the annotated commission report ...

[Carl Malamud]

On the subject of too tweet or not to tweet, maybe I'm missing
something, but it seems like you could strike one sentence and add on
"e.g.," to the Capuano Recommendations and be done with it.

http://public.resource.org/house.gov/letter_from_congressman_capuano.html

What amazes me about this discussion is how much energy the leadership
(and the blogosphere) is willing to put into making sure member videos
can go on YouTube (as opposed to the Internet!), but when it comes to
the issue of getting video from official proceedings (e.g., committee
hearings) up on the net, it is like pushing an elephant up a
waterslide.

[Soren Dayton]

Getting hearing and, perhaps more importantly, mark up stuff is absolutely the next step. There is no real scrutiny of mark ups. And often there aren't even official transcripts.

[John Wonderlich]

The issue has raised a larger question than the one originally intended to be addressed in the house -- video.

The Senate is in the midst of reconsidering their recommendations too (see congress daily today, sub only).

The question now before the Franking Commission is how to update what Pelosi and Capuano have both admitted are "antiquated" restrictions.  They have to balance legitimate concerns -- decorum, commercialization, and improper taxpayer funded political content -- against what all involved parties have recognized as immense potential online.

Clearly, the current rules are unclear, unevenly enforced, and poorly understood.  That this "hooptedoodle" (great word!) is even possible is evidence of that point, which I don't think is in question by anyone.  The need for an update, revision, loosening, recodification, or whatever, is well accepted on the hill.

Dismissing the argument as being about a trendy web service misses the more interesting thing that's going on here:  We're seeing the leadership from both parties in the House affirm the role of technology and public engagement in representative democracy, in an explicit, practical way.  Of course it's adversarial, that's what party leaders do.

There are a ton of other reforms I'd like to see addressed, and I'm hoping that we'll soon have a slew of other accomplishments and issues to focus on, public congressional video (go Carl!) among them.

The useful thing we can do, though, is to recognize that the people on this list are probably the best equipped people to help define what acceptable web use looks like.  It isn't an easy problem.

I'm trying to focus on what's clearly the case.  The rules need to be updated, confident engagement online with clear standards is the goal, and right now the chilling effect of a combination of restrictive and unclearly enforced rules is keeping Congress from doing as much as it should online.  (I talk a lot more about this in my interview with Dave Witzel here, especially starting at "what's the steak without the sizzle?)

So, I'm hoping we can start to talk more about the details of member web use restrictions.  What really constitutes commercial endorsement?  When does conduct become unacceptable or undignified?  What role should Congress play in enforcing those questions online?  Where do the edges of "official duties" lie anyway?  Are we treating the Internet differently than we do traditional media?  (See Boehner's recent post for an expansion on this theme.)

Probably more importantly, what are the principles we can use to approach those questions with clear minds?

I'd like to expand on the question of how we can reasonably approach those questions, but I think this email was necessary to clear the air first, and explain what I think the discussion should be about, and what I think this list has to offer the dialog.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Carl Malamud <carl+...@resource.org> wrote:

--
John Wonderlich

Program Director
The Sunlight Foundation
(202) 742-1520 ext. 234

[Matt Stoller]

Use the energy here to start a campaign on committee video.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Carl Malamud <carl+...@resource.org> wrote:

--
Matt Stoller
http://www.mattstoller.com

[Carl Malamud]

On Jul 11, 10:50 am, "John Wonderlich" <johnwonderl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The useful thing we can do, though, is to recognize that the people on this
> list are probably the best equipped people to help define what acceptable

> web use looks like.  It isn't an easy problem.*

I'm pretty uncomfortable with that approach. I'm afraid such a list
will limit rather than expand.

I'm much happier with general principles being invoked and then
specific cases going beyond those general principles being addressed
as they occur. I don't mind Congress regulating propriety or
decorum, but the minute they try to understand, e.g., twitter vs. qik
vs. im vs. podcasting I think they'll give up and say "let's try
YouTube for now." And, I don't think we're the right ones on this
list to define what is ok and what isn't. That's just as bad as the
Committee on House Administration doing it!

$0.02.

(Again, I find much of this quite amazing because one could, *today*,
put congressional video on the Internet Archive or C-SPAN and not have
any of the issues ... all this jumping up and down is to make sure
that congress can get their stuff into commercial places.)

[Chris Kinnan]

>all this jumping up and down is to make sure that congress can get their stuff into commercial places.

That's a big deal though, right?  The same logic applied to traditional media would ban newspaper op-ed writing and talk radio interviews.

[Matt Stoller]

Millions of people like and use Youtube who don't use and like C-Span and the Internet Archive.

[Carl Malamud]

On Jul 11, 2:02 pm, "Chris Kinnan" <kin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *>all this jumping up and down is to make sure that congress can get their
> stuff into commercial places.*

>
> That's a big deal though, right?  The same logic applied to traditional
> media would ban newspaper op-ed writing and talk radio interviews.

Maybe. Or maybe paid ads such as infomercials might be a more
appropriate analogy. This is not about freedom of speech, it is about
use of government funds being used to gain an unfair advantage in
elections ... that's what led to the Franking Commission and that is
their jurisdiction.

I'm not saying the commercial stuff isn't important, just that if they
were trying to move forward, they could easily have done something
real (e.g., upload instead of regulate) long ago.

[David All]

Good discussion.

I'd argue that this is a good time to renew our call for a full embrace of The Open House Project and announce the launch of an Open Senate Project.

fwiw.

Revolution,

David

__________________________________
David All / President
David All Group, LLC
1920 L Street NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20036
http://davidallgroup.com
http://techRepublican.com
http://slatecard.com
PH  (202) 352 5644
EM da...@davidallgroup.com 
__________________________________
Check out our latest project: http://WhereistheRed.com

[John Wonderlich]

Press conferences and media appearances are undoubtedly motivated by the electoral imperative, as representatives' acts are intended to be. 

