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act). That would be a good step for all of our privacy (and the tech industry’s bottom line), but it doesn’t include the ban on backdoor searches of Americans’ information, and it’s unclear whether it applies to non-mandatory agreements to weaken security, which we’ve seen before. So why wouldn’t such a popular measure automatically be included? Omnibus funding bills are negotiated by leadership and tend to be later-stage efforts to merge all of the various funding bills and their compromises, resulting in something both parties can whip up support for. In doing so, they save time from being lost to deliberation about each individual deal and each individual amendment. It also ensures that “poison pills,” or amendments that render a bipartisan bill unacceptable to a critical component of House members, don’t make it onto the floor. Majority and minority leadership have tremendous procedural powers in Congress, which enable them to effectively say, “It’s our way or the highway.” Democracy-be-damned, leadership doesn’t want to enact any reform. So, even though both the Massie-Lofgren amendment and the 2015 Defense Appropriations Bill passed overwhelmingly through the House months ago, the Senate

still hasn’t considered the measures, and right now it looks like this surveillance reform will never pass the finish line, even after winning the race. All of this is reminiscent of Rep. Justin Amash’s attempt to broadly defund bulk surveillance shortly after the Snowden leaks began. That measure failed at the finish line, 205 votes to 217. That failure came thanks almost entirely to aggressive, united lobbying by House Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The Massie-Lofgren amendment also couldn’t be added to the CRomnibus because leadership’s procedural power also allows them to agree to bring bills up for consideration under closed rule, which prevents members from proposing amendments on the floor. Considering how contentious funding the government can be,

that’s the expected path for the CRomnibus. The moral of the story? Surveillance reformers can’t succeed even when they

have enough allies inside Congress to override the president, bolstered by allies on the outside from across the political spectrum. Not as long as party leadership remains the same.

NSA Reform

The fight over NSA surveillance is just beginning -security hawks are trying to block any new legislation to reduce NSA surveillance. Volz and Fox

Voltz, Dusten. Lauren Fox "The War Over NSA Spying Is Just Beginning." NationalJournal. National Journal Group Inc., 03 June 2015. Web. 5 July 2015.

Now that Congress has passed the USA Freedom Act, a surveillance overhaul bill that will shutter the National Security Agency's bulk gathering of U.S. call data—having done so while shutting down attempts from the Senate Majority Mitch

McConnell to weaken it—reform-minded legislators are emboldened. 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 on 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 Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor, 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 trying to block 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 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.

Obama will push for changes to the NSA, but congress is content with the status quoWagenseil in 13 (Paul Wagenseil; heads security coverage for Tom's Guide, “6 Ways Tech Companies' 'Reform Government Surveillance' Fails”, Tomsguide.com, 12/9/13, website, 7/5/15, http://www.tomsguide.com/us/reform-nsa-fail,news-17959.html)

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.

Metadata/NSARecent congressional inaction proves reluctance to take on reform of NSA – specifically metadata collectionHattem 15Hattem, Julian. "Expansive Surveillance Reform Takes Backseat to House Politics." TheHill. The Hill, 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 05 July 2015. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spying-reforms-take-backseat-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.

Congress won’t pass reform to limit collection of metadata – even limited reforms cause political battlesHattem 15 4/30/15, Julian Hattem (staff writer at The Hill, B.A. in Anthropology at University of Chicago) “Expansive surveillance reform takes backseat to House politics”, https://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spying-reforms-take-backseat-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.

Ideological division in senate over Meta Data specifically Republicans in SenateSTEINHAUER and WEISMAN in 2015 (JENNIFER STEINHAUER and JONATHAN WEISMANMAY are both Writers for the New York Times; “Battle Lines in G.O.P. Set Stage for Surveillance Vote” Published: May 30, 2015 Accessed: 7/5/15; http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/surveillance-vote-in-senate-is-tangled-in-gop-debate.html?ref=topics)

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 a 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 surveillance bill passed by the House. “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. Mr. Paul said Saturday that he would move to end the current law, although he was silent about passing a new one. “Tomorrow I will force the expiration of the N.S.A. illegal spy program,” he said in an email to supporters. Representative Devin Nunes of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, “They can take things into the middle of the week.” He added, “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. 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 that 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 over two dozen other senators who fear that 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 include 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 to conduct “roving” surveillance of a suspect, rather than of a 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, Mr. Nunes said. 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. A 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 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 unexpectedly showed up in the United States. In the search for a compromise, the biggest issue is a dispute between House Republican leaders and Mr. McConnell over whether the National Security Agency can develop the technology that will allow phone 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 closed. If it could not, a longer transition would be put in place. 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 reservation in the House.

