And So We Beat On, Boats Against the Current

The conclusion of The Anarchist in the Library gets straight to the heart of tectonic political and cultural shifts occurring around us. Sometimes, without a true frame of reference, we tend to idle along as if nothing is changing. This is the danger of old ideas and paradigms applied to the new problems and uncharted demands being placed on our comfortable political systems. Vaidhyanathan calls for boosting cultural democracy and civic republicanism in order to recast the framework for the 21st century.

There are examples of thriving cultural democracy. Look at the next generation of tape traders whose communities share and promote the live recordings of their favorite bands, with permission from the bands. Enabled by digital networks, these communities build and feed one another, and display all the qualities of a thriving cultural democracy. They have used these communities to be commercially successful as well, so it can work.

The effectiveness of civic republicanism, though, is being eroded. Lack of engagement, lack of community identities, lack of personal responsibility, and the manipulation of public trust for personal gain cripples the longstanding ability of civic republicanism to effectively function as a societal framework. In this respect Vaidhyanathan is right. Without reversing this erosion, our society is at risk from both the freeloaders (and nefarious, violent exploitation) and from knee-jerk reactions from the State.

In many ways we get lost chasing our tail. All too often we are unable to confront complex problems with the canned solutions that sometimes seem to be the only options forwarded by a Government held captive by the quick fix. This captivity is even more dangerous with a disengaged citizenry. Many of the most powerful tools that we can employ to combat 21st century problems are locked away by law and regulations that today serve only narrow interests. Many laws and regulations governing information have served a valuable public purpose, but most are anachronistic. We do need to look at all of these delicate balances through new eyes.

Ready to Go "Over the Top"

Clearly the confluence of broadband technology and independent 527 political organizations has created a perfect storm of sorts for video on the internet. This spot has touched upon our class discussion, which identified online video as the next big thing for political campaigns. The same dynamics that led to that conclusion for official campaign organizations also apply to independently produced videos.

Looking at IPDI's report on online political videos in the full context of internet viewership, official campaign organizations risk being completely subsumed by the wave of videos produced by independent groups. There are a couple of key reasons why.

First, according to IPDI, 69% of online activists meet the criteria as "influentials". That means those who seek and provide the distribution function for online videos are disproportionately influential. Big deal, right? Well, it turns out that influentials are also "less likely than the norm to describe themselves as middle of the road" ideologically. What better way to please the "very conservative" or "very liberal" than to produce a video eviscerating a candidate or cause dear to the opposition. In short, play to the audience with the power to make your site visits soar.

Second, we can call to mind some of Sunstein's analysis of social psychology findings that support the idea of group polarization and describe an insularly nature inherent to online activism that embraces more extreme political views. Now, if Sunstein is correct, it will be very difficult for official campaign organizations to capture the hearts of online activists the way an unaccountable 527 can. After all, official campaigns can't typically afford to completely alienate or offend mainstream Americans.

It All Seems So Ridiculous

It's always a bad sign for freedom when a country has a Ministry of Information. In China it is the Ministry of Information Industry. The MII, along with a myriad of other State organizations that serve to work at various layers (both legal and technological) to control what end users (or citizens) can access or distribute.

The legal framework can be construed to meet whatever State objective exists at the time. Let's take a look, from an American's perspective, at the nine categories of restricted information. Now, to be clear, information cannot be produced, copied, published or disseminated if it contains data


"1. Which are against the principles prescribed in the Constitution"
That's odd. Their constitution prescribes principles. Isn't our Constitution's Bill of Rights in place to eliminate any chance of the Government prescribing it's principles?

"2. Which endanger the security of the state, divulge the secrets of the state,
overthrow the government, or damage the unification of the state"
Publishing data that damages the unification of the state...huh?

"3.Which harm the dignity and interest of the state"
Please don't harm the interest of so dignified a State.

"4. Which instigate hatred, discrimination among the ethnic groups, or destroy the unity of nationalities"
Don't destroy the unity of nationalities (notice plural)...oh wait, hopefully these nationalities are working in concert to avoid damaging the unification of the State

"5. Which break the religious policy of the state, spread evil cults or feudal
superstition"
Evil cults? Try Communism.

