July, 19 2023, 10:46am EDT
The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act Flies Through House Judiciary Committee With Key Bipartisan Support
This morning, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, key legislation that closes the Data Broker Loophole and ensures Americans' private data is not sold to the federal government without a warrant.
In response to its passage, Demand Progress Senior Policy Counsel Sean Vitka issued the following statement:
"By passing the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, both Democrats and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee just made clear that the Data Broker Loophole must and will be closed. This is a major step forward for privacy in the digital age, but among the most significant moments were statements from Chairman Jordan and Representative Lofgren that this will be included in legislation to make major reforms to FISA, which will be considered before the end of the year.
"Later this year, we're going to see the biggest fight over warrantless surveillance in generations. The vote today changed the course of this debate. We commend Representatives Jacobs, Jayapal, Lofgren, and Nadler, among others, for their leadership in this defining moment."
This news builds momentum following the House's unanimous vote last week in support of the Davidson-Jacobs amendment, which closes the Data Broker Loophole at the Department of Defense and its components, including the NSA, which have been caught buying sensitive location data from Muslim prayer and dating apps and buying location information in bulk.
In addition to the amendment vote last week, a bipartisan group of members demanded transparency about the government's purchase of sensitive information from data brokers during testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray, which he refused to provide. During today's hearing, Representative Lofgren revealed that the FBI had not followed up to answer her or other members' questions about the agency's warrantless purchase of data.
The vote today also precedes the end-of-the-year debate over potential reauthorization of Section 702, a massive warrantless surveillance authority that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times, including to search for information about protestors, Congressional donors, journalists, and even a sitting member of Congress.
Closing the Data Broker Loophole is one of — if not the most — bipartisan issue in Congress, and the American people overwhelmingly support requiring a warrant before government agencies can obtain this information from data brokers. A Harris Poll from the end of 2020 found "that 77% of Americans believe the government should get a warrant to buy the kind of detailed location information that is frequently purchased and sold on the commercial market by data brokers."
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'Still No Justice' for Jamal Khashoggi, Advocates Say Five Years After Brutal Assassination
"Without meaningful accountability," said one advocate, "returning to business as usual after Khashoggi's murder will imperil free expression beyond Saudi Arabia."
Oct 02, 2023
Human rights advocates on Monday condemned the continued failure of international officials to hold accountable the people responsible for journalist Jamal Khashoggi's murder—including those at the top of Saudi Arabia's government—as his former colleagues and loved ones marked the fifth anniversary of the brutal killing.
Amnesty International secretary general Agnes Callamard was serving as the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions at the time of Khashoggi's murder at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018, and authored a report in 2019 that stated his death was "a pre-meditated extrajudicial killing for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible."
On Monday, Callamard said that with European and U.S. officials having reopened diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, "the path to justice for his killing remains fully blocked."'
"Khashoggi's enforced disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial execution are crimes under international law, which must be urgently investigated and may be prosecuted by any state through universal jurisdiction," said Callamard. "It is appalling that instead of pushing for justice for his murder, the international community continues to roll out the red carpet for Saudi Arabia's leaders at any opportunity, placing diplomatic and economic interests before human rights."
Two years after the U.N.'s analysis of Khashoggi's killing, the U.S. released an intelligence report showing that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally approved the murder, in which 15 high-level agents flew to Istanbul to carry out the "capture or kill" operation.
The release of the report signaled to many at the time that the Biden administration was prepared to hold the Saudi government to account for killing Khashoggi, who wrote critically about the repressive regime as a Washington Post columnist.
But as Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a nonprofit founded by Khashoggi, noted Monday, while some U.S. lawmakers have "maintained their commitment to accountability," the U.S. has since expanded arm sales and offered a security guarantee to the Saudis in exchange for normalized relations with Israel. British and French leaders have also reopened friendly relations with bin Salman, appearing to accept the crown prince's claim that unspecified individuals have been "prosecuted" for the killing.
"We need to connect the dots and understand that failing to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the extraterritorial murder of Khashoggi encourages other governments to believe that they too can get away with it, which is exactly what India's reported murder of a Canadian citizen this year demonstrates," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of DAWN. "If democratic governments fail to protect journalists and activists living in their own countries from foreign attacks, our own press and societies will be the victims, and our own democracies will lose."
