GeekPAC

SgtXaos writes "The newly created American Open Technology Consortium has posted a draft of their position statement online. They propose to change that by forming a real lobbying force to educate and influence congress about issues near and dear to all of us geeks. Here's a chance to put money where our uh, er, typing is." Newsforge (also part of OSDN) has a story and interview with the founders.

Comments

Prices.

[saintlupus]

a chance to put money where our uh, er, typing is.

If only senators were "free-as-in-beer." Well, senators besides Teddy Kennedy...

--saint

Re:Prices.

[DA-MAN]

judging by some of the bonehead decisions they make regarding technology, it's quite possible that they are "drunk-as-in-beer"(tm).

Re:Prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

D00d, where've you been? Tabs have been in Mozilla since release 0.9.5

Re:Prices.

[linzeal]

How big do you think Tk's liver is? I'm betting over 80 lbs.

Re:Prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

How big do you think Tk's liver is? I'm betting over 80 lbs.

How big is TK's liver ?

That would make a cool /. poll

Re:Prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, he is and I would as well. By the way do you ride the short bus?

Re:Prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Asshole.

Looks like you finally bought that mirror.

Re:Prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone notice that the American Open Technology Consortium has the same Initals as Attack Of The Clones, Lucus' next installment of the starwars saga?

great idea

[bluecalix]

It's about time that people with intelligence and money get together to have our say. Even a very small group that is organized can make a difference if their time is used wisely. It's unfortunate but the best way to get our point across is to put our own shills in place in DC to corner the politicos one on one.

Re:great idea

[lynx_user_abroad]

It's about time that people with intelligence and money get together to have our say.

Unfortunately, there's more money in the set of { stoopid with money } than in the set of { intelligent with money }, even though the few in the intelligent set generally have more money. The money in the stoopid set is less well guarded, too.

proposal of a draft of a framework?

[ghostlibrary]

So there's a proposal of a draft to consider a position statement about creating a framework for moving towards forming a possible entity. Wow! They have the political process down pat! Lots of action words and nothing real yet!

Seriously, it is a good thing, I just love these early, tentative stages. I'll likely pledge. I do think taking 'geekpac' as a contact name will be negative PR, even though "reclaiming geekhood" is trendy now.

Re:proposal of a draft of a framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember when I've ever been a geek. I've always been a stoner, ranging from druggy to pothead, but I got kicked out of my highschool library for hacking their Novell system. Serves 'em right for using Novell in the first place. But I won't be identifying myself with this geeking subculture that thinks as soon as they know something about computer they're a geek. Whatever. Go read a few books.
Until I find an interest group that understands ME, and is open to MY ideas I won't be funding any of them. I'm an open minded gay lesbian bisexual cross-dressing T who loves all kinds of drugs and porn and absolute freedom at the cost of our responsibility. Anything short of that is bipartisan.

Not bad.

[llamalicious]

Gotta applaud this for spirit though, we have to have someone on our side that can build up some clout.
But it's still one more four-letter acronym, and another pile of legislative paper to file. May the gods have mercy on their souls.

My favorite statement:

Once access is solidified into the hands of a very few companies, the "bottom up" content flow model of the Internet will be put in lethal jeopardy. This small group of companies that will control the access, will also be able to control the flow of content TYPE. The Internet as we know it will cease to exist. The absurd notion that the 4 major phone companies need protection FROM the ISP business community is laughable. Near 10,000 businesses may be legislated out of existence in favor of FOUR companies. This bill is so fundamentally anti-business, anti-entrepreneur and anti-American; it is SHOCKING that it was passed by Republicans, a traditionally Pro-business party.

Shocking? Methinks not. The Republican party may be "traditionally" pro-business. But each individual representative is simply pro-money-in-my-pocket.

Re:Not bad.

[plotdot]

The Republican party is not "traditionally" pro-business, it's pro BIG business. And yes, put-the-money-in-my-pocket business. For that very reason during the Great Depression many small business owners went over to the Democrats (the one in 1929-1935, not 2000-02.) That was my grandfather's generation, and he and his friends often spoke of the Depression in terms of when the GOP turned its back on mom-and-pop businesses after their rich big-business buddies had raped the economy. That generation of small business people never trusted the GOP again. Funny that this should come up, for that Depression began with much the same cross-the-board, major institution wrong-doing, one hand washing the other, as is coming out of the Enron debacle. Of course, this is just the sort of thing the GOP hopes people soon forget, or better yet, fail to see the similarity between. Probably, given the short-term memory of most Americans, that's a reasonable hope. I'll be you'd be hard pressed to find 10 people out of 100 who remember what the "Checkers" incident was all about.

Pr0n

[cheekymonkey_68]

C'mon this is one issue near and dear to our hearts.

GeekPAC should be arguing for real geek issues, liking banning clued up sys admins from searching for pr0n directories.

typing is?

[Luguber123]

Wouldn't that be more like.. 'put your money where your keyboard is'

Re:typing is?

[GutBomb]

i would have said fingers, but seeing as this is slashdot, maybe anus would be more apropriate.

One possible strategy.

[Apreche]

America likes to believe it's #1 in everything. I think that if we showed the senators/representatives and the American people that we are behind everyone else in consumer technology (we ARE ahead in military technology), and that it is because of legislation like the DMCA, that we might start seeing some changes.

If you don't think we're behind you might want to look at some Japanese cell phones http://www.nokia.co.jp or some of those incredibly fuel efficient cars from Europe. I don't have a link for those, but just a normal Fiat is more fuel efficient than an SUV. Gas prices go down! Especially a good idea now with our middle east action.

Re:One possible strategy.

[Luguber123]

Uh, Nokia is from Finland as in Linux.

Re:One possible strategy.

[ethereal]

Not to nitpick, but of course a Fiat is more fuel efficient than an SUV - for one thing, it's lighter. A more impressive argument would be to say that here's a European vehicle that does everything an SUV does in a more fuel-efficient manner. I'm not saying that such a vehicle doesn't exist, I'm just saying that a Fiat isn't it. You have to compare apples to apples.

Re:One possible strategy.

[albanac]

Um. Nokia is a European company. Finland, to be precise.

~cHris

Re:One possible strategy.

[Joakim A]

Right. But do you really need everything that a SUV can do or is a Fiat good enugh? (This is a bad comparison since Fiats not are good enough, period. But there are lots of others.) Fuel efficiency must become a top priorty in order get emissions down, its time that both Washington and Detroit figures that out.

/J

Re:One possible strategy.

[Joakim A]

oh yeah, but the cell phones/infrastructure is way ahead in the Japanese(as in sushi) market. You can't get those neat phones in Finland..

/J

Re:One possible strategy.

[Fjord]

For the most part, I find I do need what my SUV does often enough. It's hard to haul lumber or animals around in a fiat (this hauling as support for my wife's animal shelter). Most times you don't need an SUV or truck, but the times you do, you really need it. I'd have a small car as a second vehicle, but not as the only one. It's just not practical.

Re:One possible strategy.

[checkyoulater]

If you don't think we're behind you might want to look at some Japanese cell phones

This has nothing to do with Japanese technology, and everything to do with Japanese Cellphone infrastructure. I might be wrong here, but I imagine the fact that Japan probably has only 1 or 2 major cellphone players (as far as national coverage goes) and here in North America we have about 30, would have a lot to do with the advanced infrastructure. Much easier to provide coverage for a country the size of Japan, or even Finland, as opposed to a country the size of Canada or the USA. Especially when your company controls the majority of the network.

Re:One possible strategy.

[Romanpoet]

There's a very good reason those european cars are so small and fuel efficient, ever tried to buy gas in Europe? If gas prices were in America what they are in Europe, I'm certain we'd stop seeing those SUV's driving around. (or at least most of them)

America is wasteful because it can afford to be, if it ever got the point where we can no longer afford to be wasteful, we'd start playing catch-up with (and perhaps even overtake) the rest of the world in developing more efficient technologies.

Re:One possible strategy.

[dmarx]

but just a normal Fiat is more fuel efficient than an SUV.

Wow! SUVs are not fuel efficient? Gee, I didn't know that!
There are fuel efficient American cars, too, however, people in America want SUVs, so that's what they buy. It's called capitalism.

Re:One possible strategy.

[Jaysyn]

Isn't anything more fuel efficent than an SUV?

Jaysyn

Re:One possible strategy.

[Apreche]

But the phones are from Japan as in Jphone

Re:One possible strategy.

[Drownedrat]

>>If you don't think we're behind you might want to look at some Japanese cell phones >This has nothing to do with Japanese technology, and everything to do with Japanese Cellphone infrastructure. Nope it's the technology. They don't use GSM, but (i believe) PCN. Only good for high density population tho, hence no popular in most of the world. We used to have some in hte UK but only worked in a small area so no use to most people. With it the tech can be smaller (they have working watch phones) & fashion keeps em pretty. D

Re:One possible strategy.

[laserjet]

I think semi tractors are less fuel efficient, but at least that is because they haul some major cargo.: )


I don't know how many times I have seen a big SUV, like an excursion, etc, and there is just one woman in the drivers seat - the whole rest of the damn thing is empty.


it bothers me to see people so wasteful, but america will stop being so wasteful when it is forced to be. that is also when we will make a REAL effort to alternative transportation. when we HAVE to.

Re:One possible strategy.

