Left-leaning groups, The Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen and US PIRG sent a letter of gratitude to House Dems, particularly Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) for "leading the House battle for campaign finance laws that protect citizens against corruption in government."
]]>Left-leaning groups, The Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen and US PIRG sent a letter of gratitude to House Dems, particularly Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) for "leading the House battle for campaign finance laws that protect citizens against corruption in government."
As noted in the CNET report, the reform would have required that "the portion of federal election law that deals with publications aimed at the general public 'shall not include communications over the Internet.'"
The fact is that unlike in years past, Web publications and communications are not simply aimed in top-down fashion at the general public. Increasingly, they're created and disseminated by the public themselves. Until the brainiacs in congress can wrap their brains around that concept, they'll continue to produce misguided legislation that evinces a lack of understanding of technology and its effect on our evolving media landscape and society.
If the Internet is indeed to be regulated under campaign finance law, we can count on money finding its way through paths we can't foresee today. The explosion of 527s on the scene in '04 revealed that restriction and parameters only breed creative and innovative solutions. If '08 is as contentious as it looks like it'll be, people who want to speak their minds -- and support those who do -- will find a way, Web regulations or not.
]]>I got a note today from Bobby Clark, deputy director of ProgressNow.org; he told me that the group is "working the phones and emails right now getting other groups to forward to their lists." In a previous discussion I had with Clark, he told me that ProgressNow is allowing members to download names and addresses of Colorado voters they've selected as the best to target from voter files they received from the Secretary of State there. The voter file information they're making available doesn't include voter histories nor party affiliation.
]]>I got a note today from Bobby Clark, deputy director of ProgressNow.org; he told me that the group is "working the phones and emails right now getting other groups to forward to their lists." In a previous discussion I had with Clark, he told me that ProgressNow is allowing members to download names and addresses of Colorado voters they've selected as the best to target from voter files they received from the Secretary of State there. The voter file information they're making available doesn't include voter histories nor party affiliation.
Essentially, the campaign involves supporters of the referenda writing others in the state, urging them to vote yes on C and D. The group has enabled members to create a "MyProgress" Web page, from which they can download voter names and addresses for their postal parties. They can also download a host kit (a .pdf document) that "includes tips and talking points for your letters, reminders for your party, and important facts about C&D and Colorado’s budget crisis."
According to Clark, Howard Dean's Democratic presidential primary campaign did something similar in which Deaniacs wrote to Idaho in support of their chosen one. Clark opined in my earlier discussion with him that, compared to a phone call or in-person discussion, "Writing a letter isn’t as confrontational; you can have personal contact, but there's not as much potential for conflict."
Sure, that makes sense. And handwritten letters, especially when they feature personal expressions, are a lot more difficult to ignore than, say, some generic direct mail piece or canned mass email message.
But, to play devil's advocate, the flipside is that when the writers don't live near the letter recipients, those recipients can express resentment. Remember when British newspaper The Guardian Unlimited urged its readers to write to voters in Clark County, Ohio before the '04 election in support of John Kerry? In launching Operation Clark County, the folks at the paper wrote, "The most powerful transatlantic connection is a personal one, so we have designed a system to match individual Guardian readers with individual voters in Clark County, in the crucial swing state of Ohio." To be honest, if I got a letter like that from somebody living, not only in some other state, but another country, I'd feel pretty patronized, despite the good intentions -- whether I agreed with the writer or not. I'll bet even some of those so-called undecided voters in Clark County grew spiteful after getting one of those letters.
But, in this case, though ProgressNow serves the general mountain west, most writers will also be voting on the very same referenda. So, there's probably a lot less of a chance of this campaign backfiring into a reaction like, "Oh yeah? And who are you to tell me how I should vote? I didn't even care about this before, but now I'm going to go out and vote against this just to piss you off!"
]]>On RedState.org, Krempasky has published his planned speech. Here are a few excerpts:
"[The Internet] has created exactly the sort of political 'utopia' that the so-called ‘campaign reformers’ ought to be praising. It’s an environment in which Big Money has no significant advantage over small speakers – a level playing field on which creativity and passion trump volume and muscle. But instead, thanks to the consequences of a lawsuit and the vagaries of the FEC rule-making process, this thriving and popular medium faces the prospect of destruction.
]]>
On RedState.org, Krempasky has published his planned speech. Here are a few excerpts:
"[The Internet] has created exactly the sort of political 'utopia' that the so-called ‘campaign reformers’ ought to be praising. It’s an environment in which Big Money has no significant advantage over small speakers – a level playing field on which creativity and passion trump volume and muscle. But instead, thanks to the consequences of a lawsuit and the vagaries of the FEC rule-making process, this thriving and popular medium faces the prospect of destruction.
....the blogosphere is, in the simplest sense, not a broadcast medium. Consumers of news and information are not passive participants, they actively seek out the content they want. They have millions of choices at their fingertips. The power of the blogosphere is its amazing speed combined with a vast array of distributed resources. Many small voices speaking together consistently outweigh the well-funded interests. Bloggers don’t have influence because they start with large chunks of capital – in fact, most if not all start out as relatively lonely voices with tiny audiences. By delivering credible, interesting, and valuable content – their audience and influence grows over time.
Regulations that would create legal obstacles, burdens, thresholds and loophols [sic] for every individual blogger would generate a minefield that only the wealthy or the lawyers could navigate."
Our coverage of this ongoing debate has been pretty extensive. Check out some recent PersonalDemocracy.com articles and opinion:
It’s Gettin’ Hot (Headed) in Here: The FEC's Internet Summer
By Allison R. Hayward
The Federal Election Commission’s April proposal on how it should handle online communications like advertising and blog commentary has stirred much debate -- to use the polite term. It's time to get clear on just what all this FEC hulabaloo is all about. What's at stake? How might new regulations change the Net as we know it? Washington attorney Allison R. Hayward, and former counsel to FEC Commissioner Bradley A. Smith, lays it down.
Cutting on the Bias: Do We Need All This FEC Regulation?
By Allison Hayward
Washington attorney and former FEC counsel Allison Hayward wonders whether we’re relying too much on government regulation to protect us from biased political discourse. She figures, with politics being as cut-throat as they are, prejudice is bound to be exposed with or without the ever-evolving rules.
FEC Takes First Stab at Internet Rules: More Clarity Needed
By Richard Hasen
At first glance, the Federal Election Commission’s draft proposal for regulating Internet-based election activity is good news for the blogosphere. Contrary to the blogstorm of fears that it would take a heavy hand, the FEC seems to understand that this is a different medium where speech is cheap and the need for regulation aimed at constraining the corrupting effects of big money is slight. However, the FEC’s first stab at writing new rules raises as many questions as it seeks to answer, and we must remain wary of both intended and especially unintended consequences.
Should the FEC Regulate Political Blogging?
By Richard Hasen
The predictable blogstorm that erupted following Federal Election Commission Commissioner Bradley Smith’s C|NET News interview suggesting a "coming crackdown on blogging" should not obscure the fundamental and important questions facing the FEC: now that the Internet has become an important part of political life and campaigning in the U.S., what regulations are appropriate and constitutional?
Evidently, the editorial staff at The Jersey Journal (I get the Jersey City edition) is pissed off by the "ill-advised effort to generate support for CBGB" by club supporters who have "spammed editorial address for months." CBs, which has recently been served an eviction notice and has been putting on related benefit concerts, is in danger of being turned into additional housing for the nonprofit homeless advocacy group that takes up the rest of its building. As a result of the over-zealous email campaign, the editorial came out against the club as it struggles to remain in its home on the Bowery. And, it seems as though if it weren't for the email onslaught, the Journal editors wouldn't be so resentful towards CBs. As noted in the editorial, "Their effort was so obnoxious that in this opinion it is better to house the homeless than to reward this sophomoric mentality." Ouch.
]]>Evidently, the editorial staff at The Jersey Journal (I get the Jersey City edition) is pissed off by the "ill-advised effort to generate support for CBGB" by club supporters who have "spammed editorial address for months." CBs, which has recently been served an eviction notice and has been putting on related benefit concerts, is in danger of being turned into additional housing for the nonprofit homeless advocacy group that takes up the rest of its building. As a result of the over-zealous email campaign, the editorial came out against the club as it struggles to remain in its home on the Bowery. And, it seems as though if it weren't for the email onslaught, the Journal editors wouldn't be so resentful towards CBs. As noted in the editorial, "Their effort was so obnoxious that in this opinion it is better to house the homeless than to reward this sophomoric mentality." Ouch.
And in related commentary, NPR's coverage of the John Roberts hearings touched on the subject of lobbying editorial staff via email. During a lag in the hearings, NPR's legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, mentioned the large amount of communications she's received from groups advocating for or against the nominee for chief justice. The way she figured it, big political events like a Supreme Court nomination are the raison d'etre for many issue advocacy groups. After all, these events help solidify support around a timely, relevant issue, and of course, help garner donations in the process. Totenberg didn't seem especially impressed by the efforts to get her editorial attention. In fact, she referred to such groups' arsenals of emails and other efforts to push for their side as "mutually assured destruction." (Kinda like a nuclear option, I guess?)
I don't want to disregard the positive impact that email advocacy or letter writing efforts can have, but these instances add to other examples of inattention and even disdain for mass emailing and related large-scale advocacy efforts. The last thing organizations want is for lawmakers and media-decision makers to grow tired or even resentful towards their supporters and viewpoints.
]]>The lively, and at times, tense, debate was hosted by local TV station NY1 and sponsored by the city’s Campaign Finance Board (Read and watch NY1 coverage). The moderator wondered whether or not the Public Advocate is charged with playing a role in such a project, how the city would pay for his proposed $80 million program, and whether muni wi-fi is a beneficial expenditure of city funds when plenty of residents don't even have computers. Rasiej answered somewhat vaguely, stating that NYC is missing out on the tech revolution, and New Yorkers deserve to be able to connect more readily to their government through wi-fi.
]]>The lively, and at times, tense, debate was hosted by local TV station NY1 and sponsored by the city’s Campaign Finance Board (Read and watch NY1 coverage). The moderator wondered whether or not the Public Advocate is charged with playing a role in such a project, how the city would pay for his proposed $80 million program, and whether muni wi-fi is a beneficial expenditure of city funds when plenty of residents don't even have computers. Rasiej answered somewhat vaguely, stating that NYC is missing out on the tech revolution, and New Yorkers deserve to be able to connect more readily to their government through wi-fi.
Jay Golub, a dentist and the only of the four debaters who seems to be more right-leaning, however, shot down the notion of free muni wi-fi as an over-extension of the government's role, and something best left to the private sector. Current NYC Public Advocate, Betsy Gotbaum, at one point responded negatively, saying she didn't think a woman waiting for permanent city housing would want to wait for her house to be wired. At another point, though, she said it seemed like it would be a good thing, and wondered aloud whether Mayor Bloomberg, who appears to be a shoo-in for re-election, supports muni wi-fi. If he does, she presumed he'd support a blend of public and private cooperation in implementing such a project.
During the debate, Rasiej conjured up a New York in which citizen public advocates (folks he insists are already woven into the city's fabric) take digital photos of potholes and other images reflecting quality-of-life issues that need attention, and then post them to a website dedicated to exposing such problems and facilitating action. A caller to today's Brian Lehrer Show on local NPR station, WNYC, named Brandon said he supports Rasiej and first learned about his campaign through the Internet. He also mentioned that while he's in favor of the muni wi-fi platform, he's especially appreciative of the notion that all NYC citizens can be public advocates.
The debate moderator also questioned Rasiej about a press announcement he released the same day in which he appeared to take credit for spurring the NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority's decision to wire subway tunnels and platforms for cellphone service for emergency security purposes. With a skeptic tone, the moderator asked point blank whether he was taking credit for it, and Rasiej responded that, indeed, he is.
]]>Rush Limbaugh also helped fuel a lot of furor through an over-the-top parody he played on his show quite a bit last week. It's actually pretty humorous, but I'm sure you have to pay to hear it online so he can squeeze out his 'extreme profits'...(hey, can't blame him).
Although he’s not the first head honcho to be the target of an advocacy campaign, and he won’t be the last, I find it interesting that Walton himself was in the Fidelis crosshairs. More and more, advocacy efforts, whether email, fax or phone campaigns, are going after individuals – their specific work addresses or numbers – rather than some general info@ address or main number.
I'm also not sure how much this guy gets involved in ad decisions, but I suppose if his email box is clogged, he makes sure he is involved.
Honestly, while I’m sure this can really annoy a congressional staffer, or CEO, for that matter, I’m not so sure it always garners the intended response. Just consider what CNN spokesperson Laurie Goldberg said in the story: "We welcome individual feedback…. When a message is clearly mass produced, that counts as one e-mail."
Ha – I’d love to hear somebody on Capitol Hill be that blunt – never! But don’t think they ain’t thinkin’ it.
I got similar responses when interviewing senate staffers for a Personal Democracy Forum piece regarding the effects of John Bolton-related campaigns. Not only did the anti-Bolton campaigns obviously have little effect, they were forgotten once the Sandra Day shenanigans started (or was it the get Karl Rove fired campaigns? – not sure which came first); press secretaries of targeted senators I spoke with didn’t seem to think they’d have a major impact either way. They did, however, say that individualized messages from constituents were taken much more seriously than the form letter campaigns.
]]>(Menendez is my congressman, by the way. A few years back there was a trash can that had been burned and melted beyond recognition sitting directly outside his Jersey City office for months....)
Back to the story: It looks as though RightClick's strategy may involve all sorts of shenanigans, if the Roll Call report is any indication. Evidently, the company also claimed it did work for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as other Dems, when it turned out it hadn't. According to the article, "Larry Purpuro, founder of Rightclick Strategies...said that he couldn’t speak to the specific Obey presentation but he did say that 'our guys are up there ... they visit five to 15 offices a week. We have done hundreds of designs, designs for Members that did not engage us but that were conceptual designs.'"
]]>(Menendez is my congressman, by the way. A few years back there was a trash can that had been burned and melted beyond recognition sitting directly outside his Jersey City office for months....)
Back to the story: It looks as though RightClick's strategy may involve all sorts of shenanigans, if the Roll Call report is any indication. Evidently, the company also claimed it did work for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as other Dems, when it turned out it hadn't. According to the article, "Larry Purpuro, founder of Rightclick Strategies...said that he couldn’t speak to the specific Obey presentation but he did say that 'our guys are up there ... they visit five to 15 offices a week. We have done hundreds of designs, designs for Members that did not engage us but that were conceptual designs.'"
Last summer, it came out that sites created by RightClick for Arkansas Republican Rep. John Boozman and Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions both used the same exact statement that "sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts and citizens concerned for their personal safety have a right to own guns for these legitimate purposes, and I am committed to fighting for these rights for the constituents of the 3rd District of Arkansas." Or wherever. Take yer pick.
It also turns out images of Pelosi and Rep. Dennis Kucinich were employed in a marketing campaign for Rightclick Strategies' subsidiary American Digital Campaigns without approval, so Pelosi and Mr. Department of Peace asked the Office of the General Counsel to investigate.
And how's this for a juicy tidbit: Purpuro is former deputy chief of staff for the Republican National Committee. He comments in the story, "it’s difficult for me to respond to accusations based on hearsay and I’m somewhat suspicious of their origin given my visibility as a Republican and the large amount of work we have done for GOP Members."