"6. Which spread rumors, destroy the social order, and damage the social
stability"
Sounds like we've banned all discussion of Tom Cruise

"7. Which spread pornography, sex, gambling, violence, murder, terrorism or
abetment"
Without pornography and gambling, our e-commerce revenues are in a world of hurt

"8. Which insult or slander others and thus infringe upon others' lawful rights
and interests"
This is a insult

"9. Which involve other contents prohibited by the laws and administrative rules"
The elastic clause!

All mocking aside, the range and sophistication of the Chinese State's filtering system is remarkable. Beyond restricting access to information by law or technology, the State has intimidated local or regional ISP's into self-censoring material that might otherwise be accessible. The excessive, business-destroying penalties imposed upon "violators" of the ridiculously vague legal restrictions make it perfectly understandable that ISPs avoid the grey area entirely.

The effort that it has clearly taken to employ the State's MII apparatus reflects the difficulty of restricting information in the information age. Hopefully technology will develop to the point where access to information will one day be impossible to restrict. In the meantime, one can only hope that if the Chinese insist on locking down access, they at least drain their treasury while doing so.

Video Convergence

The Campaign Solutions folks who were kind enough to speak with the class are certainly onto something when they, without hesitation, indicated that the next big thing would be online video.

This spot has touched before on the failure of most internet content to convey emotion. Emotion is what television does really well. With the convergence of digital media (data, music, video), websites should be able to leverage the power of video, while maintaining the other advantages of interactivity that the internet provides.

While some of the same principles apply to online video, it is different from television in a couple of key ways. First, it is not bound by the restrictions of time, viewing market, or advance purchase requirements. Second, it can be viral, spreading much more efficiently and effectively throughout the audience.

Without the traditional restrictions, and with a premium placed on viral marketing, video on the internet will have much more variety than a 30 second spot on cable TV. We've seen John Edwards' video podcasting, a format that lends itself to longer videos. We've also seen (along with over 50 million other Americans) the JibJab video, which was short, humorous and viral. The beauty of video online is that it can fall under so many different criteria and be tailored to the audience.

Campaign professionals should avoid falling into the trap of simply hosting their campaign commercials online. While this provides important synergy, it is not enough to make an impact by itself. Online video needs to go above and beyond in providing a variety of choices that appeal to the diverse desires of the audience. On TV, political ads are force-fed to a captive audience. Visitors to political websites are a different kind of captive audience, one that is eager for information and willing to be engaged. It stands to reason that the videos they are able to see should be different as well.

Micropayments

The most compelling point about micropayments that Neilsen makes in his 1998 article is that they offer a more flexible market of options for internet users. Rather than the all-or-nothing approach so common to the subscription model on the internet, micropayments offer an opportunity to selectively choose meaningful content and access that content without breaking the bank.

Some online media, such as the NY Times, provide a significant amount of free content to registered visitors to the site. Faced with a user population that has "grown up" with free NY Times Online content, it would be very difficult to transition to a subscription model, despite the fact that subscriptions have been the primary method to access NY Times content in print format for ages. Micropayments provide an avenue to generate some revenue from selected content without placing huge burden on the user's wallet.

With micropayments, some of the same cultural transition issues remain. However, the decision to spend 50 cents for a specific article or issue is generally easier than the decision to spend $50 dollars for a set period of unlimited access when you cannot possibly be sure what, if any, content will be put forward that is worth paying for.

I think micropayments have a lot of merit in providing more flexibility and choices in the way content is purchased. This is particularly true if purchases are made easy, and without forcing the user to fumble for his/her credit card. The micropayment model, frankly, tracks a lot closer to the behavioral patterns and culture of the internet than the stodgy subscription model. It may be a boon for blogs, too, if those blogs generating quality content can figure out a way to harness micropayments to pay their bills.

Not today...

Podcasting Pioneers

For those looking to devour your daily dose of Nancy Pelosi's manufactured alliteration, the House Democrats have announced the rollout of a new podcasting project. Podcasting, you'll remember, is like TiVo for your portable audio device. Democrats hope to use this technology to jump start a messaging machine that has difficulty getting out of the garage. The problem is, unlike rushing home to search the TiVo, it is doubtful that the American public is all that eager to sync up and hear the latest press conference from the House Democratic leadership. That goes for the RNC, too.

