House bill to limit where Members post content?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Leslie Harris
Jul 8, 2008, 4:09:12 PM7/8/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Does anyone know about this bill? Please let me know asap???
Leslie Harris
Leslie Harris
President/ CEO
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I St NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
(f) 202-637- 0968
Keeping the Internet Open, Innovative and Free
_______________________________________________
rom: Republican Leader Press Office [mailto:RepublicanLea...@mail.house.gov]Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:33 AMSubject: **** Internet Freedom Alert ****From: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)TO: Online Community & ActivistsRE: An Attack on Internet Free SpeechDATE: July 8, 2008I'm writing to alert you to an attack on free speech that is making its way through Congress. This attack, which should concern activists of all political affiliations across the ideological spectrum, comes in the form of a new congressional rule that would prohibit Americans from viewing content published by Members of Congress on websites that are not "approved" by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House.Millions of Americans today utilize free, unregulated and uncensored websites like YouTube on a daily basis to not only obtain information from their elected leaders about what's going on in their government, but to also give feedback and easily share that information with others.The advent of new media technology has empowered American citizens with real-time information about the policy debates and actions being undertaken by Congress. This has increasingly forced Congress to become more transparent and made it easier for American citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable.The Committee on House Administration is considering a new rule that could bring this trend to a screeching halt. The Committee is considering the adoption of new rules that would require outside websites such as YouTube to comply with House regulations before Members of Congress could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of "approved" websites, and Members of Congress could post content only such websites. The rule has been proposed by the Democratic chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep.Robert Brady (D-PA). A copy of Rep. Capuano's letter is available athttp://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF.If the proposed rule is adopted, the free flow of information over the Internet between Americans and their representatives will besignificantly curtailed. Americans who currently use free websiteslike YouTube to obtain uncensored daily information about congressional policy debates will instead be forced to go to websites "approved" by the House Administration Committee in order to continue getting such information. This would amount to new government censorship of the Internet, by a panel of federal officials that is neither neutral nor independent.House Republicans, led by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Tom Price (R-GA), have expressed their opposition to this attack on Internet freedom and proposed an alternative solution that would allow Members of Congress to continue posting content at sites of their choosing. I will continue to keep you updated as this situation unfolds. For further information, please visit the House Republican Leader website or contact Nick Schaper, my Director of New Media Operations, at nick.s...@mail.house.gov.
CDT-staff mailing list
CDT-...@cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-staff
John Wonderlich
Jul 8, 2008, 4:39:29 PM7/8/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Hi Leslie,
For more background, see this thread from earlier today.
Also, I have another comparison making the point that conflicts of interest are far more tolerated in the offline world. Josh Ruihley just brought up the comparison of politicians throwing the first pitch at a baseball game.
Baseball games are fundamentally a commercial enterprise (probably much more so than most online fora).
A President, Senator or Representative throwing out a first pitch is surrounded by advertisements by the hundred, appearing on television driven by advertisers, wearing a jersey that is for sale, and appearing in a setting attended by paying customers engaged in a wholly non-political context. If this is permissible, how is engaging in legislative substance online a questionable activity?--
John Wonderlich
Program Director
The Sunlight Foundation
(202) 742-1520 ext. 234
For more background, see this thread from earlier today.
Also, I have another comparison making the point that conflicts of interest are far more tolerated in the offline world. Josh Ruihley just brought up the comparison of politicians throwing the first pitch at a baseball game.
Baseball games are fundamentally a commercial enterprise (probably much more so than most online fora).
A President, Senator or Representative throwing out a first pitch is surrounded by advertisements by the hundred, appearing on television driven by advertisers, wearing a jersey that is for sale, and appearing in a setting attended by paying customers engaged in a wholly non-political context. If this is permissible, how is engaging in legislative substance online a questionable activity?
John Wonderlich
Program Director
The Sunlight Foundation
(202) 742-1520 ext. 234
David All
Jul 8, 2008, 4:45:25 PM7/8/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Continuing to blog about this at TechRepublican but this just in from a Senate source with intimate knowledge of a plan by Dems to control/restrict Member web-use...
