Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
--
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble. I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble. I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
It's perfectly allowed, and we're allowed to take positions on specific bills - it is just that lobbying cannot be a 'substantial part' of the WMF's activities unless it switches its charity type. (Googling around, I was reading http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicp97.pdf )
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct lobbying" of related issues. Basically that means they can say "this is good and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual. They can educate on that person - "so and so wants to do this" - but they can't then so "so vote for ABC instead" or anything along those lines. It can get a little trick if an org speaks on an issue that is in no way connected to their mission - but SOPA/PIPA and just about any technology related legislation falls within WMF's mission.
Essentially on SOPA/PIPA - this is absolutely within US law and it seems incredibly unlikely given WMF's budget that any of these expenses would ever come close to 20%. :)
-greg aka varnent
On Jan 22, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble. I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
It's perfectly allowed, and we're allowed to take positions on specific bills - it is just that lobbying cannot be a 'substantial part' of the WMF's activities unless it switches its charity type. (Googling around, I was reading http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicp97.pdf )
-- gwern http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct lobbying" of related issues. Basically that means they can say "this is good and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual. They can educate on that person - "so and so wants to do this" - but they can't then so "so vote for ABC instead" or anything along those lines. It can get a little trick if an org speaks on an issue that is in no way connected to their mission - but SOPA/PIPA and just about any technology related legislation falls within WMF's mission.
Geoff, the WMF General Counsel, was advising everyone involved in the media work surrounding the blackout to be even more careful than that and stay well clear of mentioning any individual politicians to avoid any possibility of trouble.
Given the overabundance of caution that was shown during the whole thing, I don't think we need to worry.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct lobbying" of related issues.
20% of the first $500,000, 15% of the next $500,000, 10% of the next $500,000, and 5% of the rest, with a cap of $1 million.
The limit for "grassroots lobbying", such as the blackout, is 25% of that.
And this is all only if they make an election under 501(h).
Basically that means they can say "this is good and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual.
This is grassroots lobbying, not direct lobbying.
Pursuant to requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax related matter.
On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble. I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
It's perfectly allowed, and we're allowed to take positions on specific bills - it is just that lobbying cannot be a 'substantial part' of the WMF's activities unless it switches its charity type. (Googling around, I was reading http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicp97.pdf )
What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes the foundation think our can?
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
pb
On Sun Jan 22 12:48:50 2012, geni wrote:
On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble. I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
It's perfectly allowed, and we're allowed to take positions on specific bills - it is just that lobbying cannot be a 'substantial part' of the WMF's activities unless it switches its charity type. (Googling around, I was reading http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicp97.pdf )
What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes the foundation think our can?
Actually, they're pretty similar. Don't forget that Google and Sergey Brin's foundation are major income sources.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
pb
On Sun Jan 22 12:48:50 2012, geni wrote:
On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble. I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
It's perfectly allowed, and we're allowed to take positions on specific bills - it is just that lobbying cannot be a 'substantial part' of the WMF's activities unless it switches its charity type. (Googling around, I was reading
http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202
What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes the foundation think our can?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
Yes.
Why won't their interest align on the same side as everyone else ? The issue is just SOPA and PIPA, and there are two sides. Google has taken its stand publicly along with WMF and everyone else. What other interests can they have?
Regards Theo
Google (and facebook and twitter etc) are large corporate organizations with profits heavily on their mind (by law, they are responsible to their shareholders). While they clearly have good reasons to be opposed to SOPA and PIPA there reasons are not exactly the same as ours and in my opinion we would be hurting ourselves to rely solely on them for any kind of advocacy work we do ( work that is clearly spelled out in the strategy guide as important for issues like SOPA). A corporate group is going to try and get the best outcome for their shareholders and their company and that outcome is NOT necessarily the best outcome for us (for example exemptions for themselves but not websites like Wikipedia).
An example is actually mentioned in the article (The OPEN act). The OPEN act is highly divisive, we don't know if we'll support it or not yet (or just 'not oppose' it) and we can't rely on google and others to align with what we we're thinking.
James
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
Yes.
Why won't their interest align on the same side as everyone else ? The issue is just SOPA and PIPA, and there are two sides. Google has taken its stand publicly along with WMF and everyone else. What other interests can they have?
