Lobbyist Morgan Reed Answers Your Questions

A long, long time ago, you asked lobbyist Morgan Reed questions about lobbying, undue industry influence on United States laws as they apply to the tech sector, the future of internet taxation, and more. Reed, in the meantime, has switched jobs: he's now working for the Association for Competitive Technology (as he candidly and lightheartedly acknowledges, "the enemy" to many Slashdot readers, since they lobby for large software corporations, notably Microsoft), and is finally free to answer your questions. Read on for about as inside a viewpoint as you can find on how you can affect your elected representatives, from someone whose job is to do just that. Update: 08/01 19:24 GMT by M : That's Morgan Reed, not Reed Morgan. We suck.

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:

1. talking with legislator when he's gardening or fixing the car on a bill;
2. lunch or coffee (one on one);
3. personal appearance at his office (phoned in ahead, as a constituent);
4. personal conversation at a house party or fundraiser (more than 1 minute);
5. question at a constituency open house (as advertised in local papers) (usually have 20-40 people);
6. handwritten postcard with cool pics on other side;
7. handwritten postcard found free in coffee shop or movie house;
8. handwritten letter, hand addressed;
9. typed letter, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
10. typed postcard, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
11. fax, hand signed;
12. actiongram faxed letter like on EDF or EFF;
13. actiongram email, modified from boilerplate in own words;
14. actiongram email, boilerplate;
15. weird knick-knack gift, like a techie toy we have tons of, wrapped up in a box and sent;
16. weird knick-knack gift, connected to issue;
17. 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.

Comments

wow....

[jeffy124]

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.

Re:wow....

[Vaughn Anderson]

yes, but as with all people skilled in their jobs this guy just spun the whole slashdot crowd...

How easily people can be lulled by a slick talker. We can't verify anything non-factual this guy has said. We can't proove whether the opinions he's expressed are what he lives by.

Please keep in mind that the core nature of his job is to convince people (legislators/us) that what he is saying (tripe/filth/one sided stories/candy coated facts) is what we (legislators/us) really want to hear.

Why did he spend time to reply here?

1. To get us to agree with him on somethings
2. Then we feel all buddy buddy
3. Then he slips things past us.
4. ACHIEVE HIS GOALS.

What are his goals with replying to Slashdot?

1. Smooth over any "conspiracy theories" about how corporations pay for laws.
2. Convince us that there is no such thing as "back door" or "under the table" politics in regards to lobbying.
3. Make slashdot readers think that he's on our side. (ie, "THE PATRIOT ACT! THE PATRIOT ACT! AHHAH!, he almost had me on that one...)
4. Do his job by making other people want what his employer wants.

If you really think this guy gives a darn about any of the tech values mainly expressed by the little man, think again, he's bought and paid for my corporations.

I quote him here -

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.

Here's his pitch, he just spun the whole issue of how illegal the DMCA is. He didn't even answer the question!!

The best answer I know is: "Organizations have an expected level of influence on Washington."

What a crock! A corporation does NOT get to vote, why should they get any extra influence in congress?

You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen.

This is by far my most favorite line. It's like Al Capone, "I'm the good guy".

I have an uncle who is a State Senator, even at his level he has had people come in and dry and buy his influence.

Sorry Mr. Reed, you don't fool me. Maybe you don't do shady things with your lobbying, but other do, and if you don't think that is true, perhaps you aren't in the in crowd at DC.

And on a finishing note, I don't recall there being any laws or Ammendments that give corporations the right to lobby congress, perhaps people should be allowed to, but it seems that with the raw evidence, (ie DMCA was _not_ in the best intrests of the people) your arguments don't hold water that lobbying is anything other than paid influence (ie legal bribery) of our government.

It's the government of the people, by the people and for the people, NOT of the corporations, by the powerful and for those who can afford lobbyists like yourself.

Re: wow....

[Black Parrot]

> But to claim that it is legalized bribery is totally ignorant.

What's the issue? A gives B money; B votes for something A wants. We could call it something different, such as "lobbying", but that doesn't in the least change the substance of what's going on.

Re:wow....

[Rakarra]

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. Here's his pitch, he just spun the whole issue of how illegal the DMCA is. He didn't even answer the question!!

He could also be saying "As bad as the DMCA is, there's something that should be upsetting you far more.." As Slashdot readers, we sometimes overestimate how important we are and how important the tech sector is. Because the DMCA and CDBTPA are certainly worth getting upset about, but they are nothing compared to the non-tech-specific PATRIOT Act.

Re:wow....

[Vaughn Anderson]

He could also be saying...

He could be, but is he? The PATRIOT Act is worse for everyone in the long run, but the DMCA is causeing damage right now and this guy just side stepped a very real and dangerous issue.