WOT ReformAnti-terrorism laws and how hard it is to repeal them depends on many things- the ratchet effect is to blameGivens in 2013 (Austen D. Givens, a PhD student in the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London, “The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws”, July 2, 2013, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/, 7/5/15)

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. 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. 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 toward increased trust in government authorities in the immediate wake of terrorist attacks , though this can wane over time. 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.

Plan’s unpopular – it gets spun as “letting the terrorists win” which erodes support – it outweighs outside lobbyingGreenwald, 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/irrelevance-u-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/)

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 op-ed 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

that the U.S. Congress 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 .

FISAFISA reform creates backlash – alienates war hawks and intelligence – they’ll blame ObamaLiebelson, 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/obama-nsa-reforms-spying-telephone-mad-privacy)

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 bad, he 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 .

PRISMCurtailing 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

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.

Drones

Drone legislation is incredibly controversial – senators aren’t sure of the best way to regulate this new technology Curry ‘13(Tom Curry, March 20, 2013. NBC News, “Lawmakers voice concerns on drone privacy questions”, http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17389193-lawmakers-voice-concerns-on-drone-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. University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo and Ben Miller, the Unmanned Aircraft Program Manager for the Mesa County Sheriff, discuss privacy concerns during a Senate hearing on drone use Wednesday. 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., addresses

witnesses on Capitol Hill Wednesday during a hearing on the evolving use of unmanned aircraft. 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

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. But Stepanovich said after the hearing that “we hope to see (legislative) action, if not in this term of Congress, then definitely prior to 2015 when the amount of drones in the U.S. is expected to increase pursuant to the FAA regulations.” She also noted that a pending court challenge might affect the legal landscape for drone use. The Customs and Border Protection agency, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, lends out its Predator drones to local law enforcement agencies to conduct operations unrelated to the border control mission. In North Dakota in 2011, a man was accused of stealing cattle. Police called in a Predator drone which flew over his property and helped police find and arrest him. He is now challenging the use of the drone in federal court as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The police in that case did not seek a warrant before using the drone, Stepanovich said. In 1989 the Supreme Court upheld police use of a helicopter flying 400 feet above a person’s property to see marijuana growing in a greenhouse. Since the helicopter was in navigable airspace, where any member of the public could have flown, the justices ruled that a search warrant was not required. If a police helicopter can observe you or your house from 400 feet, what limits should there be on a drone? The Congressional Research Service said in a report last year the crucial question is “whether drones have the potential to be significantly more invasive than traditional surveillance technologies such as manned aircraft or low-powered cameras — technologies that have

been upheld in previous cases.”

Limiting drone access ensures congressional battle- support for their use is strongUberti 13- David Uberti, April 7th 2013, “Drone makers struggle for acceptance”, The Boston Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/06/massachusetts-national-drone-companies-are-struggling-gain-public-acceptance-face-controversy/qtCg0CxAIUfrW7applrKWL/story.html

WASHINGTON — The Danvers-based drone manufacturer CyPhy Works doesn’t build flying robots that rain Hellfire missiles on people or record license plate numbers from 40,000 feet. Its drones are designed for peaceful missions — aerial inspections of buildings and bridges, or observing crime scenes. But CyPhy and other manufacturers are battling the negative images of better-known military drones as they struggle to win public and political acceptance for commercially marketed drones for domestic airspace. The consequences are significant for a nascent industry that claims the potential to create 70,000 US jobs by 2017, including

2,000 in Massachusetts. The use of drones to combat terrorism overseas is attracting increasingly negative attention in Washington. President Obama is considering taking its lethal drone program away from the Central Intelligence

Agency and placing it in the hands of the Pentagon, which has greater restrictions and accountability. Lawmakers, meanwhile, including Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a candidate for Senate, are introducing legislation to limit how drones can be used by law enforcement, firefighters, farmers, the media, and others in American skies. The domestic drone industry is scrambling to respond in Washington in public testimony, lobbying, and trade conferences — with limited effectiveness. Companies are trying to purge the word “drone’’ and its lethal connotations from the lexicon — an effort that is failing dismally so far. “I appreciate you telling us what we should call them. You leave that decision to us,” Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick J. Leahy snapped, as an industry association representative vainly sought to persuade senators at a hearing to use terms like “pilotless vehicle.’’ Founded in 2008, CyPhy unveiled its first commercial drone models in December. They are nothing like the American robotic weapons flying over Pakistan and Yemen. CyPhy’s EASE drone, ideal for aerial inspections, fits into a backpack, while the PARC model is tailored to longer-term observation of crime scenes or disaster areas.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.