The group expressed gratitude for efforts by civil society groups and local governments to honor Khashoggi's memory and his family's fight for justice, including the unveiling of Jamal Khashoggi Square across from the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles on Monday evening. Whitson and DAWN advocacy director Raed Jarrar were scheduled to deliver remarks.
"Five years after this heinous crime, we persist in demanding justice and accountability from the Saudi government and are moved by the global efforts to commemorate Khashoggi's life and legacy," said Whitson. "If the Saudi government spent a fraction of the billions it is spending to sanitize its disastrous human rights record on real reforms and accountability, everyone—from Saudi citizens to people around the world—would be better off."
Lamenting that there is "still no justice" for the journalist, Amnesty reiterated its call "for an international, independent, and impartial investigation into Khashoggi's killing," with those responsible brought to justice in fair trials.
The group was among those noting that while the murder has been largely brushed aside by authorities around the world, the Saudi government is continuing its "relentless crackdown on freedom of speech with complete impunity," including a death sentence for a retired teacher in July over social media posts in which he criticized the human rights record and corruption of the kingdom.
"Five years after Jamal Khashoggi's brutal murder, there has been no justice and no meaningful accountability, with dire consequences for writers worldwide," said Justin Shilad, Middle East and North Africa research and advocacy lead for free expression advocacy group PEN America. "Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudis are being sentenced to death or decades in prison for social media posts. Beyond the kingdom's borders, the lack of justice in Khashoggi's case has laid the groundwork for transnational repression becoming institutionalized worldwide."
"Without meaningful accountability," said Shilad, "returning to business as usual after Khashoggi's murder will imperil free expression beyond Saudi Arabia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Existential Threat to CFPB Spotlights Massive Stakes of New Supreme Court Term
"How the court rules, and the relief it orders, will have enormous implications for the future of the agency, the validity of its past rules and enforcement actions, and its ability to continue protecting consumers."
Oct 02, 2023
The corporate forces that have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since its creation more than a decade ago are set to have their moment before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, with the justices poised to hear a predatory payday lending group's challenge to the agency's funding mechanism on the second day of their new term.
The case—Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited—poses an existential threat to the CFPB, which has aggressively pursued corporate criminals under the leadership of director Rohit Chopra, who has been dubbed "Wall Street's most hated regulator."
Depending on the scope of the Supreme Court's decision, the outcome of the case could have consequences that reach far beyond the consumer agency's budget, potentially throwing the U.S. mortgage market into chaos and undermining other regulatory agencies and federal programs—including Medicare and Social Security.
"How the court rules, and the relief it orders, will have enormous implications for the future of the agency, the validity of its past rules and enforcement actions, and its ability to continue protecting consumers against fraud and abuse in the sale of a broad range of financial products and services, from payday loans to mortgages and credit cards," Stephen Hall, legal director and securities specialist at Better Markets, said Monday.
"The case also threatens the viability of other critically important agencies that have essentially the same funding structure that fuels the CFPB, including the Federal Reserve and the other banking regulators," Hall added.
Last year, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals—a federal panel composed entirely of judges appointed by former President Donald Trump—ruled that the CFPB's funding structure is unconstitutional. Unlike other federal agencies, the CFPB's funding comes from the Federal Reserve system, not congressional appropriations, making it less subject to annual political fights and right-wing austerity sprees.
The CFPB
appealed the ruling, which was authored by a judge who received donations from the banking industry when he was a Mississippi state lawmaker.
As The New York Timesobserved Sunday, the 5th Circuit didn't just take aim at the CFPB's funding mechanism.
"It concluded that all actions taken by the bureau in its 12-year existence should be 'rewound,'" the newspaper reported. "If the Supreme Court agrees that the bureau's funding is improper, it could, at minimum, force the agency to rely on congressional appropriations. Or the court could follow the 5th Circuit's suggestion and obliterate everything the agency has done to date."
The plaintiffs in the case, which brought their challenge in response to a CFPB rule targeting the abusive activities of payday lenders, contend that the bureau's funding structure violates the Constitution's appropriations clause because it falls outside the annual congressional appropriations process—a claim that legal experts say is both "wrong" and "incredibly dangerous."
