In a Senate vote on Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence stepped in and broke the 50-50 tie in favor of getting rid of an Obama-era rule that prohibits states from defunding health care providers for political reasons. Even after the Republicans managed to bring in Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who is recovering from two back surgeries and had to use a walker and wheelchair, the vote ended in a 50-50 tie. Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, both known as moderates, joined the Senate Democrats and Independents in voting against the measure. Pence then cast the deciding vote.

Democrats criticized the GOP for the move, with Senator Patty Murray of Washington saying that the Democrats would spend Thursday afternoon speaking out against it. Doing this “would undo a valuable effort by the Obama Administration to ensure that health care providers are evaluated for federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not on ideology,” she said.

Pres Trump is so focused on attacking women’s health, he sent women’s health advisor—@VP Pence—to break a tie vote on latest attack. #TitleX https://t.co/QOBHpY76Oz

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 30, 2017

There was a procedural vote earlier in the day that also required Pence’s tie-breaking powers. The new measure will use the Congressional Review Act to repeal a rule that the Obama Administration introduced late last year that prohibits states from blocking Title X funding to healthcare providers that offer abortion services.

Title X is the only federal grant program where money goes exclusively to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income people and those without insurance. It dates back to the 1970s and President Richard Nixon. Title X money makes sure patients can go get tested for STDs or HIV, cancer screenings, treatments, and birth control. However, the Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions.

But, if the Republicans get their way, states will be able to withhold federal money from going to any family planning service that offers abortions at all, even if the money wouldn’t be used for abortion services. Republicans argued that Obama’s requirement that states distribute money to healthcare providers regardless of whether they also perform abortions hurt small, local communities. How and why is unclear. “It substituted Washington’s judgment for the needs of real people,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

Obviously a lot of women and Democrats did not agree with this and spoke out forcefully on social media.

The VP was sent to break a tie vote on #TitleX.

Amazing what GOP leaders will do to make sure women’s health centers don’t get funded. https://t.co/SoHVxURl6H

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 30, 2017

Title X is a bipartisan program to provide birth control, cancer screenings & HIV tests, & @VP Pence cast the tiebreaking vote attacking it

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 30, 2017

When politicians interfere in women’s personal health decisions, women get hurt. Call your senator: https://t.co/V1XhwtywtW #TitleX

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) March 30, 2017

Many women also took issue with the fact that Mike Pence received an award last week from the Independent Women’s Forum. That organization was formed after law professor Anita Hill accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the 1990s. But it’s important to note that IWF formed because they didn’t believe Hill, which makes it less surprising that the group would award Pence for his work on behalf of women.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mike Pence Casts Tie-Breaking Vote Allowing States to Defund Family Planning Services appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Morning After

Last night, it became clear that Donald Trump was the unexpected winner of the election and is going to be the 45th president of the United States. Wednesday morning saw people on the streets of New York in tears and many fear that this is the start of a xenophobic and sexist presidential period. The hashtag #StillWithHer trended on Wednesday morning.

I hope @HillaryClinton knows there was nothing more she could’ve done. She was a warrior. And she made me proud. #StillWithHer

— Max Weiss (@maxthegirl) November 9, 2016

Donald Trump doesn’t respect women, LGBT, Muslims, or any people of color. Therefor, I won’t be respecting him back. #NotMyPresident

— antonio (@antoniodelotero) November 9, 2016

But when the shock subsides, let’s come together and keep fighting to make the world better and more united, not more divided.

We all need to give President-Elect Trump a chance. Support the good. Lobby against what we disagree on. No one is bigger than us all

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 9, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil’s Senate voted on Wednesday to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office–an expected but nonetheless historic result, given that Rousseff was Brazil’s first female president.

Rousseff is accused of corruption and breaking fiscal laws, which her critics say aggravated the already bad economic situation in Brazil. Rousseff has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing ever since she was suspended from office in May this year. In the Senate, 61 voted for her impeachment on Wednesday, and 20 against. Upon hearing the result, she said, “Today is the day that 61 men, many of them charged and corrupt, threw 54 million Brazilian votes in the garbage.”

