« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »

July 29, 2005

Closing The Digital Divide, Lance Armstrong Style

Pedal power may soon bring computers to life in electricity-starved villages in India.

HCL Infosystems has designed the prototype of an external gadget that can be charged through pedalling and connects to a personal computer to run it under the most difficult of power situations in the country.

The product is currently under testing at HCL's facility in Pondicherry.

"We have experimented with pedal power wherein a car battery can be attached to a special cycle, and people can bike away to charge the battery. This system, attached to a power management system called RP2, can help run a PC. It is still at an experimental stage. The prototype has been developed, but it will take a couple of months to be tested," HCL Infosystems' Chairman and CEO, Mr Ajai Chowdhry, said here.

While the concept is interesting, the success of the product hinges on crucial issues such as the time taken to charge the battery via pedalling, number of hours that PC can be used thereafter, and the price. An HCL spokesperson said that these details would emerge only after the testing phase was completed.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/07/29/stories/2005072902600100.htm

Posted by Buzz Webster at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 28, 2005

Daily ePolitics Buzz Brief

Hacking in the Headlines: This week, Internet news seemed to be dominated by hacking and other security issues. Here are just today's headlines:
Hacking Becomes Organised Crime
States Fear Cyberspace Invaders
'Pentagon Hacker' Fights Extradition

'Pentagon Hacker' McKinnon Fights Extradition (The Register): A Briton accused of hacking into numerous Pentagon and NASA computers began his fight against extradition today.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/27/mckinnon_extradition_hearing_begins/

Hacking Becomes Organised Crime (ITweb): Web-based hacking is increasingly evolving into a form of organised crime, as hackers target organisations with the aim of blackmail and extorting money. http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2005/0507281102.asp?A=LEG&S=Legal%20View&O=E&CiRestriction=

States Fear Cyberspace Invaders (Stateline): Security breaches are a scary possibility for state governments, which stand to lose far more than a $70 pinch. An identity thief can sneak in and pilfer millions of Social Security numbers. A well-timed virus can be equally devastating, knocking out government computers during a hurricane, or stalling networks during a heated statehouse debate.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=44488

More (good) news:
UF Joins First Few, Podcasts University News (Tallahassee Democrat) The University of Florida, wanting to reach the rapidly growing number of people using MP3 players such as Apple Computer's popular iPod, has begun offering podcasts on the university's news Web site. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/12230945.htm

Mothers Of Deployed Marines Bond Online (MSNBC) They look like any group of real close friends, yapping it up over dinner, or gathering in a barn over the haul from their latest run to Wal-Mart. But they've only been the very closest of friends since they met on a Web site, started by Tracy Della Vecchia from Missouri, called MarineParents.com.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8729098/

Broadband For The Poorest Of The Poor (ITweb) Rolling out broadband using wireless technologies means that it is always economically justifiable, says Daniel Aghion, executive director of The Wireless Internet Institute (W2I). http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2005/0507281103.asp?A=AFN&S=All%20Africa%20News&O=E&CiRestriction=

Posted by Buzz Webster at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 27, 2005

Daily ePolitics Buzz Brief

Today's Headlines:
FCC Chief Pushes For Easing Rules On DSL Broadband
Hillary Clinton, Cyberwarrior
African President Urges Common Agreement On ICT Strategies
FTC Cracks Down On Email Smut Barons

FCC Chief Pushes For Easing Rules On DSL Broadband (Reuters) Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin on Tuesday pushed his colleagues to move quickly to ease regulations on high-speed Internet service offered by U.S. telephone companies.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-07-26T230318Z_01_N26180255_RTRIDST_0_NET-TELECOMS-FCC-BROADBAND-DC.XML

Hillary Clinton, Cyberwarrior (Village Voice) After having her name stolen by "cybersquatters", on July 13 Hillary Clinton finally launched hillaryclinton.com, having wrested it from the notorious Italian Web operator who originally owned it. http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/show_print.php?id=66223&page=lombardi&issue=0530&printcde=MzM2NzQxNjQzMg==&refpage=L25ld3MvaW5kZXgucGhwP2lzc3VlPTA

African President Urges Common Agreement On ICT Strategies (Digital Opportunity) President John Agyekum Kufuor on Monday urged African nations to agree on common Information Communication Technology (ICT) implementation strategies in education.
http://www.digitalopportunity.org/article/view/115982/1/1138

FTC Cracks Down On Email Smut Barons (The Register) The US Federal Trade Commission last week launched a crack down on xxx-rated spam with legal action against seven firms that have allegedly flouted laws requiring warning labels on smutty emails. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/smut_spam_crackdown/

Posted by Buzz Webster at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 26, 2005

Int. Symposium on Local E-Democracy

The International Symposium is a dynamic one day conference exploring leading e-democracy trends around the world. Watch the symposium webcast here or chat and share info here.

This is the world's first international conference focused on local e-democracy. Although it will still be highly relevant to all levels of governance. Plenary panel speakers and small group sessions on the symposium agenda will highlight leading e-democracy activities from all levels of government and society. If you are interested in governance and citizen participation in the information age, this conference is for you. The symposium is sponsored byt the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the UK Local E-democracy National Project.

Posted by Buzz Webster at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 25, 2005

Daily ePolitics Buzz Brief

House And Senate At Odds Over Funding For E-Government Projects: Funding of the Bush administration's electronic government programs for fiscal 2006 hangs in limbo.

Funding of the Bush administration's electronic government programs for fiscal 2006 hangs in limbo, with the House and Senate divided over how much money to allocate.

Senate appropriators appear satisfied with the projects that include efforts to consolidate agencies' payroll systems, travel booking procedures and agency grant giving. The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday unanimously passed the fiscal 2006 Transportation-Treasury bill (H.R. 3058), which fully funds President Bush's request for the electronic government office and places few restrictions on how the funds are used.

But House appropriators are irritated with the Office of Management and Budget's requirement that participating agencies pay for the projects out of their own budgets.

Language in the House version of the spending bill cuts $2 million out of the $5 million request and requires OMB to file a proposed spending report with the committee before the money is spent.

"OMB has gone around the congressional funding process and tried to tap agencies for participation, which is not something that we will tolerate," House Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield said. "If Congress decides to not fund something, you can't go revisit that decision."

Funding for 10 of the 25 OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives is through agreements among agencies, but several agencies have failed to come up with the funds. The projects are run by select agencies and also rely on fee-for-service funding methods.

In a tight budget year, House appropriators are skeptical of the projects' estimated savings. OMB predicts they will save agencies millions of dollars through consolidating routine agency business processes.

"The notion of standardizing these processes, it sounds like a nice thing, but the thing is, agencies have different missions and different structures, and the one-side approach might not be the best idea," Scofield said. "The vaunted millions in savings...we haven't seen any evidence that they'll save any money."

Olga Grkavac, executive vice president of the Information Technology Association of America, said the House actions are disappointing.

"[Congress] says they need more cross-agency programs, but here are some really key programs that are cut drastically where their missions are sharing information and having common platforms," Grkavac said. "We were very discouraged."

