I wonder if that's related to their recent strategy of "don't pass anything".

They've passed more budgets and jobs bills than the Senate has. They've also had more votes on such things than the Senate. (And no, filibusters/cloture doesn't account for the difference.)

The Dem position was stated by Treasury Secretary Geitner - "No, we don't have a plan. We just know that we don't like yours."

So they're as bad as each other then? :(

> So they're as bad as each other then? :(

Even if they're equally bad in total, they're bad in different ways and that can matter.

Or if that's related to "less government". Or "freedom works", which in this context reads ironic.

That's not terribly ironic. Contrary to the indignant fanciful writings of tech blog writers, there's no evidence that this is any kind of a widespread practice. Why is anyone's guess, although practicality, exposure to existing laws and basic human decency might all be factors.

But no, let's get a few more redundant and/or downright pointless laws on the books, we're not spending anywhere near enough on lawyers yet.

The reason for why it is not a widespread practice is probably because you scare off way too many potential employees. I know I would consider ending the interview instantly if asked to hand over any passwords. And for sure I would not take any job there.

Scholarships and universities is where there might be a case for the law. I would like to see some real examples first though where current law does not already stops this for scholarships/universities.

I can't give any specific examples, however I do remember reading at some universities, the athletes have to give up their passwords/usernames for social media sites or they risk getting kicked off the team and losing their scholarships.

Yay for worker's rights.

I'm flat against businesses asking for passwords, the very idea is so absurd I can't believe it exists.

That said, while workers have rights so do employers (this is not one of them) but being able to run your business without being unfairly accused of something seems to be what the reps where arguing against; specifically that what the dems proposed would have enabled the FCC to overreach their authority. Or are you like a big fan of the FCC having even more power?