During the hearing she also said:

I’m here to look in your eyes and say with the serenity of someone who has nothing to hide that I haven’t committed any crimes of responsibility. I have not committed the crimes of which I have been unjustly and arbitrarily accused.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s 1st woman president, permanently removed after impeachment: https://t.co/8SwnwTvxn0 pic.twitter.com/iqL5fiUd2r

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) August 31, 2016

This means the end of a 13 year-long rule of the left-wing Worker’s Party, and the end for the country’s first female President. Rousseff, 68, used to be a guerilla fighter during the dictatorship in the 1970s. She was elected in 2011, and then reelected in 2014. At the time, the country’s economy was in  really bad shape, and she did not manage to fix it. Even though she stands accused of further ruining the economy and corruption, she has never been formally charged with a crime.

Rousseff claims she has been ousted because she allowed a corruption investigation to go on, which lead to several politicians being charged. So the question is whether she is actually guilty of a crime, or if the opposition just wanted to get rid of a leader who drained the country’s economy.

In a second vote on Wednesday, the Senate decided whether or not to ban Rousseff from public office for the next eight years. This time the majority voted no, with 42 votes against and 36 for, meaning she could technically return to politics whenever she wants.

Acting President Michel Temer will take Rousseff’s place until the next election in 2018.

Rousseff’s parting words to her supporters were, “Right now, I will not say goodbye to you. I am certain I can say: ‘See you soon.’”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Senate Votes to Oust President Dilma Rousseff From Office appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

Californians will have the opportunity to vote to legalize recreational marijuana in November now that the proposed ballot measure officially meets the state’s signature requirement. California was the first state in the country to legalize medical use of the drug in 1996. If Californians vote to allow recreational use it could have a big impact on the rest of the country, considering the size of the state and the existing momentum behind legalization.

Six years ago, Californians voted against Proposition 19, a similar initiative that would have made California the first state to legalize recreation marijuana use. But since then, more states have opened up to marijuana use and California recently enacted new rules to regulate medicinal marijuana. This time around, the campaign to legalize has several prominent backers such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaire Sean Parker, the California Democratic Party, and the California Medical Association.

To put the issue on the November ballot, pro-Marijuana groups needed over 365,000 signatures, but the campaign collected over 606,000.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, voiced her support for the measure on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/748202943170682884

What Would This Mean?

If the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is passed, it would basically mean that anyone over 21 would be allowed to buy, use, and possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants.

It would also entail huge savings for the state considering all the marijuana related offenses and incarceration of users that no longer would have to be enforced. The savings could be as big as over $100 million per year according to a statement from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Jason Kinney, a spokesperson for the campaign behind the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, said in a statement:

Today marks a fresh start for California, as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself.

The anti-Marijuana bloc consists of the California Republican Party and representatives from police and hospitals. Opponents argue that legalization would not change the black market or criminal activity, such as driving under the influence.

But if the ballot measure passes, marijuana businesses would have to be 600 feet away from any school. Related advertising would not be allowed to target kids and marijuana products could not be easily confused with candy or other products that to not contain the dr.

The ballot measure currently has a broad base of support. A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 60 percent of California voters favor of legalization.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Californians to Vote on Recreational Marijuana in November appeared first on Law Street.

As a journalism student, especially one interested in politics, I am constantly surrounded by election news, so I pride myself on being educated and informed on all of the presidential candidates. So, something that really strikes a chord with me is when people my age (college-aged) tell me that they are going to refrain from voting.

Obviously, my first question is “why?”

I recently saw the post and video below on my Facebook timeline. It got me thinking that I know an awful lot of people who complain about politicians, “the system,” and everything going on in this campaign who have told me that they are simply not going to vote.

It is no surprise that voters ages 18-24 rarely make it out to the polls. According to a Census Bureau Report, in the 2012 presidential election 38 percent of eligible 18-24-year-olds actually voted.  To put that in perspective, approximately 61.8 percent of all eligible Americans voted. Seem low? It is. The least represented group at the polls is 18-24-year-olds.

In the 2012 election, 69.7 percent of eligible voters aged 65 and over voted. Now, I know we all have that aunt or uncle whose views are too radical to even listen to at the dinner table at family gatherings…so why give their voice more validity and weight if you have a chance to be a part of a different opinion?