The Senate version of the bill includes Bush's $5 million request and requires proposals that the funding meet capital planning guidelines and show sound business plans, attention to security and privacy. Also included in the Senate language is a provision that a "small portion of the money" is to be made available for the top e-gov project management teams.

If the bill is not altered on the Senate floor before the full chamber votes on the measure - a committee spokeswoman said that Senate leaders have signaled that the bill will not come up for a vote before September -- the differences will be worked out in conference committee.

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/072205p1.htm

More news:

Forum To Explore Political Blogosphere (Daily Progress) Some of Virginia’s most active political bloggers are preparing to meet face-to-face, shedding whatever masks they might use on the Internet. http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784024077&path=!news

Amnesty International Launches Grassroots Internet Campaign (Amnesty International) Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) launched today its 700women.org campaign, an innovative web-based initiative to push for congressional reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) -- legislation that has helped millions of domestic violence and sexual assault victims and is due to expire in September. http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=1469F0A41A14CBA6852570460050B3B1

Posted by Buzz Webster at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 22, 2005

Brits Want To Vote Online

Sixty-six percent of British citizens that did not vote in the 2005 election would have been more likely to have voted if online voting was available.

Sixty-six percent of British citizens that did not vote in the 2005 election would have been more likely to have voted if online voting was available, according to YouGov research released by Cisco Systems.

The research confirms the potential impact e-voting will have on citizen involvement in the British democratic process if and when it is introduced. Never mind that the research is sponsored by an IT company - it's a key indicator of a truth which should be taken seriously.

The research undertaken by YouGov on behalf of Cisco Systems said that older non-voters would have been more likely to vote using new technology than younger demographics. The research shows that 74% of non-voters over the age of 50 would have been more likely to have voted if e-voting was made available. This contrasts to 63% of 30-50 year old non-voters, and 65% of 18-29 year old non-voters.

According to Simon Culmer, Director of Operations - Public Sector, Cisco Systems UK, the results of the survey reflect a desire in the community for new ways of interacting with the government, and the political process.

“The role that technology is playing in connecting governments with citizens has never been more important than it will be in the next five to ten years,” he said.

“It is highly encouraging to see such a high level of support for online voting amongst British citizens reflected in this research, and an associated desire to connect with the political process. It is particularly encouraging to see the older demographic viewing online voting as way to increase their involvement in our democratic process,” said Mr Culmer.

Angela Salt, Director of Communication at The Electoral Commission said, “While we don't believe that e-voting would, on its own, solve the problem of lower voter turnout, we do know that voters want a choice of convenient, secure ways to vote. Provided that levels of security and confidence in those methods can be ensured, we are committed to working towards a 21st century democracy where electors choose the method, day and time to vote.”

The research coincides with Cisco Systems launch of Connected Government in the UK, a series of essays by political leaders that discuss the role of technology in opening up access to Governments around the globe. The book features fourteen essays from senior political figures around the world, including Ian Watmore, Head of e-Government, UK.

“Connected Government is designed to encourage and promote understanding of e-government across the world. The book is relevant to each individual nation - supporting debate of e-government issues and providing a platform for sharing best practice and experience. Connected Government will help nations explore the issues involved in developing compelling national e-government strategies and implementing them on a country-wide basis.” Mr Culmer continued.

Scotland topped British regions more likely to use online voting. The research revealed 73 percent of non-voting Scottish respondents would more likely have voted if they could vote online.

Those more likely to vote per region if online voting were available include:
> Scotland ---- 73 percent
> London ---- 68 percent
> North England ---- 67 percent
> South (not including London) ---- 65 percent
> Midlands and Wales ---- 64 percent
Only 20 percent of respondents confirmed they would not have been more likely to vote if they could have voted online, with 14 percent unsure if they would have or not.

The research was commissioned by Cisco Systems and undertaken by YouGov. The research was completed online between 1st - 3rd June 2005 from a nationally representative sample size of 2,136 British 18+ adults. Results were weighted to be representative of the British adult population.

http://publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3314&newlang=eng&topic=1&catid=0

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/20/brits_want_to_vote/

Posted by Buzz Webster at 01:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 21, 2005

Battle of the Blogs-The Supreme Court Nomination

John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination has generated a huge wave of Internet activity.

From large PACs to the average daily blogger, it seems like everyone has something to say—and the Internet is their sounding board of choice.

Even before President Bush announced his choice on Tuesday, blogging sites dedicated to the Supreme Court vacancy had already sprung up all over the Net. Among them are the Washington Post’s “Campaign for the Court”, with comments from other newspapers and excerpts from TV interviews, and American Progress Action Fund’s blog where former clerks and other Supreme Court experts post their insights. Now that the nomination has been announced, the online buzz has escalated to a roar, with activity almost reminiscent of the 2004 election. Besides the blogs, groups like Progress for America and MoveOn.org have set up sites dedicated to either supporting or opposing the nomination. From left-wing to right and everywhere in between, the Internet is filled with the news of John Roberts.

For more:
Internet Bloggers Log On To Weigh In On Roberts
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002390997_courtweb20.html
Clerks: The Blog
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=33651
The Blogs
The Supreme Court Nomination Blog
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/
American Progress Action Fund
http://clerks.thinkprogress.org./
The Washington Post
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/
TPM Café
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/20/115727/658
Related Sites
Progress for America: http://judgeroberts.com
Moveon.org: http://www.moveon.org/

Posted by Buzz Webster at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 19, 2005

FEC-Threat To “Digital” Democracy

A Critical Review of Recent Hearings on “Internet Communications” –

A Federal agency looking for ways to regulate politics on the Internet

The following is an article from contributing editor Peter Bearse:

The FEC recently held two days of hearings on “Internet Communications” to receive testimony and query those testifying on the Commission’s newly proposed rules to regulate certain aspects of political “speech” on the Internet under the statutory authority of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). These propositions were posted in the Federal Register of April 4^th.[1] Written testimony had to be submitted by June 3^rd. 815 responses were received. 21 of those submitting were invited to provide oral testimony in Washington on June 28^th or 29^th, 2005.

The stated reason for the hearings was that they were required by Court order of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia as a result of their decision in the case of Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, Plaintiffs v. FEC, Defendant. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that FEC rules to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act erred in not including the Internet among venues for “public political advertising.”[2]

The rationale for holding the hearings at this time was challenged by one of the Republican commissioners, Vice Chairman Michael Toner, at the outset of the hearings. He both stated and wrote that:

“some…contend that…the Commission has no choice but to regulate online politics in some manner. I do not agree. The Commission is challenging the legal standing of the Shays plaintiffs…If the Commission prevails on appeal, the District Court’s ruling could be vacated and made null and void. Moreover, even if the Shays ruling is upheld, it would apply only in the District of Columbia and would not be a binding decision anywhere else in the United States…. If the Commission decides to regulate online political speech, it should do so only if a majority of Commissioners conclude independently… that the McCain-Feingold law requires the FEC to regulate the Internet.”[3]

The representative of the AFL-CIO at the hearings, Lawrence Gold, testified strongly in

support of Commission Toner’s position, stating that the FEC rulemaking is “voluntary,” proceeding from “overwrought language in the Shays decision.” Nevertheless, the hearings proceeded according to the following schedule.