Such reasoning, if accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, "would invite challenges to a host of other federal financial regulators and could wreak havoc on the nation's economy," Brianne Gorod, Brian Frazelle, and Alex Rowell of the Constitutional Accountability Center argued last year.
"And nothing in the law requires this result: The decision is at odds with constitutional text and history, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing historical practice," they added.
Last week, the watchdog group Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) stressed that "all bank regulators and numerous other agencies and programs likewise rely on funding outside annual appropriations, such as Social Security and Medicare."
"If the Supreme Court does not turn back this unprecedented interpretation of the Constitution, it will put all of these government agencies at the mercy of the increasingly unpredictable annual appropriations process," said Elyse Hicks, consumer policy counsel at AFR. "The gears behind important financial regulatory and rulemaking work would grind to halt any time Congress reached a budgetary impasse. The judiciary too could find itself unable to meet its financial obligations during a government shutdown."
"Justices Thomas and Alito are shamelessly thumbing their noses at judicial ethics, living the high life on GOP billionaires' dime."
The Supreme Court is set to hear the case in the midst of a corruption crisis largely stemming from the activities of two right-wing justices: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Throughout 2023,
ProPublica and other outlets have published a number of bombshell stories detailing the undisclosed gifts the two judges have received from billionaires who have had business before the Supreme Court.
Vishal Shankar, a senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project, noted in The American Prospect on Monday that "hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer—who took Alito on a luxury Alaska fishing trip—holds at least $90 million in financial companies overseen by the CFPB."
Shankar also pointed to Thomas' ties to the Horatio Alger Association, an
elite circle that the justice has granted extraordinary access to the Supreme Court.
"According to a review of the Alger Association's members conducted by the Revolving Door Project, at least 18 Alger members have either previously expressed an interest in weakening the CFPB or stand to gain from the court gutting the bureau," Shankar wrote, specifically naming Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue, Berkshire Hathaway executive Gregory Abel, and John Canning, co-founder of the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners.
CFPB v. CFSA is one of a number of cases before the Supreme Court that pose major threats to democracy, fundamental freedoms, and basic government functions, advocates say.
"The court is set to rule on a series of issues critical to our rights and our democracy, from gun violence prevention to the rights of Americans with disabilities, from racist gerrymandering to the ability of the government to protect consumers and enact the will of democratically elected representatives," the Just Majority coalition said in a statement Monday.
"While we do not know how any individual case will be decided," the coalition added, "we know we urgently need structural court reform, including a binding code of ethics and Supreme Court expansion, to make sure the court considers the rights of all Americans, not just billionaires who can buy special access.”
One of the pending cases,
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, threatens to gut the federal government's ability to constrain the destructive activities of fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The plaintiffs in the case have seen vocal support from right-wing, industry-backed groups, including the Cato Institute—which was co-founded by the billionaire oil tycoon Charles Koch.
Last month,
ProPublicarevealed that Thomas has attended at least two Koch network donor events during his tenure on the Supreme Court.
"The Roberts court is unchecked and unbalanced," Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, said Monday. "Justices Thomas and Alito are shamelessly thumbing their noses at judicial ethics, living the high life on GOP billionaires' dime. While they bask in luxury, the court's conservative supermajority is ruthlessly stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy and powerful, while chipping away at the freedoms of everyday Americans."
"As this term begins," said Edkins, "it's clear that it's time for a shake-up."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Censorship Opponents Vow to Fight Right-Wing Assault This Banned Book Week
"When we ban books, we're closing off readers to people, places, and perspectives," said the American Library Association. "But when we stand up for stories, we unleash the power that lies inside every book."
Oct 02, 2023
A coalition of publishers, teacher and librarian groups, and other advocates on Sunday kicked off this year's Banned Books Week by rallying behind the freedom to read amid an alarming surge in right-wing book bans across the United States.
For over 40 years, the annual Banned Books Week—whose theme this year is Let Freedom Read—has united writers, publishers, booksellers, educators, librarians, and readers "in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas, even those some consider unorthodox or unpopular," as the American Library Association (ALA) put it.
"When we ban books, we're closing off readers to people, places, and perspectives. But when we stand up for stories, we unleash the power that lies inside every book," the ALA said. "We liberate the array of voices that need to be heard and the scenes that need to be seen. Let freedom read!"
