Lobbyist Morgan Reed Answers Your Questions 304
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:
- talking with legislator when he's gardening or fixing the car on a bill;
- lunch or coffee (one on one);
- personal appearance at his office (phoned in ahead, as a constituent);
- personal conversation at a house party or fundraiser (more than 1 minute);
- question at a constituency open house (as advertised in local papers) (usually have 20-40 people);
- handwritten postcard with cool pics on other side;
- handwritten postcard found free in coffee shop or movie house;
- handwritten letter, hand addressed;
- typed letter, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
- typed postcard, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
- fax, hand signed;
- actiongram faxed letter like on EDF or EFF;
- actiongram email, modified from boilerplate in own words;
- actiongram email, boilerplate;
- weird knick-knack gift, like a techie toy we have tons of, wrapped up in a box and sent;
- weird knick-knack gift, connected to issue;
- 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.
What's a "bullet point memo"? (Score:1, Interesting)
wow.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reps need to use Slashcode (Score:5, Interesting)
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! [school-house-rock.com]"
I'd like to see a tech-savvy representative adopt some form of Slashcode [slashcode.com]-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 [txgreens.org] 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.
Money != Influence? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Spoken like a true insider... (Score:4, Interesting)
Other good questions (Score:2, Interesting)
Is the federal government simply too big for its britches?
Re:favorite quote (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Good Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Not this again? (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Other good questions (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Spoken like a true insider... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:favorite quote (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Reps need to use Slashcode (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Corporations can't vote. . . (Score:1, Interesting)
Before 1886, only humans had full First Amendment rights of free speech, including the right to influence legislation and the right to lie when not under oath. Now corporations have claimed that they have the free speech right to influence public opinion and legislation through deceit, and a case based on a multinational corporation asserting this right is poised to go before the Supreme Court as you read these words. That corporation reserves the right to fire and even prosecute human employees who lie to it, however.
Before 1886, only humans had Fourth Amendment rights of privacy. Since then, however, corporations have claimed that EPA and OSHA surprise inspections are violations of their human right of privacy, while at the same time asserting their right to perform surprise inspections of their own employees' bodily fluids, phone conversations, and keystrokes.
Before 1886, only humans had Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy and the right to refuse to speak if they'd committed a crime. Since 1886, corporations have asserted these human rights for themselves: the results range from today's corporate scandals to 60 years of silence about the deadliness of tobacco and asbestos.
Before 1886, and following the Civil War, only humans had Fourteenth Amendment rights to protection from discrimination. Since then, corporations have claimed this human right and used it to stop local communities from passing laws to protect their small, local businesses and keep out predatory retailers or large corporations convicted of crimes elsewhere.
Re:Early prominence (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The problem with the Union government. (Score:2, 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. (Score:3, 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.
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!).
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.
I have to go now. I think it is the ATF at the door.
-Peter
Not ALL have right to vote! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [reclaimdemocracy.org].
The 2000 Election illustrates how 94,000 exluded votes [fringefolk.com] (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 [www.cbc.ca]?
Re:favorite quote (Score:4, Interesting)
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