=====================
This effort is coming from Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the chair of the Rules Committee, and her staff.
Unfortunately, Republicans are under a lot of pressure here because the Democrats have managed to convince a number of senators that all they’re doing is providing access, when in fact they’re attempting to regulate content.
Here are the key issues:
- Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
- It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
- The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
- The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
- Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.
- The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.
It also raises a number of questions:
- Would this rule extend beyond comments to posts on the site?
- Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
- How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live chatroom? Would that have to be moderated?
- The Rules Committee would get to act as the “Content KGB” since it can require the removal of content in violation of Senate Rules. And who determines what’s in violation? The Rules Committee.
- There are no similar controls on any other form of communication with the public, such as publishing op-eds in newspapers or appearing on radio or television.
It’s important that folks who are concerned about this contact the Rules Committee at 202-224-6352 or Feinstein’s office: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Home.
I’ve included a copy of the proposed rule below.
3. Websites covered by this policy must be located in the SENATE.GOV host-domain.
a. EXCEPTIONS: Subject to the approval of the Chair and Ranking Member, the Rules Committee may grant exceptions to this requirement to permit the office of a Member, Committee or Officer of the Senate (“Office”) to maintain websites, operate channels or otherwise post material and content on sanctioned third-party websites based on terms and conditions established by the Committee on Rules and Administration.
i. Such terms and conditions for sanctioning by the Rules Committee shall include:
(1) Prohibitions on charging a fee to the public to access the website;
(2) Prohibitions on adding personal, promotional, commercial, or partisan political/campaign-related content or links to an Office-maintained site or channel;
(3) Limits on data gathering tools that allow for collecting personal information on users and distributing it to outside parties;
(4) Requirements that the Office maintaining the website or channel shall retain the ability to moderate or disallow commentary by the public;
(5) Naming protocols or other mutually agreed upon methods that will enable the public to know when a site or channel is maintained by an Office.
b. Offices may elect to participate on such third-party websites subject to conditions specified by the Rules Committee.
i. Such terms and conditions for participation on such sites shall include:
(1) Submitting a letter to the Rules Committee notifying the Committee of the Office’s intent to post material to a sanctioned site, and acknowledging it will refrain from using such site for personal, promotional, commercial, or partisan political/campaign purposes, as required by law;
(2) Acknowledging the Office is responsible for moderating any public commentary and barring postings that are promotional or commercial, or that advocate the election or defeat of any individual or political party;
(3) Including a link to the “U.S. Senate Usage Rules and Policies” http://www.senate.gov/usage/internetpolicy.htm; and
(4) Acknowledging that the Office understands that links on the third-party website might connect a user to material outside of the Office’s control.
c. The Rules Committee reserves the right to require the removal of content from any third-party website that is in violation of Senate rules and regulations.
d. The Rules Committee shall require the removal of any content a Member posts on such third-party website or channel at the end of a Member’s term.
__________________________________
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
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
Jul 8, 2008, 4:54:55 PM7/8/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
I think it's important to point out that these reconsidered restrictions add new opportunities for online interaction.
While I see them as inadequate, I think calling them a restriction is a stretch, since they're being created to try to relax restrictions.
An authoritarian approach to approving specific web use by Members is better than the blanket restriction that preceded it.
While I see them as inadequate, I think calling them a restriction is a stretch, since they're being created to try to relax restrictions.
An authoritarian approach to approving specific web use by Members is better than the blanket restriction that preceded it.
Mark Tapscott
Jul 8, 2008, 5:51:07 PM7/8/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
I'm from out of town and all, but it occurs to me that this initiative is aimed at suppressing minority web sites like the Inhofe effort on Senate Environment and Public Works, which has provided an extraordinarily effective rallying point for opposition to global warming legislation. Members of the majority today someday will again be in the minority, so they better think very carefully about giving anybody any authority to censor what a member can post on a congressional or other web site.