Regards Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not least our public life-blood comes from the perception we're independent, non-profit motivated, charitable, public welfare motivated, grass-roots - not a "Silicon Valley giant". We have spent years explaining we have just 75 staff and volunteer writers. We seek small donations to be aligned to the public and avoid pressure (even if we wouldn't succumb). That's our support. It means although we have some shared wishes and broad alignments of interest, we must be very careful to think "outside the box" somewhat on these issues. It's what we've done the last 11 years.
FT2
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
Google (and facebook and twitter etc) are large corporate organizations with profits heavily on their mind (by law, they are responsible to their shareholders). While they clearly have good reasons to be opposed to SOPA and PIPA there reasons are not exactly the same as ours and in my opinion we would be hurting ourselves to rely solely on them for any kind of advocacy work we do ( work that is clearly spelled out in the strategy guide as important for issues like SOPA). A corporate group is going to try and get the best outcome for their shareholders and their company and that outcome is NOT necessarily the best outcome for us (for example exemptions for themselves but not websites like Wikipedia).
An example is actually mentioned in the article (The OPEN act). The OPEN act is highly divisive, we don't know if we'll support it or not yet (or just 'not oppose' it) and we can't rely on google and others to align with what we we're thinking.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
I suggest they not aim primarily against SOPA and PIPA. I think most of the Internet is pretty shoulder against shoulder on those. What can split ranks is OPEN. And that is a really pernicious danger, because it isn't so ham-handedly phrased. I mean if things go really badly, and OPEN is completely ignored, it isn't hyperbole to say it could totally destroy what Wikimedia is about. Can somebody pass this on to people who work on these issues.
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki? Upshot: the Wikimedia Foundation engaged a DC firm, Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, to help us better understand SOPA/PIPA. They are the folks who've been advising us over the past month or so, helping us figure out how big a threat SOPA/PIPA are, where they came from, what stage they were at, how likely they were to pass, what kind of response the blackout was getting, and so forth.
When Geoff or anybody from the Foundation was opining on-list or on-wiki about SOPA/PIPA, it was with the benefit of the expertise of the DC firm.
It remains to be determined how or whether we will continue using that firm (or any other similar firm). We don't have any intention of doing anything secretive or underhanded.
There is probably more information on enWP's SOPA-related pages.
Thanks, Sue
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki? Upshot: the Wikimedia Foundation engaged a DC firm, Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, to help us better understand SOPA/PIPA. They are the folks who've been advising us over the past month or so, helping us figure out how big a threat SOPA/PIPA are, where they came from, what stage they were at, how likely they were to pass, what kind of response the blackout was getting, and so forth.
When Geoff or anybody from the Foundation was opining on-list or on-wiki about SOPA/PIPA, it was with the benefit of the expertise of the DC firm.
It remains to be determined how or whether we will continue using that firm (or any other similar firm). We don't have any intention of doing anything secretive or underhanded.
There is probably more information on enWP's SOPA-related pages.
Ah. Thanks Sue for the clarification.
I indeed missed that on en.wp, maybe communicating that they were employed for consultation during the blackout might help, internally or even externally?
This is the first I heard about the extent of their involvement, it would be great if this could be communicated better.
Regards Theo
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki? Upshot: the Wikimedia Foundation engaged a DC firm, Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, to help us better understand SOPA/PIPA. They are the folks who've been advising us over the past month or so, helping us figure out how big a threat SOPA/PIPA are, where they came from, what stage they were at, how likely they were to pass, what kind of response the blackout was getting, and so forth.
When Geoff or anybody from the Foundation was opining on-list or on-wiki about SOPA/PIPA, it was with the benefit of the expertise of the DC firm.
Oops. Okay, that explains the notes on how somebody thought the anti-forking provisions in that bill were to the favor of the WMF-ethos.
You shouldn't blame them for that though. This is a pretty special operation. Not easy to understand that we *WANT* wikimedia to be forkable, just for our own protection...
It remains to be determined how or whether we will continue using that firm (or any other similar firm). We don't have any intention of doing anything secretive or underhanded.
I don't think you need to be discouraged from employing such firms, but you have to understand the information they provide, should be tightly proscribed to providing effective means for the foundation to fulfill its mission, rather than help us steer our mission so that we as a movement can be more "effective" in some political game.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki?
I havent seen it mentioned on the mailing lists, and I dont recall reading it in the IRC office hours.
I didnt see all of the discussion on enwiki. Does someone have a link to the enwiki discussion about engaging a lobby firm?
The first mention I saw was on Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&dif...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org