Why should we err or the side of permissiveness when politicians contribute op-eds, appear on news or entertainment shows that heavy handedly control content and are explicit defined as businesses...

...but when faced with a completely accessible democratic communications system, suddenly we're really really concerned about commercial improperness and decorum?

Doesn't that suggest that we view representatives as most properly speaking with the press -- that their natural safe and well defined role is within existing business structures?

How does interacting with "official media" change the nature of these public interactions, and make these liabilities disappear? 

Representatives can do their jobs best when they're able to access public spaces in whatever way fits best with their interests.  Proximity to the business world is going to happen in a society built on business, and that might mean townhall meetings happen in Wal-Mart parking lots sometimes, or Members tour businesses, or take out huge contracts with contractors to do official work.

Isn't communicating with constituents official work? 

What's the difference between buying a contract from Lockheed for an email delivery service and using staff time to put up a blog post that could conceivably be considered as politically relevant, or might be later linked to by a campaign staffer?

Is there a difference between linking from a political site to an official site and quoting the words that a Member gave at an official function?

[Josh Tauberer]

So it sounds like there are actually two separate issues here. I hope
this isn't too redundant. I haven't been following this issue closely.

Capuano wrote on June 24: "Unfortunately, many Members who wish to
display video on their websites have found that the existing tools
available within the House to do so are not user-friendly or efficient,
and that in addition, server storage space within the House is currently
insufficient to meet the growing demand for video."
http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2008/st070908.shtml

I translate this as: We want to use video and, further, we want it to be
ad-supported.

In my understanding, it wouldn't be a problem for a Member to simply pay
for hosting video and embed a brand-less player on his webpage. Right?
If if Carl was saying the Internet Archive will providing free hosting
for official videos, and since there are perfectly fine free/open source
video players out there (as far as I know), then there's really no cost
to post videos on Member webpages. So what's actually the problem?

Clearly Members wouldn't politicize and distort an issue like this. (I'm
sorry. I have hardly heard a line as repulsive as "Apparently the
Republicans spreading these lies would rather operate without rules and
open the House to commercialism." For someone talking about "dignity,
propriety, and decorum" he obviously doesn't know how to exercise
discretion --- whether the claim is true or not.)

Anyway, my first point is that there is a decoy issue being floated
around, that somehow Members don't have the ability to post videos on
their websites. They could do it for free, and if they didn't want to do
it for free, they could pay for it out of their budgets, and if they
didn't want to pay for it with their current budgets, they could
increase their budgets.

Well, someone has to pay for it, and if they aren't going to go through
a nonprofit, then they are *choosing* to use an ad-supported system.
Right? Either they use a nonprofit service, they pay for it with
taxpayer dollars, or they pay for it with advertising dollars. They get
to choose.

Then there's an orthogonal issue of wanting to use services to
distribute their message, like YouTube and Twitter. As Government 2.0ish
as it is, I think this is a serious concern. An endorsement is an
endorsement and it sets up a conflict of interest. Will Twitter's
investors start funneling money into Capuano's campaign if he makes
Twitter the only approved place, or it becomes the de facto approved
place, for capitol microblogging?

I think we're in an unfortunate position of only having bad examples.
YouTube and Twitter are already de facto standards and an endorsement
from a Member wouldn't change anything. But let's just wait for a small
venture startup to make it onto the approved list, make millions, and
then become buddy-buddy with franking commission members.

This is just the type of situation that we normally are talking about
preventing on this list.

Yet, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Services like YouTube and
Twitter are important to improving communication, and there's a way to
make it work without an endorsement. The model is what we already have
with RSS feeds, or with independent people re-posting content they find
on YouTube. Open content plus data standards, and failing data standards
then entrepreneurial citizens, and failing that then campaign
operatives, means communications can be republished by any
communications service. I think Carl started to raise this point.

So given a choice between:

Option A: Members choose ad-supported content and endorse venture startups.

Option B: Members publish with open content.

I think option B is a tad better.

(Phew. I didn't mean to write so much.)

--
- Josh Tauberer
- GovTrack.us

http://razor.occams.info

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields
falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to
Tortoise (in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)

John Wonderlich wrote:
> The issue has raised a larger question than the one originally intended
> to be addressed in the house -- video.
>
> The Senate is in the midst of reconsidering their recommendations too
> (see congress daily today, sub only

> <http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080711_8450.php>).

>
> The question now before the Franking Commission is how to update what
> Pelosi and Capuano have both admitted are "antiquated" restrictions.
> They have to balance legitimate concerns -- decorum, commercialization,
> and improper taxpayer funded political content -- against what all
> involved parties have recognized as immense potential online.
>
> Clearly, the current rules are unclear, unevenly enforced, and poorly
> understood. That this "hooptedoodle" (great word!) is even possible is
> evidence of that point, which I don't think is in question by anyone.
> The need for an update, revision, loosening, recodification, or
> whatever, is well accepted on the hill.
>
> Dismissing the argument as being about a trendy web service misses the
> more interesting thing that's going on here: We're seeing the
> leadership from both parties in the House affirm the role of technology
> and public engagement in representative democracy, in an explicit,
> practical way. Of course it's adversarial, that's what party leaders do.
>
> There are a ton of other reforms I'd like to see addressed, and I'm
> hoping that we'll soon have a slew of other accomplishments and issues
> to focus on, public congressional video (go Carl!) among them.

