Slashdot Mirror
Lobbyist Morgan Reed Answers Your Questions
Advice
by Maskirovka
If you could give one piece of advice to this group, what would it be?
Morgan Reed: An opening note about /. And Washington:
Many of the posts here throw out statements like "Washington is bought"; and it reminds me how little slashdot readers understand about the U.S. government.
People tend to avoid and denigrate subjects they don't fully understand or feel comfortable with. I am certain every reader can think back to an example of having a non-tech person make a disparaging, off-the-cuff comment about something of which they clearly don't grasp. Quotes like "empty suits" and "crooks" signify a response steeped in discomfort due to lack of knowledge.
Most Slashdot readers prize themselves on being knowledgeable, especially about tech issues. Many readers depend on knowledge for their income. Yet on issues involving the government, these same "knowledge workers" treat politics like the technophobes treat computers.
Fortunately or unfortunately, (and I believe fortunately) the US allows all people (over the age of 18), even those who aren't paying attention, to vote.
I would suggest that before any reader makes a blanket statement about either party or any bill or any political issue, that you take the time to think "how much do I really know about this bill?" Am I reading the full text, or am I being spun?
Be aware that much of what you read on the editorial page of the newspaper, or what you hear on talk radio, is spin. Read the byline of the author carefully (also understand in many cases he/she is not really the author, just a respected person whose name is being used to promote a position).
Finally, imagine that the people making the decisions are overworked folks getting massive quantities of information and trying to adequately represent the voters who put them in office.
I can tell you from here on the inside, I have rarely met any Member of Congress, of EITHER party, that was really a bad person. Members are all just trying to represent the voters and win re-election.
Your JOB as a US citizen is to select a representative who will adequately represent your views. It is essential that you not turn off from politics. Instead, take the time to embrace it for a few weeks, learn what you can, then check your gut. Don't be the kind of person you hate to meet who attacks your work, or calls it trivial, because they don't understand it, and are slightly fearful that they will look ignorant. Is it really too much to ask?
Corruption of democracy
by imipak
As is widely known (and apparently accepted), corporations buy off legislators in the USA through 'campaign contributions' or 'soft money' or various other apparently legal means.
There are also many commercial firms of "lobbyists", who are openly making money from influencing law making. (I must admit that I am unsure of the detail of how this works, whether cash is involved, or of it's legality.)
It seems to me that this is simply organized corruption. We see the results every day in the DMCA and similar broken laws. In your opinion, is this really democracy? At what point should a nominally democratic system be seen as a facade?
(DISCLAIMER: I am a defendant in the California deCSS case.)
Bribes?
by jeffy124
What's your opinion of organizations providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization?
Could this be considered bribing on behalf of the funding organization and accepting a bribe by 'returning the favor?' If not bribes, would you consider this practice ethical?
I ask this question in how it pertains to the situation of organizations with deep pockets such as the RIAA funding lawmakers to create laws like the DMCA and other laws that are currently coming down the pike.
Also, what advice would you give to shallow-pocket organizations such as the EFF or EPIC in fighting to keep the rights of honest, well meaning Internet users?
MR: I am lumping the two previous questions together because they ask essentially the same thing: "Do organizations have an undue influence on Washington"?
The best answer I know is: "Organizations have an expected level of influence on Washington."
Members of Congress are primarily interested in serving the needs of the people that they represent. They do this both for electoral reasons as well as the fact that they personally share the median interests of their constituency.
Every organization wants to convince the government that its position reflects the position that will either benefit the most people, a group of particularly needy people, or reflects the most consistent view with existing laws and practices. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
When a Congressman is lobbied either by corporation or his local Lion's Club, he is thinking in terms of how it benefits his constituents and his/her personal beliefs. Corporations know that, and tailor their legislative message to illustrate the benefits or perils to a Member's local or national constituency.
You must demonstrate to members of Congress and other government officials how your position will benefit their constituents and demonstrate that many of their constituents feel the same way. This is the key to effectively lobbying government even without deep pockets.
Theoretically being politically active or donating to campaigns helps elect Members of Congress who support your beliefs or position on a issue. That said, I've had clients who maxed out to Members of Congress who were actively opposed to the client's legislation because they agreed with his/her social agenda.
You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen.
Any time you think it all works from money, take a look at the list of Congressmen who did NOT support Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) but received money from tech companies!
Bottom line, the role of money in politics is murky.
So here is an example of murky money: You want to help the EFF? Write a big check. It will allow them to do better research, hire more people to lobby, fly to more conferences, print more flyers, etc. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like "providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization", doesn't it?
Internet taxes
by JJ
What is the political future of the internet sales tax exemption?
MR: Excellent question, but one that needs to be broken into two parts. Internet Sales Tax is a term that is used but actually represents two different tax questions. First, the Internet Tax Moratorium is not a moratorium on sales or use tax, but a moratorium on access tax. An access tax is a tax on your internet service itself. When you look at your phone bill, you will notice access taxes at the bottom. The Internet Tax Moratorium prevents states and localities from levying taxes on your access. This moratorium is probably going to become permanent this year, and will represent a success in efforts to tear down barriers to eCommerce and remote working.
Next, there's the difficulty that states have in collecting sales tax on consumers' purchases from out-of-state retailers. There's nothing new about that, since it's been difficult for decades#8212ever since catalogs and phone orders became prevalent. It's not really an "Internet Tax" but a remote seller tax. Technically, consumers have to voluntarily pay a "use tax" on their out-of-state purchases, but compliance is predictably low.
States have tried to force remote catalog vendors to collect sales tax, but the U.S. Supreme Court said that states only have taxing power over businesses that have some physical presence in their states. Which is why walmart.com has to collect sales tax for any state where there's a Wal-Mart store (are there any states that don't have a Wal-Mart?).
In its ruling in the Quill decision, the Supreme Court gave the states an opening: they held that Congress could extend the states' taxing power, but only if the states standardized and simplified their tax rules. Today, there are over 7,500 separate sales tax jurisdictions in the U.S., each with its own rates and rules about what's taxable and what's not. Bricks-and-mortar retailers have to collect and file for just one jurisdiction, while remote sellers would have to collect and remit for every place their customers live.
With that kind of opening from the Supreme Court, several states started a campaign to unify and simplify their sales tax rules. This program is usually referred to as the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP). Earlier this month, they reached their goal of covering 20% of the U.S. population with states who have promised to simplify their sales tax regimes. (No promises about how simple it will be to file the forms and modify sellers' software and systems#8212just the vague promise that computers will make it simple enough.) The next step in the states' campaign is to ask Congress to give them the powers they seek, and they're already lining-up supporters for the legislation.
So there's nothing new about the states' difficulty in getting remote sellers to collect everyone's sales taxes. And nothing here is unique to the internet, since catalogs generate about four times as much as online sales. Truth is, internet e-commerce is costing states just one or two billion dollars year in lost sales taxes ationwide.
It's just that states are hungry for new revenue, and they've convinced themselves that there are billions to be gained by forcing out-of-state sellers to collect and remit their sales taxes. What remains to be seen is whether the incremental taxes are worth the costs and burden--especially on small businesses that look to the internet to expand their markets.
Top five issues?
by JPMH
What would you say are the top five issues that *need* an effective lobbying effort at the moment?
MR:
- Intellectual Property (IP is the major umbrella issue for tech in the foreseeable future. If you want to give your IP away under the GPL, it should be yours to give; and should you GPL it, you should be able to protect that right. If you want to monetize your IP, should be able to protect it and share it with a license. Fee diversion at the PTO is a bad thing, not enough is being done to find 'prior art.' )
- Internet Access Taxation and SSTP (Bad for eCommerce)
- Spam (Confusion reigns at this point, is it porn or UCE? Legislation must work hand in hand with technology and international pressure. Beware of unintended consequences)
- CDBTPA (We must continue fighting against DRM tech mandates. Technology should solve the problems, government should probably stay out)
- Privacy (make sure that a good balance is struck between corporate sharing and personal privacy. Make sure that if there is a failure, technology is not blamed)
Who knows best?
by PinkStainlessTail
I was wondering if there are any senators/reps who stand out in your mind as particularly tech savvy? For instance, here in Michigan we're relatively proud of Lynn Rivers [slashdot.org]. By the same token, who sticks out as particularly clueless (perhaps that part wouldn't be the most politic to answer...)
Rick Boucher
by GigsVT (SeeMyProfile@slashdot.org)
Have you spoken with Rick Boucher? Is he really as tech savvy as he comes across as, or is he playing us? Does he really care about protecting rights online?