Also, if you noticed one of the questioners is actually being sued under the DMCA, which at this point _is_ more upsetting than the PATRIOT Act. There is actually alot of influence and force out there going against the PATRIOT act, yet little to none in the general populace reguarding the DMCA.

In light of this, I think he didn't want to make a statement on the DMCA due to his own job restrictions and near impossibility of stating how anything good has ever come of it.

favorite quote

[ih8apple]

"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>

Re:favorite quote

[Magic Thread]

Did you read the full answer to the first question? The whole point is that politics really isn't as corrupt as you think it is.

Re:favorite quote

[defwu]

Do you have any evidence that this happens? Specifically, have *you* written a check and gotten a law passed? Face it : money in our society == access. The more money you have, the easier it is to get get to know certain people, which makes it easier for you to get in front of your congressman to discuss an issue. The money buying policitians has some truth to it, but only in a derivative sense, not a primary sense. To espouse otherwise, except for specific, not endemic, cases of corruption reveals a lack of critical examination of the system.

Re:favorite quote

[Usquebaugh]

So buying time of a politician is not a form of corruption?

A politician is supposed to represent his voters not a SIG or a Corporation. IF a politician is seeing campaign contributors instead of those who voted for him is this not corruption?

Face it, politics is a nasty dirty business that no honest man will have anything to do with. To state otherwise reveals either a lack of critical examination or deluded ideals.

Re:favorite quote

[praedor]

Well, to a certain extent he was correct in this. If the industry rep that preceded you gave the Rep a check for $20,000 to say "nay" on a piece of legislation, then you come in and give the Rep a "measely" $2000 to say "yeah", there will be no bit flip on that Rep's vote from nay to yeah. The $20,000 vote bid trumps the $2000 bid. The nays have it.

Since it is a secret bidding process, sort of like when putting offers on a house, you can't one-up the previous briber by giving $21,000. You THOUGHT $2000 was generous and workable, you just didn't know about that $20,000 trump card.

Re:favorite quote

[crucini]

This guy actually took time to give us a glimpse into the world of the lobbyist, and you learned nothing. Since you've got Washington all figured out, here's a question for you. If you can just write checks to politicians to buy votes, why does anyone need lobbyists? Why did Hilary Rosen make a million dollars a year? Couldn't the record companies just mail in their checks to Congress?

Re:favorite quote

[mansemat]

Either that, or he is just spinning us. ;)

It's all spin baby. The man is a lobbyist. He is the king of spin. He is selling to us right now.

Re:favorite quote

[haystor]

The interviewee avoided the issue of why lobbyists spend billions of dollars not buying votes. If they were merely educating the politicians, it could be done for a lot less.

Unless the politicians intentionally ignore this education until the dollar amount passes a certain threshhold at which time they learn the issue, change their vote...oh wait.

Re:favorite quote

[Eccles]

But largely, he's right. You don't buy votes, you buy the voter. Do you think Bush pushes for tax cuts because he got campaign contributions from people who want taxes cut? No, he got the contributions because he campaigned on cutting taxes. Donors buy the candidate who wants what they want, they don't change the candidate's beliefs. Further contributions are to keep him in.

Re:favorite quote

[malibucreek]

"You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen."

Of course. Because the process works the other way around. The politicians ask the corporations and their managers for the money. So it is *the politicians* who must position themselves as friendly to what the business folk want in order to get business' contributions.

Re:favorite quote

[MxTxL]

I'm not commenting on the parent post itself, but your post doesn't advance the argument.

Why do people need lawyers, can't they just defend themselves in court?

Why do people need mechanics, can't they just fix their own cars?

Why do people need garbage men, can't they just take the trash to the dump themselves?

Well, yes.. they can. But there are people who are specialists in each field that know what they are doing. It's their job. I'm pretty smart, so I could fix my own car but since i know nothing of cars it would involve looking through some instruction books and diagrams and figuring the things out.. it would involve buying or renting tools and researching what tools were best for the job and it would involve me looking for the parts and all of that, then i would need to find a place to work at... or i could just pay the mechanic off. It's his job, afterall.

I could lobby my congressman on zero budjet myself. But if i really wanted access, it would be less time consuming and have a better chance of success if i went through someone who's a pro at it. Someone who's got the knowledge and got the tools. It's his job, afterall. The downside is, you got to pay for that service.

Re:favorite quote

[cheezit]

A legislator who takes action solely based on a contribution risks scrutiny and criticism. Therefore the "fig leaf" of a purported benefit to the constituents is a necessary insurance policy.

Whether the benefit to constituents is the prime reason why the legislator acted, or the contribution is what motivated them, can never really be known as long as both are present. Hence the "murky" relationship of money to politics.