> *
> The useful thing /we/ can do, though, is to recognize that the people on

> this list are probably the best equipped people to help define what

> acceptable web use looks like. It isn't an easy problem.*

>
> I'm trying to focus on what's clearly the case. The rules need to be
> updated, confident engagement online with clear standards is the goal,
> and right now the chilling effect of a combination of restrictive and
> unclearly enforced rules is keeping Congress from doing as much as it
> should online. (I talk a lot more about this in my interview with Dave
> Witzel here

> <http://interviews.forumone.com/content/interview/detail/1577/>,

> especially starting at "what's the steak without the sizzle?)
>
> So, I'm hoping we can start to talk more about the details of member web
> use restrictions. What really constitutes commercial endorsement? When
> does conduct become unacceptable or undignified? What role should
> Congress play in enforcing those questions online? Where do the edges
> of "official duties" lie anyway? Are we treating the Internet
> differently than we do traditional media? (See Boehner's recent post

> <http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=234> for an expansion on this
> theme.)
> *

> Probably more importantly, what are the principles we can use to

> approach those questions with clear minds?*

[Joshua Gay]

This is partly in response to some of Josh Tauberer's comments, but also to a general trend I've been noticing in this community having to do with the kind of software we recommend and use. I'll focus on two, because they are easy to discuss.

## Twitter
I left Twitter recently, and not for some other popular or better site, or one whose culture I like better. Instead, I left for a free software based microblogging system. The site I am on now is called identi.ca, but, that is less important, in a sense, than the software that runs the site, which is called Laconi.ca (http://laconi.ca). The house, or Sunlight, or basically anyone and everyone, can go ahead and install this on their own servers and run their very own microblogging service if they wish. They can improve it, change it, and best of all, they can make it share data across multiple sites. But, nomatter what, you don't have to rely upon a proprietary-based web site as the main or sole repository of the data. Sure, the software has some kinks, but they are being worked out. Soon you'll see people dual posting to both Laconi.ca, Twitter, and whatever other Microblogging site they wish. Laconi.ca is going to improve quickly because people are excited to improve it and because the software carries with it the freedom to allow them to improve it and share those improvements with everyone.

## YouTube
YouTube is based upon the Adobe Flash format. Adobe is a large supporter of the DMCA and has a long track record of enforcing its software patents. This means that if we want to have a completely free and open source software system to play Flash, either developers need to risk being sued by Adobe, or we need to take painstaking care to not violate the patents. So, we don't have a complete, free software system at this time, but it's not because people do not have the technical know-how, it's because Adobe has not taken sufficient care to respect user-freedom. (To stay abreast to progress, visit < http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/>).

But, alternatives to Flash exist. For instance,  Ogg Theora is a high-quality file format, it is widely supported by both free and non-free software, and, best of all, it is unencumbered by software patents. It may not be as popular as Flash, but it carries with it freedom and it runs on all major operating systems as well as many embedded devices.

You see, by choosing only YouTube you are not only supporting Google and its ad-based revenue stream, you are unnecessarily endorsing and encouraging the spread of patent encumbered and closed formats. It's probably not a good idea to do this, but if you do choose to, at least consider providing an alternative version of the file in a format that respects all users freedom and that can be implemented and used by software developers without fear of incarceration -- these kinds of restrictions on software are not promoting this kind of useful science, and worse they are often hindering its progress.

My recommendation is to take a bit more care when considering issues of user freedom. You do not have to look far for good answers and ideas, you just need to ask.

-Josh

--
Joshua Gay
[m: 617.966.9792 irc: jgay identi.ca: joshuagay]
Free Software Foundation, campaigns manager
[http://fsf.org http://defectivebydesign.org http://badvista.fsf.org http://playogg.org]
Textbook Revolution, editor/(re)designer
[http://216.93.249.195/wiki irc://freenode.net/#textbookrevolution]
One Laptop per Child, volunteer
[http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Participate irc://freenode.net/#olpc-content]
League of Technical Voters, board of directors
[http://www.leagueoftechvoters.org/ - http://transparentfederalbudget.com]
Free Textbook Project, lead
[http://freetextbookproject.org -- more to come]

[Clay Shirky]

> I think we're in an unfortunate position of only having bad examples.
> YouTube and Twitter are already de facto standards and an endorsement
> from a Member wouldn't change anything. But let's just wait for a small
> venture startup to make it onto the approved list, make millions, and
> then become buddy-buddy with franking commission members.

But this is no different from Members appearing more frequently on
Fox, no? Commercial is commercial and ad-supported is ad-supported, so
I have a hard time seeing how we should be concerned about Twitter but
not, say, the New York Times.

In fact, to re-write one of Joshua Gray's points:

## New York Times
"The New York Times is based upon the ink-on-paper format, and the
print industry is a large supporter of inconvenience in access and
copying, and has a long track record of trying to bring that
inconvenience to the Web, via both paywalls and experiments with DRM.
This means that if we want to have a completely accessible and
redistributable content, either developers need to risk being sued by
the New York Times, or we need to take painstaking care to not violate
the IP. So, we don't have a completely accessible system at this time,

but it's not because people do not have the technical know-how, it's

because the New York Times has not taken sufficient care to respect
user-freedom."

There is no new issue access here -- we let Members talk to
ad-supported media all the time, even yo startups, like Politico.

The problem is that the lines between modes of carriage and types of
media are now hopelessly blurred, never to return to their former
crispness of "Paper mail is like this whereas TV is like that", so we
need carriage-insensitive rules as well.

I agree that the rules should mandate open standards, but making the
rules also forbid Members to go where their constituents already are
seems to me like a not-great principle.

-clay

[Matt Stoller]

It's just a bit odd that the Franking Commission regulates mail, email, and video on the web, but not what members say on their local TV station or the New York Times.  I elaborated on my earlier criticism of Capuano here:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6916

[J.H. Snider]

I have a somewhat different take on what’s going in this debate over the actions of the Franking Commission.  The debate so far has primarily and most eloquently been at a policy level, and it has effectively analyzed the inanity of Rep. Capuano’s policy reasoning.  However, I think Rep. Capuano’s political reasoning—of course, never mentioned in his official public statements—is quite sound. 