[danro]

America is wasteful because it can afford to be, if it ever got the point where we can no longer afford to be wasteful, we'd start playing catch-up with (and perhaps even overtake) the rest of the world in developing more efficient technologies.

No offense, but I hope this will happen sometime soon. I think that a little less wastefullness by the US is long overdue.
We need more environment friendly tech, and we need it _now_.
...because soon the living standards for population of China will rise, and they will be able to afford cars, fridges, etc. If they all get SUVs who knows what will happen to poor earth.

Energy efficient technology better be there by then.
Since I really don't think the chinese has this as their top priority right now, we europeans could sure use some help developing it.
Hey, US, it is your future too...
Give us a hand!
...or at least get that Bush person to sign the Kyoto treaty.

Re:One possible strategy.

[pjrc]

I think that if we showed the senators/representatives and the American people that we are behind everyone else in consumer technology...

I recall reading an article years ago from a lobbist regarding stragegy for removing the export restrictions on strong encryption. It wasn't long ago when it was nearly impossible to export more than 40 bit encryption.... which was a pain, but then it did bring us the weak DVD algorithms :)

Anyway, this guy's point was that "it puts American companies at an economic disadvantage" was a losing strategy. He made his point primarily by showing various actions our elected and non-elected officials took, which basically ammounted to putting pressure on the rest of the world to enact and enforce similar restrictions. After all, if the problem was off-shore companies had an advantage, the obvious solution (to those in power) was to level the playing field. Why compromise on other important objectives, like "national security" and "law enforcement" (whatever the DOJ/FBI happens to want) when the "goal" can be accomplished in some other creative way. Much as that sucks.... they really were doing their jobs, trying to make policies to balance all the needs, and the anti-encryption need was a level playing field among off-shore software companies.

The winning strategy that he proposed was "with e-commerce and internet fraud, we can't afford not to allow encryption". The premise was that there's a giant carrot dangling out there... e-commerce (remember, this was before the giant dot-com bust) and the pro-encyption arguement went along the lines of "we gotta have encryption to enable e-commerce and the new ecomony, yadda, yadda...".

Of course, I didn't really follow that whole battle closely, so I can't really say what a factor that lobbist and his e-commerce based strategy had. In fact, I can't even find the original article anymore.

Anyway, the point is to be careful what you wish for. At least once before, with the encryption export regulations, the "American companies are at a disadvantage" strategy was a dismal failure for several years.... and the natural conclusion lawmakers had was "well, we just need to export our restrictions, and we're the USA, so we can eventually pressure everyone else into them".

Re:One possible strategy.

[Golias]

I don't know how many times I have seen a big SUV, like an excursion, etc, and there is just one woman in the drivers seat - the whole rest of the damn thing is empty.

Maybe that woman needs a big truck some of the time, and can't afford to buy a second vehicle just for the times when she's driving alone. Ever think of that? No? Too busy congratulating yourself for being so concerned about other people's wastefulness, I suppose.

Re:One possible strategy.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think we're behind you might want to look at some Japanese cell phones http://www.nokia.co.jp or some of those incredibly fuel efficient cars from Europe. I don't have a link for those, but just a normal Fiat is more fuel efficient than an SUV. Gas prices go down! Especially a good idea now with our middle east action.

There was recently a push by some Democrats in the Senate to mandate that by 2016, I believe, the minimum fuel economy of a company's fleet must be at least 36 MPG.

The proposal died because "soccer moms won't feel safe in a car that gets 36 mpg," a reference to the super-scaled-down design of super-efficient cars. It is this mentality -- not to mention the unending faith in the US Auto companies -- that caused the Republicans to force an uber-lame version of the bill, which simply says "in the future, make cars better than they are now" without setting any specific fuel economy ratings. With reps like these, who needs terrorists?

http://www.aceee.org/press/0203cafe.htm has a bit of info, CNN probably does too.

Re:One possible strategy.

[laserjet]

oh, don't give me this bull shit. if you can afford to buy a $35,000 SUV, you have other options. for instance, you could:


a) buy a used SUV for $25,000 and buy a $10,000 commuter car


b) buy a slightly smaller SUV


c) 1000 other options...


these people drive brand new SUVs because they want to, not because they can't afford anything else. your argument is utter bullshit. There are many possibilities if they wanted another option.

Re:One possible strategy.

[Anonymous Coward]

What he meant to say was she can't afford another car *now* after she bought the SUV. In light of that, it all makes sense.

Don't forget the single guys who drive some massive truck to work every morning, sit behind their desk making $80k a year and whine about the price of gas.

Re:One possible strategy.

[nelsonal]

They use CDMA and the current 3G network is, I believe, a W-CDMA network. GSM and GPRS will migrate to CDMA 2000 as their 3G networks. Its only currently availible in Tokio, and works pretty well. I have heard complaints about the handsets short battery life and heat dissipation. Most of the reason that cellular technologies aren't as common in the US is the precense of cheap landline phone service, and much lower population density. Its tough and expensive to provide universal cellular coverage in the sparsely populated mountain region in the western US.
This has a lot less to do whit current laws, but with the old deals that Ma Bell made to keep thier monopoly in the early days of phones. They promised to provide universal service if they could remian the only provider of telecomm services. They were quite successful, more people have phone service than indoor plumbing. However because of this they don't buy cell phones in the same numbers as people in other countries.

Re:One possible strategy.

[Golias]

a) buy a used SUV for $25,000 and buy a $10,000 commuter car

Better yet, buy a used SUV for $25,000 and don't buy a $10,000 car. However, if you can afford to buy new, it makes a lot of sense. New vehicles tend to have more efficient engines, and over a ten-year period you savings due to greater reliability will outweigh the added cost. (I know this because I bought my last truck new and drove it for 11 years without ever needing major work done.)

b) buy a slightly smaller SUV

I don't know if you noticed, but smaller SUV's are nearly as expensive as the big ones, and tend to have less power (meaning you can't haul as much with them). Believe it or not, some people in this world actually need trucks. I know that concept may be hard to fit into your tiny little world of "home-work-starbucks-work-home-play-EQ-all-weekend -in-your-underwear," but for some of us our transportation needs extend beyond the drive to the office.

c) 1000 other options...

You know, most people I know consider their options very carefully before buying a vehicle. After a house, it's the single biggest purchase most of us ever make. How fucking arrogant are you to just assume that everybody who chose differently that you did (a lovely Honda Civic, no doubt) failed to consider the "1000 other options" before rushing headlong into their choice of buying a Suburban. Maybe, just maybe, their needs are different than yours... have you ever stopped to consider that?

Too bad...

[JordanH]

That Campaign Finance Reform passed. Now, PACs like these have far less influence than they once might have had.

After the next election, it will be illegal for PACs to run issue ads 60 days before an election.

Can you imagine that? Illegal to speak up about an important issue 60 days before an election, when it might do the most good?

I guess they had to get the corrupting power of the voice of the people, err, money, out of politics.

Re:Too bad...

[renehollan]

Can you imagine that? Illegal to speak up about an important issue 60 days before an election, when it might do the most good?

Standard fare in places like Canada, except elections generally run far less than a month. Only official agents of political candidates may authorize advertising.

And, yes, this sucks: it means the public at large can't expose candidate's previous records during an election.

Re:Too bad...

[keefebert]

While I understand your concern, I doubt that this PAC would be one of the ones who would be dropping ads 60 days before the election. The law was passed to stop the NRAs and EPAs from dropping exspensive, sometimes decietful ads right before the election when no one can do anything about them.

This PAC, on the other hand, probably couldn't do that anyway, so it doesn't matter. They still will be able to lobby congress and do all that other stuff, and it allows them to save their money instead of trying to throw out 1 or 2 commercials that will get lost in the blizzard of campaign ads.

Re:Too bad...

[JordanH]

• The law was passed to stop the NRAs and EPAs from dropping exspensive, sometimes decietful ads right before the election when no one can do anything about them.

EPA? The Environmental Protection Agency?

I got an idea, why don't we just outlaw all discussion on political issues? Must prevent people from making those deceitful statements.

Re:Too bad...

[HBergeron]

"PACs like these" have regained some influence due to Campaign Finance Reform (CFR). A proper political action committee (PAC) raises "hard" (federally regulated) money from individuals with a maximum of $5,000 per year per person. They have had real difficulty competing with the 527 Organizations, state soft money pacs, and national party soft money accounts in recent years. CFR neuters most uses of soft money (including running ads within 60 days of an election) thereby making providers of hard money (like PACs) more influential again.

The doubling of the hard money individual limits (to effectively $8,000 per household) does cut the value of PACs vis-à-vis wealthy individuals, (PACs can donate a total of $10,000 during the same period) but they will regain some of the influence lost in recent years. 10 years ago you would be lucky to trade a national committee 10 cents on the dollar soft money for hard, now, they actually prefer soft money - and that is what CFR has changed.

This all being said, I have often argued for more active involvement of the (for lack of a better term) geek community in the Washington process. I was extremely disappointed in the EFF's effort, they never evidenced a real understanding of how the policy process works (and no oh cynical one, it is not all about money) and in some ways seemed to get carried away with their own feelings of self-importance. Just because you are the EFF doesn't mean you need to be involved with every tech-related issue - if there is no palatable solution, stay out of that coalition and work on the reasons why the "geek" solution was not on the table.

