I find this discussion interesting, although after Sue's clarification, it
might be moot. But I am going to continue it, until someone asks to take
this off-list.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011
<de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the
older forms of
government
and legislative influence. Strictly from a global
south perspective, a
similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced
here
was called something else.......bribery.
I know you know this, but for those who don't, lobbying in the USA is
highly regulated. Bribery in the USA is a felony.
My point was, it became regulated fairly recently. Before that, the lines
between gaining influence from politicians for legislation existed in an
entire spectrum of what might be ethical or moral; it still lies on the
grey end of the spectrum in some countries, where bribery is not uncommon.
And I did not mean the USA before and I don't mean it now, I did however
mean, it is a matter of perspective based on where you are coming from on
this.
In US
politics, general lobbying in addition to rulings like the Citizens
united, put large corporation in a powerful position to buy voices in
Washington. If it is indeed going to be about getting voices heard *only*
through lobbyists, I think the publishers can scream the loudest.
Where did that "*only*" come from? I hope not from anything I've written.
As for the Citizens United case, well, it's one of those cases that's
widely talked about but rarely read. The real core case on campaign
finance is the one I name below, now more than 30 years old. It is a
complicated case dealing with the intersection of corporate regulation
and constitutionally protected political speech, and one could teach a
whole course about it, just to prepare someone to read Citizens
United. Here's the enwiki link:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti>.
Almost invariably, when I hear people talk about Citizens United in
informal discussions, I'm hearing people who haven't invested the time
it takes to understand why these issues are entangled. And of course I
can't invest the time to give you a semester's worth of coursework
either. But one shorthand way to look at this is, do we want to say
that corporations don't have freedom of expression or the right to
engage in political speech? Because if we flatly decide that, what
happens to The New York Times Company (a for-profit corporation)?
Should the Times be barred from political speech? Or the American
Civil Liberties Union? (See
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Civil_Liberties_Union&am…
.)
My point here is to underscore that
public discussions of Citizens
United and other cases rarely, in my experience, rise above
sloganeering. The problems involved in corporations' legal status are
subtle and complicated ones, not reducible to tweets and chants. I
support reform of corporate influence in politics, but not at the
price of making it impossible for an incorporated NGO to speak for
individuals who otherwise might remain unheard.
This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the
legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer
to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been
criticized by President Barak Obama, several prominent Senators including
Sen. McCain and John Kerry, Sandra Day O'Connor, several law professors
including Professors of Law at Yale and Harvard Law school, New York times
in an editorial stated "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new
weapon." This is of course, overlooking the recent creation of Super PACs,
which is currently being mocked by Stephen Colbert and the like, while GOP
primaries and recent spate of negative ads, brought them under more of a
spotlight in the media.
My sloganeering opposition, along with several others is summed up by David
Kairys "Money Isn't Speech and Corporations Aren't People", I might not
know the subtleties and the underlying implications of the ruling, but I
side with the aforementioned opposers and the above statement.
You can read more about them in the rather large section on the criticism
section of the ruling page. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission…
)
That was partly based on my reading of the en.wp
article on lobbying
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), when you have a minute, do
re-write
the sections of the article where it is wrong.
I hope I may be forgiven that this particular task can't be at the top
of my to-do list just now. But I invite others to contribute to that
article. As is usually the case, a Wikipedia article is a fine place
to start research, but not itself an authority, as I think we all
agree.
My
question was who usually spends more? non-profits who run a free
encyclopedia or giant publishers whose daily revenues are directly
affected
by these decisions?
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The
pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still
lost.
Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say
about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia?
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help
understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at
law.
Actually politico didn't publicize the
engagement exclusively, the link
kim
provided, mentions it as one brief story in a
list of 10 others, stating,
"The foundation has snagged Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, according
to a
newly filed lobbying disclosure, to focus on
“legislation related to
online
intellectual property infringement, including
H.R. 3261, S. 968 and S.
2029.” Those bill numbers coincide with SOPA, PIPA and the OPEN Act."
Along
with the foundation did not return to comment to
MT before press time.
Note the words "newly filed lobbying disclosure." So much for our big
secretive lobbyist arrangement!
I didn't state the agreement was secretive, the extent of the discussions
and consultation with the firm was.
There are still a lot of powerful institutions
and organizations, who get
their message through, and make measurable impact without moving a single
lobbyist. This is the first time we are engaging one, so just curious
about
what impact it has on perception of others.
I expect the impressions are more positive among those who are more
knowledgeable about political processes in the United States. As for
whether WMF should have engaged someone in DC to advise in this
context, I don't have an atom's worth of doubt that this was the
correct and appropriate strategy to keep Wikipedia and other Wikimedia
projects alive and vital in the face of ill-considered American
legislation.
In light of Sue's clarification, the extent of the lobbying firm's
involvement wasn't near to what I assumed earlier. As far as consultation
and advising about political implications, yes, that was correct and the
appropriate strategy to take. Beyond that, I would defer to the opinion of
the wider community, which might or might not be in-line with yours.
It's about ROI and impact of money invested.
We have the biggest and
direct
way to get measurable impact on these issues,
Wikipedia and the projects,
with 400 million people watching. The blackout proved that, incurring
little
or no actual external cost in the process.
I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in
turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that,
but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are
implemented on many levels, and, in my view, it is naive to suppose
that mere protest, standing alone, is enough. I'm old enough to
remember 1968, when countless individuals took to the streets all over
the world. It was exciting, but it was also followed by decades of
repressive governmental action that disillusioned many of the most
hopeful and idealistic. To learn from 1968, you can't indulge the
notion that mere mass protest is enough. Certainly there are plenty of
people who remember Tienanmen Square who'll tell you the same thing.
I didn't think that at all. it would be quiet childish to think that
blackout alone was responsible for the change in the political position.
There were a whole host of issues, WMF worked in conjunction with several
other internet properties, albeit without prior coordination, to put a
united front and a public stance on what it believed in. The same two
things I am arguing for now. I really hope you don't think lobbying alone
could have achieved that; if your argument is, lobbying in addition to
blackout could have achieved that, then my earlier argument of ROI applies,
which generated more of a response? As far as our impact goes, WMF could
have spent 10 times of what Google did on lobbying, and it wouldn't have
compared to the impact the blackout generated.
This is not about mass protest, the opinions greatly out-weigh in one
direction over the other.
That is sadly the impression I have, along with a
lot of others. I am
not an
american but that has been the view cultivated by
several years of
following
american politics, tech news and listening to the
likes of Jon stewart,
Huffpo and other reputed sources.
Better than following the reputed sources is to lead them -- to make
the news and not merely consume it. The reason the news media are
called "media" is that they "mediate" -- you're not getting
direct
experience, but only what media believe will capture your attention
and/or entertain you. Consider for example the works if this
influential Canadian (almost as influential in my life as Canadians
Sue Gardner and Jay Walsh ;) --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan .
There is a spectrum of what is considered Media. I'm not sure about new
media being mediators but it is indeed a medium, a means of communication,
like the internet or Wikipedia. We are Media too, Mike.
My opinions are my own, based on reputed 3rd party sources, and expert
opinions, kind of like Wikipedia. I chose them, they are of course
conflicting ones out there, but they are as good as any others.
Regards
Theo
P.S. Hi Jorm, whatcha think? ;)