MR: First things first, I will not speak to the relative knowledge of any particular Member of Congress (what, do you think I want to become unemployed)??
That said, I will now violate the previous statement to say that yes, Congressman Boucher is quite tech savvy. I do this not to ingratiate myself with his office (which it won't) but to point out that Congressman Boucher is a Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Members of committees with jurisdiction over issues like the Internet tend to be more knowledgeable about those issues. In addition, those members also have some extremely knowledgeable staff to help them on each of their key issues. You would be blown away to see how much energy is spent on something like the spam bill.
Some members of Congress even have scientific and technical backgrounds. For instance, Rush Holt was an actual rocket scientist at Princeton before be elected to Congress.
The problem they all face is time and resources. They have 600,000 people in their district, or a whole state for a Senator. There just aren't that many people "back on the ranch" screaming for technology legislation. And when they do, they may not be asking for the same thing you are.
Career Path
by BlueFrog (craser at indiana dot edu)
I've heard it said several times that our (US) legislators are sincerely trying to do good on behalf of their constituency, but that most tech lobbyists work on behalf of groups with specific agendas. What hope is there for 'White Hat' tech lobbyists to make their mark in Washington's political scene, and what would you suggest to anyone with thoughts of becoming a lobbyist?
MR: In three parts:
1. Yes, the vast majority of Congresspersons are sincerely trying to do "good" on behalf of their constituency. I put good in quotes in this case because "good" may not be the correct word. Members of Congress are primarily concerned with the (relatively) parochial interests of the 600,000 people in their district in the case of Representatives, or the people in their state in the case of Senators. If you define good as "benefiting the people of the district/state" then yes, Members of Congress are _all_ trying very hard to do what they believe is good on behalf of their constituency.
That said, Members do consider the greater good for the US, and the outside world, but their first focus (and one could argue it should be) is on their immediate electorate.
2. Everyone thinks they are a "white hat" lobbyist, but their own perception of the hat is colored by the client. Look at Sun, are they a "white hat" because they went after MS? Are they still a "white hat" now that they are going after Linux? IBM used to be the "Great Satan" before MS. Now that they are supporting Open Source (after a fashion) are they now "white hat"? "White Hat" vs. "Black Hat" in technology is a myth.
Corporate tech lobbyists are not working against tech. No one is lobbying for a return to the era of 8 pound cell phones and thermal paper fax machines. In most cases tech lobbyists are working to protect the income of the company or companies they represent, while trying to keep the government out of technology in general.
3. Becoming a Lobbyist
So you want to become a lobbyist? a lobbyist is an advocate for a position, nothing more, nothing less. You already lobby in daily life when you urge your friends to see the movie you want, or eat at your favorite restaurant. When your write a letter to your congressman, school-board or city council you are lobbying as well.
If you mean you want to put food on the table as a professional advocate in the field of politics, then there are two routes that come to mind: Most obvious, go to law school. Second possibility, work your way up in politics. Third, and preferred, do both.
If law school interests you, remember a lobbyist is an advocate just as a lawyer is an advocate. The vast majority of lobbyists have JDs or LLMs. This is by no means a requirement, and you don't necessarily need to get your law degree as a first order of business, but it is a common path.
Essentially your life plan would look like this: go to law school, work for a company in their legal department, get assigned to the govn't relations division, be willing to take a job in DC, get transferred to DC, do a good job advocating your company's position while building relationships with Members of Congress and staff, find a firm (most likely one your company has hired as an outside consultant) that believes you can bring business into the firm, get hired by that firm, find new business, advocate your new client's position, find new business, advocate your new client's position... you get the picture.
If politics interest you (see my definition of politics), then become politically active now, don't hesitate for a second. Political activism does not necessarily mean waving signs at crowded intersections; it can mean raising money, working in a campaign office, interning or working at a party headquarters. If you do not come from a political family, or you haven't really been involved in politics on any level and the next campaign is too far away to wait for, I would suggest looking for an internship either in Washington DC or your State Capitol.
Interning allows you to get a peek under the covers of how Congress and the Administration work. You will get to see the vast piles of mail that come in daily from every concerned citizen and crackpot alike, and you get the pleasure of assisting someone in drafting a honest, well thought out response. You will answer endless phonecalls from people saying "don't take away my social security/guns/right to chose/ right to life/ right to a job/right to a better life. You will run errands for people from the home town, from getting passes to the House gallery to tours of the Capitol underground. You will make sure that if someone from the district has a problem back home, you get a caseworker to help. You will make sure that orders for flags that have been flown above the Capitol have been filled, and all the flag certificates are in place. You will get to savour the Friday nights when members are out of town and you get to leave before 8:00pm. You will feel blessed if the Senator or Representative remembers your name. And you will do it all for no pay.
You would think that a thankless job with no pay would be easy to get, but you would be wrong. I have seen Harvard law school graduates answering phones and holding softball fields for 3 hours in 90 degree weather just to be part of the action. To get an internship, start looking at your home state Senators and Representatives. Write cover letters and send resumes' to everyone that might bring you in (any connection you have with the home state and/ or district is important). If you can travel to DC, try to arrange "informational" interviews with the Administrative Assistant for your hometown Rep. Discuss your interest in interning with them or with any other Member of Congress that may have internships available. Do not make statements like "I want to do substantive work"; to them, you know essentially nothing of substance, why would someone want your hands on the reins of government?
If you are fortunate enough to land an internship and do well during it, you can try to get a job on the hill. This will not bring relief, only more work for essentially no pay (as an aside, my wife worked on Capitol Hill for almost four years and never made as much as her tuition was at Smith College. She is now in Vet school).
Lawmakers' awareness of the CDBTPA
by CaptainSuperBoy
I am concerned that legislators are not aware of how dangerous the SSSCA (now CDBTPA) is, especially in light of our recent disaster and our coming war. Now more than ever, we need to be concerned about the possibility of losing our individual freedoms.
Are our lawmakers aware of the CDBTPA and its dangers? Do you think it will be debated in detail, or will it pass "under the radar?"
MR: As to the loss of personal liberty, let me set up my soapbox and put my job in jeopardy:
[begin rant]
If you think the DMCA or the CDBTPA was a threat to your personal liberty, you would be outraged and disgusted by the recently passed anti-terrorism legislation, the PATRIOT Act.
A quick overview of the rights and privileges that are destroyed by this legislation are stunning and saddening. Tax information sharing, secret searches, grand jury testimony sharing, warrentless email searches (granted this already existed in a form), possibly warrantless searches of medical or education information, poorly worded money laundering provisions, Single-Jurisdiction search warrants and so on.
Proponents will argue that most of these items only really come in to play under FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But the problem lies in the fact that law enforcement will seek to use new laws to show a nexus (a word we will revisit on Internet taxes) between domestic illegal acts, like selling drugs, and the funding of terrorists. I don't want to insinuate that I support drug dealers, but I personally feel that some in law enforcement will, in the zealous pursuit of criminals, accidentally destroy the lives of innocent Americans.
Much of the language feels like a change in the tenor of how we view people. The presumption of innocence has been given away, to be replaced by the presumption that anyone who meets a certain profile is guilty by association. Herein lies a nexus (that word again) of computers and information gathering. Prior to the ability of computers to handle and process large amounts of data, I never really worried about the FBI or the NSA collecting data on everyone. I knew that it would be impossible for them to effectively deal with the sheer volume of information we all produce. However, many of you here on this site create and work with relational databases of real size and with computing iron that can spit out useful information from that data.
To me, the ability of computers to deal with data produces a situation where law enforcement can use newfound tools to say "give me the addresses of all people with a Arabic surname, who studied math, chemistry or physics at a U.S. university, and were members of the on-campus muslim organization". Suddenly you have created a presumption of guilt of a whole raft of people who did nothing wrong. Hopefully the police will be discreet as they investigate each and every name, but sometimes it may cost some poor sucker his job. Imagine your prospects for maintaining job security in a down-market when the FBI interviews your boss about your activities.
Worst of all, the Senate and the President have fought any sunset provisions. This part baffles me. I know law enforcement does not want ongoing investigations to be hampered by loss of their new found power in a few years, but if the law turns out to be a valuable part of the war on terrorism, then pass the damn thing again! Normally, the Legislative branch is loath to cede power to any other branch, and I am amazed at the upper chamber's decision to roll over.
That said, I am at least marginally mollified to see that _some_ sunset provisions will survive from the house bill, even if all the other good things added by Congressman Barr and Senator Feingold have been refused or removed.
