Privacy Groups Release Congressional Scorecard on NSA Spying

How do your lawmakers rank on government surveillance?

National Journal
Dustin Volz
June 27, 2014, 6:16 a.m.

Di­anne Fein­stein gets an “F.” So does John Boehner.

Patrick Leahy, Ron Wyden, and Justin Amash each earned an “A.”

At least that’s ac­cord­ing to a new con­gres­sion­al score­card from pri­vacy and civil-liber­ties groups meas­ur­ing how law­makers stand on gov­ern­ment spy­ing, an is­sue that con­tin­ues to slowly gain trac­tion more than a year after Ed­ward Snowden’s leaks ex­posed clas­si­fied bulk-data sur­veil­lance pro­grams at the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency.

The score­card, de­veloped by red­dit, the Sun­light Found­a­tion, De­mand Pro­gress and oth­ers, grades law­makers from “A” to “F,” de­pend­ing on their votes or spon­sor­ship of cer­tain pieces of re­cent sur­veil­lance le­gis­la­tion. Its re­lease co­in­cides with the liftoff of a Green­peace blimp this morn­ing that hovered above the NSA’s data cen­ter in Utah and dis­played the mes­sage “Il­leg­al spy­ing be­low.”

The let­ter grades are meant to add clar­ity to a muddled re­form pro­cess con­cern­ing the prop­er scope of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance of phone and In­ter­net data, said Rainey Re­it­man, act­iv­ist dir­ect­or with the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion, one of the or­gan­iz­ing groups.

“Con­gress has been strug­gling with what they’re go­ing to do about sur­veil­lance re­form, and for the gen­er­al pub­lic, this has been a very con­fus­ing de­bate,” Re­it­man said. “Be­cause, of­ten there are go­ing to be bills that im­ply they are go­ing to help with sur­veil­lance is­sues when, in fact, they are fake re­forms that would merely en­trench the spy­ing.”

In the House, points were awar­ded for sup­port of the Sur­veil­lance State Re­peal Act, in­tro­duced last year by Rep. Rush Holt (who gets an “A”), and the ori­gin­al USA Free­dom Act, which was au­thored by Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner (also an “A”) and sought to end the NSA’s bulk col­lec­tion of U.S. phone metadata.

But points were sub­trac­ted if a House mem­ber voted for the “watered-down” ver­sion of the Free­dom Act, which passed the cham­ber 303-121 in May. Power­ful tech com­pan­ies such as Google and Face­book and pri­vacy ad­voc­ates dropped their sup­port of that bill as el­ev­enth-hour ne­go­ti­ations among House lead­er­ship, in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials, and the White House altered the lan­guage of key sec­tions of the bill.

In the Sen­ate, points were awar­ded for spon­sor­ship of the ori­gin­al USA Free­dom Act, in­tro­duced by Sen. Patrick Leahy, and points were de­duc­ted for co­spon­sor­ship of Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein’s FISA Im­prove­ments Act, which civil-liber­ties groups have routinely lam­basted as co­di­fy­ing the cur­rent powers of the NSA and oth­er in­tel­li­gence agen­cies. Even Fein­stein has ac­know­ledged that her bill likely does not have a path for­ward, however.

Sev­er­al high-pro­file sen­at­ors re­main un­ranked in the score­card for not be­ing “sig­ni­fic­antly in­volved” in the de­bate on NSA spy­ing. Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, and Re­pub­lic­an Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Ru­bio—a trio of po­ten­tial GOP pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates in 2016—are all lis­ted with a ques­tion mark.

Paul’s des­ig­na­tion is es­pe­cially not­able, as he has typ­ic­ally been an out­spoken crit­ic of do­mest­ic gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, and has signaled that an ag­gress­ive anti-NSA stance could be a cent­ral plank of his pos­sible 2016 plat­form. But or­gan­izers re­it­er­ated that the score­card was meant to only re­flect sup­port or op­pos­i­tion to key le­gis­la­tion.

“We were temp­ted to say, if you’re not do­ing any­thing good, you should get an ‘F,’ ” Re­it­man said. “But we thought, for right now, we should give these people ques­tion marks” un­til the Sen­ate votes on an NSA bill.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×