As for assurances that nothing of the sort is intended, I am reminded of Cromwell's jeering rejoinder to Norfolk in "A Man for All Seasons" - "My god, man, this is not Spain." The reality, of course, was no, it was not Spain, it was Tudor England, which was in many respects much worse.--
Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
The Washington Examiner
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
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)
As for assurances that nothing of the sort is intended, I am reminded of Cromwell's jeering rejoinder to Norfolk in "A Man for All Seasons" - "My god, man, this is not Spain." The reality, of course, was no, it was not Spain, it was Tudor England, which was in many respects much worse.
Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
The Washington Examiner
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
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)
citizencontact
Jul 9, 2008, 8:43:31 AM7/9/08
to Open House Project
Although I have chafed at various rules that have kept Congress from
using new technology, I have always supported in general the rules
that kept Congress from acting inappropriately. It is inappropriate
for those in Congress to use their official budgets to pay for blatant
campaigning or to become a shill for certain companies. And I have
seen rules applied unfairly, but that does not make the rules unfair.
As always I have a hope that cooler heads prevail and people recognize
that it is wrong for Congress to not have rules that restrict
campaigning and shilling. And that enforcing those rules on the
Internet is tricky, but necessary (and enforcing reporting any
activity is a necessary part of transparency).
Ok. Now some context as John mentioned. Back in the day when there
were gopher sites (before web was popular) the Senate had rules that
essentially turned them off before the election season. Back then the
analogy the Senate used to this new communication technology was mass
mailing/newsletters. Overtime, the rules were relaxed as the ability
to understand not the technology, but its role in communications, its
analogous forms to old media became more clear. But also the
understanding of the public improved, so there would not be any bad
press when a link from a congressional site took the person to a site
that in turn might have linked to an inappropriate site as happened on
a few occasions. Who wants to be on the leading edge of technology
when the press and public interpret it badly over and over (more a
problem ten years ago than now).
So breathe deeply, reread the rules (and try and link to them on a
site so we can know their authenticity), read the previous rules not
just to the Internet, but also those on what is inappropriate for
someone in Congress to do.
Daniel Bennett
On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, "Mark Tapscott" <mark.tapsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm from out of town and all, but it occurs to me that this initiative is
> aimed at suppressing minority web sites like the Inhofe effort on Senate
> Environment and Public Works, which has provided an extraordinarily
> effective rallying point for opposition to global warming legislation.
> Members of the majority today someday will again be in the minority, so they
> better think very carefully about giving anybody any authority to censor
> what a member can post on a congressional or other web site.
> As for assurances that nothing of the sort is intended, I am reminded of
> Cromwell's jeering rejoinder to Norfolk in "A Man for All Seasons" - "My
> god, man, this is not Spain." The reality, of course, was no, it was not
> Spain, it was Tudor England, which was in many respects much worse.
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:54 PM, John Wonderlich <johnwonderl...@gmail.com>
> > stretch, since they're being created to try to *relax* restrictions.
> >> and Townhall.
> >> - The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate "any public
> >> - Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
> >> - How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live
> >> For more background, see this thread<http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject/browse_thread/thread/...>from earlier today.
> >>> ]
> ...
>
> read more »
using new technology, I have always supported in general the rules
that kept Congress from acting inappropriately. It is inappropriate
for those in Congress to use their official budgets to pay for blatant
campaigning or to become a shill for certain companies. And I have
seen rules applied unfairly, but that does not make the rules unfair.
As always I have a hope that cooler heads prevail and people recognize
that it is wrong for Congress to not have rules that restrict
campaigning and shilling. And that enforcing those rules on the
Internet is tricky, but necessary (and enforcing reporting any
activity is a necessary part of transparency).
Ok. Now some context as John mentioned. Back in the day when there
were gopher sites (before web was popular) the Senate had rules that
essentially turned them off before the election season. Back then the
analogy the Senate used to this new communication technology was mass
mailing/newsletters. Overtime, the rules were relaxed as the ability
to understand not the technology, but its role in communications, its
analogous forms to old media became more clear. But also the
understanding of the public improved, so there would not be any bad
press when a link from a congressional site took the person to a site
that in turn might have linked to an inappropriate site as happened on
a few occasions. Who wants to be on the leading edge of technology
when the press and public interpret it badly over and over (more a
problem ten years ago than now).