Podcasting has its place, and as it becomes more user-friendly and well known, it will be a neat opportunity to get news from primary resources. The circle of folks that is interested in hearing those messages, though, is limited. I'm not sure iPods are the jumper cables capable of getting the House Democrats' message machine humming, but kudos for trying.

Thought Police

It says a lot about a society when the release of a movie is threatened because a car drives through an area resembling a courtyard whose design has been copyrighted. I'm sure the lawyers love it, but for the rest of us it is an extraordinary hassle that drains creativity, pocket books and erodes the will of citizens to resist.

Prior to reading Lawrence Lessig's exerpt, I had no idea the extent to which our legal system supports such creative straightjackets. Not that I am surprised, considering how cottage industries have sprung up across all forms of commerce whenever legal minds spot an opportunity to ply their trade by throwing up barriers to the trade of others.

The internet, on the other hand, has transformed the way intellectual property is defined, copied, purchased, or transferred, and is the wild west of copyright infringement. Copyright protection has been a major focus of the entertainment industry, as the RIAA and MPAA have sought legal remedies to combat software that enables consumers to steal rather than spend for artists' work. While there have been notable legal victories for industry, the real challenge lies in coping with technologies that make violating copyrights a snap, and create a culture that doesn't see anything particularly wrong with these violations.

So while the movie industry has matured to the point where every aspect of creativity is run through the lawyers, the internet is still relatively unpoliced. You can imagine the dollar signs that must be flashing through the heads of lawyers who see a regulatory gold rush ahead. This includes those who pore through election law and FEC advisory opinions, and impact how political voices are heard.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Luntz of the Left?

In a preview of a piece set to appear in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday, we see that Democrats have recognized the value of language and its ability to favorably frame political debate. George Lakoff, the subject of the article, is compared with Frank Luntz, whose methodology, impact, and results we have read about and discussed in class.

Luntz' value to Republicans has been demonstrated time and again. The rhetorical upper hand can make a huge difference in how Americans respond to issues. Despite Luntz' success, the Democrats have not to-date countered with a language guru of their own. As a result, they frequently find themselves pinned in by the words that frame the debate.

As one example, look at the hot button issue of abortion. The act of aborting a fetus is an act nearly impossible to advocate, no matter ones position on the issue. Despite polls showing that a majority of Americans support a woman's ability to choose this course, Democrats lose on the issue because they cannot help but be on the defensive. Pro-choice candidates are characterized as favoring "abortion on demand" or worse. Anti-abortion candidates, meanwhile, run under the mantel of "pro-life", a vastly superior rhetorical position. If you follow DNC Chairman Howard Dean's statements, he has made a concerted effort to re-cast the language of the abortion debate. Hillary Clinton is attempting to position herself similarly.

In the end, language can't trump the actual positions being staked out, but it is a crucial feature in effectively communicating with voters. Beyond simple words, the work of Luntz and Lakoff is geared toward the context or framing of debate. This is their real impact on political messaging, as it defines how voters perceive issues. If Lakoff can match the work of Luntz, the subsequent rhetorical posturing of both sides will be dizzying. The risk is that such activity will ultimately put the public in a spot where reality is shielded by the nuance of language and metaphor.

Strategic Plan

Looking at the Virginia Family Values PAC, you see a group that has really failed to leverage the web to impact debate on the issues. This failure is occurring despite the large amount of public attention and debate focused on issues important to them. Below are some highlights of VFVPAC's strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths:

The Virginia Family Values PAC is well positioned to impact debate in the Commonwealth of Virginia on social issues, particularly as these issues relate to the subjects of gay rights and sex education. VFVPAC has co-opted the "family values" label long used by their philosophical opponents. This bit of irony serves their message properly, as it demonstrates that not everyone agrees on the best definition for family values. It also dilutes the ability of its ideological opponents to monopolize favorable language on the issue.