Groups like DigitalConsumer prove that there are rich geeks out there to provide high level funding support for these efforts. You need to organize, agree on a set of core principles, (which I applaud these gentlemen for starting with) and then have an open mind and approach DC like any other system - it has rules and processes that can be worked to your advantage - don't be above getting into the policy debates and make use of every tool at your disposal = direct lobbying, grass roots outreach, earned media, fundraising, and coalition building.

A few thoughts:

1) A well designed effort could win over teachers and the teachers unions (very powerful groups in DC and at the local level) to many of our causes - The restrictions being discussed will make gathering teaching materials significantly more difficult, MS prices, even at the educational level, often stop teachers from using technology for budget reasons, and (we're in the real world here) teachers are common and accomplished pirates - they are doing it for educational purposes, but they are often making additional copies just the same. The idea of criminal liability for making sure that they have enough (and a few back-up copies) of a particular educational program, or sharing a password to an information service that they want the students to use, may just move a few to our side.

2) Begin an organized program of hill office visits. Given to the tech concentration in Northern Virginia, I cannot believe that we don't have a regular flow of sympathetic 22-60 year old geeks tramping through the area on business on a regular basis. Design materials, teach them the message, and coordinate visits to their home state Senators and Congressmen. You (yes you geek boy) will get a meeting with the policy making staff members of for your member just for the asking. As a general rule, if you are a constituent, you can get a meeting with staff. If you are informative and well behaved, other members of your group will also get those meetings. As this trickle becomes a flood you WILL get attention. Politicized hill staffers can sense a new organized constituency like sharks smell blood in the water.

I will post more on this when I find a minute.

Re:Too bad...

[Jaysyn]

Free speech & politics don't mix? Who would have thought....

Jaysyn

Re:Too bad...

[JordanH]

It's mind boggling to me that we can seriously be discussing how to limit political speech in this country as a way to distribute political power more fairly.

Limiting soft money is, without a doubt, limiting free speech, you know, doing that thing that the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." about?

CFR shouldn't be able to stand up to Judicial Review. They'll have to overturn Buckley vs. Valeo, which clearly equated money with expression and set out that there can be no limit on spending, but there can be on contributions.

Passing CFR was a cynical move on the part of many opponents who trust that the Supreme Court hasn't lost their commitment to the First Amendment.

What we need is more debate on issues, not less. Full disclosure of who is funding politicians and issue ads would provide a level playing field. If, under such a system, we still have corrupt politicians, then we get the Government that we deserve, I guess.

The present system sets up a bureaucracy in charge of acceptable speech, a horrible precedent, if you ask me.

There is serious discussion about accounting the cost of maintaining Web Servers where political opinions are presented as soft money contributions. Can you imagine the FEC shutting down your Web Server 60 days prior to an election because it violates CFR? This is lunacy.

Re:Too bad...

[acaben]

But, PACs can still donate up to $5000 to each candidate directly each election, to let the candidate run his own race. I'd much rather see that hard money going to campaigns which follow incredibly strict FEC guidelines for reporting sources of income than have an ad on TV paid for by a PAC which isn't identified.

Re:Too bad...

[JordanH]

• I'd much rather see that hard money going to campaigns which follow incredibly strict FEC guidelines for reporting sources of income than have an ad on TV paid for by a PAC which isn't identified.

I admit that I was wrong about this PAC. It almost certainly would deal in mostly hard money and not be affected by CFR.

However, I prefer issue ads that speak directly to the people on the importance of the issues of the day rather than our having to shoehorn the issues into some politician's agenda.

It seems that regulation that would require issue ads to reveal the sources of their contributions would be far less intrusive than a straight ban on issue ads during certain seasons.

Re:Too bad...

[Golias]

Fortunately, down here in the US, the very first amendment to our constitution addresses this sort of thing, so most people who have been following this believe that the Supreme Court will strike down most of the current reforms as unconstitutional.

Congress actually had the balls to pass a law which says you can not buy a newspaper ad or tv spot to criticize a sitting congressman during the two months before an election, without it counting as part of the limited campaign budget of his opponent. If your representative or senator voted for this, remember that in the next election.

One work-around that occurred to me is to choose a third-party or no-party candidate who is nowhere near winning and nowhere near the spending cap, and then claim to be supporting them. That way, you could run a half-hour infomercial slamming Paul Welstone, end the commercial with "paid for by friends of Joe Blow, an independant candidate for Minnesota Senator," and none of it would count against his leading opponent's campaign, even that's who would benifit most. Hmmm....

Re:Too bad...

[monkeydo]

The law was passed to stop the NRAs and EPAs from dropping exspensive, sometimes decietful ads right before the election when no one can do anything about them.

You seem to be misinformed. The NRA is one group that will not be affected by the recent unconstitutional law. You see, regardless of what your have been told the NRA doesn't spend member's dues or corporate donations on these kinds of things. The NRA does have a special fund for political action, but the monies are kept seperate, and therefore won't be affected by this legislation.

Re:Too bad...

[nytes]

One work-around that occurred to me is to choose a third-party or no-party candidate who is nowhere near winning and nowhere near the spending cap, and then claim to be supporting them.

If that's true, then why couldn't anyone (including the Republicrats) just run an alternative (second) write-in candidate, and credit their ads to him? Running the write-in candidate would save them the money required to put him on the ballot and avoid significant dilution of the vote for their primary candidate.

[I'll readily confess that I haven't followed this whole issue as closely as I (a voter) should. That's largely due to the fact that I've given up on the whole process. Congress critters are not about to give up their positions.]

Re:Too bad...

[renehollan]

Yes, Americans had some pretty good ideas in that constitution of theirs. It's a real pity that these days, they let it be treated like toilet paper.

They MUST change the name

[LordNimon]

Sorry, but no politician is going to take an organization with the name "geek" in it seriously. They need to choose a name that makes it sound like they represent the CIO's of major companies. Just think of what a Senator's first impression will be when his secretary tells him, "The gentleman from GeekPAC is here to see you, sir."

Re:They MUST change the name

[Anonymous Coward]

rtfp!

American Open Technology Consortium

Re:They MUST change the name

[west]

Indeed, given that legislation that throws widows and orphans onto the street would probably be named the "Human Mobility and Properity Act", names do mean something in the minds of senators.

Since in America government, business is what really counts, we need something business-like in its name.

How about InnoPAC?

"InnoPAC. Brought to you by the *real* innovators."

Re:They MUST change the name

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Let's face it, west has a point (no pun intended for any military types out there!).

Example: "Security Systems
Standards and Certification Act" or "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act"?

They do the exact same thing, but second one sounds nice and warm and fuzzy, and certainly doesn't sound like it might do anything ominous like restrict our rights or cripple our hardware.

Re:They MUST change the name

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf!? who modded that OT? AOTC is the name of the group being discussed! the guy thought the name was "GeekPAC" and didnt bother to rtfp (acronym for "read the fine post") and see the name "American Open Technology Consortium." Kudos to whomever gave that post informative.

Re:They MUST change the name

[Our Man In Redmond]

Done properly no one in Congress needs to know that we refer to this organization among ourselves as "GeekPAC". In fact, considering the bad press that political action committees have gotten, maybe staying away from the acronym "PAC" is as important as staying away from the label "geek".

Personally I think "American Open Technology Consortium" will work just fine unless we come up with something better.

Re:They MUST change the name

[beme]

How about
AMERICAN OPEN TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM
?

(Which is actually what it's called.)

Re:They MUST change the name

[Anonymous Coward]

-5, completely and totally ignorant.

Re:They MUST change the name

[BitterOak]

I agree 100%. We may all be proud "geeks" and "hackers", but these terms conjure up other meanings for the unenlightened.

Specifically, "geek" conjures up an image of a sexually deprived teenager with greasy hair and no money.

It's the "no money" part that will turn off a politician.

fracturing effort?

[rknop]

I'm sure there is a good reason-- but I don't see it at the moment, so I'm hoping somebody will enlighten me. Why is trying to get people to put money and energy behind this a better idea than helping to promote the existing organizations working towards similar goas, such as the EFF? My fear is that this effort will dilute some of the broadbased support for the EFF, and instead of one organization which we can hope will become marginally strong enough to perhaps do something, we're going to have two organizations that look really good but aren't nearly beefy enough to compete with the current special interests purchasing legislators.

-Rob

Re:fracturing effort?

[Spoing]

You mean like this?

1. "Enough is enough is enough," he added. "It is time for people in the technology community to open up their wallets and donate money to the EFF and fund this political action committee ... We've got to do this or we're going to lose, folks, it's that simple."

The EFF had a Washington D.C. based branch, but backed out of it because they didn't like how they were pressured into endorsing really bad ideas inorder to gain clout on the issues they were primarily interested in.

Will Geek Pac work better? If they know going in that this is the way D.C. works, they might be able to deal with it.

Either way, it might be more effective to have two different organizations -- one 'Washington insider' and another clean of such dreck and nonsense.

Re:fracturing effort?

[kingbill]

On the Newsforge page, there's a very similar question to your's, and the answer given is that the EFF is a lawyer and activism group, whereas this would be a lobbying group which goes directly to Congress. I don't really know a lot about the differences. If someone here does, I'd find it very helpful to have the distinction clarified.

Re:fracturing effort?

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

I was under the impression tha the EFF was a 501(c)(3) (tax-exempt public charity). If so, they are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or spending more than a certain amount lobbying to affect legislation.

There is a need for a non-tax-exempt PAC who can fill that role.

