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

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[beme]

How about
AMERICAN OPEN TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM
?

(Which is actually what it's called.)

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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

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: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.

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...

"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.

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.

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

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....