Slashdot Mirror
Hardball Tactics For The Geek Lobby
sfjoe writes: "The San Francisco Chronicle has this story on how to effectively make the point about online freedom of speech. In a nutshell, until a legislator gets slapped around (electorally-speaking) for kowtowing to the narrow corporate interests, nobody in Congress will take online civil liberties seriously. On the other hand if, for example, Senator Disney gets his balls whacked (electorally-speaking), monstrosities like the DMCA will start getting bottled up in congressional committees. The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."
That's the essence of the NRA, their membership votes guns, so the question is are there enough people to vote geek? (and pay a real membership fee)
Chris
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
... please let's not call it the "Geek Lobby". Even if we use the term amongst ourselves, it just won't fly for the general public.
Miko O'Sullivan
If even 5% of the geeks who are appalled by the SSSCA/CBDTPA sent a small check to Disney's opponent, we could turn the election. If we include a quick note explaining the contribution, our message will be loud and clear. Formal lobbying groups, public education campaigns, and all the other trappings are nice to have, but the fundamental force comes from lots of people putting their money where their hearts are.
I think one key, however, is that Hollings must be vulnerable. If he has a token opponent, we should focus on someone else - key word being "one". Sending money to the opposing party, or to several candidates won't cut it at our level. Our pockets aren't deep enough, and we don't have enough of them.
Still, I think this guy underestimates how easy/cheap it would be. I'd donate a few bucks to such a PAC, but I'm not rich. And if we all banded together somehow, and wanted to votefuck Hollings when he's up for re-election, could we win? Imagine that we somehow come up with enough cash to mount a decent tv ad campaign. We'd still be the new guys, and they would retaliate. Does anyone believe they are somehow above lying and namecalling?
"These hippy anarchists, aren't even from your district. Yet they want to dictate to the good people of N. Carolina who you should vote for. They want to allow dirty thieves to steal movies and games from struggling artists, bankrupting them, and stealing from you in the long run. We can't tell you to do anything illegal, but by god, if we ever see them on the street alone at night..."
Remember folks, if you pick on one of Hollywood's bought and paid for politicians, you are **picking on Hollywood**. There is no way that we could ever do political ads that are as slick, as decietful, and unfortunately, as effective as they could. They'd have Cher saying how she supports Senator Asswad, and we'd have some finnish geek saying something that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand, in an accent that annoys him.
The system is broken, and can't fix itself. No matter how much we help it from the inside.
Both the article as well as the slashdot poster hit the nail on the head.
Do It ! Please !
You would be amazed how good political muscle can work if applied this way.
Just take someone and (politically) string him up! And don't take Hollings - as much tempting he is as a target he's far east of seventy and probably doesn't need (or even maybe doesnt seek) another term in the Senate. Take one of his allies instead. Get one who's prominent enough to be associated with Hollings' legislation, one who is young enough to loose something when booted out of Congress (The Never Come Back), but too old already to just shrug it off and do something else. Preferably have him (or her) squeal all over the place.
In short, inflict maximum pain. Make the guy (or the lady) an example.
It's an old principle of Germanic Law: Justice has to be seen.
The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."
Perhaps this is the key.
Under some circumstances, exported computers are classified as munitions. Can't we simply apply the Second Amendment to assure our freedom to use computers as we see fit?
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
They are the highest profile supporters of SSSCA who are facing election in 2002.
Everyone and their brother has free speech as an issue.
What "geeks" need right now is to know how to make a point about the fact that:
Seastead this.
Is the NRA is a properly run orginization that all the members are active in permoting it and following through with the beliefs and goals of the org.
There is NO WAY IN HELL you can get geeks,dweebs,nerds and spaz's to agree on anything. Hell when it comes down to the wire the bulk of us are too damned lazy to even write a letter to our congressperson or a letter to the editor, let alone become an activist.
and then you try and get geeks to pay dues... Hell they wont pay for a slashdot subscription (Me included) what makes anyone believe that anyone would pay the $150.00 a year dues that would be required?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I know that we're all supposed to be for reform and all, but didn't Senator McCain just make this tatic illegal?
Get the special interest groups out of Washington!
If GeekPAC were to target a single Senator for removal with political adverstising, like the columnist suggests, it would violate the 60-day rule in the new laws.
Maybe those anti-Campaign Finance Reform people whining about free speech had a point after all. How does it feel to be a special interest?
Warning: this post is seeping with my political views, many of which are controversial. I'm using them as an example, not to try to convert folks or pick a fight.
I'm from Senator Disney's home state. Hollings is a Democrat, so voting against him means voting for a Republican. In other states, this might not be a problem -- there are a lot of moderate Republicans in the Senate that I respect, even if I disagree with some of their opinions. Unfortunately, they aren't on the ballot in South Carolina. Republican politicians in the South are fucking scary. If anyone doubts this, think about Strom Thurmond (segregationist), Jesse Helms (well-known racist), and Trent Lott (pork-barelling thug). I don't know if I can vote for a Southern-style Republican after seeing what damage out-of-control conservativism has done to the South.