The big question in my mind is does this effort redundant given what digitalconsumer.org is doing? It's also unclear to me that the GeekPAC people understand the tax status of organizations whose primary purpose is to lobby to affect legislation or to contribute to political campaigns. I don't believe that such contributions are tax-deductible.

Re:fracturing effort?

[acaben]

Why is trying to get people to put money and energy behind this a better idea than helping to promote the existing organizations working towards similar goas, such as the EFF?

The EFF isn't a Political Action committee, though. They're an issue advocacy group, but one that can't give political donations to candidates. While there is no quid pro quoe (spelling?) when candidates accept political contributions from PACs, its obvious that some of the liars and cheaters in Congress use the donations when deciding on what legislation to support. The EFF is a wonderful organization and I'm a paying member. But, I've also gotten out my checkbook this morning to help support GeekPAC. It takes both to combat the effects that big business and corporate special interest groups have in Washington.

Re:fracturing effort?

[sulli]

Digitalconsumer got my attention because they had something the others didn't: an auto-fax tool to send messages to elected officials, and a well-designed website. geekpac is not there yet, but might get there. I would STRONGLY encourage the organizers to at least see where their effort is complementary with digitalconsumer - even if it's a separate org, the two together (or three, with EFF) can be more effective.

But the geekpac people have one thing very wrong. IRS section 501(c)4 is for organizations that explicitly lobby. (I know this because I am chair of an organization that is planning to incorporate under this section.) While the organization is non-profit, contributions to it are NOT tax deductible. The founders need to correct this in their doc if they want to be taken seriously by lobby/activists.

Look, SOMEONE needs to be really aggressive about this stuff. I don't think EFF is the answer - they are just not in-your-face enough. digitalconsumer is better on the specific issue of S.2048. Maybe geekpac will be the answer, but they need to be much, much more aggressive in their message.

Re:fracturing effort?

[Anonymous Coward]

fracturing can actually be good, because politics is about quantity not quality.
if it wasn't, it would only take one of us to write one well worded letter about the CBDTPA(?) and it would be squashed immediately. unfortunately, this isn't the case.
at the end of it all, politicians only care about the sheer number of votes they recieved. this is a raw number which says nothing about how educated the people voting where, or how well they thought out their choice.
a politician knows that one man with an extremely insightful view still only has one vote, but 1000 droids who don't know why they think what they do will win them the election.
this being said i would prefer to have 100 one man lobbying groups than one brilliantly crafted one any day.
widespread distributed blunt pressure is the key here, not pinpointed intelligence.

Re:fracturing effort?

[nelsonal]

A lawyer and activisim group would be like the ACLU or Judicial Watch, they are groups that change laws or policy through lawsuits and things related to the courts. They could sue bureaucratic agencies over laws that they don't like (to prevent enforcement), defend cases aligned with their beliefs, and file amicus curae briefs (friend of the court for those who skipped civics the day the courts were discussed).
PACs take a more direct role in the law making process. They would do things like campaing and raise funds for frendly congressional representatives and senators, write the drafts for bills, and rally support in the media for and against bills they support or oppose.
In practical terms using the SSSCA (CBDTPA) as an example, a PAC would lobby opposition in congress or the senate before it passed, while the EFF would sue to prevent enforcment and hopefully get it overturned in the court system.

Time to put up or shut up

[cyclist1200]

I've seen a lot of people on here calling for something like this. You gotta pay to play in politics. And if we don't play, it'll just be more of the DMCA, UCITA, CBDTPA, and Tauzin-Dingel with no one to stop them.

instead of paying for lobbyists

[KaizerWill]

we should start a fund to buy public officials.

show me the money!

[peter303]

No way Geeks can fund PACS the size and stability of a MicroSoft, Oracle or Enron. Corporatios will always have more influence. For example, imigrant tech visas are still going up, nearly 400,000 requested last year, despite the tech slowdown.

Re:show me the money!

[Spoing]

So do nothing?

Re:show me the money!

[ronfar]

The NRA represents gun owners, not gun companies. Sometimes, the NRA will manage to oppose bills that the gun manufacturers want (one possible example, banning cheap foriegn made guns). There has been some reporting on this, but I haven't got any links (or any time to look for them at work.)

The NRA is a fairly effective lobbying group.

But, GeekPAC? Don't they realize that the elderly gentlemen who run this country are going to have preconcieved notions about that terminiology?

Re:show me the money!

[Fjord]

Right now, sure. But if the PAC starts an endowment, you'd be surprised how quickly that can grow to the point where the income from it will match the lobby budget for a major corporation. MicroSoft, Oracle, and Enron all had to spend their revenue on production, maintaining their position, growth, and a million other thigns as well as lobbying. The PAC just has to do that one thing.

Re:show me the money!

[Anonymous Coward]

the size and stability of a MicroSoft, Oracle or Enron.

Last I checked, Enron was pretty far from being large and stable...

Re:show me the money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

MSPac spread the paltry sum of $800,000 among Congress Critters. Guys, that's 8,000 people donating $100 apiece.

For the price of two games ...

Re:show me the money!

[Lectrik]

Quoth the post:
But, GeekPAC? Don't they realize that the elderly gentlemen who run this country are going to have preconcieved notions about that terminiology?

yes they'll remember from their youth that there used to be a carnival that came thru town in 19-dikity-2 ("We had to call it dikity because the kaiser stole our twenty"-Abe Simpson) and that the geeks bit the heads off chickens, then they'll remember there was some rock and roll person who did that and since rock and roll is the music of the devil they'll see us imediately thinking we're working for the M($)PAA or something

Re:show me the money!

[acaben]

No way Geeks can fund PACS the size and stability of a MicroSoft, Oracle or Enron.

True, corporations will always have the money to hire lobbyists and other high powered DC folk. But, the PAC scene is a bit different.

There are limits on the amount of money a PAC can donate to a candidate. Currently, it's $5000 per election. So, if the GeekPAC can target the right candidates, they can have a large influence on some of those races.

Re:show me the money!

[MAXOMENOS]

The most powerful lobbying group in Washington right now is the National Rifle Association. They have a ton of cash, and most of it comes from their five million members. The gun manufacturers themselves are miniscule in comparison, and certainly nowhere nearly as rich or powerful as Microsoft, Enron, or General Motors. I doubt there are five million geeks in the US, but a few hundred thousand geeks, throwing in $25 per year each, would create a sizeable war chest.

Re:show me the money!

[njdj]

imigrant tech visas are still going up, nearly 400,000 requested last year, despite the tech slowdown

Yup, that shows the power of corporate lobbying. If the only way to fund the CEO's $20M bonus is to reduce software-engineer salaries to the wage level prevailing in Bangladesh, the Department of Labor will be persuaded to certify the requisite number of Bangladeshi replacements for the current staff.

Leveling the playing field...

[Linuxthess]

Senator Slash Dot (R. -Cubicle) proposed the Consumers Don't Want Your Shitty Broadband Anyways Act (CDWYSBAA)yesterday in congress. The vote split along partisan lines as Sen. Mickey Mouse, Sen. Donald Duck and Sen. Bugs Bunny (D. -Disney, TW) launched a vehement attack against it, calling it "Unpatriotic" and "Communistic" and mostly unfair to the multi-trillion dollar media companies, which never had to empower the consumer, other than taking a "Tariff" from his paycheck.

It's the Congres

[AVee]

From the site:
Individual Members: $25.00 minimum donation
Individual members will receive a certificate of membership (electronic) and a monthly newsletter.
Group Membership: $50.00 minimum donation
Individual members will receive a certificate of membership (electronic) and a monthly newsletter.
Corporate Membership: $500.00 minimum donation
Corporate members will receive a framed and signed certificate of membership, the monthly newsletter, and the right to name a member of our "Advisory Board."
Sustaining Member: $2,000.00 minimum donation
Sustaining members will receive a certificate of membership (marble plaque), the monthly newsletter, the right to name a member of our "Advisory Board," and the right to put into nomination a member of the voting Board of Directors.

It's supposed to deal with the congres, so they made it work the same way, the more you pay, the more you can say...

DC LUG

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way what about to grow the DC LUG's prestige? The DC LUG now has to meet in the
College Park. What about to find anythig near center, and try advocacy? :-)
I know that LUG is not representant for all OSS / Free Software (Free as a Freedom).

You mean +5 Funny BSOD jokes isn't enough?

[ihoppancakes]

like the body or the subject?

A house divided

[LaserBeams]

This will create some... interesting... situations in the geek communities. One one hand, the large majority of geeks are well educated, and know that PACs are a downright dirty loophole in the law, and most of them should be struck from the face of the earth.

On the other hand, however, how could it hurt? Geeks are at best minimally represented in the government (despite what Gore may have thought), and we have a voice too - one that needs to be heard.

Such a cruel irony that the majority of the intelligent people in this world are a numerical minority - and headcount - not barincount - is all that matters when it comes to representation. Oh yeah, and money too. We have plenty of that... [/dripping_with_sarcasm]

Too bad representation isn't based on IQ/EQ (Emotional Quotient, not EverQuest =P ), or *gasp* even political knowledge.

Re:A house divided

[Anonymous Coward]

How ironic that you would write a long rant about how much smarter geeks are than average people, and yet you misspelled "brain".

Re:A house divided

[martyn s]

Well, first of all, I don't see anywhere his claim that he is a geek. Secondly, I think you're pushing the line between spelling error and typo a little too far.

