Mediaboss Marketing

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffSurveillance deal elusive as deadline looms Could America's diplomats function under President Sanders? Dems unlikely to subpoena Bolton MORE (D-Calif.) says Democrats are making progressin their negotiationsover the reauthorization of a key surveillance bill, stating Tuesday that they areworking to includemore privacy protections.

Intraparty rifts have emerged in recent weeks as some progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans push toinclude additionalprivacy protection amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), while others argue that a clean reauthorization billhas a better chance of making it through the Senate.

Schiffsays he and his staffhave been working the House Judiciary Committee as well as Reps. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenSurveillance deal elusive as deadline looms GOPlawmaker introduces bipartisan guest worker bill Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms MORE (Calif.) and Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalThis week: Surveillance, travel ban fights play out amid growing coronavirus concerns Democrats warn Trump's immigration policies risk aggravating coronavirus Coronavirus testing could cost some patients extra MORE (Wash.) twoJudiciary Democrats who have pushed for more protections inan effort to get the bill passed by March 15. That's the deadline to extend three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Actthattouch onroving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial program that allows the U.S. government to request access to phone metadata.

"We're trying to find as much common ground as we can," Schiff told The Hill. "We are trying to incorporate even more privacy protections in the hopes that we can get to an agreement in a timely way."

Schiff said some of Lofgren's amendments are being considered, including an amicus provision that would add an outside advocate for every FISA case in which an American is targetedas well asmake it illegal for the government to collect a U.S. citizens metadata.

"We're looking atexpanding the amicus provisions. We are lookingat limiting the period of attention to business records, what the business records provision can be used for,making sure thatyou can't use the business records to get things you would need a court order for in the criminal context,limiting the use of geolocation data or their usage oflocation information," Schiff said.

House Democrats last week were forced to pull their bill in the Judiciary Committeeand postpone a markup afterLofgrenthreatened to force votes on several FISA-related amendments. So far, a new markup has not been announced.

Schiff indicated an understanding has been reached on the issue of metadata butsaid they are still figuring out other issues like the amicus provisions.

"We're trying to figure out what's the capacity of the amicus but also how toweed out those cases that are truly routine that don't present any novel issues, making sure that that's a real distinction," he said.

He said one area of disagreement is whether some provisions could overly constrain the gathering of intelligence.

"Part of the issue is whether we use the FISAprocess to impose constraints that are not even present in the criminal law process, and that is a philosophical difference that may be driving some of the division on particular provisions," he said.

Jayapal, when asked about the state of negotiations, also saidthere'smore work to be done.

"So far, we are just not there, but we are continuing to talk and hope to see new proposals that address the areas we have raised," Jayapal said, adding that she too hopes to reauthorize by the deadline.

The debate has also engulfed Republicans, with GOP members clashing as well on whether they should have a clean reauthorization bill or overhaul it to include new protections.

Libertarian Republicanssuch as Sens.Rand Paul(R-Ky.) andMike Lee(R-Utah) arepushing forsweeping reforms.

Still, most Republicans are also pushing for additional protections, pointing tothe use of a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.

Federal officials suspected Page of working as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia during the 2016 presidential election, particularly after he made a trip to the Kremlin in July of that year when questions were already swirling about the campaigns ties to Moscow.

They say the extensive review of the 2016 FISA process by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz aids their case. While he did not find evidence to suggest political bias impacted the FBIs decision to open the counterintelligence probe and concluded that the FBI had an authorized purpose for the inquiry, he did find17 significant errors or omissions in the surveillance warrant applications for Page, dating back to 2016.

Trump is also involved.He is expected to meet with key Republican allies in the House and Senate Tuesday afternoon to discuss the matter.It is unclear where Trump will stand onit.

Rep. Chris StewartChristopher (Chris) Douglas StewartSchiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill Trump shakes up Justice Department, intelligence community John Ratcliffe back under consideration by Trump for top intel job MORE (R-Utah), a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, also said he wants to outside advocatesas well as a transcriptof the court proceedings. If Democrats include such provisions, among a few others, then he believes Republican will also support the bill.

"The question is, will the White House support it? I think we'll know later on this afternoon," Stewart added.

Trumphas told congressional allies that he will not accept a clean reauthorization bill, as Attorney GeneralWilliam Barrand GOP leadership are said to support a position that is at odds with what Barr is said to have told senatorsearlier this month.

