geni writes: geni, as you may know, I spent more than a decade in Washington working on public-policy issues for non-profits (including EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Public Knowledge). One of the principal lessons of that experience was that public-interest participation in policymaking debates added a lot of value precisely because opponents couldn't write off a charity as simply being interested in expanding its market or profits. And the synergies between corporate lobbying and public-interest policy initiatives -- on the occasions when their interests do line up -- have a greater political impact than either faction can have working alone. If you've spent time on Capitol Hill, or meeting with bureaucrats at federal agencies, you already know that a standard tactic of your opponents is to marginalize you. So if you're Google, the rap on you is that you're a quasi-monopoly spending Washington dollars to maintain your position as a market leader. And if you're ACLU or EFF, you're dismissed as arguing fringe issues that don't represent the mainstream of American political thought. But when Google (or Microsoft or Intel) come to policymakers and say the same things that the nonprofit groups (EFF or ACLU or -- someday, perhaps -- WMF) are telling them, it gets much, much harder for the opposition to dismiss the message. (The content companies already know this -- that's why they took such pains to sign up a bunch of nonprofits as supporters of SOPA and PIPA, even though many of the latter bailed when they realized MPAA was perhaps not the best guide on these issues.) None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying dollars that Google spends -- even if that were possible (and of course it isn't remotely possible). The money WMF spends on something like this is microscopic compared to that of for-profit corporation, and pretty small even compared to other nonprofits. Nevertheless, a nonprofit showing up and making its voice heard -- especially when its arguments dovetail with those of much larger players like Google -- counts for a lot. It can't be easily dismissed. It makes most policymakers think twice. At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed] here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified as "original research." But don't take my word for it -- talk to other NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here. --Mike Godwin