At: Plan is Bipart- Gridlock Overwhelms

Congressional gridlock occurring now, despite all efforts to cooperate Miller & Dinan ‘15 [S.A Miller & Stephen Dinan, 1/07/15, Washington Post, “Gridlock in Congress rekindled quickly despite Democrat, Republican calls for cooperation”] Accessed Online: 6/22/15 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/gridlock-in-congress-rekindled-quickly-despite-dem/?page=all

Four months after they joined Republicans in voting to tweak the Dodd-Frank law, House Democrats reversed themselves and killed similar legislation Wednesday, sending the latest grim signal that the last year’s elections did little to break gridlock on Capitol Hill. On the second day in session, the conflicts were piling up.

House Republicans plan votes next week to undo President Obama’s deportation amnesty, and both chambers will test the White House on veto threats issued in defense of Obamacare and in opposition to building the Keystone XL pipeline. All sides pleaded for cooperation, with Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who took over this week as majority leader, saying the

decision rests with Mr. Obama, who must unleash fellow Democrats to pursue bipartisan solutions. “Bipartisan compromise may not come easily for the president. The president’s supporters are pressing for militancy these days, not compromise,” Mr. McConnell said in his first major floor speech as leader, in which he challenged Democrats to reject European-style welfare state policies and work for a leaner government. But the new Senate Republican majority and extra Republican troops in the House are being matched by a renewed shift to the left among Democrats, who argue that their losses in last year’s elections were the result of a muddled message and a six-year itch with Mr. Obama, not to a rejection of their policies. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat whom

liberals have embraced as a standard-bearer, told the AFL-CIO in a keynote address Wednesday that “democracy doesn’t work when congressmen and regulators bow down to Wall Street’s political power.” Republicans blamed that kind of rhetoric for the defeat of the Dodd-Frank tweaks bill in the House. In September, a similar bill got 320 votes, including support from 95 Democrats. But the legislation garnered just 35 Democrats Wednesday for a total of 274, just short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage under expedited rules. Democrats said the bill was significantly different from last year’s legislation and would benefit big banks. They objected to speeding the legislation to the floor on the second day of Congress without having gone through regular debate in the Financial

Services Committee. “House Republicans need to rethink their special-interests-first plan for this Congress,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said after leading the revolt. The number of her top lieutenants switched from “yes” to “no” votes this time. “Wall Street giveaways introduced in the dead of night are no way to govern.”

Obama Fights Plan

Obama would use PC to fight against the plan- favors expansion of surveillanceFarnia in 2011 (Nina Farnia, “Shoring Up the National Security state”, JSTOR.org, Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) summer 2011, 4 pgs. 7/3/15, http://jstor.org/stable/41407966

Many expected the Obama administration to slow or altogether stop the growth of the national security state that its two predecessor administrations brought into being, but just the opposite has occurred. Prisoners are still held without charge at Guantanamo Bay; the Patriot Act is still the law; the administration has retained the use of rendition and protected state secrets with punitive vigor. President Barack Obama's Justice Department has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all others combined. In key respects, indeed, the Obama administration has expanded and institutionalized the national security state. On the one hand, the administration is reinvigorating age-old policies such as the Espionage Act of 1917, which it is using to try whistleblowers. One the other hand, it has attempted to bring previously unprotected law enforcement and detention practices, such as military tribunals and the suspension of habeas corpus, under the umbrella of

legality. Unlike the Bush administration, which often acted outside the law, the Obama administration is intent on protecting itself by using the law. In fact, an article by civil rights attorney Bill Quigley reports that over 2,600 activists have been arrested since Obama was elected. While this figure is surely below the actual number, it reveals a steady increase over previous

years. And the Obama administration has yet to abandon the Bush administrations racial and religious profiling. To the contrary, the Obama administration has also begun a widespread effort to prosecute individuals based on political and ideological profiling. The Bush administration often targeted Muslim charities and mosques, accusing them of material support for terrorism. But during Bush's eight years in office, that charge was rarely used against non-Muslims. Now the Obama administration is using the same allegation to go after primarily non-Muslim activists engaged in international solidarity with Palestine. Two ongoing cases illustrate the extent of profiling in government investigations and the continuity between administrations in shoring up the national security state.

