Alexandria, VA – Imagine if Congress introduced another version of the Patriot Act, to ensure that candidate campaigns, political groups, and political parties were not infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers. In order to do this, the government would collect a massive database of information on every American that engaged in political activity – keeping track of every cause and campaign that they support, as well as their home addresses, jobs, and employers. This database would be publicly searchable, so that neighbors, creditors, and potential employers could have complete access to everyone’s personal and political data as a matter of national security.
Yet, much of this massive collection of data on Americans’ political beliefs is already occurring, thanks to the Federal Election Campaign Act and the efforts of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). And unfortunately, all of these prominent opponents of NSA bulk data collection have supported expanding this data collection to compile new data on citizens’ political beliefs, under the guise of greater transparency. These lawmakers are doing so not to protect and defend Americans from deadly terrorist attacks, but because they think there is too much political speech. As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) once said, in support of legislation he introduced that would have expanded the FEC’s government reporting requirements, “the deterrent effect” of such rules on political speech “should not be underestimated.”
“Lawmakers are right to worry about big government databases, but it’s time more started showing concern about protecting the political opinions of Americans,” said CCP President David Keating. “If violating the privacy of millions of Americans is not justified in matters of national security, it certainly is an extreme overreach in the enforcement of obscure and speech-stifling campaign finance laws. Today, contributions of just $17 a month to a candidate, political party, or PAC can put you in this massive speech-tracking database.”
During the ongoing debate over renewing sections of the current Patriot Act, several lawmakers have argued persuasively against this type of bulk data collection:
- Sen. Angus King (I-ME) said, “Well, I can tell you my problem, I’ve always been one that’s been uncomfortable with all of this data being held by the government, even though there are a lot of protections and a lot of standards and very few people have access to it. It just makes me nervous that the government has this big trove of data.”
- Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said, “I personally believe when government has that private, personal information about you – and it doesn’t make the country any safer, I think that’s the wrong program to have.”
- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said, “I worry very much about kids growing up in a society where they think ‘I’m not going to talk about this issue, read this book, or explore this idea because someone may think I’m a terrorist.’ That is not the kind of free society I want for our children.”
- Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) said (in an op-ed written with Sen. Wyden), “We believe that large-scale collection of personal information by the government seriously infringes on Americans’ privacy.”
- And President Obama has said, “government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse…Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends on the law to constrain those in power.”