Clearly this system benefits the legislators as long as they can depend on industry lobbyists to provide the fig leaf. A legislator who doesn't bother to obtain the fig leaf gets in trouble fast.

Even if there were no money contribution, the fig leaf provides a basis for action and decision that the legislator otherwise might not have. So the industry lobbyist could convince the legislator to act a certain way merely by providing a defensible motivation for the decision; otherwise the legislator might not know what the hell to do. See "unwitting pawn" in your local dictionary.

Re:favorite quote

[Delphiki]

Face it, politics is a nasty dirty business that no honest man will have anything to do with. To state otherwise reveals either a lack of critical examination or deluded ideals Ah, the agree with me or you're stupid argument. What better way to prove how right you are then this?

Re:favorite quote

[ih8apple]

Actually, I'm very politically active and know several congressmen on a first name basis. I spend many many hours volunteering for candidates I support. What sickens me is the little influence I have for all the work I do, since someone else will come in with a big checkbook and "influence" them in another direction.

So to respond to your silly comments, I am "part of the system" and I do see "how it really is" and that is what disgusts so much about it when a lobbyist claims otherwise and expects naive people to believe him.

Re:favorite quote

[RevMike]

Don't forget the other factors that alter voting - the vote swap.

Say your a congressman and you have two bills coming up to a vote. One is a highway bill that will create jobs in your district, and your contituents want it passed. The other is an education bill that will reduce funding to public schools in your district, and your constituents want it to fail.

Another congresman approaches you and says that his constituents want the education bill passed, but don't want the highway bill.

You weigh the relative value of each bill to your constituents, then agree with your colleague that both of you will vote yes on both bills.

It appears that you didn't work for your constituents, but really you did the best you could.

Re:favorite quote

[greenhide]

Not to get too personal here, but my dad is psychiatrist. All the time he gets offers from drug companies to go their seminars to find out about the drugs they offer.

I'm biased but I think that he genuinely cares about being a good psychiatrist so his goal is to be well informed. He goes to most of the meetings that these drug companies have, even if they don't offer any nice incentives.

I'm sure there are some psychiatrists, however, that want to feel like they're really getting something out these meetings, so they only go to events where they're getting a gourmet meal at a five star restaurant (and yes, drug companies occasionally throw these events).

My dad isn't usually all that busy (well he is, but...). He has really only one group "lobbying" for his attention -- the drug companies. So, imagine a congressperson, who has hundreds if not thousands of companies and organizations competing for his time. She or he is naturally going to choose the events or meetings that offer the most in return. If he or she is going to make an investment of time for them, they might make an equivalent investment.

And it doesn't always have to be money. I'm sure that an organization which can present a significant benefit to the congressperson's constitutions (or an organization which has significant support or membership from among the congressperson's constitutents) would receive the same amount of attention.

I genuinely believe that a great many decisions that congresspeople make are dependent not on financial contributions but rather on the their world view. For example, conservatives tend to believe that natural resources exist in part to be used and exploited, so they don't see as much urgency in fuel efficiency as more adrent environmentalists do. Some of them may be in bed with oil companies, but many simply believe that exploitation of (limited) natural resources is actually...good.

Re:favorite quote

[Hatta]

Did you read the full answer to the first question? The whole point is that politics really isn't as corrupt as you think it is.

Nope, it's worse.

Re:favorite quote

[morganew]

This is a great example, one that I should have used myself.

My best friend was a drug rep for several years. We used to swap stories about our work and were often surprised by the similarities.

Big part of the drug rep's arsenal is information. If you are the educator, you control the information.

As a lobbyist, its slightly different because although you are educating, the audience you are speaking to is highly suspicious, and will never listen to you again if you mislead him/her. So you educate to explain the client's viewpoint, but you try to explain the pitfalls (adverse side effects?) as well.

And some Congressmen and women are like the next poster's mother, they don't want anything from lobbyists because it might be construed as undue influence.

Again, the drug rep is a good example, thanks

Morgan Reed

Re:favorite quote

[crucini]

Reed tried to educate us about how the system works. You are now discussing how the system should work - that is, you're educating us about a utopian or ideal world. While that has its place, Slashdotters desperately need to learn how the real world works.

Your moral indignation at campaign contributions is duly noted. But it will not help you win in the legislative arena, where our futures are being decided.

If I gave you $100,000 to argue for cracking eggs on the little end, and gave Reed $50,000 to argue for cracking eggs on the big end, I'm sure Reed would win. Despite having a smaller war chest, he's far more realistic and perceptive about the people he's trying to influence. You might approach legislators with thinly disguised contempt and a complete lack of understanding of what their lives and work consist of. That makes you equivalent to a boss that despises programmers for being nerds, and condescendingly flings mandates at them.

