We Need A Federal Shield Law. And Air Conditioning.A typical D.C. August is made typical by two things — an unbearable humidity and a city that stands as a virtual ghost town with the departure of Congress for its annual month-long recess. As we in the Washington Legislative Office stew, we thought we'd talk about one of the things Congress didn't get around to before it left. Right before rushing out of town for August, the Senate failed to move a motion forward on federal media shield legislation by a narrow margin. Even though a bipartisan majority of senators support passage of the much-needed shield law, the Senate — once again — allowed partisan politics to trump good policy. Luckily, this will not be the last word on the fate of the bill. There is still plenty of time in the fall to bring the bill back to the floor and all indications are that the bill is still in the mix. Passing a strong federal media shield law is critical in order to protect a journalist's ability to do his or her job and, as always with legislation, the devil is now in the details. As the bill has moved closer to passage with a veto-proof majority in the Senate, its language has been weakened. Recently proposed modifications to the Senate bill come dangerously close to gutting the intended protections. That won't do. We need a strong and unambiguous shield bill to move forward, but if the bill's sponsors bow to the will of the administration, the bill will become meaningless. Americans have all, unfortunately, seen our government attempting to conceal embarrassing or unlawful activities by hiding behind trumped up declarations of national security has gotten out of hand. Imagine if a story about the CIA's black sites or the administration's warrantless wiretapping had never been published. How would our government ever be held accountable for its actions if it weren't for a free press and its confidential sources? Those stories, not to mention Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, only became public after the authors' sources were assured anonymity. We need to make sure that sacred relationship between a journalist and his or her source is protected. Did you know that 49 states and even the District of Columbia recognize some form of reporter shield law? The lack of a federal statute means that reporters' protection — and the public's right to know — only stretches so far. We at the ACLU aren't giving up on our efforts to get a strong federal shield law passed before the end of this Congress — nor will the hundreds of other groups and organizations that have been working tirelessly on this bill. Keep your eyes glued to the ACLU's Blog of Rights for any new developments when Congress returns in September. Until then, we'll keep stewing…
Polarized and Politicized: The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community InitiativesYesterday in a speech addressing a conference sponsored by the Bush administration’s White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the President said that the faith-based office and its activities are, “bigger that politics.” This statement is Orwellian given all of the evidence that has clearly illustrated just how polarizing and politicized this office has been. The President’s Faith-Based office has been all about politics. We need look no further than the voices of those who have worked for the president and have run this office over the Bush years. They have spoken of their frustrations with how politicized the office had become. They saw first-hand that the effort was, and is, more about politics and courting churches. Unfortunately, the creation of the faith-based office as part of the Bush administration was never about creating a way to better advocate for, and better fund, successful partnerships with all federally funded social service programs; nor has it been about ensuring that programming, and the tax-payer dollars that are allocated for such programming, finds its way to those most in need of services and to those organizations that are most qualified to deliver such services. This is something that has disturbed many who have worked in the faith-based office over the years. David Kuo’s book on his experiences working for the president in the faith-based office tells the tale in great detail. The Administration can spew what appears on the surface to be impressive numbers, but it rings no more true than the “Mission Accomplished” sign in Iraq. Sadly, the faith-based office added little value, less accountability and a whole lot of government-funded discrimination. Yes, of course, one of our chief complaints about this president’s faith-based office is that it does not ensure that ALL organizations receiving government dollars be required to protect the constitutional and civil rights of those receiving services and all employees working in these programs. The Bush administration has eviscerated most of the safeguards that had successfully protected the independence of churches, while also protecting the rights that all Americans have to expect equal treatment when they apply for a government-funded job or when they participate in a government-funded service. This office and this administration have actually promoted discrimination. No one should have to face government-sanctioned and government-funded religious discrimination when applying for a job or when receiving services funded by the government. Should a social worker who is not the "right" religion be excluded or fired from a government funded job because he or she is not of the right religion or has violated a tenet of their religion? Of course not. Discrimination based on religion goes against a core American value. It is not just the discriminatory behavior of the office. It is the lack of fiscal accountability that disturbs me. It is hard to believe that any taxpayer would find it acceptable that the faith-based office is not holding all grantees accountable for where our dollars are going and how they are being used. It has become clear to those who have spent years trying to figure out the specific details of where the money has gone, how it has been spent program-by-program and how successful these programs have been is impossible to track—because in many cases that information does not currently exist. For example, I don’t think I need to bother running through all of the documented examples of the misuse, lack of accountability and sheer thievery that occurred following the dumping of funds into random programs following Katrina. Just as we know of the rampant government-funded discrimination that has occurred over the years. At the end of the day, the real issue is not whether or not an office that helps coordinate and advocate for more and better resources for those in need is necessary, many will continue to debate and discuss its value. However, one thing is clear no matter what is decided; this office should not function as a political tool that panders to and attempts to buy off support from religious communities. Have you noticed that rarely does anyone—including the Bush Administration ever add the words “…and 'community initiatives'” when they speak of this office? This is more than telling. As they say…the devil is always in the details…and that is definitely the problem with the current administration’s misuse of its faith-based office.
Time to Eliminate the "Freezing Effect" on JournalismSpeaking of bipartisan reporter shield legislation that would help preserve a free press as the heat wave continued in Washington today, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) reminded the ACLU membership conference, reporters from around the country and everyone watching C-SPAN that there is actually a chill in the air across our country, a chill that could be diminished if the Senate would pass his bi-partisan compromise reporter shield bill, the Free Flow of Information Act. A similar bill passed the House by an overwhelming vote, securing a veto-proof bill. The ACLU applauded his efforts and, of course, urged him to push even harder for a strong federal shield law. During the panel entitled, “The War on Terror: An Exchange About Censorship, Surveillance and Guantanamo,” Senator Specter remarked “They call it a chilling effect,” discussing the Bush administration’s tough tactics in dealing with investigative reporters. “I call it a freezing effect.” Senator Specter stated that his reporter shield bill has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is “ready for action.” Senator Specter not only told conference participants that there is overwhelming support for the bill; he spoke of how he has worked diligently to address a couple of important sticking points. The first issue is in regard to defining and balancing when the government should be able to invoke national security interests and throw reporters in jail if they refuse to give up their right to protect their sources, a source's right to be protected and the public's right to know. The second issue focuses on defining who is a journalist or reporter. Senator Specter believes his compromise bill addresses these issues in a balanced, considered approach, an approach that — while it is not as strong as the ACLU would like or as weak as the administration would like — is a “compromise.” Senator Specter acknowledged that no one is going to be completely satisfied with any bill that would actually have a shot at passing--that's what the compromise is about, finding common ground and balancing all interests. He also promised to continue to work diligently to get the Senate bill passed this Congress. His words were underscored by those of two highly respected, award-winning journalists. Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times reporter Jim Risen said for years he didn’t think a shield law was necessary, but today revealed “I believe that’s changed.” Risen, in noting that NYT reporters have been jailed in Zimbabwe and in China in recent years, asked, “What are we saying about our society if we’ve joined the ranks of Zimbabwe and China?” Risen also questioned whether the US government is enabling dictators around the world by jailing American reporters, and by example, indicating that is an acceptable practice here. Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy, who is facing fines and jail time for refusing to reveal her sources on several post 9/11 stories , offered that she believes journalism, or what is left of it, will be destroyed out of fear of retribution for investigating government programs and keeping the government accountable. You can help. Send a letter to your Senator asking him or her to support the reporters' shield bill. Senator Specter and the panel of journalists also commented on other topics including rendition and the need for the Supreme Court to review executive privilege. Another informative and inspiring panel. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |