Slashdot Mirror

As a side note, once you get to know the system a bit, looking through the congressional record, etc. can be quite interesting. For quick access to roll call votes on some of the more well-known bills, Project Vote Smart and the C-Span Vote Library can be useful.

Typically I refrain from discussing politics in Taverns, it interfers with beer drinking. I usually discourage it by repeatedly changing the subject (What about them Yanks? I still say they suck.) Political discourse, as I've seen it on the internet (before there as a "The Web") rarely stayed on topic and usually drove people from discussion, requiring the invocation of Godwin's Law at some point.

IMHO the true value of the Internet and Web is for research. I can access candidates pages, League of Women voters on proposals, and visit sites (like Vote Smart) which reveal the true voting records of incumbants.


--

Since im not a good writer I did use the letter created by by bakreule(apocalypse29_99@yahoo.spam.com)and sent out two letters to both my senators here in califorina, Barbra Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. Please show your support by spending 5 mins creating these letters and mailing them to your sentators. Here are the address for Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer

Since im not a good writer I did use the letter created by by bakreule(apocalypse29_99@yahoo.spam.com)and sent out two letters to both my senators here in califorina, Barbra Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. Please show your support by spending 5 mins creating these letters and mailing them to your sentators. Here are the address for Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer

The elections in the U.S. depend on two things:

1. Getting people who agree with you out to vote.
2. Making sure that people who don't agree with you don't vote.

Let's be blunt. The differences between Gush and Bore are miniscule, and growing smaller. Candidates race to the center as quickly as they can.

If you're sick of the two major party candidates, then check out the candidate list at Vote Smart . If nothing else, writing in the National Barking Spider Resurgence Party , Church of God Party , Lettuce Party , the Anti-Hypocrisy Party, the Hephzibau, the Corrective Actions Party , or Mike's Party.

A large groundswell for sixth-party candidates would be far more effective of a protest than not voting.

The elections in the U.S. depend on two things:

1. Getting people who agree with you out to vote.
2. Making sure that people who don't agree with you don't vote.

Let's be blunt. The differences between Gush and Bore are miniscule, and growing smaller. Candidates race to the center as quickly as they can.

If you're sick of the two major party candidates, then check out the candidate list at Vote Smart . If nothing else, writing in the National Barking Spider Resurgence Party , Church of God Party , Lettuce Party , the Anti-Hypocrisy Party, the Hephzibau, the Corrective Actions Party , or Mike's Party.

A large groundswell for sixth-party candidates would be far more effective of a protest than not voting.

Point taken. There are other good organizations for keeping one actually informed b'sides vote-smart.org. I saw a booklet given out by the League of Women Voters this summer 'round primary time, and I thought it was very helpful. I think they CAN be trusted as much as anyone can. More people using LWV as a resource would probably result in better informed voters.

As far as mailings go, I was primarily refering to candidate direct mailings, which is what most people 'round my parts receive. I don't think they can be trusted. The mainstream media can't be trusted because 1) politicians are more and more skilled at USING it and 2) they treat political contests like football games, not discussing policy, but rather the "score", political strategy, and occasional well-rehearsed soundbites.

LWV is great. Vote-smart.org is just another way to investigate a candidate. Their generalized issues test provides a way to see how their tendancies stack up to yours without rhetoric. Their campaign finance records can indicate to you whose interests they probably will represent. It's a tool, and there are others.

I tried testing this idea in the furnace of slashdot a while ago, but got no comment. I'll try again.

"Your Vote" is already wasted and skews the election if you're uninformed. I'm going to define "informed" as making active efforts to gain an understanding of candidates -- passive receiving of ads, mailings, and any other major media outlet won't do. These are the places where politicians carefully polish their image and deliberately choose their words. You won't learn anything but what they (or maybe their opponents, who may be less credible) want you to know about them (and chances are you won't learn anything about a candidate who isn't a Democrat or Republican).

Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.

We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason or actual scientific citation. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.

If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. You have to learn something about policy.

Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data collected for which there is no correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If YOU know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.

A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.

But remember, folks, just as Bush and Gore aren't the only choices, neither is Nader the only "other" choice. There are many, many other people running for president, including Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party (my personal choice), Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, and many others.

Look at Project Vote Smart and find out about the candidates. I urge you to vote for someone who agrees with your idea, not just Nader because not "either of the other two idiots."