The difference between the voting rate of young people aged 18-29 and their eligibility rate was -5.8 percent. Voting is a civic duty, and by not voting we are only distancing ourselves from a government that we want because we don’t allow our voices to be heard.

Tomorrow is the Missouri Primary! Polls across the state will be open from 6AM-7PM #Election2016 pic.twitter.com/pOrE39qS5s

— The University News (@TheUNews) March 14, 2016

Here are some of the most common explanations young eligible voters have for not voting:

“I hate all of the candidates.”

I hear this often as a reason not to vote. My response: if you hate all of the candidates so much, do something about it! Don’t just complain on Twitter, go out and vote and make your voice heard. Write-in, vote for third-party candidates, do something! Because at least you can say that you had a part in the process.

don’t sit on here and preach about who you want to become president and who would be best for president if you ain’t get up and vote

— (@OGTatum_) March 16, 2016

I know people who hate the Maryland governor but didn’t feel like voting in the gubernatorial election against him. There’s no use in complaining now if you didn’t even feel like being a part of the process in the first place.

In the 2014 election (midterm), a sad 36 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote (which isn’t completely unusual for midterm, but lower than previous years), according to the U.S. Census Bureau cited in The Washington Post. Of the voters who didn’t hit the polls, 28 percent said they were just ‘”too busy.”

“I’m just not that into politics” or “I don’t know much about the candidates.”

This is another popular reason I hear. But you can be “not into politics,” while still keeping yourself informed. I know plenty of students who despise politics, yet keep up on the race because they know it is important to know what is going on. You don’t have to read every single article about the candidates or even keep up on the immediate news to check up every once in a while to see where the candidates stand and what they have been saying. Simple Google searches will take you to the stances of every candidate.

Obviously, not all political quizzes were made equal, but ISideWith isn’t too bad if you want to get a feel for who you may share views with.

“My vote doesn’t even count for much, who cares?”

This is probably my least favorite excuse not to vote. Most frustrating is that there are a lot of people who truly don’t believe their vote counts. Whether that be because of the way our system is set up, or just a misconception about how powerful a vote is, it isn’t a good way to think about voting. A lot of people feel this way, which means a lot of people will not vote purely because they think they don’t have any stake in who becomes president. While the impact of a single vote may not seem like much, the impact of many single votes not being casted adds up. A silent majority is still a majority, just not one whose opinion counts when it matters most.

“I’m voting for Donald Trump.”

Oh, okay, yeah, don’t worry about even heading out to the polls then.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Millennials Need to Vote in the Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Well hello there strangers! Long time no see. It has been a busy few months for me, but I’m happy to be back and contributing to Law Street once again. Especially as we are well into presidential campaign season, and that provides endless fodder for social commentary–which of course I enjoy watching and participating in from the safety of my desk.

Given that it is 2015 and the Internet plays a larger role than ever in the day-to-day lives of American voters, it is no shock that the 2016 election will be one for the history books. That fact is already evident, as the front-runners on either side of the political divide are a woman, a Democratic Socialist, and a hairpiece!

Don’t even get me started on him.

Heated political debates run rampant across social media platforms, as they always do, but are joined by viral videos, .gifs and even memes of candidates that are strategically released to try and sway voters one way or another.

The key word here, of course, is “voters,” and if you are over 18 and a United States citizen–that means you! You, the person sitting on their couch watching Netflix, who shared that video of Bernie Sanders on “Late Night with Seth Myers,” or followed the Texts from Hillary Clinton tumblr account. You, weighing the pros and cons of jumping in a Facebook comment feed about the difference between Socialism and Communism. You, an average American citizen, who might not be a Democrat or a Republican, but falls somewhere in between.

It does not matter who you support or what you believe in; if you don’t back those beliefs up by using your right to vote at caucuses, primaries or general elections, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a difference. I know it sounds cliche to say this, but it is not a lie that every vote counts.

Now, I have to back up my “go vote!” message with a word of caution: do your research. Since the Internet is such an enormous tool for the 2016 elections, it follows that NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ONLINE IS TRUE.

