As voter-fraud hysteria mounts, Democrats and their allies are trying to sound the alarm about potential voter intimidation and suppression—partly to warn supporters that their rights might be trampled upon, and partly to paint the opposition as paranoid and overzealous. But highlighting these tactics has a downside: in drawing attention to problems that could arise at the polls, Democratic officials and voting rights advocates also run the risk of overhyping potential intimidation—and deterring even more voters from showing up.

“If we yell too loud about it, it helps them create the sense that the polling place is a dangerous place to be,” says Matt Angle, a Texas Democratic strategist who’s aiding get-out-the-vote efforts in the state. Vote suppression “should be tracked, monitored, and publicized when it occurs. But maybe not so much anticipatory hand-wringing—it just makes matters worse,” says Gary Segura, a political science professor at Stanford University who runs the polling firm Latino Decisions.

If this is true, it puts Democrats in a catch-22. They’re outraged about the widely exaggerated claims of voter fraud made by the right, but now they’re also worried that publicizing intimidation efforts at the polls will work against their overall message in low-income neighborhoods that voting is easy and painless — so go do it!

There’s probably a happy medium that could be reached here — one in which both sides acknowledge that instances of actual voter fraud and voter suppression are relatively rare. But in the heat of an election — in which some Republicans see little downside in playing up alleged voting irregularities into national scandals — that’s appearing a lot easier said than done.

But regulations on servicers are thin. Servicers can, Andy Kroll noted earlier this year, change their charges and fees without notifying homeowners in advance. The companies routinely mess up families’ paperwork. And often they benefit from the confusion — tacking late-payment or wrong-payment fees onto customers’ bills.

Servicers have existed for decades, but have remained obscure — to the press, to the public and even to the regulators meant to be overseeing them. The federal regulators in charge of mortgage servicers — including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Trade Commission, though each in a limited capacity — generally have not taken action when they break laws. In fact, though the Housing and Urban Development Department receives thousands of complaints a year, Washington hardly ever reacts. Instead, state governments are responsible for regulation. And that means a patchwork quilt of responses. Some states, like Ohio, go after the companies aggressively. Others don’t.

The good news is that this will soon change. Already, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau technically has the mandate to oversee and write rules for mortgage servicers, though it is not staffed or set up yet. If the foreclosure fraud crisis is big enough, the new Office of Financial Research and Financial Stability Oversight Council might become involved. And last week, Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said of Congress, “We now have resolution authority that we can take out for a spin.”

Plus, Congress and the White House are now paying attention. Though the administration is using kid gloves, not pushing for new solutions or calling for a national moratorium on foreclosures, the Hill is more active. Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) have called for hearings when Congress comes back into session, after the November elections. Other offices I spoke with, including Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-Ohio), said they are considering new legislation or hearings to look into the fraud crisis. In the meantime, about 40 state attorneys general are investigating or initiating cases related to the crisis.

Somehow, these documents had slipped through the cracks before, the administration acknowledged recently. That is, the Justice Department learned that they existed due to references to them in court filings made during the Bush administration. But Obama Justice officials just couldn’t find them. (The government’s detailed explanation of how this all happened can be found here.) The documents were apparently discovered in September, according to the government’s court filing, and sent to the CIA and other agencies for review. Depending on whether the contents turn out to be classified or can otherwise be held under the FOIA, we may see more torture-related documents released Friday.

The Lieberman-Graham Amendment, also known as The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, is strongly supported by President Obama. It would amend the Freedom of Information Act — the same one Obama promised to construe liberally in favor of releasing information — to allow the president to conceal the photos of detainee abuse that the administration has already been ordered to produce in a pending lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Oddly, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats seem to have followed the advice of Andy McCarthy at National Review, who a few weeks ago specifically suggested that the administration need not follow the court order requiring release of the photos; Congress, with the White House’s support, could just amend FOIA or adopt a new law to allow Obama to conceal the photos, and avoid having to bother with the pesky federal court system, which so far hasn’t given the administration its way.

The only problem is, how is the Obama administration going to reconcile this move with the President’s eloquent promises on his first days in office?

Remember this Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government?

Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.

Or this statement by Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation process?

I firmly believe that transparency is a key to good government.  Openness allows the public to have faith that its government obeys the law.

So isn’t it strange that the government, rather than appealing a court order pursuant to its rights under the law, now wants to defy the court by asking Congress simply to change the law?

I agree with Glenn Greenwald on this one:

If, as Obama claims, there are legitimate reasons to suppress these photos under FOIA’s exemptions (including its very broad national security exemptions), then the Supreme Court can reverse the two lower court rulings ordering disclosure — as Obama is asking it to do.  But there is no good reason to vest the Obama administration with the unilateral power to simply waive FOIA requirements simply because it loses in court and decides it doesn’t want to comply with court rulings and with current transparency laws.

And Nick Baumann at Mother Jones, who calls the photo suppression bill “an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses.”

It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even in you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don’t see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what’s best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill. Thank God for Barney Frank.

Well, except that late last week, Frank switched his vote.

In his recent speech at the National Archives, Obama said:

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued – and never will – that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.

Now that the court has refused to give the president what he wants, he’s hoping Congress will. He’s won in the Senate already. Let’s see if the House Democrats will stand their ground on this one.

It’s not just the gay and lesbian community that’s going after President-elect Barack Obama for his choice to have Rick Warren, the socially conservative evangelical minister, deliver the inauguration’s invocation. Blogging for Congressional Quarterly, David Corn, Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones, says Obama has “stepped over a line…even if this is a symbolic gesture.” From the CQ blog:

By all means, Obama should work with Rick Warren when there is common cause. For political reasons, he should not eschew Warren because of his anti-gay views. Warren can be a powerful ally when it comes time to persuade the public to support climate change legislation. Success in governing often depends on forging coalitions with those with whom you disagree.

But Warren’s opposition to gay rights is more than a mere policy dispute. It is an act of bigotry. Sure, Warren does not believe he is being discriminatory. But that’s what it is. He is denying rights to certain Americans because he disapproves of how they love. By handing Warren this prime slot at the inauguration, Obama is saying that he recognizes Warren as a spiritual leader and is reaffirming Warren’s position as such. This is an insult to gay Americans and those who support equal rights in this nation.

As Laura pointed out earlier, Obama defended his choice this morning, saying that he’s a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans.” Tapping Warren, he added, is part of his campaign promise to reach across the aisle to end the partisan bickering that poisoned Washington in recent decades. The left is going nuts that the process would include the acceptance of a guy like Rick Warren. Then again, what did liberals think bipartisanship would look like?