Then pay attention to, and vote in, your LOCAL elections. Your county commisionners/city council/state representatives have more influence over your life than you realize, and are in raced decided by far fewer votes than national elections. Local elections are where your vote, and your voice, can make a much larger impact.

Go Vote! And VoteSmart!

"There isn't always something worth voting for, but there is almost always something worth voting against."

Or something like that.

And seeing as how there is little to be excited about in this year's choice, the decision seems to come down to which major candidate you would least like to see in office. Do you want a President who made his money in oil production, or one who sees the internal combustion engine as evil? Do you want a President who opposes abortion except in specific, limited situation or supports a woman's right to choose? Do you want a President who favors extending the internet tax moratorium or one who "invented the internet"? Do you want a President who can't speak clearly, or one who lies clearly?

Do you want a President who will add Supreme Court Justices who favor a more liberal approach, or a more conservative one?

Then there is the balance of power. Government is now stymied by a Republican congress and a Democratic White House. Do you favor that balance, or not?

This year, I really believe the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils. Which is in itself a rather sad, frightening commentary on today's political system.

-----------------------
Want more information? VoteSmart!

Project Vote Smart has something they call the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test or something like that). It's basically a crib sheet for voters that shows candidate support for various policies (though it could take as much as 10-15 minutes to wade through, far exceeding the attention span of the average voter).

Now, our main two contestants (W and Gore) have declined to answer the questions. This isn't too surprising, considering they have much more to gain by continuing to engage in the spin-centered tactics they now employ than providing actual info. Because the people at vote smart are dilligent, they've filled out NPATs for W and Gore from public statements they've made, and left blanks where there's no public statement.

But guess what? Nader didn't fill out an NPAT! Despite being contacted repeatedly by vote-smart people, including relative political luminaries Michael Dukkakis and Geraldine Ferraro. Nader has almost NOTHING to gain by using the same spin tactics that our mainstream friends do. His entire campaign base really should be people who are actually semi-informed. What's going on here? Nader starting to dodge?

Harry Browne did fill one out incidentally, but after reading it, I know I can't vote for him, even though he gets big bonus points for actually putting his views on a clear record.

Take a look at the list. I think you'll be surprised at the sheer number of candidates -- I couldn't take the time to go through each one (so I basically weeded out everyone who couldn't come up with a running mate). And it's interesting that those who fill out the NPAT are the ones who have the least publicity. Stardom going to your head, Ralph?

Project Vote Smart has something they call the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test or something like that). It's basically a crib sheet for voters that shows candidate support for various policies (though it could take as much as 10-15 minutes to wade through, far exceeding the attention span of the average voter).

Now, our main two contestants (W and Gore) have declined to answer the questions. This isn't too surprising, considering they have much more to gain by continuing to engage in the spin-centered tactics they now employ than providing actual info. Because the people at vote smart are dilligent, they've filled out NPATs for W and Gore from public statements they've made, and left blanks where there's no public statement.

But guess what? Nader didn't fill out an NPAT! Despite being contacted repeatedly by vote-smart people, including relative political luminaries Michael Dukkakis and Geraldine Ferraro. Nader has almost NOTHING to gain by using the same spin tactics that our mainstream friends do. His entire campaign base really should be people who are actually semi-informed. What's going on here? Nader starting to dodge?

Harry Browne did fill one out incidentally, but after reading it, I know I can't vote for him, even though he gets big bonus points for actually putting his views on a clear record.

Take a look at the list. I think you'll be surprised at the sheer number of candidates -- I couldn't take the time to go through each one (so I basically weeded out everyone who couldn't come up with a running mate). And it's interesting that those who fill out the NPAT are the ones who have the least publicity. Stardom going to your head, Ralph?

Alright, I'm going to test this idea in the furnace of slashdot.

If you haven't seriously studied election candidates -- that is, done something well beyond what comes by in the newspapers or on TV or radio ads -- you shouldn't vote. At all.

Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.

We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.

If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data that indicates there isn't a correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If you know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.

A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.