The even divide of the FEC along party lines, which critics contend makes the body dysfunctional, was quite apparent in the difference in views towards Internet regulation between Democrat and Republican members. The Chairman of the FEC this year is a Democrat who clearly stated the position of himself and his Democratic colleagues among the Commissioners after citing some figures from the FEC database.[4]

v “It is important that we not allow prohibited expenditure of soft money on Federal elections; and (key question)…

v Are we failing to close loopholes via the Internet; for example, allowing an e-mail with a video clip to go out to millions of voters at a cost of over a $100,000?”

FEC Proposed Rules

The FEC NPRM proposed several new rules that would govern political speech over the Internet and asked for comment on many questions of how to approach certain aspects of the concerns that the rules have been designed (or not yet designed) to address, as follows. The Notice contained many more questions than outright proposals – a game of 20 Questions, anyone? The proposals are bulleted; questions on which “The Commission seeks comment” are numbered, not in any priority; rather, placed beneath the proposal to which they most pertain.

v Exempt the Internet from definitions of contributions and expenditures for certain media activity.

Should we regulate Internet political ads that may amount to “in-kind” contributions -- those placed for free or in exchange for something else?

Whether any payments should be regulated for ad content-creation of Internet ads appearing on one’s own website that “promote, attack, support or oppose” (PASO) Federal candidates.

If e-mail lists for are contributed in-kind or acquired via some non-cash transaction, should the political communications enabled by such lists also be regulated.

Can Internet media be viewed as “periodical”(s) via “facilities,” so that “public communications” over the Internet generally qualify for the media exemption under existing statute?

What should be the breadth of coverage of the media exemption for the Internet?

v Regulate “coordinated” communications over the Internet; [5]

Should Internet “public communication” be subject to “coordinated communication” (CC) regulations (such as the “three-pronged, content-prong” tests specified on p.16973 of the Notice)?

Should the Commission exempt from CC rules those political ads that require payments to vendors to create but that are placed on the payor’s own website?[6]

Should the FEC also exempt from CC rule ads that are place on websites of prohibited (corporate, labor) sources for free?

Should the Commission require “Special Segregated Funds and non-connected political committees” to use Federal funds to pay for political communications over the Internet?

10. Should “announcements” placed for a fee also be considered “general public political advertising” subject to regulation?

Would payments to a blogger for political content on his website be essentially similar to “general public political advertising” that should be regulated?

v Possible redefinition of “generic campaign activity” under the Act. This is now defined as public communications that cite a political party without taking any position on the party’s candidates.

Should the FEC continue to define “generic campaign activity” as a “political communication” that is a “general public political advertisement,” or should the definition be changed?

v Modify rules governing disclaimers; that is…

Ø Require them only on paid Internet political advertisements and on…

Ø unsolicited” e-mails sent to more than 500 people through an e-mail list that has been purchased.

Should disclaimers be required on all Internet political communications? On/for what? Are there alternative approaches?

Should we require disclaimers on individuals’ political e-mail communications disseminated using an e-mail list that has been purchased.?

Should we require bloggers to include disclaimers on payments for PASO ads or solicitations for contributions on their websites?

v Exempt certain political volunteer activities (which?) on the Internet from BCRA definitions of “expenditures” and “contributions.”

Should the FEC continue to employ a 500 in number threshold for e-mails sent out, beyond which (>500), regulation would apply?

Should the minimum cost threshold of $250 in existing rules apply, too?

Should the Commission exempt from regulation all dissemination, distribution or republication of campaign materials on the Internet?

v Amend the rules pertaining to use of corporate or labor organization facilities to ensure that they apply to the use of computers, software and other Internet equipment.

Should we exempt paid political ads on corporate or labor sites that are restricted to members?

v Require political committees to identify, account for or estimate (allocate) costs of their Internet activity that should be paid for out of Federal dollars (hard dollars or regulated contributions rather than “soft money”).

How to allocate costs of political ads that PASO Federal candidates on political committees’ own websites (so that the entire cost of websites does not have to paid out of Federal (“hard”) dollars)?

Highlights of Hearings

The previous section not only enables, at a glance, a picture of what the hearings were about (as the FEC Notice does not), it also provides an outline for organizing the testimony and Commissioners’ comments and questions during the hearings – a variety of remarks that are scattered throughout the tapes and transcripts of the proceedings. Thus, let us proceed to review these, proposal by proposal, even though there is some overlap among them and related questions.

v Exempt the Internet from definitions of contributions and expenditures for certain media activity.

The FEC seems to assume that bloggers are easily identifiable targets of any potential

regulation of Internet communications. Thus, it was no surprise that the testimony of five of them garnered a good deal of attention during the hearings.[7] The five? --

Michael Krempasky, RedState.com
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, DailyKos.com
Matt Stoller, BOPnews.com

· Duncan Black, Eschaton (atrios.blogspot.com)

· Kristinn Taylor, FreeRepublic.com

A major issue raised by the FEC in its Notice is the proper scope of the media exemption now enjoyed only by the owners and journalists of the institutional mainstream media (MSM). This means that MSM are exempt from FEC regulation. Krempasky focused his testimony on the question of scope, observing that: (1) media outlets are not easily identified; (2) MSM are not trusted -- even 45% of journalists do not trust their colleagues, a remarkable statistic (source?); and (3) the capacity of the “blogosphere”, including the information and creativity harbored therein, far exceeds the capacity of even the largest, most sophisticated newsroom. He concluded that these features call for the broadest possible exemption.

Reed Cox’ testimony seconded that of Krempasky without any qualification, so that the exemption he favors would be “blanket,” not just “broadest.” He observed: “There is no distinction between the soapbox and a broadcast station” on the Internet, where an individual or a group can establish a press, broadcast station or other medium. “Both speakers and listeners are empowered (so)…the media exemption should protect all,” not just institutional media…The FEC has really done a disservice to those of us who are not members of the institutionalized press by what seems to be a media exemption that only touches the institutionalized press…My Center, for example, is also a media operation…Why are we not (also) exempt?” Regulation gives rise to “extra-ordinary transaction costs in the form of legal fees and legal time” that must be borne to effect First Amendment rights (my emphasis).

Commissioner McDonald, a “good old boy” from the South, asked: “Can anybody claim the media exemption just because they have an opinion?...The issue is where to draw the line.” Court cases have distinguished “reporter” from “non-reporter.” There was a California case over “blogger privilege.” Is there a scenario where the press exemption cannot or should not be claimed? Mr. Bauer provided a wishy-washy non-response to this line of questioning, so Commissioner McDonald continued to press his queries with Mr. Gold: “Are $20 million dollar political ads via an unregulated Internet a realistic prospect? How could the AFL-CIO do that?” Gold’s response: “We could purchase space on others’ sites but this implies that there is (also) an in-kind valuation problem.”