As the debate continues, some senatorshave stated their supportfora short-term extension to iron out the rest of the differences.

Schiff, meanwhile,indicated that he believes some Republicans are taking their push too far.

"We're open to any general policy proposals for reform. We are not open for politicizing this or using the bill to make partisan statements, and that's sort of where many Republicans are at the moment,"Schiff said.

Read the original:
Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill | TheHill - The Hill

At the federal level, both Senate seats have candidates withlocal ties as Libertarian Shane Hazel, a Forsyth County resident who previouslyran for Georgias 7th Congressional District as a Republican, willrun for the seat against Sen. David Perdue and Rep. Doug Collins, whorepresents Forsyth County and 19 other counties in northwest Georgia in-part orin-full, will run against Sen. Kelly Loeffler for the seat previously held byJohnny Isakson.

The races for both of Forsyth Countys Congressional seats Districts 7 and 9 are also expected to see a large amount of candidates asDistrict 7 Rep. Rob Woodall is not seeking re-election and Collins is running forSenate.

Qualifying will remain open until Friday at noon for both nonpartisanand political party candidates will qualify for the general primary, which willbe held on Tuesday, May 19 after three weeks of advance voting.

The general primary will consist of non-partisan races andselecting party candidates for the Nov. 3 general election. It should be notedthat the Senate race for the seat held by Sen. Kelly Loeffler will be decidedin November.

Heres who has qualified for the races so far:

oSen. David Perdue (incumbent)- Republican

oJames Knox- Democratic

oTeresa Tomlinson- Democratic

oShane Hazel- Libertarian

o Brian Slowinski- Libertarian

oSen. Kelly Loeffler (incumbent)- Republican

oDoug Collins- Republican

oTamara Johnson-Shealey- Democratic

oRichard Dien Winfield- Democratic

oAllen Buckley- Independent

oMark Gonsalves- Republican

oLynne Homrich- Republican

oRenee Unterman- Republican

oCarolyn Bourdeaux- Democratic

o Rich McCormick- Republican

oMichael Boggus- Republican

oAndrew Clyde- Republican

oMatt Gurtler- Republican

oMaria Strickland- Republican

oKevin Tanner- Republican

oEthan Underwood- Republican

o Devin Pandy- Democratic

oBrooke Griffiths- Democratic

oClint Smith- Republican

oWill Wade- Republican

oSteve Leibel- Republican

oZach Tumlin- Republican

oSharon Ravert- Democrat

oRep. Wes Cantrell (incumbent)- Republican

oCharles Ravencraft- Democratic

oRep. Sheri Gillian (incumbent)- Republican

oNatalie Bucsko- Democratic

oTodd Jones (incumbent)- Republican

oChrista Olenczak- Democratic

oLauren McDonald III- Republican

oJason Boskey- Democratic

oTom Cleveland (incumbent)- Republican

oBarry S. Herrin- Republican

oDarla Sexton Light- Republican

oLindsey Adams- Republican

oAlfred John- Republican

oCindy Jones Mills (incumbent)- Republican

oLaura Semanson (incumbent)- Republican

oRon H. Freeman (incumbent)- Republican

oPaul W. Holbrook- Republican

oTed Paxton - Republican

oGreg G. Allen

oMatthew C. Ledbetter

oWalker H. Bramblett

oT. Russell McClelland III

See original here:
Qualifying for 2020 election has started in Georgia. Here's who has made the cut - Forsyth County News Online

Because of the novel coronavirus thats spreading globally, the Greene County Clerks Office is taking extra precautions on Election Day Tuesday, March 10.

Greene County Clerk Shane Schoeller said theyll have more alcoholic antiseptic wipes and screen wipes at each polling place; polling tables will be cleaned with disinfectant wipes; and theyll provide Nitrile gloves for voters to use while operating touch screen voting equipment.

The clerks office also encourages voters to take their own pens and styli and to use hand sanitizer or wash hands before and after voting.

We just want to make sure that voters feel safe and confident to exercise their right to vote and have a great experience when they go to the polls to cast their ballot in the Presidential Preference Primary, Schoeller said in a news release. Though I certainly think there is no cause for panic, I also want to make sure that folks know our office is taking steps to be proactive in light of recent news coverage about the potential spread of viruses like Influenza, the common cold, and, of course, the coronavirus.