I know we all have to give up a little in this time of crisis, I just want to know that I will get it back before I am old and grey...
[end of job threatening rant]
On the CDBTPA specifically, the CDBTPA has not been introduced this year, and that is in part to lobbying from industry and consumer groups. The good thing is most of the tech industry does not seem to be supportive of expanding the DRM though CDBTPA. If it should be re-introduced, make sure you make your Representatives aware of your opposition, and use some of the techniques on the list below.
Which communication methods work best, in order?
by WillSeattle
A lot of /.ers like email and tech forms of communication. Can you give us any insight into which methods work best?
I've provided what I think might be a ranking order, from best to worst, in terms of methods of communicating with a legislator on a bill, based on my experience, but could you give us any ratios?
An example might be:
1 personal appearance at his office = 2 conversations at a house party = 100 handwritten letters = 200 handwritten postcards = 1000 typed letters = 50,000 emails.
Here's my list of methods I can think of:
- talking with legislator when he's gardening or fixing the car on a bill;
- lunch or coffee (one on one);
- personal appearance at his office (phoned in ahead, as a constituent);
- personal conversation at a house party or fundraiser (more than 1 minute);
- question at a constituency open house (as advertised in local papers) (usually have 20-40 people);
- handwritten postcard with cool pics on other side;
- handwritten postcard found free in coffee shop or movie house;
- handwritten letter, hand addressed;
- typed letter, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
- typed postcard, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
- fax, hand signed;
- actiongram faxed letter like on EDF or EFF;
- actiongram email, modified from boilerplate in own words;
- actiongram email, boilerplate;
- weird knick-knack gift, like a techie toy we have tons of, wrapped up in a box and sent;
- weird knick-knack gift, connected to issue;
- boring gift, like stapler remover from local Kiwanas
Anything I missed?
MR: You did a great job of hitting the major things. You want a job, J?
The order is pretty good too, though I would say A. might be over the top. When a Member is at home washing the car, they may want to just wash the car. If you had a long day at the help desk, how do you feel about your neighbor coming over to ask why his #8216cup holder' doesn't seem to work any more?
Also, move I above F, and kill off all the postcards. Finally, move faxes and email way up. One of the only good things to come out of 9/11 is that Members of Congress have been forced to use email as a preferred method of communication. Paper mail and knickknacks have become harder to get into the Capitol.
There is one other way that you can help. A good, one page bullet point memo outlining a problem and a solution is a great thing, and is damn hard to write. But given the constraint on time that every staffer faces, a good bullet point one pager can be a godsend when you have to brief your boss.
Can a non-US person do anything?
by schon
Like many (most?) /. readers, I live outside the US, and am not a US citizen; in theory, US laws should not concern me as long as I remain outside US jurisdiction. Reality proves otherwise, however (witness Jon Johansen and Dmitry Sklyarov, for example.)
My question is this: can non-US citizens help to influence US decision-makers for the greater good, and if so, how?
MR: No.
Well, not completely, I just came from a meeting with some MEPs from the European Internet Foundation, and Members of Parliament do have relationships with U.S. Representatives.
But for the most part, you are going to have to lobby your Representative to lobby our Representatives.
Double-edged Sword
by greysky
Many slashdotters expect the government to regulate spam and Microsoft, but remain hands-off with things such as encryption, free speech and copyright. Do you think that it is reasonable to draw a line like this and expect Congress not to cross it, or should we take a more consistent stance and push for the government to stay further away from the Internet and technology all together?
MR: Ironically, it was Milton Friedman who said that Silicon Valley was committing suicide by trying to leverage the government in their competition with Microsoft. Today, many of those same companies now find themselves under scrutiny. While there is certainly a role for government to play in areas of antitrust enforcement, it can be a bit of a broad sword in the tech industry where things change so quickly. Just look at the growth of Linux; its growth has little or nothing to do with the Antitrust Suit. Browsers, on the other hand, the core of the suit, have largely become irrelevant.
In the long run, too much regulation favors large companies, not smaller ones. Once you bring Washington into technology, it's hard to get Washington to leave. It is probably better for the technology community to let the marketplace sort things out, and only look to government for very small, surgical tasks. We all know we don't want "Technology at the speed of government".
My biggest concern these days
by MaxGrant
Everyone here is aware that more and more broadly-worded laws are getting passed, making all sorts of formerly innocuous computer activities "criminal." I've just emailed my representatives regarding the "hacking is terrorism" nonsense that's being looked at, and I've informed them that laws like this cause me to re-evaluate, on a yearly basis, whether or not I should continue working in IT, or find some job in a safer field which is not under seemingly continuous legislative attack. My question, after all that, is do you think the representative will look at that and care? My state is trying very hard to draw technology workers here, which I'm sure is the case in every state in the union except California and Oregon. Would an appeal to the simple "I'm afraid to do this anymore because it's becoming legally dangerous to work in computers" be of any use, or did I waste my breath?
MR: This is not really a new question. Since the time I remember watching my father walk down the halls at the University with a stack of punchcards, computer types have been revered and feared. If you have a job in IT, you are not likely to run afoul of the law. Heck, there is a strong chance that you could be working in a company developing software that does work for the Office of Homeland Security (the only branch of government with a truly expanding budget for tech).
We create this fear in the non tech savvy population ourselves, and I personally think we enjoy it. As a general rule, the most paranoid folks I know are techies. They see the government, or a malicious hacker, around every packet. At the O'Reilly Conference, I was speaking to someone about 802.11 security and he said to me "yeah, I have a card in my laptop, but I leave it off because I am not comfortable with the security yet."
I can't imagine my mother saying that.
For her, it either works or doesn't. She only gets scared when I explain to her exactly how vulnerable she could be.
Every time a tech person gets on the TV and tells the world that your credit card info isn't safe on a computer, constituents write Congress looking for a fix.
Industry understands the balance between privacy and data sharing (not necessarily in a way you would like). As I type this, the House Financial Services Committee is marking up the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" (FCRA). This Act represents the tug-of-war Congress faces between sharing info and protecting the consumer.
Reed is Vice President for Public Affairs at the Association for Competitive Technology.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
i'd completely forgotten I had asked the question that i did, and that it got sent to the interviewee. thinking back, it's amazing how some of my own views have changed since my posting that question.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
"You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen."
<sarcasm>Yeah, there's no corruption in Washington. Politicians won't just do anything for "campaign contributions". They are the civil servants for their consitituents.</sarcasm>
Why do I h8 apple?
Man, you got a +1 informative for reposting the Slashdot article. Man doesn't that Moderator feel stupid now. Maybe he should post underneath here to make his idiot mistake null and void, like that gaping space between his ears.
I didn't bother to read, is there a reference to Cmdr Taco's impotence hidden in there?
You mean we aren't all lawyers and politicians here?
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
Many of the posts here throw out statements like "Washington is bought"; and it reminds me how little slashdot readers understand about the U.S. government.
...and then watch as they get turned in to greedy suits, paid by lobbiests like myself.
Translation: I live in the pocket of some bought & paid for senator.
Most Slashdot readers prize themselves on being knowledgeable, especially about tech issues. Many readers depend on knowledge for their income. Yet on issues involving the government, these same "knowledge workers" treat politics like the technophobes treat computers.
Translation: STFU. You're making us look bad. You've figured out our little game. Stop ruining it for us.
I can tell you from here on the inside, I have rarely met any Member of Congress, of EITHER party, that was really a bad person. Members are all just trying to represent the voters and win re-election.
Translation: I have rarely met any member of congress that really did anything except sleep in the chamber. Most are all trying to get some cash from my and my hombres.
Your JOB as a US citizen is to select a representative who will adequately represent your views
Translation:
Top Ten Signs Ari Fleischer Doesn't Care Anymore
10. Will only take questions from "Kung Fu" magazine
9. Qualifies each statement with, "...but that might be the gin talking"
8. Gives monosyllabic answers to press questions, then goes back to his Gameboy
7. Doesn't try to hide the fact that he's accepted a position with Al-Qaeda
6. Last few briefings have been from the V.I.P. room of D.C. area gentlemen's club
5. Spends entire press conference arguing why "Ruben should beat Clay"
4. Discloses Cheney's location -- a K.F.C. in Baltimore
3. Challenges Rumsfeld to a Texas steel cage rasslin' match
2. Keeps hitting on Helen Thomas
1. Refers to Bush as "President Bonehead"
he is to moderate. it's too difficult to know if I like him or hate him. he should be more radical
He failed to address the power grab by lobbyists. According to this article, most US reps are less powerful/influential than heavy hitting washington lobbyists. As a matter of fact, many US reps are leaving their terms early to become lobbyists. They make more money, and they apparently influence law more, so why do we need representatives anymore?