So breathe deeply, reread the rules (and try and link to them on a
site so we can know their authenticity), read the previous rules not
just to the Internet, but also those on what is inappropriate for
someone in Congress to do.
Daniel Bennett
On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, "Mark Tapscott" <mark.tapsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm from out of town and all, but it occurs to me that this initiative is
> aimed at suppressing minority web sites like the Inhofe effort on Senate
> Environment and Public Works, which has provided an extraordinarily
> effective rallying point for opposition to global warming legislation.
> Members of the majority today someday will again be in the minority, so they
> better think very carefully about giving anybody any authority to censor
> what a member can post on a congressional or other web site.
> As for assurances that nothing of the sort is intended, I am reminded of
> Cromwell's jeering rejoinder to Norfolk in "A Man for All Seasons" - "My
> god, man, this is not Spain." The reality, of course, was no, it was not
> Spain, it was Tudor England, which was in many respects much worse.
>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it's important to point out that these reconsidered restrictions
> > add new opportunities for online interaction.
>
> > While I see them as *inadequate*, I think calling them a restriction is a
>
> > I think it's important to point out that these reconsidered restrictions
> > add new opportunities for online interaction.
>
> > stretch, since they're being created to try to *relax* restrictions.
>
> > An authoritarian approach to approving specific web use by Members is
> > better than the blanket restriction that preceded it.
>
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David All <da...@davidallgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> Continuing to blog about this at TechRepublican but this just in from a
> >> Senate source with intimate knowledge of a plan by Dems to control/restrict
> >> Member web-use...
> >> =====================
>
> >> This effort is coming from Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the chair of the
> >> Rules Committee, and her staff.
>
> >> Unfortunately, Republicans are under a lot of pressure here because the
> >> Democrats have managed to convince a number of senators that all they're
> >> doing is providing access, when in fact they're attempting to regulate
> >> content.
>
> >> Here are the key issues:
>
> >> - Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the
> > An authoritarian approach to approving specific web use by Members is
> > better than the blanket restriction that preceded it.
>
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David All <da...@davidallgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> Continuing to blog about this at TechRepublican but this just in from a
> >> Senate source with intimate knowledge of a plan by Dems to control/restrict
> >> Member web-use...
> >> =====================
>
> >> This effort is coming from Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the chair of the
> >> Rules Committee, and her staff.
>
> >> Unfortunately, Republicans are under a lot of pressure here because the
> >> Democrats have managed to convince a number of senators that all they're
> >> doing is providing access, when in fact they're attempting to regulate
> >> content.
>
> >> Here are the key issues:
>
> >> Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
> >> - It will be up to the committee to "sanction" which websites and
> >> forms of communication they deem appropriate.
> >> - The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among
> >> various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
> >> - The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any
> >> site not ending in "senate.gov," which would include sites like
> >> YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
> >> - Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState
> >> YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
> >> and Townhall.
> >> - The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate "any public
> >> commentary" which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and
> >> YouTube videos, among other things.
>
> >> It also raises a number of questions:
>
> >> - Would this rule extend beyond comments to posts on the site?
> >> YouTube videos, among other things.
>
> >> It also raises a number of questions:
>
> >> - Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
> >> - How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live
> >> chatroom? Would that have to be moderated?
> >> - The Rules Committee would get to act as the "Content KGB" since it
> >> can require the removal of content in violation of Senate Rules. And who
> >> determines what's in violation? The Rules Committee.
> >> - There are no similar controls on any other form of communication
> >> determines what's in violation? The Rules Committee.
>
> >> Also, I have another comparison making the point that conflicts of
> >> interest are far more tolerated in the offline world. Josh Ruihley just
> >> brought up the comparison of politicians throwing the first pitch at a
> >> baseball game.
>
> >> Baseball games are fundamentally a commercial enterprise (probably much
> >> more so than most online fora).