Schoeller said theyve always taken steps to prevent the spread of illness at polling placesbut tomorrow those steps will be ramped up.

Voters in Missouri Tuesday will choose presidential candidates for the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties.

View a sample ballot here.

Read more:
Greene County Polling Sites Will Have Increased Sanitation Measures On Tuesday - KSMU Radio

People on the left, right and center are constantly criticizing Donald Trump for his juvenile comments and behaviorand rightly so. The presidents inclination toward hurling insults at others is malicious and needlessly divisive.

Underlying the criticisms of the presidents words is an important principle that should be widely shared: treat everyone with dignity. The political class generally adheres to this ethic in the realm of rhetoric. While there are exceptions, they put an emphasis on civility, or at the very least, they pay lip service to it.

Their calculations change, however, when matters turn to government power. When debating policy, civility and respect for the individual plummets in importance. Abortion is one of the starkest examples.

After he suspended his campaign, a local editorial recently praised Mayor Pete Buttigieg for his campaign of civility. I find this incredible given the mayors position on allowing abortion up until birth. One is hard-pressed to find anything less civilized than abortion on demand.

This type of cognitive dissonance is par for the course. The political class gives a pass to people for holding to certain cruel and inhumane views, especially if the person acts presidential while defending such views.

The political class also commands us to respect the office of the president even if that means the president uses his power to launch undeclared wars, perpetuates the surveillance state or imprisons people indefinitely. In other words, you have to respect the office of the president, but it doesnt have to respect you.

Another phrase often thrown around is acting below the dignity of the office. In the context of the point I discussed above, this phrase is even more absurd. While words do have the power to harm others, many of the grade school level insults used by the president dont rise nearly to the harm done by some of this countrys worst moral outrages like abortion and endless war.

I imagine this double standard on civility is an effort to protect the legitimacy of the state. If people act civilly while in office, that lends a certain credibility to the presidency and other government positions. Of course, there is an objective standard of morality that cannot be ignored even if the president or any other elected official isnt being mean during his time in office.

Libertarians and other limited government types should do a better job highlighting the prevailing double standard on civility that is, to put it bluntly, a cancer on our politics. However, I would argue restoring civility aloneboth in word and deeddoesnt go far enough. I subscribe to Arthur Brooks point of view that aiming for civility itself is a garbage standard.

We should aim for something higherlove, defined as willing the good of the other. As libertarians, we believe people should be treated with respect because they have certain God-given (or inherent) inalienable rights. Thats fair as far as it goes, but such an idea only prescribes a moral code limited to what we should not do to othersnamely, dont initiate aggression against a person or their property.

Libertarians should will the good of others, not only by defending the non-aggression axiom but also by treating people with respect in conversation and debate and promoting choices that lead to human flourishing.

Frankly, this is an approach everyone should consider living out, including those working in government. If the political class were really concerned with upholding civility and dignity, they would prioritize love over power.

And maybe then we could respect the office of the president.

Go here to read the rest:
Our Standards on Civility are Trash - The Libertarian Republic

A funny thing happened after California's Assembly Bill 5, a law that strengthens the state's rules on employee misclassification, took effect on January 1. AB5 uses a three-pronged "ABC" test to clarify who counts as an employee versus an independent contractor, ensuring that companies can't skimp out on protections like paid sick days, overtime or workers' compensation. Gig workers long exploited by Big Tech celebrated a win, as correct employee classification will mean more take-home pay and the opportunity to unionize for benefits. But freelancers in creative fields like music, photography, and journalism erupted into outrage.

As it turns out, many freelancers opposing AB5 have joined forces with some strange right-wing bedfellows, and anchored their resistance to the law in solidly libertarian logic.

Those in the latter group have real reason for concern, because our corporate clients can simply blacklist in-state contractors rather than onboarding us as W-2 employees per the intention of the law. In other words, if a given company doesn't want to hire a California-based freelancer as a salaried employee, it can just stop commissioning assignments from anyone living in the state altogether. With media corporations like Vox choosing contractors located outside of California to save money and avoid regulation, according to complaints from freelancers, many California writers worry about losing income. It doesn't help that, under the legislation, writers were given a 35-article annual cap per outlet; unfortunately, journalism wages are so depressed that this number of assignments can't generate enough money to keep most of us afloat.