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
Wait for it...
Lobbyist: All your government are belong to me.
Jon Johansen was tried under Norwegian law. Remember when he was sent to a second trial and everyone was shrieking that it was violation of his double jeopardy rights? Well, that's because he was being tried under Norwegian law, no matter how many jackasses here insist that US law somehow applies in Norway.
And wasn't Sklyarov arrested when he came to the US?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I can tell you from here on the inside, I have rarely met any Member of Congress, of EITHER party, that was really a bad person. Members are all just trying to represent the voters and win re-election.
Not necessarily in that order. Therein lies the problem.
Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
CDBTPA (We must continue fighting against DRM tech mandates. Technology should solve the problems, government should probably stay out)
This statement seems a little shallow here. I agree that the tech sector should work to get something going here. The down side is a lot of the consumer computing and tech sector industy where DRM will play a major initial role is directly or indirectly controlled by one company, Microsoft. You can not have a DRM solution that involves the users when only one company, looking for thier best interest, has such a major influence on the direction DRM takes.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Mr. Morgan made an interesting point about online communication with representatives, now that "wierd knick-knack gifts" could be misconstrued as bioweapons (especially the staple remover that's been in the drawer next to last month's tuna fish sandwich).
But I've always assumed that any value of online communication would be offset by the volume of 1337 mail -- mostly unintentional. "yOUr rite their otta bee a lAw!"
I'd like to see a tech-savvy representative adopt some form of Slashcode-based constituent feedback system. Articles could be the issues currently on the rep's plate, plus a "catchall" for general feedback. Let the (unpaid) interns do the moderation, and then the rep can read at +2 to +5 depending on workload.
I may make a run for office in the next few years, and I'd be glad to use a Slash-like system for public discussion of my positions. But I agree with Morgan -- a well-written one-page letter with a finite number of defensible points will be much more effective than a Unabomer-style manifesto.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
so this Morgan reed guy bums out in hotel lobbies? maybe gets his jollies with the occasional shooting spree?
It's an idea I've mentioned before, but...
If donations *don't* buy influence, and I'm a shareholder in a company that makes political contributions, can I sue the directors of the company for misappropriation of company funds?
Cheers, Paul
Some good answers, and some information on effective lobbying of our congress critters. I've actually written a few letters to my congress critters on various tech issues, and have even received replies that actually appeared to answer what I wrote about. I just wish more people voice concers to their congressman than /. He's right on the money on one thing though, more donations to the EFF are going to be required if we want our voice to compete with the likes of MS, RIAA etc.
Long live Terry Funk!
People tend to avoid and denigrate subjects they don't fully understand or feel comfortable with. I am certain every reader can think back to an example of having a non-tech person make a disparaging, off-the-cuff comment about something of which they clearly don't grasp. Quotes like "empty suits" and "crooks" signify a response steeped in discomfort due to lack of knowledge.
This is an excellent point. The example is very relevant for the folks who read here. It's important to know the limitations of your own knowledge and experience. This is the sort of thing that is not self-evident to the big ego, and I'm thankful to the folks who are good enough to remind us every now and then.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Think of it like this: Several corporations make donations to a candidate, explaining their issues and believing that said candidate is the one who will push their issues in Congress. Said candidate gets elected and pushes the bill. Where's the opposition lobby?
I think part of this guy's point is that when a corporation speaks up on an issue, they may be the only ones speaking up on the issue. If there isn't a well-organized effort to oppose the issue, and few civilians attempt to contact their legislators with their view of the issue, then the corporations' view may be the only view of the "public" that the legislators have to go on, and will vote for what they see as the majority opinion of the public.
Obviously, this guy is a little idealistic. Saying there's no corruption when money is involved is like saying my cornflakes won't get soggy when I pour milk over them. But the bottom line is: if you want something to happen, then you have to do it yourself and make sure your legislators know what the public opinion really is. You're the public after all; why don't YOU try lobbying?
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
When a congressperson is faced with the task of representing 600,000 people on issues ranging from cheese handouts to the international space station, is it even possible for this person do their job competently?
Is the federal government simply too big for its britches?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Just like patent court, theses bozo's have made things operly comlpicated to ensure their usefulness and survival. No matter how good of a guy this person is, don't expect him to slit his own throat. I love when someone uses the you just don't know enough excuse, which really implies DON'T LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN....
BTW thanks for taking the time to at least spread some FUD, it is better than the general ignore we usually get.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
At the risk of burning my karma or being ignored, I just want to say that I liked this guy. Seems a good fellow, in-line with a lot of my thinkings.
:)
Just like everyone in politics, but, anyway...
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
It's CBDTPA.
(Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act)
2. Everyone thinks they are a "white hat" lobbyist, but their own perception of the hat is colored by the client. Look at Sun, are they a "white hat" because they went after MS? Are they still a "white hat" now that they are going after Linux? IBM used to be the "Great Satan" before MS. Now that they are supporting Open Source (after a fashion) are they now "white hat"? "White Hat" vs. "Black Hat" in technology is a myth. On that note of corporation white hat v. black hat I must agree, but what on the note of hackers? would you still say that there is a white hat/black hat form of hacking? one must ponder, this is a good point, but the original meaning of this is lost in this usage.
I like how he says EITHER party. You mean there's only two parties? Dang, all this years have I been wasting my votes?
This guy is very persuasive -- as well he should be. He's right in that you have to really learn about how things work before pronouncing judgement.
But I think the most important thing to understand is your own personal role and the extent of your influence in the larger picture. Tech is only important because it can help people do things they couldn't do before. Just like cars and railroads and butter churns. If it weren't a direct money-maker, very few people would care. Yes tech does affect the lives and fortunes of real people. It also upsets the 18th century principles much of the western world is founded on. But I think its recent celebrity has given us an inflated sense of our own importance.
We complain that legislation and companies are taking away our ability to do certain types of research, to use things in a way we want, sometimes even our livelihoods. Aren't those exactly the complaints of the people whose jobs computers replaced in the 20th century? We don't own the world, and as much as we think we run it, we don't do that either.
My reply seems to have been attached to a message other than the one under which I clicked "reply"... (hope this one makes it to the right spot!)
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Finally, imagine that the people making the decisions are overworked folks getting massive quantities of information and trying to adequately represent the voters who put them in office.
/rant
There is no conspiracy. Everything is just out of control, we've built something so huge that it's no longer under our command. There might still be bribes, and corruption, but that's just the tip of the iceberg, the real problem is the powerful beast itself. You can't stop something you don't understand and we have such a faint knowledge of what we are up against that all hope is already lost.
The Illumanity doesn't exist and if it does it's not a thinking entity it's just a snowball rolling down a slope getting bigger and bigger...
I think I should take my medication now.
In the long run, too much regulation favors large companies, not smaller ones.
Well, that's quite a disputable statement.
I for one, have always held that regulation is neccessary to keep big companies from getting too big and turning the market into a monopoly/oligopoly, hampering small businesses.
Government involvement didn't seem to benifit Standard Oil very much. And the deregulation of energy markets didn't seem to stop Enron. (RIP!)
True, the focus here is on the Tech sector, but pointing out how the browser wars became "irrelevant" is hardly a good argument against anti-trust, it's just a sign that the judicial process has become way too slow.
OK, well, you said this, then explained it in a question or two later. Yes, you speak the truth, but I'll fill your generalization of
Anyway, with this statement I would say, who funds the 2 major parties? Rather, what percentage of the funds of either party come from individuals and corporations? I have a rough estimate, and I know you do as well. Now that we have that out of the way, of the individuals, how much of those donations are made from individuals who's income is greater than 100,000 USD? OK, that should be a good large number. Now we are left with a small percentage, which is what represents the general population. No, Washington DC is not bought, but it is nudged...a lot.
On to other points:
Well yes. But when most of the money for your campaign comes from corporations that are interested in logging and drilling for oil in Alaska, they become yoru largest number of constituents. They gave you that money because they think that you can help them out. You are a representative of Alaska and these are your constituents. Would you please tell me how cutting down several thousand acres of forest and drilling for oil will help the general population? Ah yes, it will greatly increase the income of the area and provide jobs. And 50 years down the line everyone will hate those companies because they destroyed the natural resources, and now the children have to suffer all the pollution and crud that has been left in it's place.