President Obama defends NSA and other programs- The president supports every part of the NSAReilly in 2013 (Mollie Reilly, Political Editor, 6/18/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/obama-nsa-surveillance_n_3455771.html, 7/3/15)

President Barack Obama further defended the National Security Agency's collection of phone and other electronic records to PBS' Charlie Rose, calling the program "transparent." In a pretaped interview set to air Monday evening, Obama gave a forceful defense of the program, saying that the NSA had not unlawfully targeted Americans . "What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails … and have not," Obama said, according to a transcript provided by PBS. Rose pressed Obama on the point, according to the transcript: Rose: So I hear you saying, I have no problem with what NSA has been doing. Obama: Well, let me — let me

finish, because I don’t. So, what happens is that the FBI — if, in fact, it now wants to get content; if, in fact, it wants to start tapping that phone — it’s got to go to the FISA court with probable cause and ask for a warrant . Rose: But has FISA court turned down any request? Obama: The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query

unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion. Rose: Should this be transparent in some way? Obama: It is transparent. That’s why we set up the FISA court. Later in the interview, Obama said the program had "disrupted" terrorist plots in the United States as well as overseas. The president pointed specifically to the prosecution of Najibullah Zazi, who was arrested in 2009 as part of a plan to bomb the New York City subway system. "Now, we might have caught him some other way. We might

have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious ," Obama said. "Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didn’t go off. But at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs ." While Zazi's name has come up frequently in defense of the NSA, the Associated Press and others have thrown cold water on the talking point, stating that the email the NSA says led to the plot's disruption could have been intercepted without the PRISM program. Obama struck a

similar tone during a June 7 speech in San Jose, Calif., saying that Congress has been briefed on the programs' details. "The programs are secret in the sense that they are classified. They are not secret, in that every member of Congress has been briefed," he said. "These are programs that have been authored by large bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006 ." White House chief of staff Denis McDonough also stood

by the program on Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," insisting that Obama "does not" have privacy concerns related to the NSA's phone records collection. "The president is not saying, 'Trust me,'" he said. "The president is saying, 'I want every member of Congress, on whose authority we are running this program, to be briefed on it, to come to the administration with questions and to also be accountable for it.'"

Controversy Drains PC

Controversial policies drain political capitalBurke, University of Vermont political science professor, 9

(John P., Presidential Studies Quarterly 39.3 (Sept 2009), “The Contemporary Presidency: The Obama Presidential Transition: An Early Assessment”, p574 (31). Academic One; accessed 7-15-10)

President Obama signaled his intention to make a clean break from the unpopular Bush presidency with his executive orders and early policy and budget proposals. At the same time, he also sought to tamp down public expectations for quick results on the economy. Early--and ambitious--actions were taken, but as he cautioned in his inaugural address, "the challenges we face are real" and they "will not be met easily or in a

short span of time." His initial political capital seemed high. But was the right course of action chosen? The decision was made to embrace a broad range of policy reforms, not just to focus on the economy. Moreover, it was a controversial agenda. His early efforts to gain bipartisan support in Congress--much like those of his predecessors--seem largely for naught and forced the administration to rely on narrow partisan majorities. The question that remains is whether his political capital, both in Congress and with the public, will bring him legislative--and ultimately policy--success. Good transition planning is propitious, but it offers no

guarantees. Still, without it, political and policy disaster likely awaits. So far, President Obama seems to reside largely on the positive side of the equation. But what the future might portend remains another matter .

