I don't understand what you mean by 'you passed on a rumor.' This is a site that does a good job following the money trails. As well as I can evaluate, they're operating in good faith and their conclusions are consistent with the data.

This organization reveals its sources, which are sources I also use. Their conclusions appear on their face to be correct.

I realize that POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC is a fallacy. It doesn't prove causation. But it's surprising, to say the least, that while the 'compromise' (which is anything but) was being hammered out, the very industry most effective was making biggish donations to the people required to vote on it.

The timing, if nothing else, is unfortunate. The fact that some of those most diligent in pushing this through got substantial (if not astronomical) sums is cause for comment.

If they deny it, I will certainly comment. I'd LIKE to believe there is no connection.

But this bill goes FAR beyond what the scholars and lawyers I trust consider necessary and makes substantial inroads on the fourth amendment while legalizing past conduct so it can't be scrutinized. Where's the compromise? Somebody show me the COMPROMISE.

It's hard to imagine why the telecoms would give money to a legislator EXCEPT with the idea of buying influence.

The truth is that Dems are seen as being 'soft on terrorism by non-Dems, and even some Dems.

No one should assume his his friends represent the whole country.
The perception is false. The problem is real.
'.

However, it just seems like a political cave in short. Some Dems were worried they'd look “soft on terrorism” and so when a chance to pass immunity that could technically be called not immunity, they bit.

Seriously, are Americans really buying this? We would have to be both scared enough and stupid enough to truly believe this bizarre scenario. Imagine if you had the job of sorting through hundreds of millions PER DAY of phone calls, text messages, instant messages, e-mails, blog posts and comments such as this one. Even if you had awesome supercomputers, which of course NSA does have, can any of you really imagine what keywords, or combination of keywords would be sufficient to isolate messages that have any reasonable likelihood of being from or to an actual terrorist? I think in all probability, ordinary folks like you or me are more likely to be talking about dirty bombs, Islamic extremism or presidential assassinations than are the terrorists. So searching for those keywords won't work. What if the actual terrorists are talking about “the big game” or “pizza night”? Now imagine how many tens of millions more messages, innocent messages, must be listened to by an actual human being in an attempt to gain some sort of actionable intelligence. Terrified McCain supporters (like Dave?) are willing to support with tax dollars rooms full of federal bureaucrats listening to 8 hours a day of inane phone calls and reading tons of stupid text messages. “ur breath is like a dirty bomb, m8.” Then a team is convened. “They could be talking about an actual pizza party, but they do say someone named Dave is bringing 'tons of beer' AND they say 'we'll need cash up front for the pizza.' “. This is more idiotic than the fiasco at the airport, where we are to believe that a 5 oz tube of toothpaste could be a threat, but not 4 3 oz. bottles of 'shampoo'.

OK, perhaps they actually have gleaned some actionable intelligence. Let them show a judge. Let them prove it. There is no national security crisis here. Federal judges with security clearance are available, and review sensitive information like this all time. Have we so completely lost our faculties of judgment that we fantasize about clever spymasters keeping us safe by listening to every word we say on the phone? And we're both sacrificing our 4th Amendment rights AND tons of tax money on this foolishness? Amazing. Poor scared, weak America.

Yes. weblogs do that, ALONG WITH THEIR IMPRESSIONS AND OPINIONS..
That's sort of like passing on an annotated version of a rumor,though, isn't it?

You passed on your thought,s and I offered my reaction, a more pragamtic and broader contexted take.
It's all good..

.

I'm quite sure, having in fact researched THIS issue, that FISA is a bad piece of legislation. The power of the executive branch to engage in surveillance most definitely did NOT need to be further extended and Telecom Amnesty (retroactive) has no bearing on future security. So something intervened to change the minds of these politicians.

But I don't think the actual donations matter that much. There are other ways political influence can make itself felt.

If you think this is important, why don't YOU research it? I'm passing on a piece of information in the news, which is what a weblog does. I do not aspire to be a journalist, nor do I have the time. It seems a bit fortuitous that so many of the Dems who changed their minds on FISA

DAVEINBOCA. Whatever Dodd is or may be, he still is right about this legislation. Most politicians who get to the senate are rich plutocrats who are in bed with special interests.

Insulting him — the old ad hominem fallacy— doesn't in any way go to whether he is right about FISA.

The background for FISA is that America still operates in the shadow of (/11 and terrorism. Rightly or wrongly, fear is always there, just under the surface when not actually on the surface. . The promise of safety, no matter how illusory, has a magnetic, almost magical, pull. Even if unfounded fears can be reasoned away, I guarrantee that they will snap back up at the first sign of trouble.

The next President will inherit the fear and will either exploit it (McCain) or push back (Obama) However, neither Obama, nor any senator can make it evaporate entirely in the near future. .The country has first to be de-progarammed from the brainwashing of recent years, and no one should be complacent about the number of people who represent UNWAVERING support. during the process.

After recognizing the principles invovled, we should not ignore the risks. The Dems's reputaton as being weak on security has to be overcome. Timng has to be considered, especially in an election year. Unforseen conseqeunces have to be considered. Short term vs long term strategies have to be considered.

When I read blog reactions like this , I begin by being in agreement, but when I don't find due consideration of context and consequences, I get very skittish and draw back. I wonder if it's wise, or even possible, to make a sudden U-turn.
.
I'd like to be convinced, not told, what the conclusion should be.

I like what Obama said about Iraq: We have to be as cautions leaving, as we were reckless going in.
,
BTW, I think removing immunity would be one way to curtail executive power. Tlelecoms would need to think twice before axquescing to a presidential request..

Some (only some) of the lacking BASIC information:
1 What proportion of each senator's funding do these contribuitons represent?
2. Who else contributed to these senators, and is there a similar relationship to a voting record?

Maintaining a suspicious appraoch is vital for staying vigilant.
Jumping to conclusions leads to bad, sometimes tragic, misjudgments.

I'm withholding judgment (and outrage) until I know more.

His father was censured by the Senate, back when that body had some sense of ethics, for breaking financial rules. Just a chip off the old block.

Feingold is honest, but delusional.