Though your intentions are good and you've answered some questions, I still don't have a better opinion of my representative (I'm in NY) nor do I think that most of the polititions can put 100% of their thoughts into the people they represent. This is simply because they got elected because of the funds they received from the corporations that are trying to become human-like. Until they do away with this money rubbish, the opinion of DC will not change by many.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Well, in general this guy sounds intelligent and obviously knows a lot about politics, but I noticed some amusing things in his post ... for starters, it really begins with an antagonistic tone, that the average person is an idiot and quick to conclude bad things about politics, that politicians are all being bought and sold. Yet in the very next couple of paragraphs he blatantly admits that groups and corporations donate money to try to get their perspectives heard. Maybe the clue this guy needs is: most people are not a member of a group or a corpoation. They feel they AREN'T being represtented, and a politician saying they're just looking out for their constituents... well, ask most constituents and they'll say the politicians are listening to money. So, there's an obvious disconnect here and frankly, his tone is proof of it.
Second I'd say, it's really sad to hear his tale about interns getting paid next to nothing, and working on the hill, still getting paid next to nothing. Where is all this money, that's being donated by the corporations and groups, going? Right into the pockets of Mr. Representative? I just find it ridiculous that a lobbyist who in the first paragraphs, DEFENDS the politicians, and then later on, admits that starting out working on the hill, you get paid jack and his wife had to go back to school!
All in all, an interesting post and I don't think I'm alone in saying there's a real disconnect between public and government, perhaps explaining many of the problems on both sides of the fence.
Once every four years? When was the last time a day went by that there wasn't a story in yro that you shouldn't have written to your congressman about.
"Be aware that much of what you read on the editorial page of the newspaper, or what you hear on talk radio, is spin. Read the byline of the author carefully (also understand in many cases he/she is not really the author, just a respected person whose name is being used to promote a position)."
I read his replies with this in mind. My reply: go take a long walk on a short pier buddy. All the crap about 'expected influence' is big fat line, and there's a wall of evidence to support this.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen.
What if I believe in basic human nature and choose not to believe the above? I have seen votes by conresspersons that seem to benefit the "purchaser" more than the constituents many times. I guess I'm wrong and all congresspeople act out of the pure goodness of their hearts...
And what about the absolute fact that corporate lobbyists attempt to effect policy only if can benefit their bottom line? If it wouldn't, they would not be lobbying for it. Now, does this mean that they can forego constituent concern? Absolutely not. I don't believe an elected official would last long doing so. But, to assume that a corporation is spending millions on trying to prove that a certain policy is going to benefit mankind, and that it is giving all pertinent information therof would be naive, IMO. I have read cases where the public was simply unaware of certain "fallout" due to policy that was lobbied by large corporations, and that the corporations simply didn't "divulge" this information for it knew it would hurt the possibility of passage. In the end, the lobbyist got a raise, the corporation made more money, and the congressperson thought they were doing their constituents a service. You see, corporations survive by doing this. Their only goal is to make more money, gain more power, and to think that they are fighting for the best interest of humanity would be naive. Whereby public lobbyist goal is just the opposite. Their entire existance is based on attempting to fight these entities, and to truly make the world a better place for all humankind, in their opinion. So, wouldn't you always want to take anything coming from an entity who's entire existance is based on gaining more power, not the betterment of humankind, with a grain of salt? How is this good for us?
I say ban soft money, delete the lobby system, and let's get back to catering to the people, not the totalitarian run corporations who's only goal, once again, is to make more money.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
we understand computers
the government uses computers,
therefore we understand goverment.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Anybody who is interested in democracy and liberty and how democracy doesn't necessary ensure liberty, should read Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom". It talks a lot about the problems that democracy brings without ensuring liberty via rule of law, checks and balances, constitutions, etc.
He has once interesting chapter about the United States in the book and how lobbyists have cause problems in our legislative system. Lobbyists represent the "tyranny of the minority" with their special interests and their ability to ride the legislative process every step of the way from committee to the floor. If a lobbyist attending a session doesn't like a phrase being proposed in a bill, he calls his staff on a cell phone and arranges letters, faxes and emails to flood the reprsentative or senator to ensure that the phrase gets quashed.
It is amusing when Reed tells us that it is our job to make sure we have representatives that reflect our views. I don't think the normal public has the time or ability to watch the legislature to the extent that lobbyists do to ensure that our views are reflected by our representative. I think maybe that's the whole strategy of lobbyists in the first place. But then again I might be a little cynical.
A good thing the credit card companies can do is make automatic daily e-mail encripted notifications of transaction sent to the private e-mail address of the card holder. This info would not have to include the card #, but could be key coded to only be viewed by the real card owner. This service should be offered free to card holders. That way credit card abuse and theft could more quickly be discovered. Saving credit card companies millions. I can do it with my bank account why the hell can I not do it with my credit card. Most likely the software people have tried to do this already but the card companies are to cheap. Some of their interest rates almost remind me of the street corner lenders or Mickies Loans, maybe that is what they really are, they don't really give a shit.
Your at your credit limit
theres no more goods to buy
if you just pay the interest
we'll bill you till you die
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
So here goes slashdot, asks this guy a few questions, and he obviously takes his time to reply in a cohesive fashion. His comments are lucid and straightforward. He shows a good understanding of his subject, and he's not afraid to confront issues.
Now, I haven't read all 108 comments, but after a first run through them there is a preponderance of sarcasm, jokes, diasgreement, outrage, and the usual slashdot fare proving he's right about slashdot readers, who betray themselves with their own comments as superficial, arrogant, and basically clueless about their role in the world, which is this:
Write my web page to my specs. Fix my hard drive if it breaks. Make sure my systems are redundant and won't break. That's your job. That's what I pay you for. You're a dime a dozen.
All you are is a techie janitor. Other than that, pop your pimples and get a life.
Let's assume hypothetically that we find ourselves in material plenty, a state where we have more resources, products and energy than we know what to do with. Do you think our current political system would ever allow those resources to trickle down to the masses? I don't. Corporations have a vested interest in their continued existence whether it helps the public or not. And the management running those companies realize that if/when we do reach material plent they will lose their position of status and authority. Thus I think we will never reach material plenty, even if technology will allow it.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't overwhelmed by his need to be an expert on farming, ranching, textile manufacture, etc. because he was wise enough to realize that it was none of his business as a member of the Union government.
My heart fails to bleed for poor elected officials who can barely make the time to stick their fingers in every pie out there.
The Union mandate is what? Provide for the common defense, leverage the collective bargaining power of the several States in diplomatic matters, and settle disputes amongst the States.
The fact that the largest police organization in the country is hung on the interstate commerce clause alone is clenching proof that the government is a farce that exists for no reason but to enrich itself.
I can't imagine how digesting the latest Congressional clap-trap could alter this truth.
-Peter
PS: Extra points to whoever can give me an accurate count of the number of occurrences of the word "Federal" in the Constitution of the United States of America (as drafted).
-P
If I dropped everything to run off and chase my dream of being a lobbiest, I'd be reclassified as an unemployed homeless vagrant before my final paycheck arrived at my last known address. Mind you, I'm only joking about it being my dream, but I've always assumed that money talks and bs walks. If you don't have some support behind you (aka money) no one seems to take your ideas seriously, and I hear that student loan creditors will find you and hound you no matter where you go. How is it that people who seek an internship in politics can afford so much of their time? Do these people lack the human need for personal toiletries, shelter, food, and sleep? I admire those who have the fortitude to follow through with such goals, but if so many are clammoring for attention, the failure rate for such individuals must be staggering. It boggles the mind!
--
Try to imagine the universe to be perfect and without flaw...
But let's face it: God's imagination works better than yours.
Update: 08/01 19:24 GMT by M: That's Morgan Reed, not Reed Morgan. We suck.
First Morgan has a frank opinion about the PATRIOT act, and then I find this startling admission on the frontpage. Whoever would have expected such brutally honest comments in a story about Washington?
"...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson November 13, 1787
(You are gay)
Irony is a beautiful thing.
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. Agree or disagree, I think sometimes we take these interviews for granted.
jason
"So here is an example of murky money: You want to help the EFF? Write a big check. It will allow them to do better research, hire more people to lobby, fly to more conferences, print more flyers, etc. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like "providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization", doesn't it?"
Except for lumping in lobbing it doesn't sound at all like "providing funds to political campaigns _IN EXCHANGE FOR_ laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization. (Special intrest group)
The sad fact is that money does talk so the poor masses are not represented above the rich few.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I only count as a parenthetical person in the US now... (in the first few paragraphs somewhere)
...is a cramping propsition.