 

Strategies to pursue power can be divided into two broad categories: the outside game and the inside game.  Those in junior positions or the minority tend to benefit most from playing the outside game; those in the leadership or the majority benefit most from the inside game.  All this is well documented in the political science literature.  Accordingly, it is rational for those in leadership positions and the majority—such as Rep. Capuano—to try to create rules to weaken the outside game.   I think if you reflect carefully you’ll see the logic of this political communication game played out in countless other ways, too.  You might consider Rep. Capuano’s preferred public policy undemocratic and therefore not like it (and I would agree with you on that).   You might also dislike the flimsy public policy rationales he has put forth.  But none of this necessarily adds up for me to an argument that Rep. Capuano doesn’t have an astute sense of the political logic of this new technology.

 

--Jim Snider

iSolon.org

[Josh Tauberer]

Clay Shirky wrote:
>> I think we're in an unfortunate position of only having bad examples.
>> YouTube and Twitter are already de facto standards and an endorsement
>> from a Member wouldn't change anything. But let's just wait for a small
>> venture startup to make it onto the approved list, make millions, and
>> then become buddy-buddy with franking commission members.
>
> But this is no different from Members appearing more frequently on
> Fox, no? Commercial is commercial and ad-supported is ad-supported, so
> I have a hard time seeing how we should be concerned about Twitter but
> not, say, the New York Times.

...

> There is no new issue access here -- we let Members talk to
> ad-supported media all the time, even yo startups, like Politico.

You're right that Members would seem to make endorsements when talking
with the media. But I think you've shown also why it's different.
Members don't have an approved outlet for TV communication, and afaik by
and large Members don't stick to particular outlets either. They endorse
Fox just as much as they endorse Steven Colbert. There's also an
inherent difference between personal interviews --- which you can only
do 24hrs per day of --- and distributing information resources --- which
has no bound.

Maybe a closer example would be sending an op-ed to a publication. There
is nothing inherent in the nature of an op-ed preventing the same op-ed
from appearing in many publications at once, so why endorse particular
ones? Maybe because publications won't print something that will appear
elsewhere.

But it seems like when there *is* a technological solution to avoiding
an endorsement of a particular technological service, Members ought to
take advantage of it. Let's start with a simpler case --- if they are
going to post videos on YouTube, don't you think it would be nice if
they at least posted the same videos in a non-commercial place,
considering it doesn't cost anything to do so?

Or, well, look, maybe endorsements are the least of our problems. If
someone suggested instead that whatever rule that prevents online
endorsements be removed, then I'd support that. But then it's not just
about YouTube or Twitter. It becomes about GovTrack too, for instance.
Some twenty Member websites are using my district map Google Maps
mashup. If they're allowed to embed YouTube, they better link back to
GovTrack when they use my service too.

[Mark Tapscott]

There they go again, stifling free speech - my column on Capuano is in today's all-new Sunday edition of The Washington Examiner.

 

 

Matt Stoller
http://www.mattstoller.com
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
mark.t...@gmail.com
mtap...@dcexaminer.com
http://www.examiner.com/
Proprietor,
Tapscott's Copy Desk blog
http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk
"Tether the state in the morning and by noon it knows the full length of its tether." ---John Cotton (Paraphrased, actually)

[sto...@gmail.com]

I can't believe you put your name to such dishonest nonsense. Capuano isn't trying to impose new rules, these restrictions basically existed under the Republican Congress and the Democratic Congress.

If you stopped screwing around we could solve this problem. If you don't stop it's going to become turgid partisan gridlock and it's going to be your fault for screwing up an eminently fixable situation.

Matt

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

---

From: "Mark Tapscott" <mark.t...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:03:00 -0400

To: <openhous...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: the annotated commission report ...

[Clay Shirky]

> Members don't have an approved outlet for TV communication, and afaik by
> and large Members don't stick to particular outlets either. They endorse
> Fox just as much as they endorse Steven Colbert.

Do you really believe that? That there are no politicians who don't
favor one media outlet over another?

> There's also an
> inherent difference between personal interviews --- which you can only
> do 24hrs per day of --- and distributing information resources --- which
> has no bound.

But personal interviews *are* information resources, the minute the
interview is over.

> Maybe a closer example would be sending an op-ed to a publication. There
> is nothing inherent in the nature of an op-ed preventing the same op-ed
> from appearing in many publications at once, so why endorse particular
> ones? Maybe because publications won't print something that will appear
> elsewhere.

That's part of it, but its also because someone submitting an OpEd to
WashPo vs. WSJ is also making a calculation about what audience they
want to reach.

> But it seems like when there *is* a technological solution to avoiding
> an endorsement of a particular technological service, Members ought to
> take advantage of it.

This is where I came in, because it doesn't seem that way to me at all.

All media is going digital, so treating the rules for newspapers
differently from video is a mug's game.

> Let's start with a simpler case --- if they are
> going to post videos on YouTube, don't you think it would be nice if
> they at least posted the same videos in a non-commercial place,
> considering it doesn't cost anything to do so?

Do *I* think it would be nice? Well sure, but then I've been running
Linux since 1996 and I CC license the contents of my blog. But I'm
also not in the habit of confusing my preferences with good policy.

The policy we need is going to have three goals -- preventing Members
from directing taxpayer dollars to media outlets, maximizing citizen
access, and operating the same way across all media. As long as we
tolerate politicians sending contents to some ad-supported outlets,
its hard for me to see how you can draw a defensible line between some
ad-supported outlets being OK and others not, and you will never be
able to ban politicians cooperating with all such outlets.