If you reply, please tell me whether you agree. Would your larger war chest enable you to conquer Reed? Or does he actually have talents that outweigh a 2:1 financial advantage?

Nice!

[cK-Gunslinger]

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.

So, it's not just us!

there is something I don't like

[AresTheImpaler]

he is to moderate. it's too difficult to know if I like him or hate him. he should be more radical

Interesting....

[AriesGeek]

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?

Re:What's a "bullet point memo"?

[cK-Gunslinger]

I assume he means a document that has plenty of white-space, is light on text, and has a few, concise statements highlighted with bullets.

You know, like:

------
I am writing to address the problem of:

* BLAH BLAH BLAH

This problems has 3 main properties:

1) BLAH
2) BLAH
3) BLAH

Some possible suggestions to remedy this are:

* BLAH
* BLAH
* BLAH
------

Now, whether you actually need to substitue words for the BLAHs, I don't know. ;)

Re:What's a "bullet point memo"?

[ryants]

Dear Congressman:

The people of this great state are facing several problems:

• People don't understand what "one page bullet point memos" are; and
• One page bullet point memos, once understood, are difficult to write.

I urge you to solve these problems by passing legislation that:

• would require that all publicly funded schools immediately implement one page bullet point memo writing classes;
• would allocated funds for running television ads to raise awareness about one page bullet point memos among the general population.

Sincerely,

John Q. Voter.

"Washington is bought..."

[WildFire42]

Wait for it...

Lobbyist: All your government are belong to me.

Not this again?

[Otter]

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.)

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?

Re:Not this again?

[rknop]

And wasn't Sklyarov arrested when he came to the US?

...for things he did while in Russia, which are legal in Russia. (And which were only illegal in the USA under the technicalities of the DMCA.)

-Rob

Re:Not this again?

[YomikoReadman]

While it is true that the crimes committed in Russia by Sklyarov are legal in Russia, due to the nature of the Internet and that the software he wrote was distributed here in the US by him, he violated US law as well. So, according to the Laws he violated in the US, he was arrested here in the US.

Re:Not this again?

[hesiod]

> ...for things he did while in Russia, which are legal in Russia.

But what "he" (his company, really) did was to export that locally legal software to the U.S., where the software was illegal. If Elcom had made a concerted effort to make sure the software never entered the U.S., he could not have been charged, IMIO (I=Ignorant).

Re:Not this again?

[Lieutenant_Dan]

While it is true that the crimes committed in Russia by Sklyarov are legal in Russia, due to the nature of the Internet and that the software he wrote was distributed here in the US by him, he violated US law as well. So, according to the Laws he violated in the US, he was arrested here in the US.

This US, is it the same country that violated Russian law in gathering evidence by accessing a system without prior authorization or permission of the local (Russian) authorities?

Sklyarov did nothing wrong in Russia. If he did something wrong in Russia that was against the law or principles in our country, then the US should file a complaint with the Russian government. They should have left the man alone, or at least threaten his employers (sanctions, lawsuit, etc).
But we shouldn't forget that this was Adobe's fault, who started the mess.

Otherwise, every woman who visited Saudi Arabia might get stoned to death for wearing a bikini in Florida. Stupid analogy, I know, but it's the best I have right now.

Get Re-elected

[NickDngr]

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.

Re:Get Re-elected

[enjo13]

Nope.. not a problem.

The job of our representatives IS to win re-election. That should be their goal. The problem occurs when the represented (that would be you and I) don't properly hold them accountable for their actions while representing us. If a rep. is not 'representing the voters', then it should be impossible to win re-election.

In this day of party-line votes, heavily partisan bickering pretty much everywhere, and TV commericals.. it's become possible to represent just a few of the voters (generally extremist in your party) and still satisfy the electorate.

Reps need to use Slashcode

[RobertB-DC]

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.

Re:Reps need to use Slashcode

[Anonymous Coward]

The feedback mechanism does nothing but feed male ego. This is due to the way that males use language in daily life, which is to establish status and respect. This is done by exchanging seemingly inane and useless information. If others listen to you interestedly, you have more status. If you annoy others, you have less.

Women on the other hand use language more typically to reinforce social bonds. The information is secondary to the emotional context (but you have to listen to know the context, of course). If you listen while another talks, you are increasing your favor with them. Reciprocation is expected.

Neither style is ideally suited for problem-solving. I'm not sure that any human communication style is, innate or otherwise. :)

Money != Influence?

[verloren]

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

Re:Money != Influence?

[nomadic]

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?

He didn't say that, he just said it's not as cut-and-dried as a lot of people here seem to want to believe.

Re:Money != Influence?

[jratcliffe]

If you're talking the US, you AREN'T a shareholder in a company that makes political donations - companies can't (neither can unions), and don't. Company PACs, which are pools of money from _employees_, can make donations, but companies themselves cannot.