"Many of the posts here throw out statements like "Washington is bought"; and it reminds me how little slashdot readers understand about the U.S. government"
--->8 snip 8<---
Members are all just trying to represent the voters and win re-election
Maybe I'm being spun, maybe I'm ignorant, who knows. But when you infer that "Washington is *NOT* being bought" and then later in the same passage make a statement like that, it shows how little you actually understand about how capable some of us are at calling you out.
It is not the job of elected officials to be re-elected. If an official has to spend such a significant amount of time explaining to voters that their term was spent working for the votrers, maybe it's because said "work" wasn't so good or obvious.
If you are not an elected official, like a coporation or a lobbyist, and you weild any more power than a citizen or an elected official, you are abusing 'power'. Whether you are representing a collection of citizens or a collection of donors to a political cause, you are abusing the our political system. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts, the reason a lobbyist or a corporation is heard more loudly is because of money.
Please, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes, don't marginalize us because we represent a unique voice, don't come to our house and start off by telling us we know as little about politics as technophobes do about technology. You might find that some technophobes are brilliant with technology and it's because of their skill do not like technology.
Lastly, I want to correct you on a small little point in your introduction:
Your JOB as a US citizen is to select a representative who will adequately represent your views.
It is not our job, it's our right. It is not compulsory, it is voluntary. As had been pointed out already, because voters have say one day during an entire term of office with the exception of extraordinary circumstances, there exists a huge opportunity for abuse in the time between elections. Come election time, even serious departures from political campaigning (in English that means lies) have been and will be spun into advertisements that will be absorbed by a mean attention span most Americans have for politics - 30 seconds.I wish I could end this by saying see you at the voting booths, but you have no accountability to me. That's not government. My vote is irrelevant to you. In fact, fuck you.
Before 1886, it was a felony in most states for corporations to give money to politicians or otherwise try (through lobbying or advertising) to influence elections.
I've never heard such propaganda in my life. Not ONE of Reed's arguments is borne out by reality. Whom does Morgan Reed think he's fooling?
I have a message for you, Morgan Reed, you supercilious sycophant. YOU'RE the one ignorant of the government's workings. Familiarize yourself with 1896's Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (a landmark case in its own right) before you wax poetic about the "democracy" in this country and the alleged ignorance of Slashdot readers.
Corporations have been in bed with governments since the inception of the United States. Back in 1772 the Dutch East India company petitioned parliament to reduce the tariff on tea to the new contient. The American traders couldn't compete with the less-expensive teas, and what occured is known today as . . . the Boston Tea Party.
So do you realize you're just doing the bidding of the Devil? For every $10 dollars they pay you, these neo-cons increase their savings by millions. Yes, you receive a small piece of the pie, but I hope you sleep well at night.
Fuck that shit. We pay taxes for government to run. Why the hell should anyone serve there for free?
I guess if you're a neurotic Jewess like Monica or Chandra wanting some goy cock from an elected offical it makes sense, but that's the exception.
Certification of /. editors goes with crappy editing, filters goes with tub girl, and a chicken in every pot goes with goatse.cx?
Excuse me while I lobotomize myself, it's the only way I am going to get the image of a chicken in THAT pot out of my head.
Hey Rocky! Watch me pull this chicken out of my ass!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I wrote an email to my state reps, and I got a reply back stating:
Thank you for contacting my office via email. You are receiving this autoresponse because I was unable to find a Michigan address in your letter. Please rest assured that my staff keeps me appraised of all incoming emails, but because of the enormous volume of mail received daily, I am only able to send responses to my constituents at this time. In the future, you can avoid receiving this message by including your full name and mailing address at the top of your letter.
I got the email address from www.eff.org, in the action center tab. I'm going to resend it by the way.
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
Thanks for participating, there was some genuinely useful information in the response that warranted repetition. Since I've been involved in politics locally (helping to run a local man for Congress, other local men and women for city boards, and trying to create a Citizen Police Review Board), I've become more interested in seeing where the various blogs and webboards are on politically organizing to express their views succinctly to elected officials.
I can think of a few dozen thousand Floridians who would disagree with you here. And I think given the triple corporate threat to our future voting rights from Sequoia, ES&S, and Diebold (as explained by Bev Harris and her website), I can't help but think that our Democracy is at stake. I see very little awareness of these issues amongst the public I've spoken with.
I would amend that to read all, not much, of anyone's analysis of anything is spin. From my experience with a community radio station where I host an electronic/political public affairs show ("Digital Citizen"), I'd say objectivity is a myth. This is how it has always been. My show, Slashdot, your post, and everyone's followups (including mine) are no exception. We can't help but see things from our own perspective, as Molly Ivins put it so well on her recent book tour appearance/debate with Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly.
To me, the amount of influence and money from a single donor seems vastly different in corporate America than with most individuals. Hilary Rosen, former head of the RIAA, was recently tapped to help form a new copyright regime for Iraq. Is anyone from the EFF in a similar position? I doubt it. Which /. reader can afford to give roughly a million dollars to EFF like Enron gave to each of the two major political parties (giving a little more to the Republicans, but both roughly the same)? I know I can't. I couldn't afford $10,000, which I think most people would consider a "big check".
When the public gets together and speaks with a single voice on an issue of national importance, we still can't wield the same power as the corporations. Corporate media didn't report on the recent FCC decision prior to June 2, 2003 when it would have been most informative to US citizens (with one minor exception I'm aware of: ABC overnight news had a brief mention of what the FCC was considering which aired at around 3AM). In 1996, the same thing happened--the mass media was covering Monica Lewinsky, not the Telecom Act. This time the public was organized and when the House bill came around, it did not stop the entire FCC decision and give the public (as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says) a chance to "tee up" all the relevant questions. I don't know what the right FCC policy should be here, but I know making decisions on that policy before we can study it in depth is a mistake. As NOW with Bill Moyers has reported, the corporate media is in bed with the FCC who is supposed to be regulating them. Which Congressmembers are on this and what are they doing?
Digital Citizen
the influence of the media. We vote for the politicians we are told to.
Although none of you know enough about politics to question things, I will deign to answer some of your childish questions. Now, I'm sure you must be used to people who know nothing about computers coming up to you and saying things like "All computer workers are corrupt, lying, money gubbing cheats. You have access to all the files, I am sure you are using that to embezzle money and read all our email."
Doesn't it make you want to laugh when foolish people say hurtful things like that only to cover up their own inadequecies? You know you aren't corrupt! Well, neither am I.
Now that we have established my incorruptability, please allow me to vouch for nearly every politician I have ever met. They are all trying to do the right thing. Sadly, some of them did not have access to enough lobbyists to help them make the right decision, but they were honestly trying nonetheless.
I know I can't B.S. you on technical issues, so please allow me to field a few technical questions in a vague way that doesn't paint me into any kind of corner that might jeapordize my income.
Thank you for buying into the system with me. Oh, yeah, and you should probably vote or something.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
matt@shogun:~$ cat us-const.txt | grep Federal | wc
0 0 0
matt@shogun:~$
You sly devil.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
If I saw a group of 435 monkeys running around in a circle destoying everything I held sacred, and then complained that it was a revolting waste of time, would it be because I just didn't take the time to understand?
Once upon a time I paid money to a candiate. He said all the right things. He meant them. Within 6 months his party told him vote their way or hit the highway. Pop goes the weasle. He's still in Congress hoping that by being there he can make a difference. That is so funny I am rotf.
Self-regulation is fun.
___
Was supposed to read:
Hey, honest mistakes happen.
I find myself watching in disappointment and amazement as comments roll in attacking my opening statement.
/. crowd would misconstrue or look with a jaundiced eye at what came later.
/. (Heck, it was at least a year after I started posting here that I actually registered, I was paranoid that I would get spam from registering).
/.er. Oftentimes that perspective is instead the one held by the people whose jobs are affected. People ARE companies. They are shareholders, dock workers, retail store clerks and software engineers.
I have said it elsewhere in this discussion, but I wanted clarify my position in a separate thread.
My initial statement was strongly worded, and colored the reader's view of the rest of my answers.
I debated using my opening statement, concerned that the
I contemplated pulling it, and it's clear from the tone here that I should have.
Not a single comment on Internet Sales Tax, almost nothing here about IP being a key issue for Congress.
Nope. Instead the vast majority of posters responded only to my geek call to arms.
I should have known better. As you can see from my number, I am not new to
I should have known better.
