Organizing for America | Andrew's Blog: Offically Boycotting Donating to Obama Until August b/c of FISA Vote

Offically Boycotting Donating to Obama Until August b/c of FISA Vote

By Andrew from New York, NY - Jul 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am EDT

Also listed in: President Obama, Please Get FISA Right

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Sorry Barack, but I won't be donating any more money to you during the month of July because you really disappointed me with you vote on FISA. I will not pretend that I won't vote for you in the fall, because to be honest the alternative is scary (McBush), but don't expect any money from me until after you are officially nominated at the Convetion. My money will be donated to help put A DEMOCRAT in the White House.

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

fisa | Report to Admin

By Mikeystyle Jul 10th 2008 at 11:02 am EDT

The first part of the bill creates an important update that eliminates the warrantless search approach. EVERY search requires a warrant, even for foreign taps, which were not required under the older form of FISA. This is unique to the new bill that wasn't there under the old FISA protocol and the other attempted protocols.

Those of you who have read the old FISA protocols know that if the Fed felt that a particular wiretap was a matter of immediate national security, you could put the tap in place, then go back and get your warrant after the fact.

The Pre-existing law already gave immunity to telecoms if they had a warrant but also, in absence of a warrant, if they were acting on the request of the Attorney General. THIS WAS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL FISA PROTOCOLS THAT WOULD'VE STAYED IN PLACE HAD CONGRESS JUST CONTINUED TO BLOCK PASSAGE OF A NEW ACT.

Here is the new act so you can search through it for yourself.
Link

The FISA bill gives telecoms immunity from CIVIL lawsuits (where they would have to pay money). It does NOT protect them from criminal charges if they’re found to have broken the law.

President Obama could still have the telecoms investigated (by his Attorney General John Edwards perhaps) and prosecute them in federal court.

I don’t agree with Obama on everything but does anyone really think we’ll be better off with four more years of Bush/McCain, endless war in Iraq, a new war with Iran, tax cuts for the rich and more neocons on the Supreme Court?

If McCain wins, we lose. It’s that simple.

Sen. Russ Feingold said he still supports Obama. Feingold told MSNBC that we’ll have a chance to make changes to FISA with Obama—but certainly not McCain.

Just ask “presidents” Kerry, Dukakis and Mondale what happens to those who avoid the center.

Re: fisa | Report to Admin

By Josh Jul 10th 2008 at 11:11 am EDT

Very good point Mikey. My cousin is a lawyer in Wisconsin and he and I talked about the civil vs. criminal lawsuits. However, I still believe we the people deserve and explanation of this support of FISA. He has the internet, he could put out another video to explain his support because President Bush is all smiles right now on TV that it passed (so it doesn't look good that Senator Obama supported it too). We need and more than that, deserve an explanation.

Re: fisa | Report to Admin

By Jason S. Jul 10th 2008 at 11:14 am EDT

Sure this may not be as bad as it could have been however the fact remains that Bill Burton said: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." He did not do this, he voted yea to the cloture motion and voted for the subsequent amendments probably just to make it look like he tried. If he is going back on his word now I am worried what will happen once he is elected. Seems like more of the same. So because of this I will no longer donate any more money to his campaign. However, he will probably still get my vote being the best of the worst. Very disappointing.

Re: fisa | Report to Admin

By John P Jul 10th 2008 at 12:33 pm EDT

This is not a center, right or left issue. It is an American issue. I have friends who are moderates and conservatives who are very concerned and spent as much time petitioning their representives as any person on this site. And, Many of the people on this website who are ardent supporters of Obama are Independents or Decline to state people - not progressives or liberals. Of course, this is not as juicy a story, so is not covered. No matter how the media or Obama try to portray this fight (capitulation) over FISA as a liberal fight, all Americans should be concerned.

As for the prosecution of the telecommunication companies or Administration officials, it will not be allowed to happen. With the effort Bush to place this immunity clause on the legislation do you really think he will allow them to be prosecuted? He will simply issue a presidential pardon - he has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no concern for the will of the American people or the rule of law. I don't think Bush has to worry about prosecution - Pelosi, the Democratic majority and even Obama have show no inclination to prosecute anyone for their crimes including Bush and Cheney.