In direct response to urgings throughout the hearings that the Commission provide a much broader or blanket press exemption for Internet communications, Commissioner Mason reminded all in attendance that the FEC must have statutory authority for any regulation. “Our problem is that we must use the tools we have. The tool we have is the statute.” With respect to the scope of the press exemption, the Commission’s authority arises from a statute that sets forth a definable class of entities constituting “media.” “These things must be done through the facilities of a broadcasting station, newspaper or other periodical publication…” The key word is “facilities.” Whether or not “everything” on the Internet qualifies for the exemption, therefore, is contingent on answering the question: “Is there any way that we could justify and say that the Internet itself qualifies as the facility of a periodical publication, such that any news story, editorial or commentary on the Internet would fall within the media exemption? Cox replied: “You get there a long way by referring to periodical publication…Blogs tend to publish regularly….As for the rest…whatever you could do to expand the media exemption as far as it can extend, that would at least give people the clarity that they would not be subject to regulation by the Commission.”

The scope of the media or “press” exemption arose again and again throughout the hearings. The apparent opposition of the Democratic members of the FEC to a blanket exemption for the Internet led Mr. Cox to restate his position, somewhat defensively, saying “Inclusiveness is not a bad thing.” But Mr. Gold was ambivalent. He expressed an apprehension that broadening the exemption implies “widening the number of organizations subject to government approval.” Thus, he advocated broadening but “limit(ing) the broadening.” Cox rejoinder was to state that, without a blanket rule, “there would be a problem” – the likelihood of having to go “case-by-case through the courts.” Gold agreed that the press exemption should allow “smaller” publishers; however, “government approval of who qualifies is a high price of admission.” The challenge, in his view “not insurmountable,” was how to treat Internet facilities as a basis for exemption. Cox replied that the statutory authority could be viewed as enabling individuals or groups of individuals to be covered (exempted) “as long as they are engaging in periodic publication,” which should be interpreted broadly.

Commissioner McDonald asked Mark Jaskulski whether he could imagine someone in the Internet arena not being able to avail himself of the press exemption because he was not a journalist. Mark replied that there is no certification for journalists -- “nothing you have to do” to become one. The Chairman noted that, according to UNESCO, to define journalists is to regulate them, contrary to international law. Commissioner Toner said that he considers himself to be a journalist, one who could contribute to National Review online (unregulated) while the same article on his blog would be regulated. According to Duncan Black, “the press exemption applies to a narrow view of journalists (and) all faults attributed to bloggers are pervasive throughout MSM” (he went on to provide many examples). He is concerned that, without the press exemption, Internet media outlets would face more stringent oversight than media owned by major corporations. Consider the case of Joe Trippi. His personal website probably would not escape FEC scrutiny, in contrast to MSM activities.

Commissioner Smith asked Kristinn Taylor whether the press exemption should cover FreeRepublic. Taylor replied: “Yes, there is regular, independent reporting on the site.” Toner suggested that the Commission should protect websites rather than blogs. Commissioner Weintraub responded: “I don’t want to regulate bloggers.” Commissioner Smith remarked that the press exemption has also been extended to movies and books so, “clearly, there would be some leeway.” He went on to observe how: (1) the existing press exemption “pertains to the rich,” for if you have enough money, you can buy a press; and (2) all sorts of people are using the Internet “press” for political participation. So, he asked: “Why is the latter “not fulfilling the rule”? (statutory authority)? Jaskulski effectively seconded the implication of Smith’s question by urging a “blanket press exemption for bloggers.” He qualified this, however, by observing that “there is no formal set of ethical guidelines or code of conduct for bloggers.” This led Commission Mason to ask: “Does the government need to mandate ethical conduct?” “No way,” Jaskulski replied; “The blogosphere should develop a code.”[8]

The latter indicates an aspect of possible “self-policing” of the Internet as suggested by Matt Stoller in later testimony. Jaskulski’s fellow Panel 5 testifier, Kristinn Taylor of FreeRepublic.com, simply said: “Hands off the Internet!,” -- no hedging; no qualification. Mason replied by saying that press and individual volunteer exemptions combined would protect the FreeRepublic site. Karl Sandstrom’s testimony during the final Panel (#6) reminded fellow Commissioners (he was once one himself) of the “lesson of ACLU v. Reno, which provided extraordinary protection to the Internet.” Nevertheless, he then proceeded to poo-poo the idea of “fitting under the press exemption; (because?) It’s futile to create categories of bloggers.” Commissioner Smith asked: So why not reference Internet facilities as a basis for the exemption? Sandstrom’s reply begged another major question that neither he nor others served to answer: “Broadening the coverage of the exemption implies “problems” with respect to MSM. What problems?

Thus, again, the issue of the media exemption comes down here, as with regard to other key aspects of proposed FEC regulation of Internet political communication, to a question of “Where do you draw the line?” Not only is there a great possibility of arbitrariness in the drawing, as noted earlier, but there is the issue of the cost and feasibility of regulation.

Zuniga emphasized that online Internet technology is very different from that used to produce offline media. The differences have major implications. Unlike MSM, the ‘Web and ‘Net exhibit…

Ø Low barriers to entry into Internet journalism in terms of investment or other financial costs;

Ø No gatekeepers impeding entry, either;

Ø A much more (“purely”) democratic nature;

Ø Daily exhortations by blog and other participants to engage in some political activity -- an observation also made by Krempasky from the other (“red state”) side of the political spectrum (Zuniga characterized himself as a liberal.)

The FEC itself, in paragraph A, p.16970 of its NPRM, notes that “the Internet has

unique characteristics that distinguish it from traditional media” and cites several technological and economic differences. These include that :

· The Internet offers “unlimited, low-cost capacity for communications of all

kinds...,” communications that are less “invasive.”[9]

· “individuals must generally be proactive in order to access information over the Internet…(via) interactive, real-time, two-way communications…in further contrast to the passive, one-way, traditional media…”[10]

Boulet, testifying in Panel 5, provided another slant on these differentials, emphasizing the low cost of Internet communications relative to the high cost of regulating them. This perspective is similar to that of cost-benefit analysis in that it suggests a benefit/cost ratio for judging the efficacy of FEC regulation. Boulet specifically questioned whether focusing on e-mails and the copying, forwarding and republication of campaign materials represented the “best use of regulatory resources.” He claimed that it is not worthwhile to buy e-mail lists; it is better to develop your own. E-mail boxes are far more “private” than “postal.” This implies an element of self-regulation, a feature that the FEC might try to build upon – a view supportive of the “self-policing” possibility suggested in the testimony of Matt Stoller in Panel 2.

As if to claim an Internet exceptionalism that might put it beyond the pale of the Commission, Larry Noble of the CRP, one of the leaders in the push to reform campaign finance law, began by stating that “The Internet is beyond the FEC’s knowledge and scope. New rules, if not carefully constructed, would have a chilling effect on Internet political speech.” But he then went on to express the great fear of the Democratic members of the Commission and of CFR advocates generally – that of “opening up a new loophole” through which big money can “corrupt” political campaigns. Noble continued: “The Internet will attract increasing amounts of big money.” Thus, he concluded his testimony by providing a strong, prima facie case for what others called “prophylactic regulation” – rulemaking grounded in a fear of what might happen rather than evidence of harms actually experienced (emphasis in bold mine).