My apologies to those who were truly offended by the tone, but for better or worse, the sentiment is true: The government isn't evil or invisible, it responds to the interests of its people. Sometimes, your elected officials see those interests from a different perspective than the usual
For those of you with jobs at companies, do you know what your own company is lobbying for?
Find out. Get involved, pay attention and work hard for issues and candidates you believe in.
I hope you take the time to read up on SSTP and other barriers to eCommerce that are headed our way.
I'll try and answer substantive questions that pop up as best I can.
Morgan Reed
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
Yeah, but pretty soon it starts adding up to real money...
Seriously, though. ...
Reed: I know we all have to give up a little in this time of crisis,
I'll take a quote from MiB:
There's always an Alien Battle Cruiser...or a Korlian Death Ray, or...an intergalactic plague about to wipe out life on this planet,
The world is always in a "state of crisis". I don't think we should be making special allowances now, just because it's "in". If it isn't the terrorists, it's the communists, or the nazis, or the economy. Terrorism is about making fear disproportionate to the threat. Yes, they killed a few thousand people, and that's tragic, but that many people die every day. Why's it an issue now?
To answer my own question, the terrorists did their job well. They made a public statement that made people scared. Instead of working up a proportionate, methodical, effective response, the gov't tried to appease the people by doing something visible, right now. Unfortunately, people don't always know what they really want (elitist attitude, yeah. I am people, too, though. I don't always know either.) A good leader would convice the people that big public displays of force don't work on terrorists, and would have sold a better solution. We need a good, responsible leader...
Also, isn't the PATRIOT act illegal under the fourth amendment? Until they amend the constitution, it still supersedes all other law, right? No search or seizure without a specific warrant based on probable cause.
Anyone remember Eddie Murphy in "The Distinguished Gentleman"? He's reassured by a more senior Congressman that being for or against an issue won't cost him campaign contributions; he'll just get money from whoever is lobbying in that direction.
Favor tort reform? Forget about getting Peter Angelos to come by your fundraiser; besides, you'll have the CEO of Philip Morris sitting in Peter's seat when the chicken Marsala comes around the table.
Jack
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson
He felt like he was putting his job in jeopardy with his anti-PATRIOT ACT rant, which is hardly a controversial opinion.
Have you considered he might be forever blacklisted by congress if he came out saying, "Yes, Congressmen take bribes. My job is to bribe Congressmen."
However, I do agree with him on a couple points:
If a congressman's decision means losing enough votes to jeopardize re-elected or receiving an nice contribution, he's going to appease his voters over the lobbyists.
Issues are broken up into three major categories for congressmen:
* Those that support lobbyists
* Those that support constituents
* Those derived from personal beliefs
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Sadly, this is just untrue. In fact, the U.S. Constitution has yet to assure us a Right To Vote, despite how often that document implies it, as you can read in this ReclaimDemocracy.org link.
The 2000 Election illustrates how 94,000 exluded votes (only 3000 of which had 'serious' justification) makes a huge difference.
Several states exclude felons, or even alleged felons, from voting. Why does Canada seem more Free, as their Supreme Court ruled even inmates can vote?
First of all, I would like to thank you for your responses to these questions.
However I disagree with you about DC not being bought:
- Companies are for profit institutions.
- They pay large sums for lobbyists and make large contributions.
- Seeing as how they spend money only where they see a return (or potential) on their investment, they must feel that paying your salary as well as the large contributions made to some representatives is cost-effective.
- Since corporations quite clearly feel that this money is needed to get their point across, and is well-spent (otherwise it would not be so pervasive as it is today) how is DC *not* 'bought'?
Is it right that corporations can 'buy the ear' of a representative with a lobbyist who is a professional at getting a point across, but constituents must spend large amounts of time writing carefully worded letters which may or may not even see the light of day, let alone be worded in such a way to best persuade their representative?
Speaking as an employee of a defense appropriations lobboying firm, I found everything Mr. Reed said to be spot-on. Keep in mind, it's not just Fortune 500 companies that hire lobbyists. Pick up a copy of the Washington Reps book, a phone-book sized listing of registered lobbyists and all of their clients. When you start going through the lists of clients, you'll find social advocacy groups, research universities, labor unions, and many small companies. All of these groups retain lobbyists because they realize just how much the things that go on in Washington affect what they do. On the client list of the firm I work for, you'll find many small companies with innovative technologies that want to sell to the Department of Defense but have neither the knowlege of Defense procurent processes nor the time required to deal with the Pentagon. They hire us so that they can focus on their product and leave the bureacratic wranglings to us. However, as any good lobbyist will admit, about 60% of the registered lobbyists in D.C. are pure trash, who promise their clients the sky to get them to sign, and then soak them for a year's retainer and do nothing. This happens in large part because of how ignorant many people are of how government is structured and the basic legislative process. It is not uncommon for a prospective client to not even know who their own congressman is when they first meet with us. One of the first things we do with a client when they sign is instruct them in the basic procedures of how a bill becomes law. This ignorance is how bad legislation often becomes law. The DMCA happened because the content industries were onn Capitol Hill pushing their agenda while the electronics manufacturers were nowhere to be seen. That's changing, as many manufacturers are now waking up and fighing things like mandated DRM. In short, the best way to beat one monied interest is with another monied interest (the insurance lobbies and the drug makers' lobbies are constantly at each others' throats. If it wasn't for big insurance companies, the drug makers might have gotten patent extension through a few years ago). The fact is, the surest way to lose is to remove yourself from the process. The tech sector has kept itself out far too long, and is now paying catch-up. That's the price you pay for smug self-satisfaction.
Many of the posts here throw out statements like "Washington is bought"; and it reminds me how little slashdot readers understand about the U.S. government.
That means, if you don't agree with him, you are ignorant. That's insulting, but the kind of thing you might expect from a Microsoft whore. Whore, that's someone who does things they don't enjoy or believe in for money but pretend to be very pleased.
I would suggest that before any reader makes a blanket statement about either party or any bill or any political issue, that you take the time to think "how much do I really know about this bill?" Am I reading the full text, or am I being spun? [folows with a basic "don't trust anyone blanket statement" and an exhortation to vote like a good sheep]
Thanks for the high school level lecture. Most of us express opinions here because we DO know something. We are sharing those insights with each other that we have gained from a variety of sources, EFF, FSF, our peers here, and our personal experience at work and play. Many times the blanket statement, "that piece of Legislation was bought and paid for" is TRUE. The DMCA, NET Act, Sony Bono copyright extension and many others were obviously only good for big publishers who paid whores like Mr. Reed and to spin yarns and contributied to the campaigns of many to make this happen.
That any public corporation would spend any money on politics is astoundignly immoral and corrupt. Mr. Reed does a nice job side stepping this issue. Public coproations are owned by the people who invest in them. Those people do as Mr. Reed suggests and vote like good sheep, and want little more from their investments than a reasonable return. Buying politicians does little for the company's core mission and is gnerally only launched into by companies that want nothing more than to screw the public. The money is beter invested in the busines or given back to the owners. Even extravagant pilaging by people like Jack Welch is a more honroable use of company money. People are quite capable of organizing outside their workplace and workplaces of their own free will. Companies that force political organization by their employees are practicing a dispicable form of extortion: believe and work for this or find another job. Companies that waste money on campains and lobiests are doing a diservice to all three of the people the company had a debt to: customers, employees and shareholders. Those who would screw any one of these will get around to screwing the rest. They are a bad investment in any form: you should not own their stock, you should not work for them and you should not buy from them.
So, Mr. Reed, I return insult for insult. You called me a rude ignoramus. I say I know you all too well. Your job is an immoral corruption, a waste of resources and a disgrace to all parties involved. Tell that to your new boss, Bill Gates. I don't own his stock, I don't use his stuff and I would never work for him. "Intelectual Property" is a crock and current laws are close to the perpetual franchises this country stood against at it's founding. Not only do you represent a corruption of the political process and corporate practice, you stand for priciples that violate the spirit of the country in general. I'm going to keep thinking and expressing myself, listening to people who make sense, and I'm going to keep voting, thank you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If I see 435 monkeys running around desecrating everything I hold sacred and then complain that their behavior is reprehensible, does that mean I just haven't taken the time to understand? Am I ignorant of what is happening? Should I become part of that system to help "influence" it?