-clay

[Mark Tapscott]

Matt, instead of flinging personal attacks, how about engaging the substance of the argument? If you - like Capuano - think "the problem" is the possibility that some piece of official content appears on a commercial site and thus confuses somebody, then you've illustrated exactly what I am talking about. When folks get honest about the monster we've created in Washington, that "turgid partisan gridlock" will be dealt with easily enough.  

--
Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
The Washington Examiner
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500

[Joshua Gay]

The main substance of this argument is not new. For instance, the
following was from Jefferson to Madison in 1787, stating:

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to
the government or information to the people. This last is the most
certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and
inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is
their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve
them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince
them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of
our liberty."

I believe that having things posted on commercial sites is OK, but
there is much we can do when posting to insure that it can reposted
elsewhere. For instance, I generally add the following clause to much
of what I post/write/publish:

"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are
permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this
notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved."

You can make as a precondition to interviews you give that it be
ascribed something similar. The key will be for us and the rest of the
public to begin getting good at moving these to repositories and in
public formats that make them widely accessible.

Hopefully overtime this will not be a two step process, or it will
become an automated process, but, we shouldn't, as they say, try to
stand still on a moving train. There are things we can do to help
ensure that our information and knowledge can be passed along to the
public as widely as possible, and we must begin working together to
ensure that this can happen.

I think if we, people outside of the inner legislative arenas, quibble
too much about where and when things are published, too much, we will
detract from the positive and exciting opportunities we have to
continue moving forward. Yes, people will capitilize one whatever they
can, wherever they can -- we needn't look further than CNN to see how
effectively one can make money from politics. But, we, those of us who
care about the positive aspects of information sharing, have a great
opportunity to encourage the kind of positive, co-operative, and
_informed_ progress our legislative body needs at this time. We are
approaching the tipping point and I think we all need to do one last
big heave-ho to get it there :-)

-Josh

[John Wonderlich]

I'm writing a larger description of what's going on, but I'd like to point out that Josh is making a separate claim, that anytime information is produced via "official" duties of publicly funded representatives, that information shouldn't be subject to commercial limitations (knowing Josh, probably by virtue of format OR ownership restrictions).  I don't know of any sense that this sort of restriction exists now, except maybe in some executive branch prescriptions like the a-130 circular.

It's a suggestion worth considering on it's merits, but I do think it's a bit orthogonal to the specifics of the franking reform discussion.

[Matt Stoller]

Once again, Capuano is not proposing new rules, he's trying to change existing restrictions. Your column explicitly says he is trying to implement new restrictions so as to go for a power grab.  That is not true.  It just isn't.  And if you bothered to read the Open House Project report or go through any of the documentation on this controversy, you'd know that.  And if you bothered to read anything I sent to this list, you'd know that I agree with you that restrictions like the ones Capuano wants to continue are stupid and antidemocratic.  And I'm one of the only leftwing bloggers making this case.

If you keep lying or writing without any regard for the substance, you make it harder for me to make this case to my side.  If you don't understand the situation or can't spend the time necessary to dig into the backstory, then don't write about it.  There are other people on your side making good points.  Either way, if you keep putting forward false arguments, Democrats in charge of this policy are simply going to see your arguments as a bad faith attempt to use policy disputes to to lie about Democrats, and this situation is less likely to be solved in an effective manner that allows liberals and conservatives in the House to use the web effectively to engage with the public.

best,

Matt

[Joshua Gay]

Thanks John.

I guess the important thing I was trying to say is that we seem to be
getting a bit combative on this issue, when I see it as an opportunity
for us to come together and put forth a cohesive and sensible reform
of the franking commission. I think we all find some of the
restrictions senseless --- although I appear to be a bit confused
about the rules, despite having tried to better understand them
(<http://gop.cha.house.gov/services/franking_commission_whatisfrank.htm>).

I look forward to your report, John. Thanks!

-Josh

--
Joshua Gay
[m: 617.966.9792 irc: jgay twitter: joshuagay]

[Mark Tapscott]

Matt, it seems we are disagreeing mainly on whether or not Capuano is seeking to implement "new" rules and what might be his motives in doing so. You are right that he is trying to change existing regulations rather than write entirely new ones from a clean sheet. My point is more about the attitude embodied in the idea that people  aren't smart enough to distinguish between official content and commercial content. If that attitude frames the revisions, they will be fundamentally flawed because they will extend to the Internet a regulatory approach suited to a non-Internet world. As you put it on Open Left: "It is far from reasonable to put forward rules preventing members who want to put more information online about what is going on from doing so." I described Capuano's effort as a "new" rule in the same sense that extending franking rules from mail to broadcast many years ago was a new application of an existing rule.

As for whether Capuano's motives can be construed fairly as a "power grab," you're welcome to agree or disagree as you think best. Neither of us knows with certainty, of course. What is most important in this discussion is the fact that, as you well describe it, Capuano is pushing "stupid and undemocratic" regulations, which is my point as well, I don't see then how can I be making the same point you are and simultaneously be "putting forth false arguments."

Finally, for the record, I have indeed been reading your posts here on this listserv and elsewhere, and I've spent a good amount of time in the report as well. I also spent the earlier part of my career on the Hill as a press secretary where I had many occasions to deal directly with the franking commission and came to appreciate just how deadening of genuine political discussion a 55-year-old congressional bureaucrat can be, regardless which party is in power.

[Greg Palmer]

So, given that no one is happy with the current policy, and that the reaction to Capuano's reforms has been less than favorable, I think we should be discussing what sensible reforms would look like.

Clay mentioned yesterday that a new policy should have three goals.

1) Preventing Members from directing taxpayer dollars to media outlets.
2) Maximizing citizen participation.
3) Operating the same way across all media.