This fear was underscored by the Chairman’s reference to a report on CNN.com: Jupiter Research projects that expenditures on Internet advertising would rise 27% to $10.7 billion in 2005. Research based on the FEC’s own records show $25 million of ‘Web or Internet use expenditures showing up just on Schedule B. Among 527’s, we came up with $2.2 million of disclosured disbursements. “The biggest spender in this area, Progress for America, shows $900,000 for e-mail list services; over $150,000 for website services, and over $213,000 for Internet banner ads.”

v Regulate “coordinated” communications over the Internet

The money involved in coordinated political communications appears to be the Commission’s focal concern. According to Gold’s testimony, it is exemption of the Internet from rules regarding coordinated communications (CC) that opens the door for abuse. “The Act (BCRA) is about regulating money, not speech.” The Chair than asked whether it would be sufficient for the Commission to reword the CC segment of their regulations to say: “For the purposes of this section, public communications shall include communications over the Internet.” Gold: “Yes… The Commission would not have to do anything else.”

Also recall the motivating (“anxiety-inducing”[11]) fear of the Commission, underscored through a hypothetical example. Here again, Gold’s response went immediately to the point: “The question here is not triggered by use of the Internet. Corporate and labor expenditures are already restricted by law,” adding that a “hypothetical…is not a comfortable platform on which to build a regulatory position.” To which the Chair replied: “But the question is very important (since) the hypothetical is not covered by regulation.”

Gold’s testimony was also important, not only as representing the views of one among the “prohibited” class of organizations (corporations being the other), but as practically the only one among those who testified in person before the FEC to focus on the practicality or feasibility of trying to regulate the Internet, no matter how soundly based in law some regulations might be. He asked: What costs are included in FEC statistics? How are in-kind contributions valued? -- Dollars estimated for the Internet media may be “disproportionate” (relatively low) to their actual value. What expenditures and really relevant here? To what extent should a union or any other organization be subjected to requirements for burdensome allocation, disaggregation and accounting procedures? What are the costs of trying to regulate the Internet, and what are the costs to those regulated? This concern was shared by Jim Boulet in a subsequent panel.

FEC staff Attorney Norton posited the situation of a website for campaign materials established by a wealthy individual for widespread political communication. This “loophole” is also unregulated. It is “coordination,” however, not the other features of such a communication that would trigger FEC action if someone complained about it. The unstated question in this example is: Did the individual coordinate his efforts with a candidate or political committee?

To help answer this question, the FEC has formulated a “three-pronged test for determining whether a communication has been “coordinated”…a communication must:

(1) Be an electioneering communication, as defined in 11 CFR 100.29;

(2) be a public communication that disseminates, distributes or republishes, in whole or in part, campaign materials prepared by a Federal candidate, the candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents;

(3) be a public communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; or

(4) be a public communication that refers to a political party or a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, is publicly distributed or disseminated within 120 days of an election for Federal office, and is directed to voters within the jurisdiction of the clearly identified candidate…”[12]

The problem with this “test” should be immediately evident to anyone: It makes no reference, nor do answers to its questions provide evidence, as to actual “coordination” between anyone who so communicates with others over the Internet and a political committee of a Federal candidate or party supporting such candidate. Application of the “test” simply yields superficial indications that there might, possibly be coordination going on. These indications are far from conclusive evidence. The latter would be hard to come by. If applied, any one “prong” would tend to “chill” political intercourse over the Internet. The test does not allow for the fact that, independently of any “political committee,” individuals and groups of individuals favoring a candidate may be sufficiently inspired to transmit, publish or republish “PASO” or “electioneering” communications and/or “campaign materials” of all sorts.

The FEC Chair seemed to recognize that there is a problem here in that uncoordinated “express advocacy” would be regulated. Potentially, it even would be subject to more regulation in that those exercising their First Amendment rights to political communications over the Internet would need to keep track of the costs of their “express communications.” Thus, we proposed in our rulemaking, reported the Chairman, that the FEC would apply an “individual volunteer activity allowance” to non-coordinated activity as well, so that “one need not be a volunteer for a campaign but working totally independently.” He then asked for comment from panelists. Bauer responded: “I support protection of uncoordinated individual expression.” Remember: The latter does not refer to communications with other individuals but to those with political candidates, their committees or other regulated political committees.

Notwithstanding the likelihood that most Internet political communications are not “coordinated,” the FEC seems determined to regulate paid political ads over the ‘Net. As more than one Commissioner remarked, accenting the “fear” noted earlier: There is a possibility of a large loophole if we omit paid ads, including their production costs, from regulation. The testimony of Trevor Potter, a former Commissioner, on the draft rule regarding this, however, was cautionary:

“The draft rule is unclear…it’s also unclear with regard to own vs. paid costs. (And, here echoing concerns expressed earlier by Gold): We must be clear about how we are accounting for costs….Payments to 3^rd parties move away from individual activities to be sheltered.”

Commissioner Toner then chimed in to reiterate another recurring concern of the hearings: How to handle “in-kind” contributions, expenditures or transactions? For example, what if space is given? Potter reminded the Commission that their regulations already cover in-kind contributions. There are two questions here: (1) whether to count “space” if it is provided only by an incorporated entity, and (2) whether a website is in the business of selling advertising. In-kind contributions are implicated in both cases.

Commissioner Weintraub believes there is a problem with Sandstrom’s recommendation (reported earlier): It may be too specific, so that the Commission may have to revisit the regulation every time a new Internet medium arises.

v Possible redefinition of “generic campaign activity” under the Act.

“Generic campaign activity” (GCA) is now defined by the FEC as “a public communication that promotes or opposes a political party and does not promote or oppose a clearly defined Federal candidate or a non-Federal candidate.” The FEC requested comments on this definition in their notice.[13] The definition is a narrow construction of the original statutory language. BCRA defines “generic campaign activity” to mean “campaign activity that promotes a political party and does not promote a candidate or non-federal candidate” (2 U.S.C. 431(21)).

There are two problems with these definitions. First, it is puzzling that neither of them include “party-building”activities.[14] Most of the latter have come to be treated as “Federal election activity” subject to regulation because they are presumably “connected” to elections that feature candidates for Federal office. “Type 2” of the latter cross references “generic campaign activity” so that this category becomes a sub-category of “Federal election activity.”[15] This categorization is mistaken, as many of the Type 1 and Type 2 activities undertaken by sub-national political party committees have, at the times when they are undertaken, little or no connection to Federal elections. They are primarily localized and oriented to state and local elections. The lack of an appropriate, localized definition or effective focus upon “party building” activity in this definitional morass is, at best, problematic, and at worst, harmful to political parties as many commentators observed when campaign finance reform was being debated, pre-passage of BCRA.