This touches on an the ongoing debate of partisanship among vendors serving political clients -- should they choose sides or not? Well, depending on the services they provide, I suppose some might be better off playing in their own side of the sandbox.
Like I've said, I've heard some things about RightClick, too, but only from Dems if I recall, so I suppose partisan politics could play a role here. Still, it'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this.
]]>Now, AT&T Government Markets of Washington hosts FirstGov and provides security services, and its subcontractor, Fast Search and Transfer Inc. of Foster City, CA. provides the search engine.
GSA will award the gig to three or more vendors for delivery, operation and development of search engine services for the federal government’s official portal. Launch of the revamped site is set for no later than Feb. 1, 2006; news and image search capabilities are planned for a couple months afterwards.
]]>Now, AT&T Government Markets of Washington hosts FirstGov and provides security services, and its subcontractor, Fast Search and Transfer Inc. of Foster City, CA. provides the search engine.
GSA will award the gig to three or more vendors for delivery, operation and development of search engine services for the federal government’s official portal. Launch of the revamped site is set for no later than Feb. 1, 2006; news and image search capabilities are planned for a couple months afterwards.
Well, if anything this sounds more streamlined than the typical big contractor approach by which some goliath subs work out to a smaller firm, and so on, and so on -- which, of course, tags on extra cost with each intermediary.
]]>It was a landslide victory (648-14) for open source supporters who claim that patents stifle innovation and drown out the little guy. Tech firms like Nokia and Siemens AG that lobbied for the legislation said it would have given them incentives to invest in research and development.
One wonders whether open source advocates get any more benefit from the perpetuation of the EU's thick bureaucratic patent law stew than they would from having clear, concise laws that would apply to all software patented in all EU countries.
Any thoughts?
As for the success of the EU project in general, this is yet another pro-nationalist, anti-union defeat that only continues to divide the beleaguered institution's member states.
]]>It was a landslide victory (648-14) for open source supporters who claim that patents stifle innovation and drown out the little guy. Tech firms like Nokia and Siemens AG that lobbied for the legislation said it would have given them incentives to invest in research and development.
One wonders whether open source advocates get any more benefit from the perpetuation of the EU's thick bureaucratic patent law stew than they would from having clear, concise laws that would apply to all software patented in all EU countries.
Any thoughts?
As for the success of the EU project in general, this is yet another pro-nationalist, anti-union defeat that only continues to divide the beleaguered institution's member states. Imagine if your New Jersey patent didn't hold water in New York or vice versa. I'm sure many open source proponents would disagree, but it seems like it will be difficult (or at least incredibly inefficient and frustrating) for European software firms to compete on a wide scale without more comprehensive patent law.
]]>I know that's the case where I live in Jersey City. Our recent mayoral race featured a long list of city council hopefuls in my ward, only one with a website (and that could have easily passed for a starter site, circa '98). Sure, political junkies may visit local blogs, which may in turn influence local newspaper and TV coverage. (Heck, the newly revamped Jersey Journal features posts from popular local blogs and forums in its Saturday print edition.) But just whether or not blog chatter can really affect decisions and voter turnout is a different story.
]]>I know that's the case where I live in Jersey City. Our recent mayoral race featured a long list of city council hopefuls in my ward, only one with a website (and that could have easily passed for a starter site, circa '98). Sure, political junkies may visit local blogs, which may in turn influence local newspaper and TV coverage. (Heck, the newly revamped Jersey Journal features posts from popular local blogs and forums in its Saturday print edition.) But just whether or not blog chatter can really affect decisions and voter turnout is a different story.
After all, the people frequenting blogs (especially local political ones) tend to have their allegiances set in stone. The folks who have yet to make up their minds and aren't even sure whether or not they'll vote are far less likely to be aware of blawg tawk even if it trickles up/over/down/or across to other media. Those people -- often in the majority -- will be far more susceptible to lawn signs (or in Jersey City's case, bodega and stoop signs), last-minute direct mail (which in these parts tends to get unbelievably defamatory), or in-person chats with a door-knocking candidate or supporter, rather than a blog post which in many cases is accessible on a contraption they have yet to spend much time with.