On the first, I think I need some clarification. Members have the ability to direct taxpayer funds to media outlets in exchange for services rendered. I'm not sure that should change, but Clay maybe you could describe further? On the second, wholeheartedly agree. And on the third, should all media be treated the same? I'm not convinced that our interests as citizens are necessarily served by a blanket statement like that.

The news media, journalism, etc, should not be compared with direct advertiser-supported communications. Journalists are acting as a filter, and more optimistically an investigator, to not take Members words at face value and discover the whole story and put it in context. This is a different realm altogether than direct media. Twitter, YouTube, Qik, etc, are much more comparable to direct official communications (like newsletters and mail) than they are with the news media.

Therefore, the view that the Franking Commission is just about stamps (or more specifically, lack thereof), is a stunted one and that this situation shows precisely why. The Franking Commission's job is to make sure that, to the extent possible, Members don't abuse their official positions and direct communications channels in order to support their reelection efforts.

When it was created, that was primarily to prevent franked mail from being simple campaign communications. And with that, "constituent newsletters" were born. But, as we all acknowledge, snail mail is antiquated. Does that mean we should abandon the principles that the franking policy was built upon?

Absolutely not. But the point that the Internet moves too quickly is a fantastic one. How do we develop a policy that maintains the goals of the commission?

In that spirit I'd like to lay out some principles of my own:

1) Members of Congress may communicate with citizens during the course of official business. They may choose the media.

2) Citizens should have the right to receive and engage in these communications in a commericial-free zone. I realize this one is controversial to some, but I think it's a no-brainer. I'd rather not see anyone's ads next to the Speaker's YouTube videos. As a citizen of a democracy, my government's responsibility when communicating directly with me is to not muddy that communication with commercial advertisement. I would equally expect the Congress not to engage in sponsorship of government property. ("Today's floor coverage brought to you by ExxonMobil in the Dunkin' Donuts arena, formerly known as the House Chamber.")

To me, the debate here really isn't about new media or old, it's about what the government's responsibility is when communicating with the citizenry. Congress is slow, but in the meantime fantastic new media have been invented. Just because the problem is tough and the media are more plentiful and easier to use doesn't mean that we citizens no longer have an interest in making sure that our Congress operates with the decorum and dignity that we deserve.

--Greg

[Greg Palmer]

Also, here's a perfect example of why I'd prefer there be some internal regulation in the House. I subscribed to Culberson's tweetstream because I was curious about how he was using it on the House floor and how it could become a useful communications tool.

Here's his latest tweet:
"Big day tomorrow; must keep raising $$ since my multimillionaire opponent has infinite $$$ - Congress in session all week: good night all!"

[Joshua Gay]

> "Big day tomorrow; must keep raising $$ since my multimillionaire opponent
> has infinite $$$ - Congress in session all week: good night all!"

Culberson's unabashed tweets on this matter are awesome. He is showing
citizens what makes his job hard. Whether it's raising money on a busy
week in congress, or it's not having enough time to read the bills --
his candidness and openness are a blessing. I'm not sure how that
relates to the franking commission, as my confusion on this matter has
already been made public, but I'll add my last two bits on the subject
by quoting Jack Welch from his book, Winning, where, when writing
about the remarkable absence of candor in the workplace, he states,
"In a bureaucracy, people are afraid to speak out. This type of
environment slows you down, and it doesn't improve the workplace." I
think this applies to Culberson's workplace as well.

Oh, and, he just tweeted again, "@bythebayou Note that social media
commun spoke & I listened & adjusted my position to amend rules to
treat new media just like old media"

So, well, he's being candid and he's listening, too :-)

[Xavier Lopez-Ayala]

Some might call his tweet a fundraising appeal. Not sure that hives
with the rules of official communication. If he wanted to say what
you're saying he would have said it. Instead he goes further and
"attacks" his opponent.

Sent from my iPhone

[John Wonderlich]

(Greg, just fyi I respond to one of your points and then I get into what I've been drafting...)

totally agree with the spirit of this email.  On the second point, though...

"Citizens should have the right to receive and engage in these communications in a commericial-free zone. "

also implies "Congress has the right to restrict Members' speech (as funded through MRAs) from engaging in any zone with commerce.

While they do have that right (they can pass whatever rules they want to govern their own chambers), I suspect doing so wholesale would be a bad idea.  Would all Op-Eds have to be on adless broadsheets?  Would MoCs only appear on TV between other segments, so as to avoid proximity to adverts?  We'd also be denying the things that commercial spaces have to offer, or that members have to offer them. 

If a Senator has a bill about auto manufacturers, and would like to give a big speech to factory workers, that should be ok, right?  It's official business of a kind we'd probably like to see, communication between lawmakers and stakeholders, directly.  Now take that to a digital context.  If Toyota had a thriving online community among its workers on their intranet, and a Senator wanted to have an email or chat through that service to understand the plight of the one huge industry in their district, would that be wrong?  I doubt it.

The government pays for services with public money all the time, without removing the branding -- take municipal vehicles for example.  That's a big coup for whatever provider gets to sell 1500 pickups, and sedans, and they don't all have to be un-branded. 

Defense contracts aren't just good for the legitimacy of some companies, for some, they double the size of the company, or make up its entirety.

All thoughts about privatization and contracting aside, anything government does is an endorsement, and the idea that political content must somehow be immune from those forces is hard for me to accept.  Maybe there are arguments I haven't seen yet, but the fundamental issue to me is that: Congressional speech has a place outside the walled garden of House.gov, which is itself only a recent development.  Congressional speech has flourished outside that context for the whole of our country.

The conflicts of interest have flourished for that whole time too.  According to one of Donald Ritchie's books, the original clerks of congressional committees clerked as a side job to support themselves when congress was out of session, using the information they gleaned from their work to get juicy leads on stories, which they then used to make a killing on investments (as speculators) to add to their main careers as journalists.  This wasn't even really considered corrupt, just a perk of the job.

