If you didn’t already know, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a FISA bill yesterday that does not grant immunity to telecom companies for participating in the illegal spying on Americans in George Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.  It’s convoluted, but there were basically two bills, a Title I and a Title II.  Title I had no immunity; Title II did.  Russ Feingold tried to strip immunity from Title II, but he failed, and DiFi voted for immunity.  But at the end of the day, only Title I got reported out.

This is NOT a total victory.  First of all, Harry Reid could decide to bring the Intelligence Committee’s bill, which has immunity, to the full floor.  And there will almost certainly be an amendment calling for immunity on the floor, even if an immunity-free bill is called up for vote.  So the Judiciary Committee basically punted.

But this James Risen article untangling what happened yesterday has an interesting little nugget halfway down the page.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel, is pushing a plan that would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. That would mean that the government, not the companies, would pay damages in successful lawsuits.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said in an interview after the vote Thursday that he would support a compromise along the lines of the Specter proposal.

Mr. Whitehouse was one of two Democrats who voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, that would have banned immunity for the companies. “I think there is a good solution somewhere in the middle,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who also opposed Mr. Feingold’s measure, pleaded with Mr. Leahy to defer the immunity issue because she wants more time to consider several compromise proposals.

(I was under the impression that Herb Kohl also voted against the Feingold Amendment -ed.)

Feinstein had no need for compromise earlier in the week.  She was gung-ho for telecom immunity.  Clearly the pushback in the Senate amped up the desire for compromise, even if Specter’s is a fig leaf that would still get the telecoms off the hook while effectively stopping lawsuits through an expected invocation of state secrets.  But I have to assume that the heat Feinstein is taking from the grassroots back in California is driving her thinking as well.  If Leahy passed out immunity she would be seen as the biggest cheerleader for it – AGAIN, after Southwick and Mukasey.  It would be the last straw.  So she’s trying to get out in front and take credit for some kind of compromise that will eventually come.

So the progressive movement can take a little credit for winning this battle, as DFA did in a hyperventilating email last night.  We have not yet won the war, and there will absolutely be a floor fight and a bullshit centrist compromise to work against. 

This isn’t over.

(Also the rest of the bill is pretty good, and has things that the Bush Administration has vowed to reject, always a good thing.  But will the Congress cave?  That’s the big question.)

UPDATE: This DKos post notes that Harry Reid is going to bring up the Intelligence Committee bill as the main bill, with the Judiciary Committee bill as a substitute.  That’s the exact opposite of what he said yesterday.  This is very fluid and there’s likely to be shenanigans.

(UPDATE: Just let me add that you can sign here to endorse the censure of DiFi by the CDP at their executive board meeting this weekend.  As I said yesterday, and as quoted in the Goldmacher piece, the chances for success are remote.  But the more people on board, the more attention it gets, and it symbolizes the frustration from the rank and file.)

Shane Goldmacher got someone at Dianne Lieberman Feinstein’s office on the record about the anger in the Democratic grassroots over her continued efforts to undermine Democratic values in the Senate.  The leadership of the CA Democratic Party chimed in, as well.  See if you can spot the difference between the two statements.

Roger Salazar at the CDP:

“This party supports our Democratic senator and will continue to do so,” said party communications director Roger Salazar. “Period.”

Here’s Scott Gerber for the Senator:

Scott Gerber, a Feinstein aide, defended the senator, saying she “has been an independent voice for California.”

So one side says she’s a Democratic senator and the CDP supports Democrats (no matter the policy or the principle, they just support Democrats, so shut up, grassroots!), while the other says she’s an “independent voice for California.”

Somebody better talk to somebody.

Then there’s this howler:

“What people may not know is she was a strong leader in the fight against (now Supreme Court Justice Samuel) Alito and (Chief Justice John) Roberts,” Gerber said, noting she opposed “more than a dozen” circuit court nominees from the Bush administration.

Hmm, I didn’t know that!  I guess that’s why Alito and Roberts were never confirmed to the Supreme Court, in the face of all that “leadership.”  It must have been withering attacks like this that did the trick:

“Many of us are struggling with . . . what kind of a justice would you be, John Roberts,” implored Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

She voted against Roberts in committee, but made no loud effort to filibuster.  And on Alito, she had this expression of leadership when it counted:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

“I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week’s hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

Fight, Dianne, Fight!

She actually ended up voting against cloture, but only after it was apparent that the filibuster wouldn’t hold and after she undermined it with prior comments.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gerber, the Great Gazoogle is my friend, and your claim that she was a “strong leader” against Roberts and Alito rings hollow.

If anything positive comes out of this, it’s that DiFi recognizes that a whole lot of Californians are upset with her, and she can no longer run and hide from them.  It may not change a lot, but it’s a first step.