In effect, saying "no" to Hollings is saying "yes" to the religious right, "yes" to corporate welfare, "yes" to the war on drugs, "yes" to irresponsible military expenditures (that, unlike much government spending, do nothing to grow the economy), "yes" to wiretapping the Internet, "yes" to mandatory censorware in libraries and schools, and the list goes on. It means saying "no" a woman's right to an abortion, "no" to affirmative action, "no" to spending money on public education, "no" to space research, "no" to any and all liberal social programs. You may not have a problem with all of these issues, but if any one of them is dear to your heart, you've got a real dilemma.
I'm a CS student, and I hope to work in software development one day, but frankly, if I never saw another computer again, or never bought another CD, I could live a happy and rewarding life doing something else. However, I don't think I could, in good conscience, advance a destructive conservative agenda just so I can use Linux instead of Windows, or use a traditional, uncrippled PC. I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just saying that I can't, and that many people won't. Technology issues are important, but is it worth abandoning everything else that I believe in just to vote a few (OK, a lot of) crooked Democrats out of office? Sadly, I don't think so.
We have a couple of choices, in my view. We can lobby in the traditional manner -- attempting to purchase influence via campaign donations. This is very expensive, and we'll get spanked by Microsoft and Disney, but maybe it will work if we generate enough public awareness. Barring that, we could just leave. I question whether other countries are still scrambling for computer programmers, but frankly, I'd go to Scandinavia or the Netherlands in a heartbeat if I could.
I hate that this sounds so negative, but I'm pretty demoralized about the whole thing -- it would be interesting to see if someone comes up with a solution.
Steve
That's damn right. From 1997 to 2002, she raised $22,750 from Disney (4th contributor) and $18,100 from AOLTW (7th contributor). I think GeekPAC can raise much more than that. And throwing that money on his opponent would be a good complement to grassroot actions (grin). I don't like senators to be for sale, but so it is. Then why not just buy them ?
disclaimer: I sent my check to GeekPAC two days ago, and I'm not even an american citizen. So what are you waiting for ?
Does anyone keep just lists of the Bills, voting records, etc. on these issues? Opensecrets.org does this for their issues, and Common Cause publicizes voting record for their issues, but I haven't seen anything like this for Geek issues.
Perhaps the EFF would do something like this, but I didn't find it on their Web site. Well, they are probably open to suggestions, especially with a contribution in the envelope!
He's not representing the interests of SC. When I think "entertainment", SC doesn't come to mind first . Based on the money he's received and the interests he's put forward, he's more suited to represent CA.
Perhaps he should move there and represent them.
Funny, I was just watching TV when I came accross that post. The AIPAC is dining and wining Washington's political elite at the Hilton tonight and various pols are brownnosing their generous sponsor so hard they are growing warts on their nose.
(Note for non-US readers: AIPAC is the pro-Israel lobby dropping millions of soft-money every year onto grateful Congresscritters to influence the US foreign policy.)
The AIPAC is one of the most efficient lobbies in the world. I think we geeks should find inspiration in its mode of operation:
And you know what? It WORKS. Nobody in their right mind ever speaks against AIPAC in Washington.
Carrots and big sticks. That's the way to deal with Congress. Collateral damages include democracy and ethics, but nobody said politics was pretty.
If we want to nip the SSSCA insanity in the bud, we geeks have to forget about the artificial political divisions and make sure Mickey Hollings gets his testicles shoved up his big mouth at the next election. Whether his adversary is Ralph Nader or Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant, Hollings has to get his fat ass kicked and painted with "who's next?" in day-glow paint.
If we don't do that, we developers might as well try to find a job as a data entry clerk at the MPAA's headquaters, because life as a software creator is going to suck.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Dianne Feinstein was up for re-election in 2000. Despite being from San Francisco, she's probably one of the least friendly congresspeople towards technology and the internet. Her opponent was Tom Campbell, an imminently sensible pro-technology Republican. He got his clock cleaned.
Since Feinstein's up in 2006, I'd volunteer Boxer in 2004. There's plenty of time, she's in favor of the Hollings bill, and she's a perrenially weak candidate. If the California Republicans would re-run Campbell, or someone else similar from Silicon Valley, it's be a great way of getting our voices heard.
Is there a similarly weak Republican?
And then came along the 1994 Crime bill. In case you don't remember this bill, this was the infamous bill that banned "assualt weapons" without a good definition of what an assualt weapon was and banned gun magazines over 10 rounds. It barely passed, but passed nonetheless.
Jack Brooks onveniently forgot who brought him to the dance and who kept him there. He voted against the bill, even though many of his constituents were either directly NRA members or sympathetic to the cause. He did not serve another term. Though no one directly said it, it was considered general knowledge that his vote on the crime bill was the critical issue.
