http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412
The vote wasn't partisan, nor did it break along geographic lines.
If all the representatives had voted the way they wanted it to turn out, the result would probably have been much more lopsided.
It's theater, basically.
12 not voting.
Looks like party didn't matter - it was more or less even Republican/Democrat.
At first, I thought this was to disambiguate when there is more than one Representative with the same last name, which would explain the listings for Smith (MO), Smith (NJ), Smith (NE), Smith (TX), and Smith (WA).
However, there's also "Frankel (FL)", but there is only one Frankel in the House, so that shoots down that theory.
Honestly you guys got far closer to your goal than I would have anticipated. The bipartison support was almost unprecedented in recent years.
From a practical matter, even if the House bill passed it was dead on arrival in the Senate. But nevertheless it is a significant symbolic blow to blanket surveillance against American citizens.
All I've tried to communicate, perhaps with less than appropriate tact, is that this is going to be a long slog.
If you're going to reign in the surveillance state, you'll need to start thinking like Washington insiders. Pick one incumbent that vocally supported these programs, and take him or her down. That will instantly catapult this issue to the top of the concerns in DC.
It only costs a few million to get that done. Considering the wealth of the tech industry, and the threat this poses to overseas expansion of the US internet services, donations shouldn't be overly difficult to drum up. We could really make a large dent in getting the legislature to help roll back these programs to sane levels. Add to that an anit-SOPA style social media campaign, and you could accomplish real and lasting change.
That sounds wonderful. Who do you suggest? Mike Rogers? Ruppersberger? Labrador?
You'll also have to remember that there is a series of corporate interests, large and small, with very deep pockets that will oppose any check on the surveillance state, no matter how reasonable.
Full Disclosure: I don't support outright ending these programs, as many of you do. I do support real judicial oversight, transparency into the law being made in the FISA opinions, and a series of internal and external safeguards to reign these programs in from the brink.
I know it's not the most popular opinion in these parts, but politics makes for strange bedfellows. No reason that we can't work together on the things we agree upon.
If this is not the doom of two-party ideology of liberal/conservative political system than I am not sure what is.
What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any reason to believe this is true?
But the difference with something like the NSA is, you can't opt-out of what they're doing. With a company, you can take your business elsewhere. This isn't so easy with the government, unfortunately.
Imagine the investment made by the NSA into collecting and processing all of this data. 12 votes and it could have changed. This must have scared the shit out of someone. Hopefully this is just the beginning.