Second, both definitions inappropriately make reference to “non-federal” candidates. This reference implicitly allows the FEC to have some discretionary oversight on state and local electoral political activities that are not properly within the Federal agency’s purview, as over certain “party-building” activities noted above, because of the vague phrase “in connection with.” The definition of “generic campaign activity” is thus unsatisfactory, but the Commission would have to ask Congress to revisit BCRA to obtain any basis for redefinition that could make any substantial difference.

v Modify rules governing disclaimers; that is…

Ø Require them only on paid Internet political advertisements and on…

Ø unsolicited” e-mails sent to more than 500 people through an e-mail list that has been purchased.

The FEC already has a set of rules requiring disclaimers or disclosures if “public communications” contain PASO content or solicit political contributions. Thus, the question of to what extent such rules should be applied to Internet communications was on the table for the hearings, primarily via two major questions: Should disclaimers be required for…

1. paid political advertisements on the Internet; and/or for…

2. content for which bloggers or website owners have been paid?

With regard to the latter, Jaskulski stated that there would have to be a disclaimer on every page of a blog if there had been payments to the blogger. “People would want or need to know.” Boulet, however, “totally disagrees.” So Commissioner Smith asked: “If English First was paid, you wouldn’t need a disclaimer.” Boulet: “No.” Michael Bassik said to focus on paid Internet ads but he also stated that “the consequence of a new rule would be zero. 99% of banner ads already carried disclaimers…No soft money has been spent online. The danger of corruption is hypothetical. The Internet has put political advertising power into the hands of every citizen.”

Another question that arose here as with other aspects of Internet political advertising is that of defining a dollar threshold for regulation. Bassik testified that, yes, there should be a spending threshold and that it should be set at $5,000, “the minimum to run a bannered campaign.” “Disclaimer precedent,” moreover, should be followed to require disclaimers “only when there is room for them” (sometimes there isn’t as, e.g., in the small 95 word limit Google ads).

Karl Sandstrom, a former FEC Commissioner, pointed out that there is a distinction to be made between “advertising” and “sponsorship.” Those familiar with public radio (PBS, PRI) recognize the difference but also sense its subtlety. The increasing number of notices from “business sponsors” of public radio sometimes seem scarcely different from advertisements.

Commissioner Mason questioned Black on the testimony he had provided on the disclosure issue jointly with Zuniga and Stoller, where they had stated: “It should make no difference whether a blogger is compensated for editorial comment or advertising.” What about payments for support rather than ads? Black responded that disclosure requirements should be on party or candidate making payments, not on bloggers when no-one else in the media is required to make such disclosures. But Mason pressed on: “Why shouldn’t a supportive article or commentary require a disclaimer, as being similar to an ad?” Black also pressed on: “There is a question of discrimination…here if the same person were required to disclose on a blog but not on other media where the same or similar message is being presented.” This recalls Commissioner Toner’s very similar observation noted earlier.

Commissioner Mason then proceeded to point out that the proposed rules posited some discrimination, anyway. Any public communication put out by a political committee via a non-Internet medium should have a disclaimer, but if it is put out over the Internet, a disclaimer is only required if it is a paid political ad on someone else’s site. For non-political committees, disclaimers are required only for unsolicited e-mails containing express advocacy messages or political fund-raising solicitations to over 500 recipients using purchased e-mail lists. “Is there an alternative basis for disclaimers?”

Sandstrom responded that the disclaimer should be on a site controlled by the candidate issuing the ad. “Regulation of the blogger is useless – no advance in public policy… Exempt the blogger from the definition of political committee.” Commissioner Mason then noted that the “500 criterion” for e-mail was taken over from the direct mail context and so it is “too little” in the Internet context. The required disclaimer should be based on exceeding a spending threshold, not on exceeding a number of e-mails sent.

Bearse testified that “general public political advertising” on an Internet website or blog should be required to carry a disclaimer or disclosure if there is any source (“disbursement”) involved other than the website’s or blog’s own author, or some monetary or other transactional (“expenditure”) basis upon which political advertising has been provided. The issues involved here are less those of campaign finance regulation than of intellectual honesty, journalistic integrity and accountability in the “marketplace of ideas” that the political arena is supposed to represent.

v Exempt certain political volunteer activities (which?) on the Internet from BCRA definitions of “expenditures” and “contributions.”

Karl Sandstrom recommended that regulations should be written to exempt postings on websites and e-mails from the FEC definitions of contributions and expenditures. This might leave a loophole but one unlikely to generate much if any “corruption.”

Bassick reiterated the position of himself and others that one “shouldn’t require individuals online to follow FEC regulations.” But then the recurring question of applicable thresholds for regulation arose again. If the Commission were to regulate only expenditures and contributions above a certain monetary threshold, what should it be? – the long-standing individual threshold of $200? Bassick said “No; that’s quite a bit low. $5,000 would be realistic.” Others came to suggest or agree to this figure, too, so it is likely to be the one that the Commission will use.

v Amend the rules pertaining to use of corporate or labor organization facilities to ensure that they apply to the use of computers, software and other Internet equipment.

Atty. Gold testified that an additional rule with regard to corporate or labor organization use would be “gratuitous and unnecessary” In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Bauer noted that time constraints for use of corporate or labor Internet facilities are arbitrary.

Gold’s testimony as to the difficulty of such allocation or accounting procedures was most telling. As an economist, Bearse suggested using the “marginal” (extra, incremental or additional) costs of preparing and sending “PASO” political communications via political committees Internet systems.

Conclusion: The Danger Redux

Regulatory agencies have an incentive to regulate. It is often staff attorneys that lead the way, to a degree that causes cynics to refer to many new laws as “lawyers full-employment acts.” Questions and remarks of the FEC General Counsel (GC) are indicative in this regard, and worrisome to those concerned about the possibility (“danger”) of Commission overreaching in its response to the Shays Court.

GC Norton asked a question of Sandstrom that suggests broadening the scope of Internet regulation even before waiting for the answer:

“Does the proposed rule (regarding paid ads) leave major problems untouched? (for) Political party committees are spending increasing amounts of money to reach voters via the Internet, including purchases of e-mail addresses, websites, and solicitation of contributions. These activities should be governed by election laws.”

Sandstrom’s response is pertinent, especially coming from a former Commissioner:

“I don’t understand how the sponsors (of the BCRA) and the FEC have come to the position they’ve come to. State and local party committees can no more spend millions of dollars of soft money on the Internet than they can on TV.”

Then the GC turned to Mssrs. Bassick and Black, asking:

“Are all of these arguments (including lack of any record of abuse from the last election and changing technology)… for not taking on any issues other than what we must tackle in light of the Shays’ decision?”

The two responses were nearly opposite. Bassick, consistent with his earlier testimony, said: “Don’t go too far.” Black stated that a narrow focus “leaves a whole nest of areas out there…perhaps for a future date.” Which of these views do you, the reader, suspect might be more influential?

