Hi Mike I want to talk for a minute about lobbying in general, aside from the WMF position on it. Because this might be one of those international issues where perceptions might differ based on the culture and nationality of someone. I know my position on this might be naive or flawed, but I know others who feel the same way.
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. Now, I know that it is miles away from what you are talking about, since it is strictly regulated in the US and UK. If not for the public reporting, and rules regulating it, you would see the thin line that others in the Global south see running through it. It is not something that inspires transparency and confidence. 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. On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, you're wrong. > 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. The lead section of the article itself covers the morality and ethics of lobbying quiet well, mentioning the similar stereotype I spoke of earlier, "Lobbying is often spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law". As the article states, it is a form of power struggle, motives range from predation to self-defense. 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? > > > Are those discussions and arrangements > > made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our > > voice heard? > > No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington > government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise > you on how to be effective, but the word "private" is inappropriate > here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's > engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this -- > in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly > increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both > for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I > represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public > Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing > I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of > whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the > public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as > well. > 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. > > > 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'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public. > They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have > noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means > to "lobby" in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine. > > > Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that > far > > off either. > > Hugely far off, actually. > > To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of > police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong > to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it > would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and > routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to > do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film > or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom. > Again this might be one of those things that differ from country to country and perceptions influenced by cultures. To use your analogy, police work, and general law and order, has existed for several centuries, the institutions and the idea of lobbying is relatively new. This is more true for regulated lobbying now in US and UK, than any other place. Some countries still make do with no lobbying all together. If you look at the regulated lobbying section by country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#Lobbying_by_country), even the regulation to govern lobbying came in late 90's. 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. 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. > > If you really think that (for example) the American Library > Association's Office for Information Technology Policy > (http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with > senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment > industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the > ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any > surprise. > 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. > > (I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were > capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.) > > > --Mike > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l