Re:A house divided

[macshit]

Too bad representation isn't based on IQ/EQ (Emotional Quotient, not EverQuest =P )

Whoa! IQ divided by EQ? Geeks would rule!

Re:A house divided

[LaserBeams]

Yes, that typographical error was due solely to the use of lowest-bidder computer equipment at my school, I swear.... =) That's another thing that should have to go.

And I am a geek - I just happen to be one who is a bit overconfident in his typing skills, and hence doesn't always check what he posts.

(/me double-chekcs thi spost for errors)

Re:A house divided

[Anonymous Coward]

You facsist bastard.

Re:A house divided

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

Hmm....lets see.....I'll choose me for example

140(IQ)/1(EQ)=140

Lets take a senator (I'll choose Fienstien)
60(IQ)/120(EQ)=.5

=)

Re:A house divided

[Anonymous Coward]

(/me double-chekcs thi spost for errors)

LOL! (Easy not to make typos in 'LOL') :)

Mr. despair enters

[loraksus]

Not to sound negative, but I'm a pessimist by nature. $25 a year from the few geeks that contribute is not going to add up to nowhere near the total the "opposition" is able to generate. Moreover, we can not invite politicians to spend some time at our "weekend retreats" (i.e. big, expensive house), nor take them out for $500 lunches, etc.

Great idea, I just think that if you're going to set yourself up as a lobbying group, you'd better have a lot more money than what you are going to get from donations.

Re:Mr. despair enters

[bricriu]

If only 3% of registered Slashdot members donate $25 anually, the PAC would have gross yearly income of around $2.5 M. I think that's more than enough to take someone out to lunch, don't you? :)

Yes, I KNOW how big that "if" is. Thank you.

Re:Mr. despair enters

[bricriu]

er, 33%. *cough, cough* Wow, would ya LOOK at the size of that if?

Very restrictive circle of friends

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a Geek rights PAC. This is a pro-linux, anti-MS PAC. There are plenty of Geeks who work for MS (rich ones too) & make their money coding for Windows. This PAC would discount them completely.

It's about time

[mckeowbc]

It's about time the geeks started pushing back. We've been sitting on our laurels too long, bitching on /. about how the DMCA, etc, are taking away our freedom to code, exchange information, and innovate. But this is the first I have witnessed geeks playing the game. Change doesn't happen if all you do is make speeches to geek audiences, we need a voice with the people passing these stupid laws. God bless um, I don't know how much shot a geek funded PAC has got. But God bless um anyway. Then again, some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country are those not funded by big business but those funded by the people. Groups like AARP and NAACP. So with that in mind, we might just have a shot of being heard.

SUPPORT THIS

[Tokerat]

You're somewhat right, Geeks, this will NEVER hold enough $$$ to beat Microsoft PACs and the like... if we all pass it off like it won't and ignore it! That is the WRONG MOVE

Sign up, get this thing rolling, the /. comunity is big but it's not everyone, once you get word spread I'm sure plenty more members could be had.

But if wont' happen if everyone just says "It won't happen."

Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[TeaDaemon]

Just a small point, but it stuck me that the more things like the DMCA and other stupid ideas render it difficult or impossible for people to do what they want/need to do to make a living, the greater the chance of them deciding to go somewhere with more sensible laws.

The closest parallel I can think of is researchers working on Human Stem Cells, several prominent researchers have commented, mostly off-the-record, as they don't want hassle from idiotic pro-life religious lunatics, that any ban on human stem cell research will simply lead to them emigrating to a country where such research is allowed.

My point is, what would it take to persuade geeks in the US that their government has gone too far and it's not worth trying to change things?

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[Elbereth]

Lots of people say they will leave the U.S. if a certain law is passed, a certain politician is elected, etc. It's rare for them to actually do it.

I myself have given a lot of thought about whether I'd like to stay in a less free America or move.

Canada has some nice attractions, including cold weather (I love snow), family (my uncle lives there), and the same basic culture as America. Since I speak French and am educated, it wouldn't be too difficult for me to get in. On the other hand, Canada has most of the same bone-headed laws as America.

The EU would be pretty cool, but we're talking some major changes here. How long would I have to wait for American movies to open in the EU, for example? Probably weeks, if not months. Could I find any of my favorite foods? What about high speed access to the net? And while we're talking about the net, imagine all the net lag connecting to American web sites. There's a lot of potential drawbacks for someone used to taking everything about his life for granted. I'd even have to throw out all of my NTSC equipment and buy new PAL equipment. Ugh. Not to mention all my Region 1 DVDs...

It's not so easy to be a global citizen.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[robbieduncan]

Movies - getting batter Star Wars for example is getting the same release date in the Uk and the US a(and we're a couple of hours ahead here so will see it first. Net access - I've got ADSL, you need it faster than that? Web sites - it's not really noticable. NTSC - keep it - my TV will do PAL and NTSC.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[martyn s]

"The stuff you own ends up owning you ... It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything." --tyler durden

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently only staying becaue my fiancee has a full ride at her school. Those don't transfer very well overseas.

As soon as possible, I'm leaving the US. Not because I'm not patriotic (which I'm not), but because I am afraid I will be playing with one of my toys, and the gestapo^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpolice will arrest me for changing settings in my BIOS.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[danro]

Well, you can move to sweden. =)
You'll get your cold weather, higher internet penetration than the US, and it is possible to get a T1 connection for 20$/month!
(Trust me I have one, and needlesly to say it rocks, even if the price will be almost doubled soon!)

Disclaimer: I am obviously a swedish citizen, but seriously, if you are thinking of moving to the EU and are a geek, the scandinavian countries might be something for you.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[Elbereth]

Good quote. I loved Fight Club. It's sad how true that statement really is.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[Elbereth]

My dad's side of the family is Dutch, and I hear that I have some relatives in The Netherlands, but they're too distant (physically and in a family sense) for anyone in America to know them well.

I would love to visit all the Scandinavian countries some day. I might not be able to leave, if what I've heard about them is true. :) They all sound like great places to live.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[Stephen VanDahm]

"Well, you can move to sweden. =)"

I, for one, would give my immortal soul to move to Sweden. I could totally live without all the American things that I wouldn't be able to find in Europe. While Sweden has it's problems, I have a lot of admiration for the country and it's people, and would love a chance to live there.

As an American, though, it would be hard to pull it off. First of all, while I'm competant, I'm not a Linus Torvalds, and I can't do anything that a Swede couldn't do. I expect that it would be hard for me to get a job in Sweden, even doing IT stuff. No job offer, no work permit.

Second, I don't speak any Scandenavian languages. I'm guessing that a Swedish business wouldn't offer a job to someone who can't speak a word of Swedish. While the Europeans that I've met speak English well, it's not proper for me to go off to some country and require everyone to speak English simply because I'm around.

However, I haven't given up hope that one day I'll end up somewhere in Europe. It's worth a shot, at least....

Steve

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[danro]

On my last job (in sweden) I worked with a programmer that didn't speak a word Swedish.
Didn't matter.
Everyone in sweden speaks english. (It is mandatory in school and our media is not dubbed only subtiteled.)

Besides, English is the de facto standard in tech.
I don't think you would have a problem, and people would most certainly not be offended by you not understanding localspeak.

I would suggest that you check out sites like Monster for european job offers and get to know some scandinavians on the net.
You could find people with non-competing but related skills that want to work in the US and recommend each other for work that can be done over the net.
Getting small contract for work shouldn't be to hard if you are qualified, and if you prove yourself that way you just might end up getting hired. Just make sure you end up in Stockholm, Göteborg or Malmö.

I for one might be up for this mutually beneficial deal if you feel like it, and our skillsets match.
What is it you do anyway?

You can mail me at daniel_routuvaara[at]hotmail[dot]com and I'll reply with my real address.

Re:Will the US suffer from geek emigration?

[danro]

I would love to visit all the Scandinavian countries some day. I might not be able to leave, if what I've heard about them is true. :) They all sound like great places to live.

Well, IMHO it's a good place to live. Provided you are not a libertarian type of person. =)
As all other places there's both good and bad things to be said about it.
Some americans I known have had some cultural issues, but most of them have done just fine.

Again I am biased.
Perhaps I should try the US for a while, but getting a work permit seems to be a really big deal...

What's the position on PACdonations from overseas?

[Demerara]

Worthy effort and deserving of financial support.

However, would a payment from overseas be legal or politically undesirable?

Not that Guyana is likely to achieve the political influence of more affluent donors like China or the Gulf states.

What's the position on this?

Wonder how this will work out.

[Unipuma]

The usual lobbyist would probably promise a contribution to the election campaign, but the geek lobbyist could help the congressman to program his VCR.

Re:Wonder how this will work out.

[Lectrik]

Quoth the post:
The usual lobbyist would probably promise a contribution to the election campaign, but the geek lobbyist could help the congressman to program his VCR.

You may have been joking but i've known people who are on the city council here that would jump all over that
geek: "Hey vote no on the Give-yourself-a-million-dollars-from-the-city bill and i'll make your vcr stop blinking 12:00!"
city council: "that's cheaper than getting someone else to do it"

Already been done

[YouAreFatMan]

A fundamental belief in the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom to innovate, and the basic principles of entrepreneurism and the free enterprise system of economics.

I thought that someone else is already protecting our right to innovate...