(UPDATE: The ACLU and CREDO, formerly Act For Change, are also pushing Sen. Feinstein.)

In addition to the buzz in the blogosphere about activist efforts to censure Dianne Feinstein for her votes with Bush Republicans on key issues, some of the top progressive organizations have DiFi in their sights.  MoveOn is asking their California members to call Feinstein about tomorrow’s vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the revised FISA bill, and tell her not to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who violated the law by handing over information to the Bush Administration.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is facing tremendous pressure from the Bush administration. Tomorrow, she will likely vote on whether or not to let the phone companies off the hook for helping the president illegally spy on the phone calls and emails of innocent Americans.

President Bush wants immunity for these companies to cover-up his own illegal actions. The pending lawsuits against companies like AT&T may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law.

We have to make sure Sen. Feinstein hears from us right away. Can you call Sen. Feinstein and tell her to vote against immunity for big corporations who break the law? Tell her that voters want accountability and oversight-not immunity.

Here’s where to call:
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: 202-224-3841

DiFi has already signaled her intention to allow telecom immunity for lawbreakers, but clearly she needs to feel the pressure.  What is far more interesting is DFA’s effort to have Feinstein removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee altogether.  on the flip…

In California, we have a law — commonly called the three-strikes law. And, like all laws, I think it ought to apply to everybody — including my Senator, Diane Feinstein.

Too many times Senator Feinstein has failed to represent the people of California. Now she has announced that this Thursday she will support President Bush for the third time in two months. And it all comes down to Senator Feinstein’s role on the Judiciary Committee.

Strike One: A Bush nominee for the federal bench, Leslie Southwick has a long history of rulings in lower courts that violate equality laws. Feinstein cast a deciding vote to give him a lifetime seat.

Strike Two: Michael Mukasey, nominated for Attorney General, refused to say he would oppose torture. But Feinstein voted to send his confirmation to the Senate floor anyway.

Now she’s poised for her third bad vote in a row, on a rework of the FISA Act — the law that’s supposed to protect us all against illegal wiretapping […]

Please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid right now and demand he remove Senator Feinstein from the committee and replace her with a Democrat who will stand up to President Bush’s abuse of power.

Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3542

As I’ve said, progressives in California are looking for ways to get DiFi’s attention, and inform her that she works for the people of this state, not elites in DC.  These are two national organizations working at the local level to do just that.

As I mentioned, the CDP affirmed their support for net neutrality this weekend with a strong resolution that reflected the concerns of both labor interests and the progressive movement.  Brad Parker of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) commended the process in the Sunday session as proof that the Progressive Caucus and the more institutional elements of the CDP can work together.  On that score alone, it’s a win. 

The best part, by the way, was that Speed Matters (the CWA’s astroturf campaign) spent major dollars creating a glossy brochure that they put on everybody’s seat this morning, and it included what they thought would be the resolution.  Biggest waste of money I’ve ever seen.  Ha!

As for how to translate this into policy, since after all it is merely a nonbinding resolution, that’s what I’d like to address.  These resolutions sit on some corner of the CDP website and collect e-dust.  They have no meaning unless they are publicized.  So here’s what I propose.

Every Democratic member of Congress and the state legislature should be getting calls this week.  You should say, “Hello, I’m a constituent, the California Democratic Party just passed a resolution supporting the preservation of a free and open Internet.  I would like (the congresscritter) to abide by the wishes of his/her party and support any legislation codifying the principle of net neutrality.  If you would like to look at the text I can fax it to you.”  Let’s hold our representatives to the demands of the Party they represent, as well as their constituents. 

The preservation of a free and open Internet is critical to the continued innovation and entrepreneurship of this country, as well as the free flow of information needed for a well-informed citizenry and the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  We can move this forward in California.  We know that, at the state level, Mark Leno sought to introduce net neutrality legislation back in February.  That needs to return next year and we need to organize around it right now.

This can also work for other resolutions, especially the one on parole and sentencing reform that passed this weekend.  Really they are completely useless unless publicized in this manner.  Let’s allow them to have some impact, otherwise the hard work crafting them and managing them on the Resolutions Committee goes to naught, and nobody wants that.

On the flip, I’ve added the resolution text if you want to fax it to your legislators.  Please call Congress and the State Legislature today.

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

The merged resolution that came out of negotiations between the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Caucus (specifically Brad Parker of PDA and Jim Gordon of CWA) yielded a very favorable document that was passed through the Resolutions Committee.  In addition, a resolution in support of parole and sentencing reform passed the committee and is on its way to passage.  There’s definitely a different feeling at this meeting; because it’s not as high-profile as a convention, the hard work of progressive activists is being rewarded.  I think that the whole resolutions process is a SYMBOLIC exercise that gives you a sense of where the rank and file of the party is going ideologically, and certainly it’s becoming more progressive.  There’s still a lot of work to be done to turn that symbolism into some real action; it involves making in-roads in county committees and building a progressive bench.  But I think some of the old guard are worried (more on that later).