Good answers

[onyxruby]

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.

Spoken like a true insider...

[sleepingsquirrel]

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.

Spoken like a true insider. Whatever happened to limited government? It seems to me that the most moral form of government is one in which you didn't have to spend copious amounts of time checking up on it, just to see if some group is buying influence in order to screw you over.

Re:Spoken like a true insider...

[Shenkerian]

How is it an unreasonable burden that you take one or two days every four years to read about what the candidates have done in the prior term?

You then can return to your business and ignore politics for the next four years, since a voter can exercise no power between elections anyway.

Re:Spoken like a true insider...

[PhxBlue]

Government is just like any other service: you get what you pay for. Or, in Geek terms - garbage in, garbage out.

Re:Spoken like a true insider...

[analog_line]

There's no such thing. If you want to be sure your government is keeping your interests in mind, you need to check up on it. Even if it's a machine making all hte decisions, you've got to make sure it's running properly, or you deserve all the idiocy you get.

You should be plenty happy if you're so lazy that you can't be bothered to make sure your government is working for you. Just keep your eyes down and keep ignoring everything like a good sheep. Disgusting.

Re:Spoken like a true insider...

[kotfu]

Voters can exercise a lot of power between elections. But it's work, and you have to be in it for the long haul. I am the chairman of my voting precint for the Republican party. There are ~ 400 homes in our district. That makes it an almost insignificant percentage of the registered voters in my state. Even so, I get 5 or 6 invitations a year to receptions, BBQ's, dinners, speaches, etc from our 2 senators the congressman from our district. Imagine that, they ask me to come to them!

It's pretty tough to get elected to be the chairman of your precinct, just show up at the caucus meeting. The previous chairman will be there, (he's in charge of the meeting) and maybe a couple of other people. If you want to do it, it's yours. With an hour investment of your time, you can have some access to your elected officials.

If you want to get a conversation with your elected official, just get some signatures from people in your precinct on a petition and take it to the next BBQ-reception-I'm-your-dutiful-public-servant thingy that you get invited to. You have very good odds of getting a few minutes of face time with your congresscritter.

Wow, just like that, with no money and a few hours of your time you have access, and a mono-y-mono conversation. Can you compete with paid lobbyists? Yes and no. Lobbyists have someone paying them to do it full time, all you have is signatures of voters.

If you are trying to get re-elected, you can't afford to ignore your voters, even if it is a couple of years until the next election.

A very interesting read

[Liselle]

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.

Re:A very interesting read

[Chris Parrinello]

Except if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Does this lobbyist think that we are naive enough to tell us that our "lack of knowledge" is clouding our judgement about how much influence lobbyists and campaign contributions are having on the legislative process? Can you explain to me how Senator Hollings from South Carolina (aka, the Senator from Disney) is representing his constituents with bills he has backed such as the DCMA and SSSCA.

I think the insiders have become too accustomed to "that's just the way things work" way of thinking. The lobbyists perpetuate that line of thinking through wanting to preserve their own jobs.

Re:A very interesting read

[j3110]

I've watched CSPAN, read reports, read bills, have relatives that have campaigned on the conservative side. I may not know everything, but I think I've been around enough to make an opinion.

Here are my thoughts:

Lobbying (as in giving money to a representative in order to get their attention as they would have you call it) would be very much illegal if someone were to "lobby" the general public before election day. In fact, there are specific laws against this. By all means of consistency with other laws, influencing legislation with money or gifts should be illegal.

We aren't alone in hating lobbying. It's been on the floor of congress about once a year or two for several years. Voter moral is in the dumpsters because they don't feel they make any difference because no matter who they vote for (that has a chance of winning according to the poles), they will just be bought off. This guy doesn't want to loose his job, and he has a head on his shoulders, I think (except when it comes to his own employment), but really he is just there to take money, distribute money, all in the hopes of changing a vote. He really should only have the right to influence 2 representatives, but he has extended himself beyond the power that any one citizen should have. This is an injustice because someone else is not getting an equal amount of representation.

I can't imagine why he would try to convince us that it isn't as simple as buying votes, when voting record lines up pretty well with campaign contributions. He sited one example of very few people in a low cash deal that are exceptions to this rule. It's not like the RIAA with billions invested into campaign contributions and just about everyone voting in a particular way. Go ahead and vote against the RIAA/MPAA and see how much harder it is to get enough money to campaign next term.