I know, shocking. *Calls for smelling salts.*

Beware before you share, my friends. Take a closer look at that website with the article called “PROOF!  [insert candidate name here] IS A NAZI!”. Does it also have a bunch of other articles about conspiracy theories with no actual facts backing it up? If you search for it on Snopes.com, does it say “FALSE” in big red letters? Exactly. Instead of searching for inflammatory information on candidates you dislike, focus on the candidates you do like, and don’t believe everything your Facebook friends post. What issues are the most important to you? Which candidates support your opinion on those issues most thoroughly? These are the types of questions you must ask yourself. Being an educated voter is just as important as being a voter in the first place.

So go, register, and enjoy your right to have a say in who runs our country. I certainly will.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter appeared first on Law Street.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

Recently re-elected FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter, known to the world as Swiss Sepp Blatter, announced Tuesday he will step down from his post as president of the international football association’s governing body, following criticism over a corruption scandal.

While 14 of his colleagues were recently indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering, and racketeering, Blatter was left unscathed and re-elected for his fifth consecutive term as FIFA president on Friday, May 29^th. During his reelection speech, Blatter rejoiced in his continued reign with the words,

I thank you, you have accepted me for the next four years. I will be in command of this boat called FIFA.

 

However, Blatter has not escaped blame from the global public over the years, having been labeled a dictator, among other names, and accused of sexism and racism reaching far beyond claims of corrupt laundering practices. According to BBC News, the global citizens’ movement Avaaz was responsible for starting the #BlatterOut campaign, which began trending on Twitter just days before the election. Gary Linekar, the former English footballer and current sports broadcaster, is one of the many to join the campaign against Blatter, who seems to have been at the head of FIFA corruption since 1991.

FIFA members should vote for the good of football, and get rid of a man who’s reigned over a corrupt organisation for too long. #BlatterOut

— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 28, 2015

So what on earth was keeping Blatter in power if so much of the world wanted #BlatterOut? The answer, unlike what most commonly believe, is not so much about the power of the dollar—or the supposed tens of millions of dollars involved in the corruption since 1991—as it is the power of a single vote in any given FIFA presidential election. Each of the 209 national member associations that make up FIFA’s Congress receives exactly one equal vote no matter how much land area the nation possesses or how much of the world’s population lives in each nation. According to the Washington Post, this means the tiny Caribbean island of Montserrat has as much a say as World Cup powerhouses Brazil or Germany in the election. After totaling the member nations counted in the presidential election, here is the breakdown by regional confederation:

So, what Blatter needed to do to get reelected was not to convince the world that he is not as corrupt as his colleagues, but to cater to the areas of the world that would ensure his victory, and he did. Blatter has made what was once a largely European organization a globalized organization, by bringing what he calls “developmental programs” to underprivileged parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Despite where the money came from to start these programs, in doing so, Blatter spoke for most of the 54 votes of the Confederation of African Football (CAF)—the largest number of votes held by any of the six continental confederations above. Amaju Pinnick, the current president of the Nigerian Football Federation, has expressed that,

Without Blatter we wouldn’t enjoy all the benefits we enjoy today from FIFA. What Blatter pushes is equity, fairness and equality among the nations. We don’t want to experiment.

It was not Blatter’s years of experience or money that got him reelected; it was his ability to systematically accommodate the parts of the world that hold the most votes.

The sole person who opposed Blatter in the election for president was Qatari Mohammed bin Hammam, but he withdrew from the race after suspension by FIFA’s ethics committee due to allegations that he offered financial incentives to Caribbean Football Union members. The response to corruption by England’s Football Association and its chairman David Bernstein was to postpone the election, to instill credibility back into the process, and to appoint an independent external committee to make recommendations about future election processes. Yet, the FA’s proposal was again put up to the votes of 206 member nations equally and the election moved forward without delay.

Are Blatter’s or any other FIFA administrator’s corrupt practices inevitable in this day and age of soccer as yet another means of politics? Or is Blatter’s attempt to globalize the world by bringing soccer and developmental programs to countries outside of Europe a kind of affirmative action policy that permits or even necessitates some corruption behind the scenes? Whether you answer yes or no to these questions, FIFA’s Executive Committee might consider an election reform of proportional representation by member nations in order to assure that the next FIFA president elected is preferred in power by all parts of the world instead of only by the continent with the most votes.