Effectively neutralizing the social conservative block would go a long way in turning around the fortunes of Democrats in Virginia. In this way, VFVPAC is well positioned to serve as an organizing force, and could leverage its influence to gain financial or other (more tacit) support from the Democratic Party and progressive organizations. As a state-level organization, VFVPAC should be able to more effectively communicate with Virginians than a national organization that does not understand the political nuances of the Commonwealth. It is thus important that VFVPAC strive to be the public face on one side of these issues for Virginians.

It must be recognized, however, that this is an uphill climb. Demographic trends in Northern Virginia benefit VFVPAC by increasing the number of sympathetic Virginia voters, but the rural base of social conservatives is larger and more cohesive. VFVPAC faces the challenge of solidifying their base of support while not alienating mainstream Virginians by adopting too narrow a focus on divisive issues.

The fact that VFVPAC recognizes the need for an internet presence is a strength, but this isn't 1996, so it's not that much of a strength. Its quick and easy means for donating money or forwarding the URL to a friend are strong and should be better integrated. Just being online and taking donations is not enough to create a successful advocacy movement. The VFVPAC's online operation has much to improve upon.

Weaknesses:

Lack of clear, unmistakable, and understandable organizational objectives. The VFVPAC seems to focus its online efforts on the defeat of a handful of Delegates, but does not have a clear theme to any of its other activities and positions. You never want potential donors or volunteers to question what it is they are donating to, or why they would be needed to volunteer. It should be perfectly clear within seconds what the organizational objectives of VFVPAC are, but in its current state, discerning that is simply not possible.

The structural weakness detailed above leads to other weaknesses. The layout of the site is as aimless as the undefined organizational objectives. The layout is sloppy and ineffective, and does nothing to lead a visitor to crucial site areas that best align with the organization's strategic objectives.

The Blog is the primary content driver, and though a Blog is very important to this site, it should be only one component of fresh site content, and a component that highlights developments in other frequently updated content areas such as legislative action and news.

The site should be positioned for the long haul. It should focus more on maintaining registrants and volunteers. Now, only a newsletter option is offered, and that does nothing to foster the community atmosphere that is necessary to achieving coherent and lasting advocacy. VFVPAC should be the tool by which volunteer action is initiated, and there is currently no opportunity to volunteer. It should also prominently display features that allow visitors to forward the site or specific site content to sympathetic friends.

Digital Divide

The Economist has it right in its identification of the mobile phone as the best near term option for addressing the digital deficit.

One key obstacle to successful spread of mobile phone technology is the lack of markets without moats. The U.N. should focus its services on creating market conditions that welcome private investment, and should work with developing countries to break through neglected and state-owned telecom systems and cushion their transition to the free market.

Sounds like the U.N. would prefer to dump loads of money into an inefficient set of programs with no real means to measure success or assign accountablity. Not shocking.

Mobile technology can be a transformational societal force. There is a real threat that transformative technology can destablize established order and the construct of power. This dynamic is critical to bear in mind in today's global threat environment, particularly as the fate of the developing world tracks much closer to the fate of our own.

Electronic Details

During Watergate there were Nixon's secret White House recordings, documenting meetings and phone conversations for historical record. The tapes, of course, later became the key pieces of evidence indicating high level conspiracies surrounding the Watergate break-in and its subsequent investigation. Were it not for those tapes, there would have been no smoking gun.

Today, we see case after case of email being used as documentary evidence for investigations. The eyes of the Beltway have frequently fixed upon Jack Abramoff's email chains. And now, with special investigators looking into claims that elements within the White House leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, email trails have again taken center stage (in the form of documented conversations).

Email technology has created paper and electronic trails where none may have existed before. These records construct time frames, document conversations, and provide a history of interaction, even when that interaction took place behind the veil of double secret background.
Forget for a second the case of Karl Rove (or any other WH staff) and the Plame Affair. Plenty of blogs are already dissecting the legality and appropriateness of the White House's role, even if Joe Wilson managed to ably discredit himself without help from anyone else. There is enough righteous indignation to go around.

What is important to take note of is the way in which seemingly private email has the potential to become very public, and can fill evidentiary gaps more readily than any media in history save phone taps. Separate from the legal implications, loose emails can also cause great embarrassment.