The story of political corruption is one of distinctions developing over time. 

The potential for Corruption, for [problems with] Decorum, for [pernicious] Political [activities] -- these risks are relatively unknown in an open setting where startups are common, where speech comes at negligible cost, and where flame wars are common.  Congressional speech is increasingly important for online communities, and those same communities are increasingly relevant for Member offices.  That speech, that taxpayer funded "official" speech, with all it's weight and implications and liabilities -- how does it affect and how is it affected by a "new" online context?  Is that online context really any different?

We do have some examples to go by, though.  For one, leadership offices don't have the same restrictions as do member offices.  Is this a useful pilot program?  Have there been concerns over leadership's use of web services?  Has there been impugning over implied endorsements, has Pelosi or Boehner ever troll rated or "blammed" anyone? (daily kos and redstate terminology, if I'm not mistaken).  If the example set by leadership has been solid, does this suggest that: 1. they have been better able to connect with constituents and promote public access through their unenhindered web access, and 2. Member offices might flourish under a similarly opened regime?  (this is a similar to Culberson's proposal from Friday, read here.  If you've been following all this, you should check that out, he has walked back considerably on the partisanship.)

So the question, then, again, is what we might use as a guide through these questions.  It's undesirable from my perspective to see a drawn out process where each web activity turns into a political question on standards administration.  We have a good deal to overcome, too, since the House has a long history of adapting slowly and awkwardly to technology; each press gallery was only created after the one before it (technologically and chronologically) couldn't contain something so varied.  Rather than create better rules that might encompass all press credentialing, we've been left with a series of press galleries, each credentialing under its own authority under the Speaker, often having a somewhat adversarial stance toward the others (I'm told).

So, in order to avoid passing off the question, I think the first task is to develop the values or principles that guide further consideration.

First is Openness (the public).  That Congress should operate in many ways as a public space is natural, as a body supposedly made up by the public, and deriving its legitimacy from the public (as opposed to divine right, or whatever).  Transparency breeds trust, good policy, legitimacy, and the added benefit that access to public data is inherently valuable. 
The developing public intellectual space has dizzing potential, and all the benefits of free flowing hypernetworked information apply both inside Congress and in public communities.  Everyone stands to gain from more and better dialog, and citizens are right to demand that representatives use the tools at hand to better understand both policy and the concerns of those in their districts.

Second are Congress's Prerogatives.  Section 5 of Article I of the US Constitution says : "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."  House Rule X gives jurisdiction to the Committee on House Administration, the Franking Commission, and to the Ethics Committee.  The Franking Commission publishes the Red Book (pdf), and CHA publishes the Member's Handbook.  Similar structures exist in the Senate.  39 USC Section 3210 governs the use of Franked Mail. 
These are the guidelines under which Members operate.  These are the mechanisms under which a balance must be struck between the benefits of openness and the liabilities that come with communications...

Third are Liabilities: The extent and seriousness of the liabilities that come with online communications from Member offices lie at the crux of the debate over what should happen.  I see three:

• commercialization: This is what I went off on throughout the first half of this email.  We need to determine when an official act becomes a conflict of interest (corrupt), or when it adds an unneeded liability in potentially appearing to be an endorsement.  I'm inclined to discuss this with comparisons to the contexts of traditional media appearances, and to in-person "official" meetings, especially insofar as they involve potential endorsement.  (Members buy cars with MRAs sometimes.)
• decorum:  This strikes me as the smallest concern, and the easiest to enforce.  After the fact enforcement is the only way reasonable standards can be maintained.  Unless some set of sites are judged en-masse to be off limits and un-congressional.
• politicization: This is somewhat tougher.  I'm wondering to what degree a comparison to the Hatch Act is in order, which prevents federal employees from participating in campaign activities.  It's certainly another example of holding a line between "official" and "campaign" business.

To move beyond this point, I'd like to start thinking about a balance between proactive regulation and after the fact enforcement, which is really the operational difference between the Franking Commission and the Ethics Committee.  The Franking Commission needs to see things during the window before elections, since afterward it's too late.  This explains their inclination toward approving communications before their promulgation.

The Ethics Committee can't examine things before they happen, because that's impossible.  They respond to complaints, and (sort of) examine the possibility of some action.

I'd like to think about reasonable standards over Member communications fit into this sort of framework.  (but that's it for now...)

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Greg Palmer <jgpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Josh Tauberer]

So I'm a little lost because I feel like I don't know what the practical
ramifications are of any of the kind of abstract notions like treating
new media like old media. I don't know because I don't know what the
existing rules are. So here's every relevant mention of 'web' in the
CHA's member handbook [1] (thanks for the links, John).

-----

Unsolicited mass communication does *not* include:
* Web sites (including a Member's official web site) and other
electronic bulletin boards on which information is posted for voluntary
public access

Web Sites

2. Member's Web sites must be located in the HOUSE.GOV host-domain and
may be maintained by either House Information Resources (HIR), the
Member's congressional office, or a private vendor.
5. ...Member offices maintaining their sites on the Public web server
are required to incorporate the exit notice into their external links.

The content of a Member's Web site:

1. May not include personal, political, or campaign information.
2. May not be directly linked or refer to Web sites created or
operated by a campaign or any campaign related entity including
political parties and campaign committees.
3. May not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a
Member's position.
4. May not generate, circulate, solicit, or encourage signing petitions.
5. May not include any advertisement for any private individual,
firm, or corporation, or imply in any manner that the government
endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity, or service.

-----

I also perused the Franking Commission's Red Book [2] but I didn't find
anything relevant to this century. It specifically defines mass mailings
as messages either 1) individually addressed, or 2) addressed generally
to a congressional district's members "for general distribution to
postal customers" (p22). I see this as easily applying to email, but not
at all to something like YouTube or Twitter.