Good idea but not likely to be effective

[zeugma-amp]

This is a god idea in theory, but unless a lot more than $100,000 can be raised, it won't be able to do much of anything. In the article, it mentioned possibly hiring proffesionals to lobby for the effort in the future. I'm sure the organizers realize that retaining someone with any kind of pull (of the type noted by Rand) will take most if not all of the sums they are talking about. It costs a lot of money to play the game in the D.C. (District of Criminals).

That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to try to get some folks to make the geek POV heard at least a little bit. The effort will need a more serious-sounding name though. While GeekPac sounds good in a whimsical sort of way, I don't think it would help to get our foot in the doors that are necessary.

I'll probably donate to this effort once they get to the point of actually taking donations, but I won't have much hope for it at this time. Judging from the article, it sounds like this is somewhat affiliated with EFF. I would think that this effort could undermine other work the EFF is doing. I could be wrong on that I suppose.

One thing we definitely need as people who are interested in freedom of all kinds, is a way to counter the power of Disney, Time/Warner, and the other providers of crappy content that spend more money on coffee a month than this effort is looking at raising in a year.

Re:Good idea but not likely to be effective

[lkaos]

Having contributed to EFF, I would also contribute to this organize if they were a bit more professional. I don't feel comfortable donating to something that only has a "draft" of their beliefs.

I don't think that the EFF does much lobbying. I don't think they are that specific. If the EFF had a lobbying branch, that could be donated to independently, I would make a seperation donation to that.

Geekhood is fine by me...

[alispguru]

I do think taking 'geekpac' as a contact name will be negative PR, even though "reclaiming geekhood" is trendy now.

It could be worse, PR-wise. They could have called it "hackerPAC".

Re:Geekhood is fine by me...

[ThePlague]

Hmm, perhaps GnuPAC, or GinaPAC (GinaPac is not a PAC)

Re:Geekhood is fine by me...

[Alsee]

It could be worse, PR-wise. They could have called it "hackerPAC".

I like HackPac. (HakPAC? HacPAC?)

It's a very catchy name. It would have some initial PR-issues, but as a legitamate PAC I think it would quickly have a signifgant impact combating the negative use of "hacker". If the PAC has a large enough membership and some important corporate membership, important congresscritters *will* take it seriously. If important people start using the word hacker in a positive/legitimate context, other important people will notice, conciously or subconciously. Then the reporters. And then...

-

A tad unproffessional...

[avdi]

I'd be jumping on the bandwagon without a second thought if this looked like something other than a couple of junior-high h4XX0r5' attempt at an impressive-sounding proclamation. As it is, I'd be a little embarrassed to put my name to it in it's current form. Hopefully the proposal itself is open-source and subject to bugfixes...?

Nefarious politicians

[hosebee]

As easy as it is to believe that most congressmen are unscrupulous money hounds, the fact is that most are doing what they think is right given the limited (to none) information they posess regarding technological issues.

Even though this PAC does not have it as an express purpose to educate our representatives, anything that will move towards this goal should be appreciated.

Like GI Joe never said, "Educating your congressmen is half the battle."

"Sustaining members" (members who pay enuf) get vo

[Wolfier]

Sooner or later you'll see this organization filled with MPAA sustaining members...

"freedom to innovate"

[kryzx]

I don't know what is scarier, the fact that they used the phrase "freedom to innovate", or the fact that a certain corporation has so corrupted that phrase that it makes me cringe and sets off warning alarms.

This sounds like a good idea. We must play the game the way it's laid out, and that means forming PACs, funding them, and educating/greasing the right politicos to get what we want. I hope they succeed.

The editor in me...

[FurryFeet]

cringed when he saw this...
"The newly created American Open Technology Consortium has posted a draft of their position statement online. They propose to change that by forming a real lobbying..."

So, they posted a draft of their position statement, and immediatly proposed to change that? Or what?
-end nitpick-

Re:The editor in me...

[SgtXaos]

Sorry, the /. editors chopped out the paragraph that "that" refers to. The paragraph is the one in their document that discusses how previous efforts to kill/repeal things like UTICA, DMCA had failed.

Re:The editor in me...

[FurryFeet]

Don't be sorry... at any rate, they should be. And, as I said, I was just nitpicking (I do editing for a living, so I couldn't resist).
Oh, great story, by the way :)

Oh please....

[sunking2]

Reading this is almost comical. All it is missing is the correct spelling of micro$oft. This has about the same chances of every actually amounting to anything as 99% of the projects on sourceforge. Now that Jedi Knight has been released this has probably already lost interest.

Is it surprising that it's needed ?

[valen]

One of the things that Europeans love to feel smug about is the way that bribery is so indemic in US culture, that they have a special term for "political bribery" - lobbying.

In most European countries, it's illegal to give politicians money in exchange for support for laws. Damn right. Otherwise, you get what happens in the US - rich companies get to make the laws everyone else stands by.

Re:Is it surprising that it's needed ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems you Europeans have retained more of the original "Viking spirit" than we have....

Not a fan of PACs, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

this may be necessary to stop the insanity that prevales through american politics.
I wish this would have happened about 1 year ago.

GeekPAC is such a lame name...

[Ilan Volow]

I think "NerdPAC" sounds a lot cooler!

Agree --- Need a Professional

[idonotexist]

I, too, have the same impression. Moreover, what real experience does someone with GeekPAC have with lobbying? I am sceptical of someone who has an extensive background/education in political scientist or someone who is alien to the process. What is necessary IMO is someone who is in the know: a current successful lobbyist, a popular member of a Congressional staff, or a former rep/senator.

Anyone else is a waste of time, money, and hope.

Score 0: Bad '70s Reference

[realgone]

Corporate Membership: $500.00 minimum donation - Corporate members will receive a framed and signed certificate of membership, the monthly newsletter, and the right to name a member of our Advisory Board.

Okay. Here's $500. And your name is Flounder.

Re:Score 0: Bad '70s Reference

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

Flounder [/dreamily]

Re:Score 0: Bad '70s Reference

[acaben]

Hmm.... They may need to check on this one. I don't know as much about PAC fundraising as I do about candidate fundraising, but I'm fairly sure that corporate donations are not allowed for a multi-candidate committee. From the FEC Guide for corporations and labor organizations (page 18)....

Election law prohibits corporations and labor organizations from making contributions...in connection with federal races.

I hope they double check that. FEC violations are very very serious things for PACs with signifcant fines.

Re:Score 0: Bad '70s Reference

[Alsee]

Election law prohibits...

They are aware of this issue. The website says that they are still debating which will be more important to them - corporate donations XOR the ability to contribute to campaigns.

-

Re:fracturing effort? CDT, EPIC, ...

[Broadcatch]

Besides the EFF (you are already a member, right?) there's several Washington-based public interest research groups worth contributing to, such as the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. (For more, see the Cyber Rights index page.)

I am concerned about the fractured effort. Lobbying Congress takes not only a lot of money, but also a lot of focus.

When geeks will emigrate (including myself)..

[SaberTaylor]

Conditions:

=> An SSCA-clone is passed.
=> Challenged to Supreme Court.
=> Supreme Court does not rule it unconstitutional.
=> No legislators wake up.
=> No better legislators/presidents are voted in.
=> General purpose computers are apparently permanently illegal in the US.
<= The move to sunnier climes.

A PAC

[quam]

Perhaps I am thinking inside a box, but based on my experience with campaigns and as an aide for three years to a politican, success in changing law(s) requires an organization with the following characteristics:

• Broad Mission: Create an organization appealing to many. For instance, an organization with the goal to protect encryption is narrow. "Online civil liberties" also seems narrow to me. It doesn't seem DMCA would apply with that type of organization. However, an organization with the goal to advance "technology and civil liberties" is broad.
• Local/State/National Structure: A national headquarters and a headquarters for each state with local chapters is established. Individuals wishing to join the organization must pay a due. Dues are distributed between the local, state and national organizations. Local chapters are strongly encouraged to conduct fundraisers (i.e.: btw, when I was at Krispy Kreme this weekend, I noticed organizations can sell doughnuts and keep up to 40% of the proceeds).
• Local Chapters Defined By Political Boundaries With an 'Advisor': Each local chapter is generally divided along a congressional district line. This division depends on the methods used to create political boundaries within a state, but usually this type of organization allows for easy communication with elected officials. Congressman X who represents foo district within the city of foo knows all of local chapter foo is a constituent to him/her. Moreover, all activities of local chapter foo are able to influence effectively; no time is wasted on a communication or action intended to influence an elected official who doesn't give a damn because the communique or action does not originate from within his/her district. A local chapter becomes attuned with the activities of its elected officials. For instance, a chapter may have all of its members attend an elected official's town meeting.
• Elections of Organization Leaders: The local chapter advisor or chairperson is elected by that chapter's members. A state chairperson is elected by all members of that state. The national chairperson is elected by all members throughout the nation.
• Government Liaisons: Either (1) The local chairperson is the chief spokesperson in matters of that chairperson's respective district (this depends on how the chapter lines are drawn up --- generally the chairperson would be attached to the local congressman/woman), the state chairperson is the chief spokesperson in the respective state legislative matters, and the national chairperson is the chief spokesperson at the federal level; or (2) Each state and/or the national office has a lobbyist who is either selected via election of the members or is selected by the chairperson. Generally a government liaison receives some form of compensation.
  Sidenote: the most ineffective lobbyists imo are those with little work experience and a heavy educational background (PhD); the most effective lobbyists are those with previous work experience in the system as an elected official or aide.
• Avoid Alignment with a Particular Political Party: Political tides may change quickly and those aligned with the losing side will likely be left out.
• Acts for Legislative Change: Generally, the government liaison should be skilled to understand what methods are appropriate. These methods may include (1) tailor a common message or goal for each government officials, (2) communicating with each elected official the number of association members who are constituents, (3) during session go door-to-door to the offices of those officials of significance (i.e.: if the bill is in committee, visit only those on the committee (or, at times, someone who has influence on the committee) and visit members who do not have a position on the issue, may be swayed or may sway others), (4) develop rapport (speak/eat with staff, have lunch with the official (this does not require paying for the official's food), drop off gifts (i.e.: if the member likes grapefruits, bring by a basket of grapefruit) at the end of session, or (5) request letter campaigns from a specific local/state chapter(s) to a specified official and provide a model letter.