-------------------------------------------------
"They also wonder out loud why the $600 billion-a-year information-technology sector is letting itself get pushed around by the $20 billion-a-year entertainment industry.
The answer to that question seems pretty obvious. The IT industry is getting pushed around because it isn't pushing back. Unfortunately, GeekPAC's proposed approach promises to continue that sorry trend."
If I recall correctly, aren't there some quarter million people who read /. daily? Many of us are computer professionals and would have no problem (at least from a financial standpoint) giving a couple hundred dollars a year or so to a responsible group who could organize and push forward with lobbying to our benefit. Assuming less one in twenty gave an average $100, you could be looking at over $1,000,000 ($100 * 10,000 people) per year. I should think this would be plenty for a small staff to maintain a single focal point where everyone concerned about their rights can keep up to date and can be informed about how to help with an organized fight to ensure our continued freedoms.
As corny as that sounds, look at what we're facing. The DMCA, the SSSCA, they exist for one reason: money. Being elected is a great way to get rich quickly, so these people will do anything they have to to ensure they're re-elected. Attacking people like Hollings with a million dollar+ annual budget would certainly make a point. The Senator from Disney would have one heck of a time getting elected if negative adds were running non-stop for the last few weeks before the next election. When you can take down the big boys, the small fish learn quickly to sit down and shut up, and do as they're told.
With all the high tech people that are out of work right now, I'm sure some must be reading this who have some sort of campaign/government experience who can set this up. Show me a responsible, organized effort to put a PAC together and I'll not only join and donate, I'll do everything I can to make sure other people do as well.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Reading the extraordinary combination of naivete and arrogance that this thread betrays, plus the wide array of partisan agendas and chips-on-shoulders that gets revealed here, it's no wonder at all. The entertainment industry is used to working crowds, used to working together, knows how to talk to people in ways that people like, knows how to be sexy, is used to working across class boundaries. I've known film producers who can quite comfortably talk with sound engineers and technical staff - the geek contempt for anyone who isn't a geek is overwhelming and obvious.
Thank you. Whenever I try to make that point, nobody ever listens!
The Ninth Amendment has to be the most underrated and most ignored by Congress (though the 10th comes close) Amendment that there is.
Laymans Terms:
Ninth Amendment: "We listed some rights explicitly. Even if we forgot to talk about the others, you've still got them."
Tenth Amendment: "If we didn't say the Feds could do something, then they can't. The States and the People can."
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
As soon as I saw the name "GeekPAC" I shuddered. It seems like geeks are cursed with an utter lack of communication skills - which means that they have never really observed how communication works. The name "GeekPAC" does not connote a benevolent, respectable organization speaking for computer professionals or users. Imagine if the NRA were called "GunPAC" or "GatPAC" or "PAC'n heat". The message is obviously targeted for internal consumption, and the founders seem unable to look at themselves from the viewpoint of a normal person.
Plotkin is right - the scheme of spraying small amounts of money around randomly is not going to work. As he points out, the winning strategy is deterrence - we make an example of one legislator, and thereby get the attention of the rest.
Ever watch a movie and find yourself wanting the bad guy to win, just because the good guy was such an ass? That's how I'm starting to feel about this "geeks vs. entertainment industry" war. I think I first felt this when geeks were protesting something (maybe the Microsoft EULA?) and a few of them showed up in Star Wars costumes. Naturally, that's what the media covered. This "GeekPAC" looks like a great way to shoot ourselves in the foot more publicly and more expensively than usual. These guys are about as competent to wage a political battle as the average lobbyist would be to admin a farm of web servers.
The core idea is sound, of course. If computing is going to survive, we have to start paying tribute to Congress. It's that simple. Doctors pay $700 a year to the AMA, essentially to ward of legislation that would destroy their profession.
I hope that the inevitable humiliating failure of this "GeekPAC" will not discourage geeks from seeking political representation.
What bothers me the most about this article is that it makes tremendous sense. Using the proven intimidation tactics of groups like right-wing Christians does make sense. Kicking a few carefully targeted politicians out of office would be a good way to get their colleagues' attention.
What's sad is that the bought and paid for nature of government in America is such an accepted fact nowadays. Apparently we finally woke up and smelled the coffee, but then all we did was order biscotti to go with it. Plotkin is suggesting throwing it right in some senator's face instead, and I think that's a hell of a good idea. I hope somebody at GeekPAC is listening to him.
Instead, to stem the tide, GeekPAC, or some other similar organization, needs to make an example out of someone in Congress, and do it quick. When the National Rifle Association, or the Christian Coalition or Emily's List, for that matter, want action on an issue, the strategists behind those well-run groups usually pick a smart fight with one or more of their key opponents. They target their resources to just those specific races, sometimes to just one race. Rather than give 200 politicians $1,000 each, the savviest PACs instead will spend $200,000 or more kicking the bejesus out of just one single office holder.
I say Diane Feinstein. She'd be a great one to be made an example because she's thought of as such a leader in Congress on this stuff.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!