(I understand that there may be unsaid interpretations of various rules
at play, but being an outsider I obviously don't know them.)

The first paragraph in what I quoted above from CHA seems like it
*permits* posting something on YouTube and Twitter --- that is,
something for people to view directly on YouTube or Twitter. Except,
modulo what I write below. The last point (bullet #5) would indicate
that they cannot mention YouTube or Twitter on their websites --- that
seems to rule out embedding and linking.

Capuano wrote "current CHA regulations have been interpreted to prohibit
Members from posting official content outside of the House.gov domain".
Where does that come from? The websites bullet #2 (the first #2)?

Am I missing anything?

[1] http://gop.cha.house.gov/services/membershandbook.shtml
[2] http://cha.house.gov/PDFs/franking/franking2.pdf

[ster...@cox.net]

If Josh is a little lost, I am not sure how to describe where I am. I have been trying to follow the discussion (admittedly while on vacation in Bethany Beach), but I don't have a sufficient frame of reference to make heads or tails of it.

It does strike me, though, that this would be a good time to get the congressional leadership and/or rank and file on record with regard to the proposals set forth in the Open House Project. What about a questionaire for all House candidates asking for their positions on issues of congressional transparency? The responses could provide a foundation for reform efforts in the next Congress.

Just a thought.

[ster...@cox.net]

If Josh is a little lost, I am not sure how to describe where I am. I have been trying to follow the discussion (admittedly while on vacation in Bethany Beach), but I don't have a sufficient frame of reference to make heads or tails of it.

It does strike me, though, that this would be a good time to get the congressional leadership and/or rank and file on record with regard to the proposals set forth in the Open House Project. What about a questionaire for all House candidates asking for their positions on issues of congressional transparency? The responses could provide a foundation for reform efforts in the next Congress.

Just a thought.

---- Josh Tauberer <taub...@govtrack.us> wrote:
>

[Paul Blumenthal]

I think that John has laid this out in a long explanation at some point, and David and I wrote a pretty extensive explanation of where this problem came from in the OHP report, but here's one more attempt at explaining where these rules and restrictions come from:

1993: Ted Kennedy is first lawmaker online; Committee on House Administration wires seven member offices for e-mail (this was the Constituent Electronic Mail System pilot program).

Oct. 1994: Committee on House Administration agrees to highly restrictive rules regarding Internet use - directly based on franking rules. As reported at the time: "[N]ew policy requires that House use Internet and House services only for material 'that concerns the conduct of a Member's official or representational duties or to otherwise support the conduct of official business of the House generally." This was interpreted as to restrict lawmakers from e-mailing friends or family from an official computer and kept them from accessing sites that did not have an official prupose.

Direct quoting from 1994 rules:

"Members should ask the Franking Commission on guidance on frankability. All frankable material shall be acceptable for transmission on the Internet. Any inquiries regarding the particular use of an Internet service, including whether such use is personal, campaign or unofficial, shall be directed to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct."

In applying franking rules to web use, all member web sites were required to go dark 90 days prior to an election.

Post-election 1994: Gingrich names Computer Working Group (Vern Ehlers, Bob Ney, Vic Fazio). CWG wants to rewrite web use rules.

1995-1996: Numerous press reports on members linking directly to political sites (NRCC, DNCC, outside advocacy groups). This leads to the House Oversight Committee (previously known as the Committee on House Administration) to create new rules for web use.

May 1, 1996: Bill Thomas and Vic Fazio issue new rules (now found in Member Handbook):

"The creation and operation of Members' official web sites must be in support of the Members' official and representational duties to the district from which elected.

Office web sites may not: include personal, political, or campaign information; include advertisements or endorsements for private individuals or entities; and directly link to any web sites created or operated by campaign or partisan political organizations."

2003: Committee on House Administration repeals the 90-day election blackout period.

Today, the House operates under a combination of the 1994 rules and the updates of 1996 and 2003. There are also a number of not well known rulings that come from both the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Franking Commission that provide more specific information on what is acceptable. I'm sure David and others are familiar with these advisory opinions. I, for one, would like to see what the commission/committee deem inappropriate for member use and if they give any reason.

Paul

--
Paul Blumenthal
Researcher | Sunlight Foundation
202-742-1520 ext.229

[Josh Tauberer]

Paul Blumenthal wrote:
> Direct quoting from 1994 rules:
>
> "

snip

> Any inquiries regarding the particular
> use of an Internet service, including whether such use is personal,
> campaign or unofficial, shall be directed to the Committee on
> Standards of Official Conduct."
>

> There are also a number of not well known
> rulings that come from both the Committee on Standards of Official
> Conduct and the Franking Commission that provide more specific
> information on what is acceptable. I'm sure David and others are
> familiar with these advisory opinions.

Thanks for the additional info, Paul. I'm not sure if the first
paragraph is still a part of the relevant rules (?). As for the second
paragraph, is there a place we can find these rulings or are they as
inaccessible as one might expect?

[John Wonderlich]

Soren Dayton in yesterday's Roll Call:

What, Not Where Should Govern Internet Postings

By Soren Dayton
Special to Roll Call

July 21, 2008

Print

E-Mail

Reprints

Text Size

On June 24, Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) sent a letter to House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.) urging the committee to update its guidelines governing Member Web sites. While Capuano's proposal improved the status quo, it ignores the current practice by House Members....  (rest of piece here; sub only)

...

Simple content-based rules would allow Members to communicate with their constituents and the public without putting an undue burden on the House, Members, companies who host content or the general public. Pelosi said, quite correctly, that these "are vital tools toward increasing transparency and accountability."

Soren Dayton, a manager for New Media Strategies, blogs at TheNextRight.com and Redstate.com.