Again, this information is just an overview of what I learned over several years and observing various political organizations. I am sure not all of the above information is accurate given different political environments or circumstances. Also, there is obviously more information required to fully explain how a political organization may be effective and it is not included here.

Love the general idea, but it's still too vague...

[StupidKatz]

I'd have no problem committing $100/yr+ to an organization that would fight *stupid* legislation that produces crap like the DMCA and the SSSCA that removes rights from consumers. I think it's about time we said "enough is enough!" and actually DID something about it!

Unfortunately, this is far too vague to really promise money to. (Not to mention the thing about corporate sponsors.. they'd become pretty useless if they couldn't be effective due to having accepted corporate funds, right?)
I'll keep an eye on this. If it shapes up into something more than vapor, they've got my support.

cash

[entheon]

am I the only one who, though I admit this proposal sounds cool, wouldn't shell out the bucks just to have a freakin certificate telling me I belong to an organization three people large? Wahoo! The election's coming up, oh I wonder who'll win oh the suspense!

The GeekPac name

[PurpleHigh]

Why is everyone up in arms over the name "GeekPac"? Both the draft document and the article confirm that the name of the PAC is American Open Technology Consortium; GeekPac is just the address to which pledges are going. I'm sure that if the effort gains momentum, they'll can establish an email address that's a little more professional.

Re: The GeekPAC name-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I seem to recall something similiar used in the 60s and 70s...what was it now? Oh yes..WarsawPAC.

SUV == Marketing

[SgtChaireBourne]

SUVs are pushed by the auto industry because they're heavy enough to be classed as a truck and thus relieve some of the burden from emission standards for cars.

Status and saftey were the only angles SUVs could be marketed from but the saftey value was shown to be untrue. That left Volvo and Saab as the remaining competitors in safe status (in the US) cars. Both are U.S. owned now.

People are told to want a particular car. Henry Ford knew that and wans't shy about it either. That part has not changed. If the Big Three bought Trabant or Lada and pushed, everyone in the States would have two.

EFF isn't a lobbying group

[grantus]

The EFF does some great things, but it's not a Washington lobbying organization, its an advocacy and legal defense organization. John Perry Barlow almost revels in the fact the the EFF is a Washington outsider. From a NewsForge story published on March 8:

.... One audience member asked him if there are ways to effect change from inside the political establishment, instead of outside it like the EFF seems to be doing. Barlow noted the EFF used to have an office in Washington, and the White House would call frequently to get the organization to "sign off on something diabolical."

"We found ourselves with a greater incentive to stay at the table than to be right," he said. "There's a Washington phenomenon called logrolling, which is to maintain negotiations at all costs. We found ourselves whoring around in so many different ways that the only way to buy our vision back was to leave Washington."

But Barlow said he still wants the EFF to be a force for change, even as a Washington outsider, by pointing out to the public what's wrong there. "Somebody needs to maintain a sense of clarity about this, and there are relative degrees of outsiderness," he said. "I'm not Richard Stallman. Richard has done a valuable service to what has become the Open Source movement, but it seems that Richard has placed more value on being an outsider than on winning."

Still, it's possible that the American Open Technology Consortium (which is its name, not GeekPAC, since they haven't even decided yet if it will be a PAC) could draw some money away from the EFF, if it's successful. In a perfect world, people who care about these issues would give money to both the EFF and a "geek PAC," so that these issues could be attacked in Congress, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.

Grant

This really needs to be two efforts

[Our Man In Redmond]

First, there needs to be an effort to educate the public about technological issues and how those issues relate to them. If the average person understands why laws like the DCMA and the CBDTPA are bad, they are more likely to influence their legislators to Do The Right Thing.

Second, there needs to be the continuous Washington presence that educates the lawmakers on these issues (i.e., lobbies like mad).

This is going to require two kinds of people in the organization (in addition to those of us who merely contribute, and those who encourage us to do so, i.e. fundraisers). The first will be those who can explain complex technical issues to the masses without sounding like a man page. Someone who looks and sounds good on Oprah. Yes, I said Oprah -- if you want to educate people you have to go someplace where they're listening, and getting the gatekeepers of public opinion on our side would be an Incredibly Good Thing. The second will be those who know how to play the Inside The Beltway game and know how to explain complex technical issues to Congresscritters, preferably in terms of how their support of tech-friendly legislation is going to get them re-elected.

Basically, the people setting this up need to take notes on how organizations like The Sierra Club and The National Rifle Organization achieve their successes in Washington. We don't have to like them, share their views or have their money in order to learn from them.

Interesting choice of words

[superflippy]

3 of the 6 "ideals" begin with the words "Support the elimination of legislation, or prevention of future legislation." I like the idea of a PAC that's not interested in creating more legislation. It seems more sensible than the knee-jerk reaction "There ought to be a law against xyz!" when xyz upsets you.

Amateur lobbying won't get anywhere

[Reziac]

Geeks don't seem to understand that the majority of lobbyists are PROs. They do it for a living, and are for hire to whoever can pay the appropriate salary. They understand marketing to the Suits (and face it, Congress is made up of Suits) and through long experience, they know how to play the game.

A bunch of amateurs will never get anywhere no matter how much money they spend. They'd be better off to HIRE a few experienced professional lobbyists and sic 'em on members of Congress who are as yet uncommitted wrt the Disney Act.

"I'm the most loyal player money can buy." -- Don Sutton

Open Technology consortium

[blibbleblobble]

"Open source development"?
"The linux community"?

They're not counting on Richard Stallman's support, I hope.

bribery is not speech

[Mr. Slippery]

Limiting soft money is, without a doubt, limiting free speech...

There is, in fact, plenty of doubt about it.

Try slipping fifty bucks to a cop to get out of a speeding ticket and claiming you were only exercising your free speech rights. Ridiculous, right? What if instead you offered to buy fifty bucks worth of advertizing space to promote his favorite charity, or the small business he runs on the side? That's still bribery.

If the mayor knows that you want a proposed ordinance passed, and you "happen" to leave $1,000 on his desk, that's bribery. If a mayorial candiate knows that you would like him to press for a certain proposed ordinance, and you happen to leave $1,000 dollars on his desk, that's bribery. If you instead purchase $1,000 worth of campaign ads for him, that's still bribery.

Speech is speech. Money in expectation of special treatment - which is exactly what large contributors are giving for - is bribery. We can debate the exact terms of the law, but outlawing bribery should not be a controvertial stand...

Re:bribery is not speech

[JordanH]

• Speech is speech. Money in expectation of special treatment - which is exactly what large contributors are giving for - is bribery. We can debate the exact terms of the law, but outlawing bribery should not be a controvertial stand...

There are lines to be drawn, sure, but equating the funding of issue ads with bribery seems a far stretch to me.

Come on! People buy issue ads to convince the electorate of a position that might be the position of a candidate. That's bribery? Oh, just 60 days before an election, not 61? Besides, this law, which admittedly you did say was open to debate, opens up limits on hard money that's even more likely to be used as bribery.

Do we really want a bureacracy determining when speech in the form of important issues has stepped over some line? When is money just supporting issue advocacy and when is it bribery? Don't you really need to prove that there is an expectation of special treatment? And, if that expectation of special treatment is just support of the issue being advocated, isn't this the way it's supposed to work? People are supposed to petition for the redress of grievances and then when politicians hear them and heed them, you're going to be examining the petition drive to make sure that this isn't some subtle form of bribery?

Will it get to the point someday that I'll be arrested for bribery for telling a politician that I support his view on X and I plan to vote for him and tell all my friends to vote for him? How about if I run a Web Site that advocates a view held by a candidate? Must I shut this down 60 days prior to an election to avoid this bribery charge?

As I said, full disclosure is what's needed. Very public issue ads aren't likely to influence politicians unduly if the electorate knows who's supporting what position. If all cases of real bribery were open to public view, we wouldn't really need bribery laws because the electorate would thrown the bums out. That may be a bit of an exaggeration as elections and recalls aren't held daily, but you get the idea.

I'm not really concerned that the NRA is "bribing" politicians to support gun ownership views, or that NOW is "bribing" politicians to support pro-choice views, or that unions are "bribing" politicians on "Free Trade" issues. These are the groups that this law explicitly targets.

An *International* problem

[Archibald Buttle]

Whilst at one level I think that it's high time an organisation such as the AOTC should be formed I cannot help but be slightly disappointed by this development.