I elect a representative to go to Washington to uphold the law, not "benefit his constituency". Upholding the law is how a representative benefits everyone, not just "his" constituency. Laws should not be "handed out" like candy to the benefit of one constituency and the detriment of another. A law should benefit all equally. The lawmaking process should reflect this idea. RIAA vs file sharers and intellectual property rights legal wrangling could be solved if this requirement were imposed on the lawmaking process. If you can't make it apply to everyone, you're probably breaking the law by passing the legislation. In the absence of stated lawmaking standards we are left with the spirit of the people in power. The author claims that that spirit is good. For me the spirit is obvious in the outcome. 435 Monkeys hard at work stealing our money and shi**ing in our faces.
"If a nation wants to be ignorant and free . . . it wants what never was and never will be."
/.'ers
Thomas Jefferson
Far too many of the people in the US ascribe to the theory 'Ignorance is bliss' , including, sorry to say,
There have been many posts saying 'A lobyist telling us that votes aren't bought? that's a laugh!' But precious few giving any proof one way or the other. This I am afraid proves one of the authors points, that we are too ignorant of our own government. And since we are ignorant, we are not free. GET WITH IT PEOPLE!!
You pick an interesting example. My mom's a psychiatrist.
She used to accept those free meals and whatever, until she learned that drug reps get paid even more than doctors. Why? Because every time they visit a hospital, prescription rates for whatever they're pushing go way up. All those doctors would say that they're uninfluenced by the gifts -- but the precription rates would say different.
Now, she throws out anything that comes from a marketing firm, unread in the case of pamphlets or uneaten in the case of food. She only reads literature that is not provided by one or another of the drug companies.
I wish that my politicians were equally principled in dealing with large cash donations -- whether they believe it affects their judgement or not.
Members are all just trying to represent the voters and win re-election.
I think the key phrase is win re-election. I'm not convinced that representing the voters is the best way to get re-elected. More often then not, the one who wins the the election is the one who spends the most money. If this is true then the goal of the savvy politician is to raise as much money as possible to ensure re-election. This is why most people feel politicians are bought.
Of course, as you pointed out, because of the effect money has on the process it is still possible to influence the system even if the politicians are not corrupt. If an organization wants to influence the laws they just fund the candidates with similar opinions. The more candidates there are for a position, the more likely one will have a platform that is similar. The problem is that this allows the people with money to have an disproportionate influence on our laws.
The solution would seem to be campaign finance reform, however meaningful campaign finance reform is unlikely because it makes it harder for the existing politicians to get re-elected. And we are back where we started...
Chris Mesterharm
Perhaps you have some thoughts on these observations ?
Here's a good example:
The government isn't evil or invisible, it responds to the interests of its people.
Yes, and "its people" are those who participate meaningfully in the political process by donating thousands of dollars to the candidates of their choice.
Generally, one sees these techniques used by politicians and lawyers orally in courtrooms, putting them in the form of text makes them a lot easier to study. I think you deserve thanks for this.
I was delighted and a bit surprised to see how many other people cut straight through the spin you were putting on known facts... and the posts that demonstrate this best are the ones you didn't respond to. Apparently, we both underestimated the level of political awareness of some of the Slashdot readers. I suspect that you expected only softball questions.
A response to this post asking about why congressmen are seriously interested in changing careers to lobbying might have been of great interest. Other posts from people who saw you coming:
The funniest thing said about you was "Obviously, this guy is a little idealistic." But seriously, if you were an idealist really trying to make the world as opposed to your checking account a better place, we all know you'd be doing something else for a living. Making a better world for MS is not the same thing as making a better world, or even a better place for anyone to do high-tech. I'm not linking that post, I'm sure the author has figured out just how far he put his foot in it.
What are ACT's positions on:
Do you think any real ACT position on the above has any substantial support here?
Based on your posts and interview responses, I do not believe that you want effective "geek activism". There are areas where the goals of one of your clients, MS and the goals of the rest of the technology community are diametrically opposed and a politically effective high-tech and/or Open Source might make your life a whole lot more difficult.
Also, move I above F, and kill off all the postcards. Finally, move faxes and email way up. One of the only good things to come out of 9/11 is that Members of Congress have been forced to use email as a preferred method of communication. Paper mail and knickknacks have become harder to get into the Capitol.
Perhaps they respond to your e-mail, which shows up at addresses not exactly in the public domain. If I were a major contributor to my Congresswoman, I'm sure she'd find some way to make it possible to communicate with her that doesn't bottleneck through a webform.
A quote from
Tech Public Policy stuff
Was with a specific legal issue when a federal agency was preventing me from getting access to what I needed. (In this case, my pain management doctor was being unduly harassed by the DEA. He writes large numbers of prescriptions for II and III drugs, enough to flag him. Why? It's what he does. The harassment had led them to temporarily suspend his ability to care for his patients. Meanwhile my supply of morphine was running out, as well as rescue meds, and that's not something you want to go off of cold turkey. Aside from the sudden return of disabling pain, you also face the prospect of severe discontinuation syndrome.
Because I was on a patient list of this doctor, no other doctor would treat the case because they knew he was being investigated and feared the DEA would do the same thing to them.) I called my house rep, and my senator, and spoke with several people in their offices. After those conversations within 2 days my doctor was back in business and able to care for existing patients on his roles while the investigation continued.
Ultimately they never found any wrongdoing, but it kept several hundred patients from being wrongfully denied access to the pain medications they need, deserve & unfortunately due the currently (over)regulatory environment can not get their regular PCP's to prescribe.
The alternative for all of his patients would have been 7 to 40 trips in a row to the emergency room for emergency pain management till we could find another pain specialist that would be willing to risk DEA harassment. It would have put an undue burden of several thousand dollars against us simply to be able to continue to live a semi-decent life. For myself, it was the only way I could continue to work, be able to dress myself, carry in the mail, make dinner. That burden would have cost me my employment, mobility, and probably led to me being homeless & bankrupt.
While they were able to help with the specific issue of my doctor, these reps haven't lifted a single finger to deal with the broader issue facing the millions of others out there who can't get their PCP to provide adequate pain management, nor the total lack of pain specialist (Less than 7000 for the entire country), nor the out of hand regulatory environment and out of control agency that created the problem in the first place.
Read it and you'll see why.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Parents with money, generally with political influence of their own they think might be enhanced by having their kid become a political "fixer". (as in "the fix is in")
Tech Public Policy stuff
You are simply wrong. He knows better, but would prefer our efforts be misdirected.
No non-profit organization representing individuals can lobby with effectiveness comparable to that of a political lobbyist who can write checks or in the case of an organization which is technically non-profit such as Morgan Reed's (or more accurately, Microsloth's) Association for Competitive Technology, can tell his clients who can write checks who "deserves" to receive political campaign contributions...
Believe me, the staff members for any Congressman or Senator know which lobbyists can bring them money and which can only bring hot air.
While the EFF is valuable, if we want real political change in our favor, a small group of us will have to come up with the megabuck or more required to build the infrastructure for a NRA/AARP style PAC (Political Action Committee) that can raise money for candidates and actively campaign for or against candidates, and all the rest of us are going to have to come up with the money to make the actual campaign contributions.
All the EFF can do with real effectiveness is put out fires through the legal system.
No matter how good the arguments made for legislation made by an EFF staff member, they're going to be trumped by someone like Reed who can talk about the companies like Microsoft he represents. Things like the DMCA didn't pass because the EFF was asleep at the switch, they passed because lobbyists with money behind them had a much more effective argument. . . campaign money.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Skkkott Lokkkwood is a fukkking kkkokkksukkking kkkikkke.
Perhaps it was the questions about ACT political positions?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Isn't this the same guy who sold monorails to Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway?
T&K.
Political language
I believe in the right of people who possess something to make a decision about what to do with it... I'll trust the native people and listen to them; they know their land, and they are capable of making decisions about it.
I'm native to Ohio, one of the United States of America.
I know my CD and DVD collections. I possess them. Why won't you trust me to decide for myself how to play my media discs? I don't have an RIAA-endorsed player on an RIAA-endorsed operating system. They have shown repeatedly that they consider me a criminal because I use Linux and Ogle to play my DVD's, rather than kowtow to them for a "proper" player. Congress, in collusion with Microsoft, wants to put DRM on my system, to make sure I can't play my CD's and DVD's unless I "pay the piper" repeatedly.
I know my computer. I possess it. Why does your major employer expect to look at, maybe even confiscate, my equipment, just because they believe I *might* be using one of their product? (Suspicion, not fact, is the key here.)
You can't have it both ways. Make up your fscking mind how you want it. Will it be freedom for the natives to use their land, and for me to use my CD's and DVD's, as we see fit, or only as Congress and their lobbyist employers see fit?