As a freelance writer myself, I watched eagerly to see how others in the industry would respond to this situation, which seemed like an opportunity to reckon with our financial precarity in a changing media landscape. How would we react to best safeguard our income: Organize to demand minimum rate standards per word and collectively refuse to work for less, so that we could survive on fewer but better compensated assignments? Campaign for policies like universal healthcare, free childcare, and affordable housing, which would make losing work substantially less catastrophic? Exert public pressure on the corporations that have greedily and callously dropped local contractors instead of hiring us fulltime?

As it turns out, many freelancers opposing AB5 have joined forces with some strange right-wing bedfellows, and anchored their resistance to the law in solidly libertarian logic. The American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers Association sought counsel from a Koch-funded, union-busting firm, the Pacific Legal Foundation, to sue California over AB5 in federal court this March.

The PLF's history includes defending private property from the Endangered Species Act and supporting landlord discrimination against renters. "ASJA and NPPA are making a huge mistake," says Larry Goldbetter, President of the National Writers Union, who says his union is the only freelancer group supporting the California law. I'm one of the few writers who vocally agrees with Goldbetter. I believe aligning with the PLF is a Faustian bargain, and an abandonment of any semblance of progressive principles. But the lawsuitand the larger movement to repeal AB5raises the question of just how committed some California freelancers are to such principles in the first place. Raising further concern is the fact that many members of two new Facebook groups, "Freelancers Against AB5" and "California Freelance Writers United," share articles from libertarian-leaning publications like The Federalist and Reason.

To what extent this attitude predated AB5 is difficult to determine. But prior to the swift, impassioned opposition to the law that coalesced online in the past few months, there existed little political organizing among freelance writers against the serious problemslow rates, bad contracts, and late paymentsthat plague our industry. In contrast to staff writers, whose unionizing efforts have recently increased, contractors tend to envision ourselves as free agents, and often to our own detriment.

Now, one of our first large-scale attempts at political mobilization, resisting AB5 (and delaying New Jersey's version, Senate Bill 4204), potentially comes at the expense of rideshare drivers, delivery people, strippers who sued to be recognized as employees, janitors, nail techs, health and childcare workers, and others who materially benefit from labor reform like AB5 and similar policies combatting misclassification.

It would be great to see more than a small handful journalists publicly and vociferously defend the portions of AB5 that help other types of gig workers.

This lack of labor solidarity is likely rooted in the ways freelance creatives understand our jobs and identities. In a bid for legitimacy, we often emphasize how our specialized, professional skills elevate us to something better than lowly employees. We have careers we've spent years building, the argument goes, while Uber drivers just have temporary, throwaway gigs. The ego-preserving myth that we're "small business" entrepreneurs rather than predominantly members of the working-class who sell our labor as piecework has its appeal.

Yet almost all of us, from Postmates and Doordash couriers to journalists and transcribers, work for diminishing wages and must absorb the full cost of health insurance. Most of us can't predict our income from year to year or even month to month. Some earn less than $5 per hour. But for many self-employed creatives, these realities conflict with the image of the successful professional that we like to project to the public, andlet's face itto ourselves. Clients inhabit a position of power over us, not unlike the shop floor bosses of yore, and we make allies with them at our own risk. Employers save approximately 30% in labor costs by using contractors, so it's no surprise that media companies would rather blacklist us and look to exploit labor in less regulated states than cough up money for benefits. Why not direct our mass ire at themthe entities actually withholding jobs to safeguard their own bottom lineinstead of at unions?

It would be great to see more than a small handful journalists publicly and vociferously defend the portions of AB5 that help other types of gig workers. If freelancers do win the case against labor reform in California and other states planning similar legislation, I hope we would use the political momentum to forge alliances with gig workers in different industries and stand together against corporate avarice. It's one thing to advocate improving the law; AB5 certainly needs tweaking, and jettisoning the arbitrary 35 article cap for writers is a good place to start. But it's another thing entirely to sidle up to Big Tech, Republican politicians, and firms like PLF, and to defend our work using the capitalist ethos of "individualism." The only way forward is to put solidarity before self-interest. Once we cede basic leftist values, what else will we give up?

See original here:
Freelancers Shouldn't Betray Other Gig Workers By Allying with Anti-Union Opponents of AB5 - Common Dreams