While I did enjoy reading up on Bush's and Gore's viewpoint as they specifically relate to space and other sciences, I find it rather sad that they are yet again the only candidates to get a mention. It appears that the folks at NASA Watch took some time to find out about the candidates' viewpoints on the space program, but they couldn't spend just a few minutes learning who the other candidates running on the majority of the ballots were and what they thought? I understand the thinking behind the whole "wasted vote" philosophy which so many people abide by and therefore disregard third party candidates, but it is that kind of thinking which has resulted in this two party oligarchy that currently holds power in the USA today and will continue to do so until people learn that you shouldn't vote against a candidate but for a candidate. The Republican Party was a third party once as well, until a guy by the name of Abraham Lincoln ran on their ticket back in 1860, and that was 140 years ago, when to find out what candidates were about, you had to run your dumb ass all over hell and gone just to catch a rally and hear what they were about. These days, we have so much info without ever getting off of our asses, that there really is no excuse for not knowing who's running, what their stances are, etc.

If you are still in the dark, cruise over to www.vote-smart.org to get a brief view of the candidates and links to their official sites, or for a cool website concerning the candidates' stances on many issues, check out Issues2000.org. Oh, and don't neglect to learn about your local Congresscritters, either, especially since their decisions have a hell of a lot more impact on your daily life than the president's does. Whatever you do, don't just whine about not being able to make a difference, because that's a load of horseshit; even if your candidate of choice doesn't win, at least your vote is officially tallied so that whoever is elected will realize that, although they may have won, there is a large number of people, voting people, who support a different way of doing things and that they do well to find out why so many people voted a certain way. So go out, learn about the candidates and their views, decide who you would like to support and, most importantly:

Vote!

Deo

Vote-Smart.org lists 157 presidential candidates. Granted, most of them wouldn't get more than a couple votes, but the fact that all options aren't presented kinda screws up any poll, doesn't it? I guess they could throw in an "other" option, but it would still make the poll biased towards those candidates that are actually listed.

Occasional Slashdot poster and presidential candidate Leo Schwab, you mean.

A lot of the threads that I've read have been filled with people complaining about not knowing where the candidates stand on the issues. Many of the candidates for the Presidency have responded to a questionarre here. This shows where many candidates stand on many different issues, and thus allows us, as voters, to make informed decisions.

I believe there is such a website that allows Presidential candidates to state where they stand on the issues ( > 20). I believe it is here. Unfortunately, none of the major candidates (Nader, Bush, Gore) have answered their questionarre, despite being asked to. That may have changed since I checked the site last.

I've always had trouble with "Just Vote!" message. It causes a lot of clueless people to go to the pole and just pick the names that sound nice or that they recognize. Then they get a little sticker that sez "I Voted Today!" and all they're co-workers think they're socially responsible. This contributes to the wrong people getting elected. So if you haven't spent at least a few minutes considering the issues for god sake stay home. Or if your willing to spend just a couple minutes go to www.vote-smart.org and get a quick and simply summary of what the candiadates do and do not support.

Vote Smart needs programmers.

The FY 2000 Federal Budget of the US

A citizen's guide to the federal budget (pdf), in there you will find a break down of US government spending: 15% National Defense, 17% non-defense discretionary (this is stuff like the NASA budget, spending on dams, national parks, federally funded cancer research, etc., basically everything that's not an entitlement or national defense), 27% social security, 11% interest on the national debt, 11% medicare, 6% medicaid, 6% "other mandatory" (federal retirement and insurance, unemployment, farmer subsidies, etc.), 6% "other means-tested entitlements" (stuff like foodstamps, children's lunch programs, etc.), 6% reserve spending social security reform. Total spending, about 1.7 Trillion dollars.

In the last link you will also find:
General science, space, and technology: 19 billion dollars
...
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 14 billion dollars.

Note that the US spends 10 times more on Medicare alone than it does on NASA.

Also, note that this doesn't take into account spending of any individual states, which includes a substantial amount of spending on various "helping humans stuff".

USA Democracy lists bills in the current session of Congress and how legislators voted on each bill. They don't appear to have old records, so you can't look 8 years in the past to see if a candidate's vote has been consistent. They allow you to vote on bills and compare your vote to your representatives' vote...but you cannot compare your representatives to their election opponents, nor can you look at presidential candidates or politicians in another district. Nice setup, but nearly worthless to me.

THOMAS is similar to USA Democracy but with an archive, so you can look at past votes. Still, it gives information only on federal officeholders, and you have to look through the bill history to collate information about a candidate. Yuck.

Project Vote-Smart is a bit closer to what I'd like to see: It lists candidates, not just incumbents, although it only has voting record for federal incumbents. Thus, there are no records at all for George W. Bush (no info on state bills and positions) and the latest records for Al Gore are from 1992 when he was a senator. A dribble of info on this site, nothing more.

