So, how should politicians use email?
Bad: I’ve been getting spammed by Tony Peraica’s campaign for Cook County Board President for weeks. (No link for you, Mr. P!) I have used the unsubscribe link in the original emails repeatedly. I sent followup emails to abuse@1871newsletters.com, copied to the campaign headquarters, asking them to stop it. I even filed a complaint with the FTC. I just realized that the last email he sent has a different unsubscribe link, although the variable interpolation failed — it appeared in the email as http://votetony06.com/r.asp?txtEmail=~EMAILADDRESS~ Well, I used that and fixed the email, so hopefully that will cut it off. I wonder if they got pressure from the FTC? They are still using 1871newsletters.com, even though that organization seems to be unable to implement correct opt-out systems.
Good: I just got an email from Senator Dick Durbin, proactively giving me a “legislative update” on an issue I’d contacted his office about in the past (NSA Wiretapping; email repeated below). I consider this welcome, not spam. I did send them a comment indicating so, but also warning that it could become a problem if they got carried away. Still, I appreciate the information and will definitely have it in mind when Durbin comes up for re-election. (He’s generally on my side of most issues anyway.)
I used my re-contacting them to also encourage him to support democratic applications of technology, from anything that might help GovTrack work better to encouraging further efforts like that of the SEC to have institutions file documents as structured data and not just reams of paper.
It’s kind of quaint how they adhere to business style formatting, but I suppose it doesn’t bother me.
October 18, 2006 Mr. Joe Germuska <address> Dear Mr. Germuska: Knowing of your concern about the warrantless surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), I am writing to provide you with a legislative update. Current law permits the wiretapping of communications made by American citizens living within the United States only according to the procedures set forth in the federal criminal wiretap statute and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). To protect against abuses by the Executive branch, the government must seek a warrant from a special FISA court in order to conduct electronic surveillance of communications between American citizens and persons outside of the country. The NSA did not obtain approval from the FISA court or from any other court before initiating its domestic wiretapping program. Few members of Congress were briefed about the wiretap program until its existence was revealed by the media, and those members were sworn to secrecy. The Administration has also shut down its own internal Department of Justice investigation of the NSA program. Several bills have been introduced in the Senate that would essentially provide blanket legal authorization for the NSA's surveillance of American citizens. The Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 2455/S. 3874), introduced by Senator Mike DeWine, would simply authorize the President's surveillance program as it exists today. The National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 2453/S. 3876), introduced by Senator Arlen Specter, would permit the Administration to voluntarily submit the entire NSA program to the FISA court for a review of its constitutionality, and would allow the Administration to appeal a ruling of unconstitutionality while denying any appeals of rulings of constitutionality. I voted against these bills when they were considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2006. The bills simply do not provide meaningful oversight of the Executive Branch to ensure that surveillance powers are not misused against American citizens. Every member of Congress wants to monitor communications among suspected terrorists, but this can be done in a way that ensures that the Executive Branch does not misuse its surveillance authority against American citizens. Further, I do not believe the Senate should pass legislation that gives the Administration blanket authorization for these surveillance programs when most Senators do not even know the programs' operational details. Due to the widespread resistance to the Administration's warrantless surveillance programs, the full Senate did not vote on these bills before the Senate adjourned for the election season. When the Senate reconvenes, I will continue to work to ensure that any government surveillance of American citizens is conducted in a manner consistent with our civil liberties and the rule of law as well as our security needs. Sincerely, Richard J. Durbin United States Senator RJD/ds P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Obama and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions. We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details.