Additional interactions between the GC and FEC staff and Panel 6 brought forth important contrasts between the “money” and “value” considerations in FEC’s CFR regulation. Recall that the Commission has the authority to impute money values to “in-kind” contributions and other political transactions where there is no, or no acceptable, financial accounting. The drift towards money values as paramount is troubling in light of First Amendment and other democratic “values” that came to occupy more of the background than the foreground of the hearings by their conclusion. The interchange with Sandstrom was indicative:

FEC Staff Director: “How would the proposed rules affect OMB Watch?”

GC: No value; for example, no dollar cost for developing content?

Sandstrom: “Content has extreme value because it informs the public, but you shouldn’t try to put a dollar value on that…What’s important is the battle of ideas, not dollar value.”

GC: “What if you had production costs? Where would you put that?

Sandstrom: “I don’t need to put it anywhere, under my proposal…because production costs would be valued at zero, too.

GC: “I am trying to imagine a situation where you would have any expenditures to report.”

Sandstrom: “For most bloggers, there would be no expenditures.”

GC: Which bloggers or websites would have (regulatable) expenditures?

Sandstrom: “None.”

Bearse’s written testimony and response to Commissioners questions pointed out that FEC rulemaking ignores the primary “value” consideration from the standpoint of individuals’ political participation – the value of their time. The FEC has followed BCRA, an Act that is supposed to reduce the dominance of money in politics, in paying attention only to money and none to the value of political volunteers’ time. This exclusive focus is also apparent in the far greater attention paid to political advertising than volunteers’ activities.

To further highlight what is at stake, this review turns the readers’ attention back to “individuals.” This final focus not only helps to underline the dangers of FEC rulemaking on Internet political communications but also to point out what the FEC hearings did not do.

The Commission seemingly “protesteth too much” with regard to protecting “individual” political participation, volunteerism and communication over the Internet. The FEC General Counsel (GC) asked a key question that no one attempted to answer during the hearings: “When does an individual carry his individual identity into associations?” This question underlines the danger of the Commission’s first substantial foray into regulation of political speech over the Internet. The GC’s question translates into another that he raised (and the fact that the GC raised it helps to underline the danger): “Where does one draw the line in the definition of a “political committee?” One of the Commissioners remarked that “If any group to elect a candidate is similar to a political committee, why are their political communications not an expenditure and the group not regulated as a political committee.” Bauer remarked that CFR devalues group associations and the right of assembly. “These should be protected.”

In this context, the “individual” is almost apocryphal; he or she so quickly and readily becomes associated with some Internet grouping. Robert Bauer remarked that the FEC seemed to reflect a “narrow view of individual interest…Individuals have an interest in unimpeded public space where they are able to connect with politics in a full and diverse form.” He wondered whether the Commission could divide Internet space into unregulated/regulated. Individuals have an interest in the former, too.

As Michael Krempasky, blogger at www.RedState.com remarked: “The success of the Internet lies in aggregating human beings for a purpose…the power of millions of voices via the Internet overwhelms even large amounts of money.” If the FEC cannot resist the temptation to view Internet groupings as political committees, then the ‘Net as a site of open, free, unconstrained politics is dead. Thus, it is amazing to this reviewer that there was hardly any attempt to address the challenge put by the FEC’s GC. There was no proposal to modify the definition of “political committee” among the Commission’s proposals. Arguably, this definitional issue is far more important than the proposed regulations that the hearing did discuss; i.e., the item not covered is more important than all that was. It represents an elephant in the kitchen of the FEC’s proposed regulation of the Internet.

As Staff Counsel representing the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), John Morris read a summary statement of his organization’s testimony. CDT’s concern is that:

“in trying to extend to the Internet rules that apply in the offline world, the rules threaten to chill the remarkable explosion of online citizen political participation in the political process.”

Thus the central issue in FEC rulemaking on Internet communications, Morris emphasized, is that the political speech of individuals not be impeded; that is, “not be burdened by campaign finance laws” [even though strong arguments have been made by many others that First Amendment rights have already been violated by CFR,[1] so why should CFR treatment of political speech over the Internet be any different?] CDT strongly recommends and offers “(1) A set of “principles” to guide FEC rulemaking on Internet communications and (2) a number of approaches to creating a clear and simple exclusion for individuals’ online speech.” The first, most basic guideline is that any new rules should “only apply to candidates, political parties and other core targets of the law.” The second is that the Commission should “create a significant monetary threshold below which individuals’ online activities are wholly exempt from regulation.” [Final question to you readers: Does this mean that First Amendment rights can be qualified by money?]

[1] As in the case of Sen. McConnell, et al. vs. BCRA. See the case of Buckley v. Valeo and the history of testimony on McCain-Feingold for much more. Both cases were heard and decided by the Supreme Court.

Posted by Buzz Webster at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 18, 2005

Using Blogs To Teach Political Consultants

Phil Tajitsu Nash, CEO of CampaignAdvantage.com, filled us in on how GWU is educating the next generation of Campaign gurus:

Campaign Advantage President Emi Ireland has been teaching "Politics and the New Media"
at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) this
summer, and the way she has been doing it could be a sign of the future for political
consultant training.

If you look at http://presscontrolshift.blogspot.com/ you will see that she has created a class blog, which not only contains her class-related comments to the students, but also contains her own political commentary as well. If you look on the right hand column, you will see the class syllabus, reading schedule, and links to the material she covered in her class lectures.
http://www.emilienneireland.com/blackboard/index.html
http://www.emilienneireland.com/blackboard/schedule.html

The readings list provides links to the most recent articles on Internet campaigning, and
can be used as a refresher course by any political consultant. Even the videos and other
materials she references will be of interest to politicians and consultants seeking to
incorporate the Internet into their campaign strategies.

While some of these features can be found in courses taught by Politics Online and other
leading Internet consultants, one feature that sets this website apart is the blogroll found in the right hand column. Each of the 35 students in the class was required to create a blog, and blog daily for the first five weeks of class and four days a week for the last five weeks.

Aside from posting on their own blogs daily, they also had to post daily on a classmate's
blog and post weekly on a mainstream blog.

Note the left, right, and non-partisan blogs listed at http://www.emilienneireland.com/blackboard/info-register.html

Students reported that the blog transformed their lives, making even the most luddite
a Netizen. They were proud of their online identities, and the quality of the work they
produced was higher than most papers that are handed in, graded, and thrown away
in the typical university course. In fact, the quality was so good that the only other
required work product will be an Online Campaign Strategic Plan.
http://www.emilienneireland.com/blackboard/info-plan.html

It was time-consuming getting all students online, and Emi had to produce a separate
tech blog to help them with technical questions at http://askemi.blogspot.com , but the net result is a class of bloggers who have a first-hand knowledge of the strengths and
limits of online campaigning.

More details will be in the third edition of "Winning Campaigns online."

Posted by Buzz Webster at 09:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 15, 2005

Call To Oust Rove Hits The Net

As the controversy over Bush advisor Karl Rove heats up, activists have gone online to vent their opinions and rally supporters to action.