The one thing that bothered me a lot other than the above was his statement on privacy. He wants to strike a balance between corporate sharing of your information and your privacy. It's information about me, and only I should be able to decide who gets it. There is no balance. They can share if they give me good enough reason to. The burden is on them to get my permission, not on me to track down everyone they gave my information to and tell them to remove it. It is just another form of harassment. If I want your product, I'll find you. The Internet makes it really easy to advertise to anyone that is looking for your services. You just throw up a website and a robots file. Everyone uses google that has an email address, and if they need hairspray, I'm sure they can find it. If that's not good enough for you, list it on EBay. Companies are looking for a cheap way out of advertising at my expense. I've made it a point to not buy anything that I get spammed with. If their widgets are so good, I'll hear it from friends.

It's been said that if you take everyone you know, and everyone they know (repeat 6-7 times) you'll end up with everyone in the world. If it's really so good that everyone likes it, it will make it to everyone. Homestarrunner.com didn't advertise, and people were quoting it on the street even before the /. story. Make something good enough to warrant attention, and you won't have to buy addresses and spam people.

Other than those two things, I like the guy. I just think his business interests are very much different than mine, and of course his opinion is going to differ when I think his business is immoral. Everyone has some justification for everything that they do. I just don't agree that paying my representative to vote against me is ethical, and that's what he gets paid to do. Want to change a vote? Take the proper route, through us, the voters. Bypassing us is not moral or ethical, and shouldn't be legal. If it worked the way he says, convincing us would be all he needed to do to get the representatives to vote the way he wanted to. If they can convince us, then why are they going around us? If they can't convince us, then they have no right to push any further.

Re:What's a "bullet point memo"?

[TopShelf]

This is a short, concise memo that summarizes problems and solutions like so:

Dear Congressman Jerry Mander,

I'd really like you to do something about /., it has many problems such as:

Crappy editing

Tub Girl

Goatse.cx

The problems outlined here affect a large portion of our district, and I'd like to suggest that your office propose legislation enacting the following:

Certification of /. Editors

Filters built into the comment system for known offensive content

A chicken in every pot

Sincerely,
Conn Stituent

So why aren't you lobbying?

[twoallbeefpatties]

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?

Other good questions

[pmz]

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?

Re:Other good questions

[Black Copter Control]

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?

Having given some thought to this question (as a result of running for the Green Party), my conclusion was that an elected rep really needs to deal with things at the systemic level, as opposed to the personal level.

While it is often tempting (and even satisfying) to solve a problem for a single person (usually someone in the news), there's really no time to resolve the issues around johnny's bleeding nose -- unless you chunk up to dealing with the leakage from the chemical plant that's causing nosebleeds for Johnny and the 800 kids in his neighbourhood.

To the extent to which you can come up with a systemic solution and show that there is widespread system wide support for your solution, you're more likely to get the attention of an elected rep (or at least a 'good' one).

Re:Other good questions

[pmz]

You'd want to INCREASE the number of people doing the representation, so they have smaller amounts of people to represent.

I was aiming at the number of issues the federal government takes on. By pushing as much decision making as possible down to the states and local governments, the ratio of representitives to constituents is much more favorable.

Also, there will always be two senators per state in the Congress, which is a very wise design in itself, but it necessitates that these senators take on only the biggest issues of truly national importance. Defending the U.S.A. and its Constitution is unambiguously of national importance. Subsidizing everything from art to school lunches, for example, is not nationally significant and should be left to the discretion of local government.

Good Perspective

[hard2spell]

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.

Re:Good Perspective

[Mournblade]

"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?"

No. Their complaint was that they were replaced by a machine, not that congress passed a law making their job illegal. It's just a little different.

"We don't own the world, and as much as we think we run it, we don't do that either."

God. Root. What's the difference? :)

Re:What's a "bullet point memo"?

[dpreformer]

To; Sloppy
From: dpreformer
Subj: Bullet point memos

- Sloppy posted a comment stating bullet point memos were something unknown to him.

- Bullet points can be used to illustrate how to write a bullet point memo.

- See how easy this problem was to solve with an illustrative example?

- Alternative methods can involve subheadings
1 eg numerical bullet points
2 footnotes/references*

* No references for this memo, just illustrative.

I'll do it again for something important to me:

To: Congressman Baron Hill
From: (name withheld from Slashdot), constituent
Subject: Hinkley/Rohrbacker Amendment

1) The DEA is interfering with state rights by conducting raids on medical marijuana patients in states that have passed laws allowing medical marijuana.

2) Two congressman have offered an amendment to the Justice Department's appropriation bill forbidding use of funds to conduct these raids (Subect amendment).

3) Supporting this amendment shows compassion for sick and dying people.

4) Our former governor and former secretary of HHS procured medical marijuana for his wife as she was dying of cancer - should the DEA have raided the Indiana governors mansion for this?

5) Thse funds could be better put to fighting terrorism and/or decreasing the budget deficit. ...

Early prominence

[akiaki007]

well, after reading for quite a while, I decided to comment on the early tone I noticed. Cliche of DC, and my comment is cliche with his comments about /.'ers...