Obama Blame/Push

Obama Pushes Plan

Obama has been pushing privacy-protecting legislationSasso 7/3 [Brendan Sasso, 7/03/15, National Journal, “Obama Calls on Congress to Pass Data Privacy Laws”] http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-calls-on-congress-to-pass-data-privacy-laws-20150112

In the wake of the massive breaches of Target, Home Depot, and Sony, President Obama urged Congress on Monday to pass a series of cybersecurity and privacy bills. "This is a direct threat to the economic security of American families, and we've

got to stop it," Obama said in a speech at the Federal Trade Commission. "If we're going to be connected, then we need to be protected. As Americans, we shouldn't have to forfeit our basic privacy when we go online to do our business." The president proposed the Personal Data Notification and Protection Act, which would require companies to notify their customers within 30 days if their personal information has been exposed. The bill quickly earned applause from business groups, who would prefer to comply with a single national notification standard rather than the current patchwork of state laws. The bill would help consumers know their credit card has been

stolen before the hackers are able to use it, Obama said. He also outlined a new bill, the Student Digital Privacy Act, to restrict the ability of companies to mine the data of children. The measure, which is based on a California law, would prevent companies from selling student data to third parties for non-educational purposes or from targeting advertising to students based on

data collected in schools. Technology can allow for exciting new educational tools, Obama said, but companies should not abuse their access to sensitive academic information of students . "We've already seen some instances where some companies use educational technologies to collect student data for commercial purposes, like targeted advertising," Obama said. "And parents have a legitimate concern about those kinds of practices." Jim Steyer, the CEO of children's advocacy group Common Sense Media, said he is "thrilled" with the student privacy bill. Students, he said, "deserve the opportunity to use educational websites and apps to

enrich their learning without fear that their personal information will be exploited for commercial purposes or fall into the wrong hands." The president also renewed his push for a sweeping Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. Within 45 days, the White House plans to release legislative language to enshrine the principles into law. The White House first outlined the online privacy rights in 2012 and urged Congress to take up the issue. But there has been little movement on the Hill, and no legislation has been introduced. Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said he supports the president's bills on student and consumer privacy, but he has some concerns with the data-breach notification bill. "It would preempt stronger state laws, and it lacks a private right of action," he explained.

Obama Gets Blame

Obama takes the blame for all decisions, regardless of partisanship Hook & Nicholas ‘10 [Janet Hook and Peter Nicholas, 7/30/10, LA Times, “Obama the Velcro President”] Accessed Online: 7/05/15 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730

Reporting from Washington — 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 new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. 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 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 comic-book 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 unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul

Begala, a Democratic pundit. 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 in the hundreds of public statements he has made : nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

The president sets the agendaEshbaugh-Soha and Peake (Jeffrey S. Peake is a Professor at Clemson and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha is a Professor in the Political Science department at University of North Texas ; “Presidents and the Economic Agenda” Political Research Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 127-138

Agenda setting is of primary importance to the distribution of power in American politics. The traditional model of agenda setting suggests the president is the "principal instrument" for nationalizing policy debates (Schattschneider 1960, 14). Baumgartner and Jones (1993: 241) observe that "no single actor can focus attention as clearly . . . as the president." Similarly, Kingdon (1995:

23) claims that "the president can single handedly set the agenda, not only of people in the executive branch, but also of people in Congress and outside the government." As unitary leader of the United States, the president has the "bully pulpit" at his disposal, giving him constant access to the media and Congress (see Edwards and Wood (1999) for a

complete review of these arguments). Influencing the policy agenda is an important-if not the most important-source of presidential power (see, among others, Edwards 1989). Presidential success in Congress and influence over the policy process is likely to increase if the president is able to dictate which issues are on the congressional agenda (see Bond and Fleisher 1990). Furthermore, the ability of presidents to influence the media's agenda or the public salience of issues is vital to the public support presidents receive (DeRouen and Peake 2002; Edwards, Mitchell, and Welch 1995). Some research demonstrates a positive link between the president's spoken word in the State of the Union address and the percentage of the public who finds economic, foreign, or civil rights policies to be the most important problem facing the United States (Cohen 1995; Hill 1998) or media attention to many issues (Lawrence 2003).

Political Capital Theory

PC Theory True

Consensus of studies shows presidents use political capital for the agendaAnthony 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 10-25-2012 “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 venue s 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).

Studies prove presidents use political capital to push their agendaEshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). Policy Priorities and Presidential Success in Congress. Conference Papers -- American Political Science Association, 1-26. Retrieved from Political Science Complete database.

Presidential-congressional relations are a central topic in the scientific study of politics. The literature is clear that a handful of variables

strongly influence the likelihood of presidential success on legislation. 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 (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-

Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-Soha 2006). 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.

At: Winners WinPC finite- legislative wins don’t spillover –empirics, true for Obama, too polarized- newest evTodd 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_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2

As Barack 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

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

election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, 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

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

election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic

majority Senate, 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

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

erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap. 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

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

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, short-term legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining p olitical c apital 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

president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.