The new net neutrality language, which I think offers some excellent framing devices, on the flip:

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

You should all take a few minutes and read Conor Kenny’s In These Times cover story on the “silent revolution” in Democratic politics.  He didn’t quote me (damn you Kenny!!), but several of our California friends are given a mention, along with this site:

Last fall in California, netroots activists faced a similar dearth of information that some ascribed to gate-keeping by the party leadership. Fresh off campaigns for underdog congressional candidates, these activists were frustrated with what they saw as a lack of investment in traditionally red areas of the state, the top-down leadership of the party and an emphasis on elections at the expense of building a permanent infrastructure and base.

So they ran as delegates to the state party convention, countering the lack of information by posting what they found on the Calitics.com blog and by building a special site that explained how to run. In blog posts and YouTube stump speech videos, the 32 “blogger candidates” signaled their defiance by employing “throw the bums out” rhetoric.

Our own Judy Hotchkiss and Matt Lockshin add to this and give the more nuanced (and more correct) view, but it’s nice to see the hard work of everyone on this site recognized.  Go take a look.

(also available in blue)

I am fairly surprised that more has not been made in the blogosphere of the unwelcome news that Chevron is doing everything it can to buy off the California Democratic Party and some of its top legislators.  Outside of this small item in The Oil Drum, pretty much nobody has said a word about the fact that the CDP accepted a $50,000 check from a company that is attempting to artificially depress capacity and manipulate the energy market in a way that is shockingly similar to how Enron made themselves a fortune during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.  You can read the details here.

As a delegate to this party, I feel personally tainted by this donation.  I feel like there is a concerted effort to buy my silence.  It will not work, and I want to outline why I am respectfully asking this party, of which I am a member and to which I pay dues, to return the money.

I don’t think I have to go into how Chevron controls the oil market in California by owning most of the refineries, and that in another era that would rightly be called a trust.  I don’t need to discuss their record profits or their expenditures of $44 million to defeat ballot propositions like Prop. 87 and Prop. 89 last year, or their consistently greedy profit-taking at a time of record gas prices throughout the state, or how they refuse to increase refining capacity to keep that profit artificially high.  And I don’t need to explain how corporations aren’t in the business of charity, and that every expenditure they make has a stated outcome, whether for public relations purposes or to engender favorable legislation or just to keep government off their backs while they continue to rake in billions.  What I can talk about is the poverty of imagination that leads the CDP to take a gift like this.

What bothers me most about taking a fat corporate donation like this, from the very interest group you fought tooth and nail against on Prop. 87 just 6 months ago, is how LAZY it is.  There are an unlimited amount of ways to raise $50,000 that not only show no appearance of impropriety or corporate favoritism, but bring people into the process and grow the party, which are the key metrics for politics in the 21st century.  If you really needed $50,000 in a state of 37 million people, how about this: ask 50,000 to give a dollar to specifically ensure that the CDP won’t be beholden to big corporate money.  You can hold dollar parties and write about how giving citizens a stake brings them closer to the party.  And in return for that dollar, you could give people prominent space on the CDP website to upload a minute of video about what problems facing California most affect them.  Then, once the money is collected, PUBLICLY REBUFF Chevron by telling them that their donation has been paid by the people.  Not only would you be seen as populist folk heroes, you would be investing in the party by allowing 50,000 Calfornians get a share and a stake.  That’s called people power.  The new metrics for the Presidential campaigns, for example, are not just money but numbers of donors, because that shows a broad base of support.  A party that gets rich off fat $50,000 checks is a mile wide and an inch deep.  We already have a party like that in California.  It’s called the Republican Party.  And I expect them and their leaders to take hundreds of thousands from the oil industry, as Arnold has.

If that corporate money were even drilled in to infrastructure and party building, that would be something.  But typically, it’s not.  And the party that continues on a traditional model of collecting big corporate checks and running big broadcast ads will be obsolete in a new media environment.  Stoller:

We need to figure out new metrics for receiving party support aside from money and polling.  Perhaps opt-in email addresses acquired?  Friends on MySpace?  Newly registered voters (I like this one)?  Chatter across blogs using sites such as Blogpulse?

I’m not sure, but the whole landscape of politics is shifting.  It’s like an entirely new grammar is emerging, but we’re not there yet.