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.

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 /.'ers as saying that you speak like someone from DC. And you do. Though you took the time to answer these great questions, but often you didn't quite answer the question (IMO).

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:

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.

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.

Re:Early prominence

[morganew]

I commented that my tone in the initial post got away from me, and apologized accordingly.

Now, to your specific point about Alaska, I feel compelled to answer not as Morgan Reed from ACT, but as Morgan Reed a native of Alaska.

Non-ACT Morgan Reed has this to say about drilling in Alaska:

I believe in the right of people who possess something to make a decision about what to do with it. Do you know who owns the section of the 1002 in question? It's owned by the people who live and work there, the NATIVE people, though the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC). And to the best of my knowledge, both KIC and the City of Kaktovik, which is charged with representing all of the people who live in the area around the 1002, support reasonable use of the natural resources that they own, and have used and occupied for more than 10,000 years.

In a recent Congressional hearing in Kaktovik, many village elders spoke at length about how "the good old days" in Kaktovik were sometimes not so "good". Instead, the Kaktovimik faced hunger and uncertainty. Most lower 48ers would not survive a week above the arctic circle in the summer, much less in the winter. If they are allowed to use the resources they own, they can help mitigate that with better education for their children, better housing and a better standard of living.

So when you become paternalistic and describe how YOU think the people will feel in 50 years, you betray a near racist level of attitude toward the people of Kaktovik. The people there have seen drilling up close and personal, many of them worked in Barrow and at Prudoe Bay.

I'll trust the native people and listen to them; they know their land, and they are capable of making decisions about it.

Morgan Reed
originally from Fairbanks, Alaska

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Tech lobbyist.

Interesting.

[YllabianBitPipe]

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.

Re:Interesting.

[morganew]

Yllabian Bit Pipe,

Yes, I agree, my tone in the first answer was a bit too "finger wagging". I gave in to the urge and let it go. So, mea culpa, the tone is too strong; but the message is still true. Geeks need to understand that the Government is not some unknowable monolith.

Pay attention to the actions of your representatives and think about how that might be doing what they perceive as "most useful" to the people they represent.

Again, you are right about the intial tone, my apologies to all who were offended.

Morgan Reed

Lobbyists and Democracy...

[Chris Parrinello]

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.

The problem with the Union government.

[pete-classic]

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.

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

Re:The problem with the Union government.

[morganew]

Un-reconstructed southerners are always interesting.

In 1831 during his speech at Fort Hill, John C. Calhoun said essentially 'we are a nation of Sovereign States'. He repeated that thought in his 1849 'Southern Address'.

In 1861 these United States went to war to find out if Calhoun was right.

He wasn't.

In 1865 Lee surrendered, and these United States become THE United States.

Your comment about the power of the Union government to wield power over the states, and by extention smaller governmental bodies, was asked and answered.

You are free to vote for elected officals who advotate for smaller government and less government intervention. But to roll back the clock to the era of Hamilton and Jefferson isn't going to happen.

Morgan Reed

Re:The problem with the Union government.

[pete-classic]

Un-reconstructed southerners are always interesting.

Be that as it may, I was born in Delaware and raised right here in Denver, Colorado.

But I'll give you half credit. I spent some time in the South with the Army, and six years married to a Southerner.

In 1861 these United States went to war to find out if Calhoun was right.

He wasn't.

Wow, you have really opened my eyes. All these years living on this Earth and I never realized that war was about who is right . . .

Or, it could be interpreted that freedom lost a counter-revolution.

Thanks (in no small part) to our pal . . . Andrew Jackson (a Southerner!).

But to roll back the clock to the era of Hamilton and Jefferson isn't going to happen.

Probably not in our lifetimes. King George might have said that rolling back to the era of democracy of the Greeks wasn't going to happen.

And now, since I have the floor, a somewhat extended excerpt from the famous "tree of liberty" letter, which shows that the statement was not meant in the abstract.

god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. [. . .] & 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. [. . .] 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.

I have to go now. I think it is the ATF at the door.

-Peter

Re:What's a "bullet point memo"?

[Sloppy]

I am writing to address the problem of cK-Gunslinger:

• He answered my question, even though he didn't have to.
• He hasn't been thanked and may be feeling unappreciated.
• BLAH

Some possible suggestions to remedy this are:

• He should be thanked.
• He should be rewarded with "Informative" flavored karma.
• He should receive free beer, all he can drink, at taxpayer expense for life.
• BLAH

Re:Regulation

[multimed]

Disputable because it's too vague not because it's incorrect. Certainly heavily regulated industries can hamper the big guys but it is just as true that excessive regulation hurts smaller companies as much and often more. Consider the volumes of regulations on hiring/firing/employment practices as an example. It's pretty trivial for big companies to hire specialists whose only job is to keep up on the regs. Meanwhile, the guy who runs a landscaping business and hires 5 or 6 employees cannot possibly afford it. While big companies are hampered by excessive regulation aimed at them, small companies are hampered by all excessive regulation because they don't have the resources to dedicate to compliance.

