U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, and 27 Democratic colleagues have introduced legislation to keep senators from being able to sue the government and receive damages of up to $500,000 for each instance in which a federal agency or employee legally searches their electronic records without notifying them.
The provision giving senators the opportunity to sue was included in the continuing resolution that ended the federal government shutdown last week.
“The American people deserve transparency and accountability, and that’s what we ought to be delivering — not sneaking 11th hour provisions into a bill to end the longest-running government shutdown in our nation’s history,” King said in a statement Wednesday. “The Anti-Cash Grab Act makes it crystal clear that lawmakers should not be granted special privileges when federal investigations legally look into their activities. Period.
“This was a bad faith provision that has created a bipartisan outcry, and I’m urging all my colleagues to support efforts to overturn it.”
The provision has drawn fire from both sides of the political aisle.
Critics say the language of the provision seems geared toward addressing “Arctic Frost,” an investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, in which the FBI analyzed phone records, including those of eight Republican senators.
Many lawmakers have taken issue with the last-minute nature of the addition.
A spokesperson for King said the senator was not aware of the provision ahead of his vote in favor of the continuing resolution last week — a vote that has stirred criticism from Democrats.
A spokesperson for Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Appropriations Committee, said on Wednesday that Collins played no role in the provision, and it was added to the continuing resolution by Republican Leader Sen. John Thune and Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer.
The spokesperson said that Collins supports repealing the provision and is reviewing the Anti-Cash Grab Act.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less