I'm not disputing that blogs can be powerful in some cases when dealing with certain constituencies, and I do believe that even local candidates can benefit from blogging (or, at the very least, having a campaign site). But the blog is a mere cog in a massive political machine -- one that, especially when it comes to local politics -- is very difficult to maneuver without greasing the same old parts (and palms). OK -- lame metaphor, but you catch my drift.
]]>In a post today to his blog, Lewis writes, “Democrats view technology as a game. They like to put a lot of effort into blogging and hope to be able to, ‘create an internet community.’ Republicans (who by nature are outcome-based and serious) tend to use technology (like micro-targeting) to identify, persuade, and turn-out voters on Election Day.”
]]>In a post today to his blog, Lewis writes, “Democrats view technology as a game. They like to put a lot of effort into blogging and hope to be able to, ‘create an internet community.’ Republicans (who by nature are outcome-based and serious) tend to use technology (like micro-targeting) to identify, persuade, and turn-out voters on Election Day.”
Ouch.
I’m sure plenty of our readers from the left could list lots of instances that counter Lewis’ contention. Still, I wonder if there’s a bit of truth to this obviously generalized view, at least when considering our coverage of the inner technological workings of the DNC, as laid bare by contributing editor Brian Reich in his enlightening April PDF piece. In this PDF feature, Reich explains how far the Dems have to go in the tech department before they catch up with their rivals. If anything, the fact that the top-tier Democratic committees had been reluctant to let data trickle down to local-level organizations -- while Republicans had long been sharing information –- serves to support Lewis’ argument.
]]>Honestly, I don't think this reflects poorly on Schundler at all as a candidate. I highly doubt he was involved with the decision making process for an image on his website, which he couldn't possibly have time for in the midst of a very contentious primary campaign. However, it's a big foul for Big Fish (or "big fowl" if you like puns). According to the firm's website, it created direct mail and other collateral for Republican and Democratic candidates and issue advocacy groups before the 2004 election (including Dean's primary campaign).
]]>Honestly, I don't think this reflects poorly on Schundler at all as a candidate. I highly doubt he was involved with the decision making process for an image on his website, which he couldn't possibly have time for in the midst of a very contentious primary campaign. However, it's a big foul for Big Fish (or "big fowl" if you like puns). According to the firm's website, it created direct mail and other collateral for Republican and Democratic candidates and issue advocacy groups before the 2004 election (including Dean's primary campaign).
I'm not sure whether the image was used anywhere other than the one page on the site, but it's kinda obvious that the photo was doctored. If it was that necessary to have a photo of the candidate and his supporters, surely there was one or two floating around the campaign headquarters, no? If not and they just HAD to have that sort of image, there are plenty of places to find non-copyrighted images for free or purchase copyrighted images. I mean...hello...hadn't the Big Fish lackey who created the image heard of Photodisc? Of course, concocting images from found parts wouldn't be too kosher in this case either.
]]>I've checked the site's donation page, which requests credit card and personal info, in Firefox and IE a few times over the past few days and found it to be insecure. At least, the li'l lock icon ain't appearing in either browser. The site does note "If you prefer to send a contribution by mail, please print this page and mail it along with your check to our office."
I wonder how many potential donations he's lost because of this apparent oversight/malfunction. With a spend-a-holic like Bloomberg as an opponent, this couldn't be helping Weiner's campaign any.
]]>I've checked the site's donation page, which requests credit card and personal info, in Firefox and IE a few times over the past few days and found it to be insecure. At least, the li'l lock icon ain't appearing in either browser. The site does note "If you prefer to send a contribution by mail, please print this page and mail it along with your check to our office."
I wonder how many potential donations he's lost because of this apparent oversight/malfunction. With a spend-a-holic like Bloomberg as an opponent, this couldn't be helping Weiner's campaign any.
]]>