Several websites have emerged urging Rove's removal, including www.Rovespinkslip.com where users can write personalized "pink slips" to Rove. So far over 15,000 slips had already been filled out.

Howard Dean, veteran of internet outreach, discussed Rove in a conversation with bloggers and journalists Wednesday evening. The call, hosted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, marked a new strategy by the Committee to increase outreach to online media. In the blogosphere, the debate over Rove has received attention from both the left and the right on sites like RedState.org and The Daily Kos.

Users have been responding to posts about Rove in huge numbers, and the attention seems to have taken a toll on the Bush administration. A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this month showed decreasing faith in the president's personal credibility. The percentage of Americans who believe Bush is ``honest and straightforward'' fell to 41 percent from 50 percent in January.

Call To Oust Rove Spawns Web site

In Call With Bloggers, Online Media, Dean Raises Rove, Ethics

Karl Rove, The New York Times, And The Fifth "Why"

Poll Suggests Drop In Bush's Personal Credibility

Posted by Buzz Webster at 01:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 14, 2005

Daily ePolitics Buzz Brief

Internet Bets Support Gonzalez In Vacant Supreme Court Seat

National:

E-voting: Paper Trail Versus Transparency (News Forge)

In the heat of major political campaigns and elections, we hear a lot about electronic voting and the fight over their accuracy and trustworthiness. (July 14, 2005)

Convio's Newest Guide Helps Nonprofits Establish Ecommerce Programs that Generate Revenue and Build Strong Constituent Relationships (Business Wire)

The leading provider of software and services to help nonprofits use the Internet for building strong constituent relationships and driving support--today announced the availability of its new, downloadable guide to help nonprofit organizations engage in ecommerce to not only generate revenue for their organizations but also convert shoppers to donors, advocates, volunteers and more. (July 13, 2005)

Internet Bets Support Gonzalez In Vacant Supreme Court Seat (All Headline News)

Internet betting sites suggest that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, will be confirmed as the next justice for the U.S. Supreme Court. (July 13, 2005)

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Unveils The New GOP.com (U.S. Newswire)

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Ken Mehlman today unveiled the new flagship Web site for the Republican Party, http://www.GOP.com. (July 13, 2005)

International:

In China, Sophisticated Filters Keep the Internet Near Sterile (Kansas.com)

To get an inkling of how China controls and sanitizes the Internet experience, it helps to step into any Internet cafe in Shanghai. (July 14, 2005)

Posted by Buzz Webster at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

New Websites Launch

It probably wasn't a coincidence that Hillary Clinton and the RNC relaunched their websites on the exact same day.

They're both impressive - Check them out now:

Hillary Clinton: www.hillaryclinton.com

Republican National Committee: www.GOP.com

Also see:

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Unveils The New GOP.com (U.S. Newswire) Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Ken Mehlman today unveiled the new flagship Web site for the Republican Party, http://www.GOP.com. (July 13, 2005)
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50301

Gearing Up for Re-Election, Sen. Clinton Revamps Web Sites (NewsDay) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has revamped the Web site for her re-election campaign to appeal more directly to the hordes of politically active Internet-surfing voters. (July 12, 2005)
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-websites0712jul12,0,2494025,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

Posted by Buzz Webster at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 12, 2005

Daily ePolitics Buzz Brief

E-voting machines are back in the news as campaigns begin ramping up for November elections.

National

On Capitol Hill, The Inboxes Are Overflowing (Washington Post)
According to a new study, electronic messages to the House of Representatives doubled to 99 million from 2000 to 2004. In the Senate, the number of e-mails more than tripled to 83 million during the same period. (July 12, 2005)
ITAA Calls On Senate To Uphold E-Government (ITAA)
The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) today called on Senate lawmakers to restore e-government funding to several major appropriations bills moving through Congress. (July 12, 2005)
FEC Hears Bloggers' Bid To Share Media Exemption (Washingtonpost.com)
They go to the political conventions. They cover the White House. Now, some bloggers want the same special protections from campaign finance laws that the mainstream media enjoy. (July 12, 2005)
Utah Lawmakers Bloggin With Voters (Casper Star Tribune)
Utah lawmakers are using Internet blogs to talk daily with voters about everything from Scout camp and birthdays to state and federal laws. (July 12, 2005)
In Praise Of E-Voting Machines (Pacific Research)
Last week, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform held hearings in Houston to discuss fixing the nation's voting system. New technologies help make most businesses more effective and efficient, so it only makes sense to upgrade America's ballot box as well. (July 12, 2005)

International

Roh Adopts E-Mail Politics (Korea Times)
President Roh Moo-hyun’s ``e-mail politics’’ was the main talk of the town last week as he sent several letters to the people through the Internet. While the contents of the letters invited both applause and criticism, the e-mail form itself triggered a controversy. (July 12, 2005)
A Blogger's Take on Politics (Australian Broadcasting Company)
Michael Bowers talks pictures with blogger Paul Batey about his website 'The Daily Flute'. (July 10, 2005)

Posted by Buzz Webster at 05:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Journal Of E-Government Publishes Issues Two And Three

We are pleased to announce that the Journal of E-Government (JEG) has published issues two and three.

JEG is officially affiliated with the Information Technology and Politics (ITP) section of the American Political Science Association (APSA) and examines how governments and citizens around the world are utilizing information and communications technology to connect. Don't miss an issue! Now is the time to subscribe or get involved by submitting a paper.

Visit the Journal’s website for details: http://www.egovjournal.com/

Posted by Buzz Webster at 09:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 11, 2005

Commentary Today

New website captures spin the from right and left

Politically speaking, do you lean right or left? Regardless, it's handy to know what the other side is thinking.

You can spend hours hunting down political editorials on the net. Well, Commentary Today is an excellent solution to the problem. It provides links to an astonishing roster of political columnists.

The site's organization is simple. Liberals are in the left column. Conservatives are on the right side. Click on the headline names to read the columns. Notations tell you if the column was posted in the past few days.

Not many people can read about politics without putting in their own two cents. You can do that, too. There are links to forums where you can rant or rave! (Hat Tip Contributing Editor Bob Pyke)

TO VISIT THIS SITE, GO HERE:
www.commentarytoday.com

Posted by Buzz Webster at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 09, 2005

Bomb Blast Heard Across Internet

Our Deepest Sympathy Goes Out To All Those In London

Thursday's terror attacks on the London mass transit system were not only a sucker-punch to a city which was jumping with Olympic joy 12 hours ago and another stain brought upon the world by radical terrorists, but also an interesting study of the spreading of news via blogs, cellular phone cameras, and other mobile devices used by many during the morning commute bombing.

Unlike previous world shaking events, today's London Bombing was interestingly enough one of the first examples of world news instantly documented by groups of mobile, unassuming and unintentional journalists. With the world wired together by wireless mobility, the BBC and CNN's of the global media received first account footage of the events from cell phones, hand held mobile PC's, and digital cameras. One example of such was the BBC coverage of the bombing aftermath with on-screen phone numbers and contact information for those within the Underground and bus bombing areas to send their photos, emails and text messages.