>
> >> A President, Senator or Representative throwing out a first pitch is
> >> surrounded by advertisements by the hundred, appearing on television driven
> >> by advertisers, wearing a jersey that is for sale, and appearing in a
> >> setting attended by paying customers engaged in a wholly non-political
> >> context. If this is permissible, how is engaging in legislative substance
> >> online a questionable activity?
>
> >> Also, I have another comparison making the point that conflicts of
> >> interest are far more tolerated in the offline world. Josh Ruihley just
> >> brought up the comparison of politicians throwing the first pitch at a
> >> baseball game.
>
> >> Baseball games are fundamentally a commercial enterprise (probably much
> >> more so than most online fora).
>
> >> A President, Senator or Representative throwing out a first pitch is
> >> surrounded by advertisements by the hundred, appearing on television driven
> >> by advertisers, wearing a jersey that is for sale, and appearing in a
> >> setting attended by paying customers engaged in a wholly non-political
> >> context. If this is permissible, how is engaging in legislative substance
> >> online a questionable activity?
>
> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Leslie Harris <lhar...@cdt.org> wrote:
>
> >>> Does anyone know about this bill? Please let me know asap???
> >>> Leslie Harris
>
> >>> Leslie Harris
> >>> President/ CEO
> >>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>> 1634 I St NW, 11th Floor
> >>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>> (p) 202-637-9800 x 115
> >>> (f) 202-637- 0968
> >>> lhar...@cdt.org
>
> >>> Does anyone know about this bill? Please let me know asap???
> >>> Leslie Harris
>
> >>> Leslie Harris
> >>> President/ CEO
> >>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>> 1634 I St NW, 11th Floor
> >>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>> (p) 202-637-9800 x 115
> >>> (f) 202-637- 0968
>
> >>> Keeping the Internet Open, Innovative and Free
>
> >>> rom: Republican Leader Press Office [
> >>> mailto:RepublicanLeaderPressOff...@mail.house.gov<RepublicanLeaderPressOff...@mail.house.gov>
> >>> Keeping the Internet Open, Innovative and Free
>
> >>> rom: Republican Leader Press Office [
> >>> ]
>
> read more »
Greg Palmer
Jul 9, 2008, 9:50:01 AM7/9/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Right and let me pose a scenario for why these rules exist and why they are *tough* to develop in light of the web's advertising-supported content model.
A Member decides to post videos on YouTube in an official capacity using taxpayer resources. Can the Member's campaign link to those videos? Can the campaign advertise on that YouTube page? Can an opposition campaign or party advertise there? Under the free-for-all system and in a world where ad-serving is done contextually and automatically, it's not easy to enforce. It's more onerous to expect private companies to filter their ads to comply with applicable laws and House Rules.
Better probably is to open a limited portion of YouTube or other "qualifying sites" that comply with House Rules. What we're talking about here is YouTube; I suspect the words "qualifying sites" exist in that letter and the proposed rule in order to not violate the House's ban on endorsing or appearing to endorse private corporations or services.
I think Boehner, Culberson, etc are trying to make something bigger out of something that's not that big. The letter specifically references Members trying to put video on the web. No prohibitions on Twitter, etc. Is Capuano proposing that these rules apply to services other than video? The letter doesn't say. Has anyone asked him?
Finally, why is it inappropriate to ask House members to obey the rules of the House when engaging in non-campaign official communications? It's been the standard for a long time. I think there could be a more constructive debate among us and among Members about what is good and bad about this rule. It's certainly not a clear-cut thing.
--greg
A Member decides to post videos on YouTube in an official capacity using taxpayer resources. Can the Member's campaign link to those videos? Can the campaign advertise on that YouTube page? Can an opposition campaign or party advertise there? Under the free-for-all system and in a world where ad-serving is done contextually and automatically, it's not easy to enforce. It's more onerous to expect private companies to filter their ads to comply with applicable laws and House Rules.
Better probably is to open a limited portion of YouTube or other "qualifying sites" that comply with House Rules. What we're talking about here is YouTube; I suspect the words "qualifying sites" exist in that letter and the proposed rule in order to not violate the House's ban on endorsing or appearing to endorse private corporations or services.