Milton Friedman article

[pen]

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.

The Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman.

And remember...

[B1ackDragon]

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.

Translation from Lobianese into English

[spun]

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.

A follow up from the Author

[morganew]

I find myself watching in disappointment and amazement as comments roll in attacking my opening statement.

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 /. crowd would misconstrue or look with a jaundiced eye at what came later.

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 /. (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).

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 /.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.

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

Re:A follow up from the Author

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth I consider myself fairly politically involved; I have voted in every election, including local ones, since I was able to vote; I research local elections on the web so I don't have to just guess about all those races and candidates I have never heard of. In the last two years I've written four letters to congressmen. I just mailed a check for $100 to one of the potential presidential candidates.

I've worked in DC on defense contracts, never living there for more than a few weeks. I do have two close friends who worked for "think tanks" and "policy institutes" located in Deleware/Maryland parisite ring.

I have two college friends who have either interned at Congressmen's offices or worked for them for pay.

And I must say that I think you are wrong and the people who are attacking you, whom you deride as ill informed, are right.

Before I go on, I think you should at least consider how people like me arrive at the opinions they hold. I started out with a view like yours, mostly formed by parent's beliefs and high school civics classes and college history classes. As I went through life I developed a veiw of the Washington, DC government industry that is about as low as you can get.

Let's look over the reason's why I'd share the /. troll's view of DC instead of your view.

1) I know someone who worked for a Congressmen's office and was stiffed $3,000 in pay. The kid was politically ambitious and told not to make a fuss if he wanted to move up. This fits nicely with your description of the intern volunteer world, doesn't it ? How does it fit with your claim that all Congress Members are basically good people seeking to do the right thing by their people ? Stupid, naive me offered to pay this person $3,000 in exchange for a notarized affdavit and printed out, initialed copies the several emails; the kid looked at me in horror and never talked to me again. As an independent contractor who has grown a business servicing small main street businesses up to the point where this week I filed papers to form a corporation, you cannot immagine how I view someone who doesn't pay his bills just because they can get away with it. (I've written off ten thousand dollars in bills that will never be paid this year, by people who CAN'T pay them.)

2) I know a different person who worked for one of the more well known "think tanks" that was fired for reporting the theft of donations by other employees. Out of all the people I know in private industry, I personally know of exactly one such occurance.

3) I read the Patriot Act. That statement should be enough, but let me explain. It passed on Oct. 12th after the attack on Sept. 11th. To anyone who read it, it obviously wasn't written in month. 90 persent of that stuff was waiting in the wings, probably carefully passed around by Ashcroft and company and people like you, waiting for the chance to shove it through. I know, I read it, and it isn't the only large piece of legislation I have read word for word (all of Title 17 for starters, and several state articles related to my business) so I can judge it's relative complexity. So how does that jive with your statement of assurance with regards to that alphabet soup DRM enforcing bill ? You are not outright lying, but you are close. The truth is we are one big event from that being whipped out and shoved through congress in two days, largely because people like you have been vetting and massaging it in a secrete chambers. If a massive security exploit, say a Windows trojan in the bios of a major MB of video card manufacturer gets pulled off or even attempted with a lot of press coverage, that shit will slide through congress on the rails you are now greasing at the behest of Microsoft. And then you'll be commiserating with us about it just like you do with the Patriot Act, while working on the next one behind our backs.

4) I met a lobbiest for the insurance industry at a bar and went on two lunch dates with her. I'll s

Not ALL have right to vote!

[twisty]

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.

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?

Nice work, Anderson. Here's some more!

[twitter]

Don't forget he started off by insulting everyone. He called us all rude ignormuses:

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.

drug reps get paid more than doctors

[Heisenbug]

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.

"So long,and thanks for all the fish!"

[alizard]

I got a few substantive facts, something of a better feeling for your environment than you previously had, and got some great how-to ideas in the area of spin control and ignoring inconvenient questions and how to carefully meter out just enough truth to enhance your intended points.

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:

• Re:wow....
• Re:favorite quote
• Re:favorite quote
• Re:favorite quote
• Re:A very interesting read

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:

• H1B and anti-outsourcing legislation?
• Effective antitrust enforcement?
• Adequate funding for the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and effective enforcement of its regulations?
• Patent reform and software patents in general?
• Federal opt-out "anti-spam" legislation which the informed consensus says will make the current spam situation far worse than it is?

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