And, this bill allows 10 days to spy on someone before a warrent from the secret FISA court is required. If you have been inadvertantly or maliciously spied upon you will have no recourse in civil or criminal courts.

Finally, my first political action after being old enough to vote was volunteering for Dukakis. He made an effort to appeal to the center, as did Kerry with his hunting cap and Mondale. Dukakis was blamed by Republican smear campaign for allowing a murderer, Willy Horton, to go free. He was portrayed as soft on crime (the bogeyman at the time - crime was at an all time high) and that issue overshadowed the campaign. Kerry lost because he was portrayed as wishy-washy while trying for the center (well that and the fact that he had no personality or charisma) and because the fear-mongers made that case that the United States would be safer from the latest bogeyman, the terrorist. The public fell for it and voted Republican.

However, I will vote for and maybe volunteer for Obama. He is head and shoulders above the competition and he may be able to reverse the bill.

No more donations until explanations | Report to Admin

By Josh Jul 10th 2008 at 11:06 am EDT

I say we all take this one step further. The core of his base (those of us who are small donators) should stand together and demand that Senator Obama explains himself on why he voted for this. Because this does not stand for change! There is no hope in this. We the people must take back our government, as it is a government by the people in case any of you have not read the Constitution recently. And if Senator Obama intends to be president he will the president of the people and people want answers.

Re: No more donations until explanations | Report to Admin

By Elyse_T Jul 10th 2008 at 11:19 am EDT

I too am waiting for an explanation. I'm pretty surprised by his yes vote (even if he announced it a month ago). I'm disappointed in Obama and the democratic party. What happened to all the tough talk? The people wanted a Democratic congress because they were fed up with Bush's policies, not so that congress could affirm them.

Re: No more donations until explanations | Report to Admin

By Elyse_T Jul 10th 2008 at 5:12 pm EDT

Here is a link to his explanation for those who are curious. Link I don't agree with his position, and my enthusiasm for his campaign has diminished. I admit that my expectations for Mr. Obama were high. I understand that compromises are part of politics, but my fourth amendment rights are being trampled, by this compromise.

More of the same | Report to Admin

By Donald from Merrick, NY Jul 10th 2008 at 11:08 am EDT

If my presidential choice is, YET AGAIN, the lesser of two evils, I'm holding back donations, too.

Re: More of the same | Report to Admin

By Josh Jul 10th 2008 at 11:16 am EDT

Exactly what I'm saying. I don't want another election to go by where I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. Part of the reason I'm so upset about this legislation! However Donald as a blogger just pointed out to me, look at those who have not swung to center. They did not become president. It doesn't take away my frustration or disappointment. And I am not donating to the Obama campaign until we get an explanation, but the people must begin to stand together and demand our country back.

Pulling the money | Report to Admin

By california chris Jul 10th 2008 at 11:48 am EDT

The general feel of these comments is that everyone is disappointed, will no longer give the campaign any money, but will still vote for Obama.

Why is it that everytime a politician does something political, supporters revert to parent mode and threaten to take sway the allowance?

Obama voted for the bill because he would be drawn and quartered in the media if there is another terror attack before the election. Hillary voted against the bill because she needs contributions, and why give supporters additional justification to refuse to bail her out?

Politics is a bloody game. Barack is doing his best to ride the center. Sellouts are people who take the ball and bat home because they don't get to pitch.

Re: Pulling the money | Report to Admin

By Andrew from New York, NY Jul 10th 2008 at 8:32 pm EDT

I understand you point, but your analogy is misleading. People who take the proverbial ball home are the ones who will not vote in the Fall or worse---will vote for McBush. People like me are pragmatist. We realize that we need to do what's in the best interest of our country and vote for Barack, but we also know that money talks. When folks from the Civil Rights Movement boycotted buses it wasn't because they were "sell-outs." It was because they realized the power of collective economic action. By no means am I advocating that people should completely stop donating to Senator Obama. I am saying that I (only me) will not donate to him until next month. My voice may not be heard, but my check won't be cashed either.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.