I want information on a candidate from *before* he became a senator. I want information on what he claims to support cross-referenced to how he's actually voted. I want to see the state legislature voting records...what the hell has George W. Bush been doing in Texas? And I want to compare candidates side-by-side on the same page.

I am a registered independant, and I am shopping for a vote. The candidates are products to me -- I want the same kind of shopping experience I get when comparing hardware on a retailer's site. Full info and directly comparable data, nothing less will do.

I hope Scott's Democracy Project has what I'm looking for. Oh, well, if it doesn't, I can always compete with him by putting up my own site in 2004.

Try www.vote-smart.org. A long questionnaire on issues, past votes, and evaluations by interest groups.

The web can be a great resource for voters, but I worry that websites can also be great sources of misinformation and innuendo that mainstream media wouldn't propogate. How can you know whether websites such as Vote Smart or Go Vote can be trusted? For instance, those sites could be funded by special interest groups and give skewed or inaccurate information, and it would be difficult for average voters to know.

Further, I got several forwarded e-mail messages about Gore, which all turned out to be hoaxes, some saying that he'd misquoted the bible, others saying he'd been pro-life when he was young. Since it is in the Gore campaign's interest to refute the allegations, it was difficult to find trusted, authoritive refutation. How do you recommend voters find accurate, trusted, authoritative information on the Web outside of the candidates own websites (which are suspect)?

oh btw, you can find out about McCains voting record here But basically, for technology in the 90's he voted for supercollider projects, for space exploration, and several times helped stop some d-AR names bumpers, from taking away space station funding. and voted for research of new solid rocket tech (wiether this was for NASA or for missles, I don't know) voted against an international, put monkyes in space to study long term zero-gravity effects. Voted for all the no-internet tax stuff. Voted to ban internet gambling (weither that is a positive or negative I'll leave to the gental reader, but let you know that 80% of sentate voted for this ban), but it got stuck in committee trying to make the house and sentate versions match, and never left. Voted against an admendment for funding of some tech stuff, but I can't find the specifics, as it was just an amendment. He voted to close debate of cloning, but I can't find what his accual view was. Shrugs... Voted to allow the sale of guns over the internet.. shrugs.. Voted against less restrictions on police recording phone conversations. Yes against slamming. Voted against many telecommunication deregulation bills (though almost all of them included either weird riders, or were really weird themselves). Voted for extra punishments for people who knowingly use telecommunications to make obsesne of harrasing communications with minors.

The right congressmen? Try _all_ the congressmen. This voting record shows that the bill was passed uninamously, with the exception of one congressman from New Hampshire abstaining.

The bill was passed in the house by a voice vote; that means there is no record of how each Representative voted.

But really, can you blame them? This is a non-issue to the public at large, and corporate interests were at stake. The only time they'll defy the corporations is over a large public issue, e.g. campaign finance reform.

I didn't provide a way for you to do this when I first posted, but then I remembered something you should really be aware of. Project Vote-Smart has a search tool to allow you to search a candidates public statements for their stance on a particular issue.
Search the Presidential Candidates' Public Statements!

B. Elgin

OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html

Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/ EOP/html/principals.html

Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/

(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.

OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html

Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/html/principals.h tml

Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/

(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.

Forbes made a speech advocating privacy and how he planned to do it, just two weeks ago. There's a transcript available on his web site. You can also search other candidate statements at http://www.vote-smart.org.

People assume that one of the Big Two parties is going to win anyway, and voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. But what if everyone stood back for a second and voted *not* for the most likely candidate, but for the candidate that seemed most likely to be the right person for the job? What if we voted as individuals, not as a pack? Maybe we'd end up with 40 candidates and none get over 10% of the vote. Maybe we'll need a runoff election every four years. But would that be such a bad thing? Maybe it would give a suitable underdog a shot for once.

Myself, I really like Ralph Nader and the Green Party -- he got my vote in 1996 and he'll get it again this year. But a lot of the hackers I know are Libertarians or Free Marketeers or Socialists or whatever, and that's fine. I'm sure there are great candidates in all these camps, really. Why not give them a shot. "Gee Dubya" is pretty obviously an imbecile and a stuffed shirt for his corporate backers -- do you really want to see him win? Is Al Gore, proud internet innovator, any better? Fuck no he's not. The survey at Select Smart isn't a bad place to find a candidate that comes close to your ideology, whatever it may be. And Project Vote Smart is also a pretty good place to learn more. And don't forget about local elections either -- they're less glamorous, but they have far more impact over your day to day life than the high profile CNN elections. Be an informed and active voter above all else. It's worth it.

