WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate leaders have agreed to a compromise surveillance bill that would effectively shield from civil lawsuits the telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap phone and computer lines after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without court permission.

Good job going back on your word on the financing, though.

He didn't mention, as he told the Federal Election Commission last year in seeking to preserve the option, that "Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."

Through March, small donations amounted to 39 percent of the combined fundraising of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. But over a comparable period four years ago, such contributions made up an even greater share (42 percent) of the fundraising of the two leading Democratic contenders, Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

Contributions of less than $200 do not have to be itemized in reports to the Federal Election Commission, so we have no idea how many are made. We also cannot rely on the candidates' rhetoric to match the facts. During a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, for example, Obama said that "we have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50." His campaign's own data from January 2007 through January 2008 show that 36 percent of donated funds were from small donors. Obama probably meant that 90 percent of the individuals who contributed were small donors, but the number of donors has not been verified.

Small-dollar donations to Obama have surged this year, and those donors became crucial in the spring as the battle to secure the Democratic nomination intensified. But for most of his campaign, big donors have been Obama's mainstay. Employees of investment bank Goldman Sachs, for example, have contributed more than $570,000 to his campaign.

Thanks, Barack!

Good job going back on your word on the financing, though.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

The public financing story doesn't bother me so much as his retreat on Nafta.

Except he didn't.

There is some dispute over whether Obama ever formally pledged to participate in the public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same. As I have reported in a previous post, the closest he came was in response to a September 2007 questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network, which included the question, "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Obama highlighted the answer "Yes," and elaborated as follows:

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.... My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election....If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Obama’s alarmist prophecy — a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards — is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.

The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

Let's face it . At this point, those of you who have drunk the cool aid are voting for him. No. Matter. What.

The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

I'm honestly disappointed in Obama for supporting the compromise bill that contains telecom immunity.

This was your biggest argument AGAINST the man when he was running against Clinton. That he'd never be ready for the hate/smear machine the right would throw against him and now....now when Clinton's out of the running, you completely dismiss his preparing to fight AND DEFEAT that machine as a huge negative thing about him??

We knew two years ago that the 2008 presidential race would be a billion dollar affair.

McCain received a letter from the Federal Election Commission warning him that his actions subverting public financing may result in up to five years in federal prison.

When you're playing to win, don't play by your opponent's rules. McCain and Obama both know this. Besides subverting the federal finance system, McCain's looking to 527 groups to raise unlimited, undocumented funds. When you compare what Obama's campaign is 1) allowed to accept, 2) required to document, and 3) how they've pushed other groups working on their behalf -- DNC, MoveOn.org -- to change their fundraising practices, the method favored by the Obama campaign is far more transparent.

Here's something you won't hear from the national media: Federal financing is already dead. 527s killed it.

Now, that said, I fully support public campaign finance. But the rules that are currently in place don't work. They need to be rewritten and it needs to be opened up to all federal races.

You ignore the fact that 527s have not been a factor *at all* in the campaign, and show no signs of being one.

Bleh. I don't understand why the dems are capitulating on this one. It doesn't really make sense to me.

Surely you realize it is far, far, far, far too early to make such a statement...don't you?

As for Obama not accepting public financing..he was stupid to make his earlier campaign pledge. Now he will, and should take some flack for going back on it. However, as I'm sure his campaign agrees, the benefit of all that money, far outweighs the blowback from this short-lived political story. I'm of the opinion that in November, Obama at the top of the ticket will have long coattails into some traditionally red places. Talk to your Republican friends as I do, there just isn't the excitement on that side. It is extremely ho hum. Not taking public financing makes Obama that much more able to spread McCain thin, trying to shore up support in those red districts. Related to that, I hope DNC Chairman Howard Dean gets the credit he is due. I was very happy when he took over the DNC and implemented his 50 state strategy. I recall alot of Democratic bigwigs like Rahm Emanuel poo pooing the strategy. We saw it pay dividends in '06, I expect even bigger this fall.

Hey guys, I'm convinced. Clearly we should vote for McCain!

You should be more disappointed in the part of the bill that rapes the constitution, rather than the red herring that is telecom immunity.

It's just a stupid catchphrase and it's his rebuttal to 99% of the pro-Obama supporters of this board.

"Lol, well I guess I should expect that, you drank the kool-aid."

Dumb.

Could you indicate which part that is?

The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

None of you, not a one, except perhaps Leolan, has come back with any substantive rebuttals to either the FISA flip flip or the financing flip flop.

From:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/ ... 80619.html

And since you obviously don't care for reading or research, I'll give you the cliff notes:

Several of these issues are where him and McCain differ. Most importantly the Iraq War. McCain wants to stay, Obama wants to get out asap. That's the MOST important issue facing America right now.

The serious thought behind my post is this: what are you trying to accomplish? No one here has said Obama is perfect. Many of us, however, have said that he is the best of the options available. If you agree with that, and you have said yourself that you would probably vote for Obama as the best of the alternatives, then what is your purpose in undermining your own vote on these forums?

What if the end result is not total withdrawal? What if, instead, it's some sort of grey area compromise that keeps us in Iraq? That's where I think we'll end up before it's all said and done. I don't think it's politically possible for anyone to withdraw completely, even up to 2 years after he takes office.

That whole no new drilling shit is getting old. The oil companies have millions acres of land handed to them by the government years ago. These lands have oil on them. There is no drilling going on.

In 2004, Democratic-leaning 527 groups spent $316 million to Republican-leaning 527s' $113 million. So far in 2008, the 527 spending has been $116 million to $69 million in favor of the Democrats."

As you see, for Obama to use 527s as an argument that backs up his decision is contemptible. But, as evidenced by this thread, it will work great for the ignorant people who are already in the bag for him. I agree that it will have little consequence, especially compared to the gain.

But it's not like McCain is campaigning against it. Far from it.

Does anyone have a source to back it up either way? I've been looking for the last few minutes and haven't found anything yet. I did find this long report from the government on off-shore drilling:


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JK ... cd=5&gl=us

I've started to read it, but it's long, heh.

My impression was that oil companies have the right to drill in many places and have chosen not to for whatever reason. In fact on Tim Russert's show yesterday someone was saying just that. Kula is saying that's bullshit. I'd like to know from somewhere credible either way.

I know it will not be a credible news source, but according to CNN, about 70 million of the 90 million acres leased to the oil companies are not being utilized.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/ec ... /index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. land for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of offshore areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

If all these areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, up from about 8 million barrels a day currently.

That compares to an increase of maybe 2 million barrels a day experts say opening up other coastal areas and the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might yield.

The presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has come out in favor of lifting bans on oil-drilling off most of the East and West coasts of the United States. Added supply, the thinking goes, would ultimately bring down the price of oil. The bans were enacted in the 1970s following several coastal oil spills.

Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation's energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.

"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."

The oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and not producing oil on them is something they would not intentionally do.

Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years, and is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.

"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."

So who's right?

The oil industry is correct about not hoarding oil, said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit. With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said.

But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.

Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.

"Government agencies should hold their feet to the fire," he said. And oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they do back in line."