As of August 31, the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom has documented 695 attempts this year to remove a total of 1,915 titles from public and school libraries. Last year, the group counted 1,269 attempts to censor library books and other resources—the highest number of ban efforts since the ALA started tracking them over 20 years ago and nearly double the previous year's tally.
ALA said that of the record 2,571 unique titles targeted for censorship, most were by or about LGBTQ+ people and Black, Indigenous, and people of color.
"This is a dangerous time for readers and the public servants who provide access to reading materials," ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom director Deborah Caldwell-Stone said in a statement. "Readers, particularly students, are losing access to critical information, and librarians and teachers are under attack for doing their jobs."
For this year's Banned Books Week, PEN America and We Believe led a joint statement signed by more than three dozen publishers and advocacy groups.
The statement begins: "We believe in the freedom to read. Schools and libraries are critical places to kindle imaginations and spark a lifelong love of learning. Students deserve classrooms and school libraries that help them be successful. We believe stories matter. Books can be powerful, compelling, insightful, and enjoyable. Literature has endless value and should be publicly accessible to all."
"We believe in the freedom to learn," the signers continued. "Students need access to accurate history. Students deserve the chance to understand their world and everyone in it. Growing up is hard enough. Classrooms and school libraries should be spaces where all students feel they belong."
"We believe teachers and librarians deserve respect," the statement continues. "Schools and libraries are staffed by trained professionals who make informed decisions about educational materials. Their assessments should be respected and not subject to political pressure, threats, or intimidation."
"We believe parents are partners in education," the publication asserts. "Parents have long had a voice in schools. When a parent, student, or teacher requests or objects to a book, they should have their concerns heard and considered. However, one parent's views or one group of parents' views should not restrict access to books for all."
"We believe in clear, consistent, transparent policies around reviewing books," the advocates added. "Books must not be removed from shelves just because they are challenged. Evaluations of books must be based on facts and the merits, considered by decision-makers who have read the book in its entirety."
PEN America recorded a 33% surge in book bans at U.S. K-12 public schools during the 2022-23 academic year over the previous school year. The group noted 3,362 incidents involving 1,557 unique titles. Over 40% of these bans happened in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis—a 2024 presidential candidate—is waging a war on public education.
According to PEN America, the single-most censored title during the last school year was Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer, a graphic memoir recounting the transgender author's journey from adolescence to adulthood. The book has been banned in dozens of school districts, often following pressure from far-right activists like Florida-based Moms for Liberty.
"If I'd had a book to read like this, specifically, when I was like a freshman in high school, it would have saved me years of questioning and confusion about my identity," Kobabe said in defense of the award-winning work.
A survey published last week by EveryLibrary Institute and Book Riot found that nearly three-quarters of U.S. parents agree or somewhat agree that book bans by public libraries infringe on their right to make choices for their children.
This week, PEN America and We Believe are also leading a letter for concerned citizens to sign and send to state governors and lawmakers to urge them to "fight back against book bans."
The letter begins, "Did you know that 4 in 5 Americans say they would be less likely to support a candidate in 2024 who is in favor of implementing book bans, according to a new poll from Ipsos and We Believe?"
"America's children are our future. Preparing them to lead and succeed in our increasingly diverse and complicated world starts with protecting their freedom to read, learn, and grow," the letter states. "Our nation's strength has always come from the free flow of speech and ideas. We should be modeling these ideals for our kids—not ripping books from their shelves."
The popular anti-censorship campaign has sparked at least one effort to ban Banned Books Week. However, the growing censorship threat has also spurred action to protect the freedom to read. Earlier this year, Illinois became the first state to prohibit public libraries from banning books.
"I refuse to let a dangerous strain of white nationalism determine whose histories are told in Illinois," Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker said after signing the legislation. "Because what these book bans in libraries really are about is censorship—marginalizing people, ideas, and facts."
At the national level, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hi.) last week reintroduced a resolution recognizing Banned Books Week and condemning "the escalating attacks on books and freedom of expression in the United States."
"The escalating crisis of book bans across our country in recent years is a direct attack on First Amendment rights and should concern everyone who believes freedom of expression and the freedom to read are essential for a strong democracy," Raskin said. "The sinister efforts to remove books from our schools and libraries are a hallmark of authoritarian regimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!