And that's a Really Bad Thing for us to be encouraging. The Russian military has been in decline for decades, and the decline has accelerated rapidly in the nineties. The conventional military is getting live training now in Chechnya, but is all the same not seen as a threat to the American forces -- now or at any point in the forseeable future.

The nuclear forces on the other hand are still a viable threat to the US, and our recent actions encourage the Russians to rely more heavily upon them. This is just plain moronic on our part. Almost as bad as the sanctions against Pakistan, which have surely led to a lot of good in that country.

The moves to strengthen our missile defense program are just plain stupid, no other way to put it. They violate the treaty that does most to ensure bilateral stability, and do so in an effort to counter one of the least likely threats to our territory. (Why use an ICBM when you can get the same or better results out of a suitcase?). What we're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it can only lead to a renewed arms race.

We cannot let that happen. The vestiges of representative democracy may be a farce at this point, but all the same we have to keep trying. If ever there was a time to write to your congressmen, this is one of those times. If you don't know who your congressmen are, try looking here. Write to them, tell them what a colossal mistake they are making, find out what side they have taken on the matter (most support it), and make your stance & voting intentions clear to them. If enough people contact them, they'll listen. Hopefully. If living in a 'free' and 'peaceful' country means anything to you, then you must at least try.

Unfortunately, I doubt it will happen. I would have voted for Senator Gramm from Texas when he ran for president some time ago. I liked the way he made some of the press stutter when he gave yes or no answers without going through a song-and-dance.

The press expects politicians to hide the truth, and they are ready to dig it out. If a politician states his/hers opinions up front, the press does not know what to do.

Slightly offtopic to the article, but relevant:

One of the great things about electronic communication is that it gives the common man instant lobbying power.

One of the greatest things Slashdot:YRO could do is to post a tool, or a permanent link to a tool, that lets you quickly and easily determine who represents you. I have occasionally seen posts with links to sites like Project Vote Smart that provide this ability. More frequently I have seen posts where people have formatted excellent letters to send to your congressional representatives that address various issues (UCITA, Microsoft trial, etc.), but I still have to do a lot of rooting around to find out who my current representatives are.

This process could all be streamlined right here on YRO, if there was some kind of simple tool (enter your ZIP, up pop the email addresses of everyone who represents you).

There are a lot of intelligent opinions on Slashdot. We need to make them visible in the political arena.

Check out Project Vote-Smart

It includes voting records, approval/disapproval percentage by various organizations (from the NRA to NOW), and other useful info.

They are not biased, nor do they accept money from anyone who might want to influence them. This is their statement of purpose:

THROUGH A CITIZENS' TOOLKIT OF FREE SERVICES, programs and materials, this national non-partisan, non-profit effort researches, tracks and provides to the public independent factual information on over 13,000 candidates and elected officials. Voting records, campaign issue positions, performance evaluations by special interests, campaign contributions, backgrounds, previous experience, and contact information are available, over a toll-free Voter's Research Hotline, manuals and other publications, and the Vote Smart Web site. The whole system provides a powerful tool for accountability. It allows citizens to look over the shoulders of their elected representatives daily, to monitor and supervise them, and to compare their campaign promises with their actual job performance once in office.

This is their statement of integrity:

THE INTEGRITY OF THE INFORMATION system is scrupulously protected in several crucial ways. The Founding Board, balanced across the political spectrum, includes prominent national leaders like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, Geraldine Ferraro and Newt Gingrich, Mark Hatfield and Bill Bradley. The Project is funded entirely by foundation grants and the individual contributions of over 50,000 members. Our members contribute what they can, to ensure the system survives to help all citizens. The average contribution is $35. We refuse donations from corporate and special interests--from any group that lobbies government at any level.

Here's a couple sites that you might find interesting:

Project Vote Smart

Democracy Network

I believe Project Vote Smart lets you review your legislators by issue if they've answered a survey.

I am strongly suggesting that everyone (US citizens here) write your state representatives in both your state governments and federal governments. If you don't know who your reps are, just go to Vote-Smart and enter your ZIP code.

If you do write your reps, try to mail the letter the old fashioned way, since it is most effective because they are required to file every letter they receive.