I've always written emails as if I were cc'ing both my mother and the district attorney. As General Counsels across the government and industry come to grips with the best way to cope with this new reality, political managers should take note of policies that protect the candidate from legal or politically embarrassing troubles generated through email traffic.

Changes on the Horizon?

I wanted to correct the record on a matter that was discussed in class last Tuesday.

After anthrax was discovered in the Congressional mailstream in October 2001, deliveries of mail to Congress were suspended for several months. Picture the impact. More than 30,000 pieces of mail per day were held in limbo until corrective security measures could be taken. Constituents were encouraged to contact their representatives in Washington by fax and email. Wary politicians sweated the inability to respond to their constituents.

After instituting the necessary security measures to sanitize mail and ensure its safety, mail delivderies resumed. There were ongoing jokes about Christmas cards delivered in August. In an effort to deal with a problem never before encountered, Congress initiated two pilot programs designed to change the way Congressional offices interact with their constituents.

The first program was an initiative to digitize incoming fax messages and integrate the delivery of those digital images with the public e-mail stream that arrives in each Congressional office. This pilot program has since expanded and is now a service offered to each House office that chooses to utilize it.

The state of the Digital Mail program in the House of Representatives was mischaracterized in class. The progam has not been discontinued and in fact is poised to expand from 20 House offices to 75 House offices. This program is a particularly interesting insight into the 21st century Congressional office operation.

The Digital Mail program scans incoming letters from a remote location and delivers them electronically, populating the images automatically (with metadata identifying address information) into the variety of correspondence management software used by idividual offices.

Both the inbound fax and digital mail programs will continue to grow in popularity with Congressional offices, particularly as the culture adapts to technology. Both programs cut drastically the staff time needed for handling correspondence and provide for greater efficiency and accountability for the interaction with constituents. Both programs also provide for continuity of operations, allowing offices the ability to communicate with constituents no matter their location or circumstance.

Circle the Wagons

There's an interesting cover story in this week's National Journal magazine on the Internet Left. Focusing on the DailyKos and MoveOn, the piece objectively lays out the strategies and context for the progressive movement that has been so successful on the internet, and how it is shaping Democratic politics.

Core to the Internet Left's argument is that the Democrats in Washington simply have not yet come to terms with a minority party status that is reality. It is this context that has given rise to a pugnacious progressive movement trying to reshape and steer the party through internet-centered activity. This activist movement has embraced minority party status and seeks to shape it into an effective opposition.

Right now it is all show and no go. While pioneering effective tools to galvanize grassroots support independent of the Party structure, the Internet Left has reshaped the political battleground in the new media and quickly erased the progressive deficit identified by Frank Watson. But confluent with the movement's rise have been a series of stinging defeats to Democratic candidates at the polls. The root cause of those defeats is the battlefield for debate, and by taking on the establishment of the Democratic party, the Internet Left has engaged in a very high stakes battle of ideas that will ultimately require a reckoning.

There is a limited grace period for electoral defeat before the luster of the Internet Left's movement wears off and other factions of the Party employ similar tactics in the battle for ideological supremacy. Before they are further into the political wilderness in Washington, Democrats must make a sober assessment of who they really are or need to be. It took Republicans decades to truly find themselves and launch the effective and principled opposition that helped them to retake Congress in 1994.

The Internet Left seeks to coalesce the Democratic party around them, yet they have not achieved anything close to the critical mass of support that would enable that, and risk fracturing the party they are trying to direct. There can be no doubting that the movement is strong enough to truly influence debate. Will that influence be affected from inside the party structure or in a more combative struggle against that structure?

Follow the Money (Part II)

With the informational background on campaign finance reform efforts out of the way (see Part I), we'll move on to the dynamics that impact how Members of Congress and the Parties respond when considering pending legislation.

Campaign regulation has to be viewed through the same self-survival perspective that inevitably forms the views of the Members and the Parties who consider it, namely, how to best ensure reelection and achieve and/or retain majority Party status.