A “dollar party” strategy, that could spread virally through social networking sites (is the CDP even on MySpace or Facebook?), that would bind more people to the party in a small way and set up a core of activists for GOTV, that would allow a press release that says “50,000 donors!” instead of hiding the fact that one polluting Big Oil ripoff artist gave you 50,000 dollars… would simply be a forward-thinking way to grow the party and gather attention.

I’m sure that there are a host of conciliators and “my-party-right-or-wrong” types that have a problem with me sharing even a scintilla of disagreement with the state party (there’s another guy that believes in the silencing of any alternative voices, he resides at 1600 Penn. Ave, Wash, DC, 20500).  First of all, I would have them take a look at the rise of DTS voters and the lack of success in joining the progressive wave in 2006 and ask them where all that brushing aside criticism has gotten them.  But the second thing I would ask them is, why are you a Democrat?  What do you believe, if anything?  And how do you square that belief with the fact that one of the companies most committed to stopping any progress on global warming or reducing dependence on foreign oil just handed you – you! – a wad of money in order to shut you up?

The Speaker’s Office claims that these donations won’t impact Democrats’ ability to take a hard look at what Chevron is attempting to do on refining capacity, and that “tough” legislation is forthcoming.  I would hope so.  I cannot impact what individual candidates receive in gifts; at least, not until election season.  I can have an impact when it’s my party.  I’m a delegate and a member in good standing.  I know for a fact that members of the Party leadership read this site.  I’m asking those in charge at the CDP, nicely, to give back the Chevron money.  I want to work on innovative fundraising solutions that can simultaneously fund the important work of the party and bring it closer to the people whom it serves.  But like any addiction, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

(cross-posted from Courage Campaign)

Steve Maviligio and Robert Salladay post today on a new coalition that has united in favor of compassionate immigration reform.

More than a dozen California evangelical churches have joined a coordinated nationwide effort, Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, to call for humane treatment of illegal immigrants, stronger border enforcement, guest worker programs and smoother paths to citizenship.

The group has begun an advertising campaign in Washington, DC this week and has sent 200,000 letters to members of congress.

This news comes on the same day as the launch of a new sanctuary program for illegal immigrants. Several churches around the country plan to take part, although it will start modestly in Los Angeles today with an area Catholic church and Lutheran church each sheltering one person from the threat of deportation, operating under one key assumption:

Organizers don't believe immigration agents will make arrests inside the churches.

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform put this new activism on the part of churches, which actually borders on civil disobedience, this way:

"We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God's image, especially the vulnerable."

Maviglio takes glee in pointing out the politics of it, namely that it splits the Republican base and creates a dilemma for Republican strategists torn between the anti-immigrant base and the growing latino electorate, a tension that has already riven the party with Bush’s allegiance leaning toward the latter. But ultimately it's much bigger than that. What we're seeing is the emergence of a new coalition where the progressive view and the Christian view are increasingly merging into one. Bush et al did a great job in his first term of driving wedges between the two groups, leading conservative Christians to believe that Republicans had a monopoly on values. But the confluence of several recent developments is contributing to the destruction of that facade:

1. Progressives are framing issues in terms of values, ie Al Gore and John Edwards talking about fighting global warming and eradicating poverty as moral imperatives;

2. Prominent Republican conservatives are framing the progressive (ie mainstream) point of view in terms of faith, ie Gov. Huckabee talking about the environment in terms of stewardship over the earth at the debate last week;

3.Progressive faith groups such as Clergy and Laity Uniting for Economic Justice (CLUE) are emerging as a political force.

These developments are extremely significant for the progressive movement and for immigration reform specifically as the next few months promise to be decisive both in terms of moving the message as well as legislatively.

I want to give a big shout-out to the Calitics community and everybody who contributed to this tremendous coverage of this year’s convention.  Juls, Brian, blogswarm, hekebolos, Lucas, atdleft, Todd, jra, da, midvalley, and I hope I’m not missing anybody else did an unbelievable job.  I’ve never seen a convention covered so thoroughly by a state blog since… the invention of state blogs.  We ran circles around traditional media at this event.  So we all should be very proud of ourselves.

Now we need to expand that role.  Obviously getting information out about the convention is vital, and I’ve had plenty of people say they were looking to Calitics for the latest news and perspective.  But if we want to help be a lever for change, we need to also  understand that there are things we can do as activists on the floor that can help bring that change about.  That means connecting with the grassroots progressives, preparing and planning for contingencies, and most important electing more officers and candidates and delegates who want to join us in this program for party reform and growth.

And let’s take up the gracious offer by Garry Shay to offer input into how the resolutions proecdure can be reviewed.  And by all means let’s those of us who are elected delegates try to get on standing committees.  Our ball has just inched off the top of the hill.  Let’s keep it rolling downward.