Jenifer Carter

Jenifer Carter is a member of the University of Virginia Class of 2016. Contact Jenifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Re-election Forces FIFA President to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

Barring an extraordinary act of bipartisanship from Congress, several controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire today at midnight. Congress now has little time and only a few remaining options to preserve aspects of the law that administration officials deem important to preventing terrorism. However, critics of the law argue that these provisions are a mark of significant infringement upon civil liberties and may not even help law enforcement in the first place.

The three components of the Patriot Act that are set to expire are the “lone-wolf” amendment, the authority to place roving wiretaps, and the controversial Section 215. The “lone-wolf” amendment–which is actually part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but is set to expire along with the Patriot Act provisions–allows the government to monitor the activities of individuals who are suspected of international terrorism, but have no known connection to terrorist organizations. It is important to note that this amendment is explicitly directed toward people who are not U.S. citizens. The so-called roving wiretap section of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to transfer wiretap orders to different phones and devices being used by the same person. Wiretaps must first be approved by a court, but are no longer limited to individual devices if terrorism is suspected. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to access business records in terrorism cases, but is better known as the legal justification for the collection of millions of Americans’ phone records.

When the Patriot Act initially became law in 2001, it received overwhelming support in Congress. The bill, which incorporated components of another piece of legislation proposed earlier that month, was introduced on October 23 and passed both houses of Congress the very next day. In the House the vote was 357 to 66 and in the Senate it was 98 to 1. Since then, the sun-setting provisions of the bill have been reauthorized on three separate occasions, but in light of the revelations leaked by Edward Snowden in Summer of 2013, this year’s authorization has proven much more challenging for Congress.

In response to growing concern about the NSA’s bulk data collection programs, the House recently passed the USA Freedom Act, a compromise that seeks to maintain the tools available to law enforcement agencies while also providing additional safeguards for civil liberties. The bill would effectively end the collection of phone call metadata by the government, leaving it to the phone companies to compile and then provide to law enforcement provided that they have a warrant. Although the government would be able to access the same data, the new bill would put a clear process in place where a warrant is required to access only the information requested. While this new bill would mark a significant step in reforming data collection under Section 215, it would extend the Patriot Act, leaving the other controversial provisions in place. Additionally, the USA Freedom Act, would increase the maximum prison sentence for providing “material support” to terrorist organizations from 15 years to 20. Human Rights Watch and other opponents of the bill argue that the “material support penalty” is already too broadly used and expanding it will only increase the potential for abuse.

While the new USA Freedom Act passed the House with a wide margin and the support of several privacy and civil liberties organizations, it faces a major hurdle in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing criticism for his handling of the Patriot Act renewal process. He first encouraged Republican legislators to support the Patriot Act and the associated NSA data collection program, calling for an outright extension of the law; however multiple attempts to do so have failed.

The Senate must now decide if it wants to allow the Patriot Act provisions to expire on Sunday night, or reach some sort of compromise on the USA Freedom Act, a potential embarrassment for McConnell. The Senate is set to convene Sunday night before the provisions expire in an attempt to make a last-minute deal, yet the House will likely remain on their Memorial Day recess until Monday. If the provisions expire, re-instituting the law enforcement capabilities would require an additional piece of legislation and not simply a re-authorization vote, something that could prove to be very challenging politically.

A wide range of opponents to the NSA’s bulk data collection program has recently emerged. The program took a major blow earlier this month when a federal appeals court ruled that the bulk collection of phone records violates the Patriot Act itself. Last week, Republican Senator Rand Paul protested the program in a so-called filibuster that lasted over ten hours. Paul called for further debate on the controversial provisions in the Patriot Act and demanded an end to bulk data collection. Paul, along with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, is calling for a debate and open amendment process for the USA Freedom Act in the Senate, which both hope to add stronger protections for civil liberties. However, the addition of such protections may make the bill unpalatable for representatives in the House. A desire to reform the NSA program now exists in all three branches of government and may now be sweeping the internet. As many as 10,000 websites have joined the movement to “blackout Congress,” which will redirect computers with Congressional IP addresses to a page showing semi-nude pictures of people who claim, “NSA spying makes us feel violated.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will NSA Data Collection End Tonight? appeared first on Law Street.