My problem is the "A" part of AOTC. The problems that the AOTC are aiming to address are not limited to America. The actions of the US government in relation to the Internet affects people and companies all around this planet, not just the relatively small population of the USA. Similarly the actions of other governments around the world have an effect on both companies and citizens within the USA.

I really should not need to remind people that the Internet is a global network, and that laws and regulations concerning the Internet have international repercussions. Everybody reading this should already be familiar with the way in which the DMCA has been used to persecute foreign nationals who have done nothing illegal in their own country. It should also be obvious to everybody that if it is passed the CBTPA will have a profound affect on people all around the world; it is not only US citizens that could loose their jobs if this law passes.

Please don't think that the USA is alone in suffering from dumb technology laws. Here in the UK we have our own dumb laws (such as the RIP Act) as well as those forced upon us by the European Parliament (like the DMCA-equivalent EC Copyright Directive). We need our own Open Technology Consortium, both for the UK and for Europe as a whole.

Think a little about what it would be like if the European Parliament passed an equivalent to the CBTPA. (For those that don't realise it, Europe has a significantly larger population than the USA, and whilst we still have national governments we also have a European government which passes laws that all European Community member states must abide by.) Many thousands of US technology companies would be adversely affected by this, and as a consequence many US citizens too.

The ideals, aims, and motivations that the AOTC represents are global in nature. Whilst they may be presently concerned with the activities of the US government if the AOTC is successful then they will eventually be forced to deal with foreign governments in order to protect the interests of their American members. Therefore I would argue that a national organisation for what is an international problem is foolish.

An international organisation with the same aims would have many advantages, and few disadvantages. At a simple economic level it could attract a significantly higher membership. Since the arguments in favour of a more open technology market are globally relevant great synergy could be gained from a global approach. Establishing national groups within an international consortium would significantly help the ability of that organisation to influence national government and policy.

Steve

Re:An *International* problem

[shawnseat]

The ideals, aims, and motivations that the AOTC represents are global in nature. Whilst they may be presently concerned with the activities of the US government if the AOTC is successful then they will eventually be forced to deal with foreign governments in order to protect the interests of their American members. Therefore I would argue that a national organisation for what is an international problem is foolish.

An international organisation with the same aims would have many advantages, and few disadvantages.

The weird part of this (and what wouldn't necessarily be obvious to someone outside the US) is that, at least formally, the Republican Party is deeply anti-international. An amazing number of US citizens are philosophically opposed to anything that is supragovernmental: "it's our way or the highway" and such.

Of course, since the US electoral system is biased toward creation of a two-party system, once one party is eliminated from consideration the other need not acknowledge your existence (or more precisely, it takes two of those on your side to equal one undecided person, since an undecided could vote for the opponent -- -1 vs +1 -- while the permanent supporter could only protest by staying home -- 0 vs +1).

Re:An *International* problem

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem is the "A" part of AOTC. The problems that the AOTC are aiming to address are not limited to America. The actions of the US government in relation to the Internet affects people and companies all around this planet, not just the relatively small population of the USA

...The weird part of this (and what wouldn't necessarily be obvious to someone outside the US)is that, at least formally, the Republican Party is deeply anti -international.

Yes they should drop the "A" part, it does sound to insular.
However, Republicanism is not anti-international. Just look at all the former countries that had
'Republic' in their name. Therefore they should replace the "A" with "R".
Republicanist Open Technology Consortium - ROTC. I like it. Even has sort of a patriotic sound
to it.

An outsiders view...

[danro]

What we need is more debate on issues, not less. Full disclosure of who is funding politicians and issue ads would provide a level playing field. If, under such a system, we still have corrupt politicians, then we get the Government that we deserve, I guess.

I am not an american, but I agree with you on this.
Full disclosure _would_ solve a lot of the problems, and not only in the US.

For example, in my country the part currently in goverment constantly gets bashed by their opponents for their open (monetary) ties to the unions.
But their opponents have _plenty_ of money, and chooses not to disclose who donated them.
Full disclosure would let all the skeletons out and give people a chance to decide for them selves who is more trustworthy.

Also, the government partially funding to partys bigger then 4% (which we have) may lessen the corruption a bit (seems to work, IMHO it is worth the tax money.). But I imagin that would be a hard thing to sell in the US...

Also the US seems to have a election culture where money is all important. For example I have never seen that much baloons, flags and other irrelevant stuff anywhere else.
Maybe a change of focus from PR to actual issues would do some good?
I am surprised that the major american parties is not activly working towards this, it should be in their own interest to have more educated voters?
...or maybe they really _are_ as corrupt as you american slashdotters seem to think, and like the idea of "buying" votes from a public that knows nothing about whats really going on?

As I said, I am not an american, if I offended anyone by critizicing your election system I appologise.
But I cant help to think that it works in a really strange way. I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that the guy with the most votes actually lost! Some bugfixes are clearly needed...

Exclude the MPAA and others like it

[smagruder]

Well, certainly this nascent organization can choose to not accept donations and/or participation from entities (such as the MPAA) that are considered to be against what the organization stands for. Would the NRA accept contributions from Handgun Control?

Re:Exclude the MPAA and others like it

[mamba-mamba]

Would the NRA accept contributions from Handgun Control?

Why not, as long as there were no strings attached.

Having said that, though, I think it would be a mistake for the geekpac to allow generous donors to directly appoint people, as described in the draft.

It could definitely lead to a form of sabotage, where increasingly wimpy people are appointed by those who don't agree with the aims of the organization. Then if the apointees are kicked out, who knows, the donor might sue or something.

Better to do it some other way.

MM
--

I disagree

[sulli]

Calling it "GeekPAC" would get tons of donations and rally the troops. Design a good logo, sell hats, use it to turn out people, the whole thing. Don't be ashamed of the geek name.

Re:I disagree

[LordNimon]

I'm not ashamed of it, but that's because I know what it means. A politician doesn't have the same understanding of the term that we do.

BS

[Golias]

The #1 selling car in the US remains the Toyota Camry. It has been for almost a decade.

All this hand-wringing about car makers "pushing" consumers to buy SUV's is a load of bullshit. Do you know who's buying SUV's? Soccer moms. They buy SUV's because 1) nobody makes a station wagon anymore, and 2) SUV's can carry as many passengers as a van, but are generally cheaper, have a higher stance (which is very popular with women customers), do better in crash-tests, and are more fun to drive around in.

In addition to replacing the family van (or station wagon) as the grocery-getter car for taking the kids to little-league, it has also replaced the luxury car. Lincoln has stopped making the Town Car, and Cadalac sales have been in the toilet for years now. The reason for this is the steeper CAFE standards, which make big cars impractical to make but don't apply to trucks (because trucks are considered industrial equipment). Result: light pickups become SUV's... a replacement for both big luxury cars and big family cars.

Now they are talking about extending CAFE standards to apply to SUV's. I guarantee you that the very year that happens, the Ford F-150 will become tricked out with lots of chick features (vanity mirrors, heated seats, etc) and sold as the new SUV. The way things are going, soon all commuters will be driving around in luxury fire trucks, tractor-trailor rigs, and cherry-picker cranes. Or maybe the bone-heads in Washington will someday start to think ahead about the unintended consequences that could arise from the laws they pass.

A Camry is great for driving to work, but you can't carry 8 people in it, can't haul much cargo in it, and it can't pull a decent-sized fishing boat trailor. Therefore, everybody who needs anything more than a small 4-door sedan will buy a big SUV, because Washington has made damned sure that there is nothing in between.

More despair...

[danro]

I hate myself for saying this, but...
I think that _any_ organisation with a yearly income of 2.5M will be corrupted to a fairly high degree...
Think ICANN.

Damn human nature!

small correction

[Golias]

For the comment above, I should have referred to the F-350 as the truck that would emerge if CAFE standards hit the SUV market. The F-150 is already sold as and SUV, and is not that much bigger than the others. The 350 is the big honker I was thinking of. My bad.

GeekPAC = FlameBait

[dtabraha]

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that the AOTC Position Statement is a little inflammatory?

I totally agree that there should be an organization to support and protect geek rights,
but to start off the organization with possible slander towards several very powerful and successful
companies with senators in their pockets is political suicide.

You gain respect and political allies by writing and lobbying senators and representatives for their support.
Without their support, we are just a bunch of annoying geeks who fill up their email boxes.

Re:GeekPAC = FlameBait

[Lurker_2k]

Exactly.

Drop the Anti MS crap and instantly you'll get a LOT more support from the computing community. Do you honestly think that all the geeks at MS really like the DMCA and whatnot?

haha

[Graspee_Leemoor]

I have a GEEKPAC- it's basically an IPAQ I installed nethack on.

graspee

open source lobbying

[daevt]

Ok, Open Source is nice and all, but:

1. I would think that we should support what ever technology get us to our goals, and abandon this MacArthyist view of 'all or nothing.'

2. Most people, I believe, will initially support a mixed system more openly than a homogenous system consisting entirely of alien componants.

3 You will find that people are more likely to adopt principles of your belief struture if you have a well thought out plan that weens people away from the less desireble behaviors.

4. Money will only get you in the door, votes carry you over the distance; things need to look like a good move for politicians to appear to support publically before any kind of lobbying will be sucessful.

5. Remember, the actual merits don't matter as much as the spin.

Re:Score 0: Bad '70s Reference *Offtopic*

[powerlinekid]

Haha, funniest thing I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Thanks
/powerlinekid