I'd be happy to see the Patriot Act finally done away with for good, but given the bipartisan support we've seen for its potential replacement, The USA Freedom Act, sadly we're not going to see the spying on Americans go away completely any time soon.

They've got all of these politicians too terrified that they're going to be blamed for a terrorist attack if anything happens and they refuse to play along with the government and these telecom companies invading everyone's privacy.

That said, Rand Paul took to the Senate floor this Sunday to voice his opposition to the renewal of the Patriot Act and the speech was purely political. He's already in trouble for a campaign video that violates Senate rules:

Sen. Rand Paul has lauded his fight against a Patriot Act extension in his presidential campaign, but one campaign video appears to violate Senate rules.

Senate rules state, “The use of any tape duplication of radio or television coverage of the proceedings of the Senate for political campaign purposes is strictly prohibited.” But a video posted by the Kentucky Republican’s campaign Friday appears to violate that rule.

The video, titled “Rand Paul: Filibuster for the Fourth Amendment” lasts one minute and 19 seconds and has garnered nearly 1,000 views. It uses video footage and audio from his May 20 marathon speech on the Senate floor. The video utilizes roughly 20 seconds of video footage of Paul on the floor, and the audio of his speech is then used as b-roll footage of people on the phone and utilizing computers rolls. The audio is also heard as the video shows photos of “Stand with Rand” supporters posing with C-SPAN 2 on in the background as Paul gave his speech.

Paul’s campaign declined to comment on the video. A spokesperson from the Senate Rules Committee also did not return a request for comment.

There is no codified enforcement for the Senate rule, but if there is a violation, the Rules Committee will often make an informal request for the campaign to address it. If the senator refuses to address the violation, the party in charge of the Rules Committee determines the next step.

I have no doubt that's what he was doing in the clip above as well, where the only one he went after for the domestic surveillance program was President Obama. If he was sincere, he'd be going after members of his own party as well. So far, they've all been more than happy to go after him.

[ad]