For those of you who need a starting block as to what to say, here is what I am sending. It fits on a single page. Obviously, you may modify it if you want (you will probably want to replace the stuff in the brackets []):

---------------------

August 11, 1999

[STATE REP]
[STATE REP ADDRESS]
[STATE REP CITY STATE ZIP]

[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[YOUR CITY STATE ZIP]

Dear [STATE REP],

I am writing you due to my concern over the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) that has been approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). This proposed law will most likely come to the floor of the [YOUR STATE] State Legislature in the near future. I strongly request that you VOTE AGAINST this proposed law.

The legalities contained in the UCITA aim to protect the large computer software corporations who are sponsoring the law, while severely limiting consumer rights. Also contained within the UCITA is a ban on reverse engineering. This is by far the most disturbing amendment of the UCITA. If reverse engineering were to become illegal, a large portion of computer software and computer software businesses would cease to exist. Reverse engineering is a central point of computer software. Reverse engineering allows a developer to create software that is compatible with existing software. If reverse engineering were banned, a large portion of existing software would become illegal, while the remaining "legal" software applications would suddenly have monopoly status. This would destroy small computer software businesses and severely harm consumers due to limited choices. The amendment for banning reverse engineering only benefits the large corporations by allowing them to further secure their monopolies.

As a professional computer software engineer, I am asking you to VOTE AGAINST the proposed UCITA law. It is not good for [YOUR STATE] and it is not good for The United States.

For more information about why the UCITA is an unbalanced law, please point your Web browser to the following addresses:

http://www.cptech.org/ucc/ (talks about Uniform Commercial Code Article B2 of the UCITA)
http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/usacm-ucita.h tml (letter from the ACM President)
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl ?/features/990531ucita3.htm (general issues)
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/ reed/990531sr.htm (other issues)
http://linuxticker.com/artikel/135.html (informal review)

Thank you,



[YOUR NAME]

At this point, it's up to the 50 states to individually ratify the UCITA into state law. So write your state legislator. Snail-mail counts most, short letters with useful arguments are easier for staffers to handle. Basically, (I think) you want to have 'em amend or strike UCC Article 2B. The remote-deactivation provisions will be the most odious and easiest to fight. You can even cite the fact that it will be bad for the commercial software indistry 'cos it'll pressure s/w-dependent businesses to switch to free and homegrown s/w just so they don't have to fear pissing off their s/w vendor.

To find your state legislator: Project Vote-Smart or the Democracy Network.

What I want is something like the WA state law, which allows for a "private right of action" against the spammer. This allows the recipient of the spam, not the ISP, to sue. If the spammer doesn't show up in court to defend itself, a default judgement is entered against it, and the judgement can be sold off to a debt collection agency.

Be careful what you ask for, you might not get exactly what you want. There is legislation at the state level either already enacted or well on its way to becoming law that does provide spam recipients with a right of private action. The only problem is that several of those bills have been watered down by friends of direct marketing interests to allow recovery of only $10/per spam by the recipient or some similarly piddly amount. Hardly worth the recipient's time or effort to try and collect.

For a good review of currently enacted and pending anti-spam legislation at both the state and federal levels, check out the Unsolicited E-mail Statutes subsection of the Cyberspace Law Website hosted by John Marshall Law School in Chicago, maintained by Prof. David Sorkin.

Voice your desire for effective anti-spam legislation at the state and federal levels by contacting via snail mail (not phone, not e-mail) to your state and federal legislators. Find out who your state and federal legislators are and what their views are at Project Vote Smart.

Weird, that's not the url I put in.

This is

(1) IN GENERAL- An elementary school, secondary school, or library that fails to provide the certification required by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to receive or retain universal service assistance provided under subsection (h)(1)(B).

On that note, I highly recommend Project Vote Smart < http://www.vote-smart.org/&gt;.

This non-partisan site has lots of detailed info on all the candidates and so forth, including issues responses and recent voting history. That is, if they've been a Congressman, it lists how they voted on various bills.. very good solid data. (Could use more info on those bills, though.)

Anyway, this is the quickest way to check out tons of solid facts about various candidates.

A quick check of Project Vote Smart reveals that local telcos are one of Rep Goodlatte's two biggest campaign contributors. Any questions?

The bill will only outlaw spam with a forged return address and will probably allow the local telcos to take over the long-distance voice market without any regulation as well. Let's give this thing thing the treatment it deserves!