For Republicans, who were largely blindsided by the depth, preparation, and the success that Democrats had in transitioning to shadow parties in the post-BCRA world, the primary objective would seem to be creating regulatory and legal conditions that make for a more level playing field between the established parties and the 527s. While 527s on the Right are influential, it is the left-leaning 527 groups that are carrying the water for Democrats, and Republicans know this. By tightly regulating and hamstringing the ability of 527 organizations to function as they have in the past, the Republicans would put themselves at a much greater advantage in upcoming election cycles. But such tight regulation runs counter to the prevailing principles of the Republican party's historic arguments in the realm of campaign finance. So, there is a tug of war between the short-term self interest and ideological consistency.

For Democrats, ideological consistency appears to have already lost a similar tug of war. In 2001, Democratic leadership and rank-and-file members fought to pass campaign finance legislation that would ban soft money from politics. At the time, Democrats relied heavily on soft money donations to operate the DNC, so such a stand was a victory for principals. Or maybe not. Almost immediately, 527 organizations headed by figures long involved in the Washington Democratic establishment sprung up and feasted on the same soft money donations recently and self-righteously decried (and banned). Now, Democrats are being forced to consider legislation that will no longer allow them to have their cake and eat it too. Though tight regulation of 527s in the spirit of BCRA tracks the ideological path of Democrats, such regulation would hugely damage their ability to compete in upcoming campaigns. Quite a conundrum. So far, self-interest has won out, as the Democrats have voted against any regulatory modifications without providing any alternative.

BCRA has enabled the proliferation of special interest 527 groups whose objectives are semi-aligned with the objectives of the Parties. The rise of the new media coincided with BCRA to allow these interests to compete with the messaging power of major Parties and Federal Candidates. The Parties should be wary, though, as these groups are accountable only to their membership and donors. In the coming age of online citizen activism, the narrower ideological focus of these groups leaves open to question whether their influence will continue to align with the broader platform positions of the Parties.

Follow the Money (Part I)

There is a lot of activity in the 109th Congress on the subject of campaign finance reform. Frequently a hot topic inside the beltway, regulations of campaign activity impact Members of Congress very directly, so it is interesting to watch the policy positioning of both individual members and the Parties when legislative action is considered. When it comes to post-BCRA campaign regulations, it is not only the jobs of elected officials at stake, but also the risk that they will do jail time if found to be operating outside the web of regulation.

I will focus on the House here, because that has been the hotbed of recent Committee activity, but first a little background. In 2001, BCRA gained enough Republican backers to force floor action and was subsequently passed by the Congress and signed into law. The Supreme Court upheld most of BCRA, citing the opportunity for corruption or appearance thereof as justification for the limitation of free expression.

By staying within the letter of the existing law and falling outside of the Court's restrictions by virtue of their independence, 527 organizations proliferated in the 2004 election cycle. The key to the successful operation of 527 organizations is their ability to solicit and receive unlimited soft money donations.

The success of 527s has spawned two legislative approaches. The first approach, Pence-Wynn, seeks force disclosure regulations onto 527s. It would otherwise leave these organizations free to operate as they have in the past. It also seeks to level the playing field, by upping the aggregate limits for giving to political parties.

The second approach is forwarded by the original House co-sponsors of BCRA, Chris Shays and Marty Meehan, and seeks to subject the 527s to the giving limits and quarterly disclosure requirements that BCRA applies to federal candidates and political parties.

Both of these approaches have been separately passed out of Committee, and are now in line for floor consideration. They should be followed closely by political professionals for several reasons.
527s are huge business, and their existence in current form impacted all aspects of the 2004 Presidential campaign, specifically as it applied to synergy and GOTV efforts on the Democratic side.

If 527s are subjected to donation limitations, the business model changes. Born truly in the new media era, 527s have made great use of internet fundraising and messaging. Without the ability to get deep into the wallets of George Soros and Alex Spanos, the 527s will be forced to troll for smaller donations, and the internet is prime territory for such trolling.

Additionally, limiting soft money would empower smaller 527 organizations to compete with the larger 527 organizations whose lifeblood was soft money. The result would be a more diverse set of specific interests, organized as 527s, competing for donors and primacy.