[Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

[Theo10011]

Mike, I noticed you have been equating "getting our voice heard" with
general lobbying. I am curious, mostly because I don't know what it
entails.

Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in
private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the
process, usually a pretty hefty sum. Are those discussions and arrangements
made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our
voice heard?

You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated
with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct
and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be.

You may have heard the other stereotype about lobbying, that people who
actually propose and support legislation like SOPA and PIPA are backed by
lobbyist on behalf RIAA, MPAA and other large publishers, who have very
deep pockets. It is not an uncommon assumption that the majority of the
lobbying industry backs the other side on the issue, since it is about
money and employing a lobbying firm's services is only a matter of how much
money someone is willing to spend on it. I considered lobbyists as a tool
for the wealthy to get their say, who can't state their opposing positions
openly. Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't
that far off either.

Regards
Theo

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
> > from. But you made a conflicting point yourself....
>
> <text omitted>
>
> > But as I saw it, we already
> > made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for 24 hours, and saw
> > some measurable impact in the standing within congress, not to mention
> the
> > coverage and support in the media.
>
> Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that
> the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with
> technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that
> we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for
> complacency.
>
> >It
> > might not be a worthwhile use of the money, considering all the millions
> > floating around on lobbyists between for-profit corporations, this might
> be
> > more than what we should take on at the time?
>
> I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we
> strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an
> encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a
> political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for
> some time.)
>
> > Lobbying generally  sounds of
> > closed door dealings, and large amounts of money spent on convincing
> > politicians, in this case, convincing them to do the right thing.
>
> That's certainly a common stereotype. In practice, however, and under
> American law, those meetings get reported and publicized, and
> nonprofit organizations that meet with policymakers are held strictly
> accountable for what they do. And, it must be stressed, they can't
> spend "large amounts of money" on "convincing politicians." We have
> laws about that here.
>
> >When a
> > non-profit engages in it publicly, one that prides itself on being small
> and
> > independent, it affects my perception of it. It might just be me, but I
> > would rather see public statements, and actions like the blackout over
> > lobbying any day.
>
> This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be
> heard, if you know what you're doing.
>
>
> --Mike
>