I think Boehner, Culberson, etc are trying to make something bigger out of something that's not that big. The letter specifically references Members trying to put video on the web. No prohibitions on Twitter, etc. Is Capuano proposing that these rules apply to services other than video? The letter doesn't say. Has anyone asked him?
Finally, why is it inappropriate to ask House members to obey the rules of the House when engaging in non-campaign official communications? It's been the standard for a long time. I think there could be a more constructive debate among us and among Members about what is good and bad about this rule. It's certainly not a clear-cut thing.
--greg
Ellen Miller
Jul 9, 2008, 10:08:20 AM7/9/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
I just asked Culberson, via Twitter, to check with Capuano on Greg’s point below.
Ellen
Ellen S. Miller, Executive Director
The Sunlight Foundation
1818 N Street NW, Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ken Ward
Jul 9, 2008, 3:37:36 PM7/9/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Commenting on the House Franking
Commission...
Ken Ward
Adfero Group
From: openhous...@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ellen Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:08 AM
citizencontact
Jul 9, 2008, 6:01:09 PM7/9/08
to Open House Project
Ken Ward mistakenly asserts that "ALL of the regulations governing
Members’ activity online – including both their web sites and email
newsletters - are derived from rules created for franked mail." Rather
the Franking rules are a part of a whole set of rules (see:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/hrm/browse_110.html ) Although it is true
that conservative forces equated the Franking of postal communication
with an unfair advantage for incumbents when the Democrats were in
control (which is not to say that they were completely wrong), the
"fact" that the Internet makes a more even playing field for
incumbents and potential rivals does not address much of the rules.
For example, the gift ban which is not a Franking rule does apply to
the use of the Internet. Free web hosting would be considered a gift.
Even after explaining why the gift ban does not be apply to open
source software and double checking with committee lawyers, people
worry about perception that they will be tarred unfairly with breaking
it by offering free open source software to Congress even as it is
free to the public.
At the crux of it is perception. What people who want to expand use of
technology should do is to provide the best analogies, think hard
about the implications of "free" media, make sure that all things are
reported, archived and publicly available and when they break the
rules... be ready to make a fair argument in their defense (not just
bash the other side of the aisle).
Daniel Bennett
P.S. below is a response to someones question about @culberson
\\\
This fight seems to be about the problems I mentioned of understanding
the analogous situation offline and applying the rules regarding
corruption, campaigning using official resources, advertising/
endorsing commercial firms, making requests for money or actions that
might appear to have the force of law (asking for donations for
RedCross may sound good, but may come across as more than a suggestion
when done in the official capacity of Congress). So for example
posting on a site like YouTube:
1. first may allow the congressperson to hide from following the rules
of Congress (posting surreptitiously campaign ads using congressional
staff and resources)
2. may involve spending money in ways that might need to be reimbursed
by Congress for inappropriate things
3. may include official work that is no longer under the jurisdiction
of the House/Senate Sergeant of Arms (not a big deal for public data,
but if private material were stored outside of House/Senate and
subpoena was issued to private firm instead of to Congress). this may
seem esoteric but is important aspect of separation of powers invoked
in constitution.
4. the YouTube page may include advertisements or other material that
conflicts with the rules. this may seem silly, but when it appears to
show collusion of congresspersons and inappropriate parties ends up
being front page scandal. general rules promote protection for all if
reasonable.
5. if the reason that congresspersons use outside services is because
the internal services are inadequate, that is a shame and can lead to
quid pro quo agreements with the outside services that the gift ban
and anti-corruption/bribery rules are intended to combat. a
congressperson should be able to post all videos to an Internet site
within Congress. than others should feel free to copy/download/upload/
publish to youtube etc.
in this age of informality it is hard to explain how we all wear
different hats and that "free" services often involve compromises of
integrity, but Congress is an institution that needs to keep to the
formality that protects it from the vicissitudes of corrupting
influences. too often outsiders confuse transparency with rules of
conduct. of course, often the rules that congress establishes do not
fit the technology. but in this balancing act, we should all be aware
of all the potential corruptions and misunderstandings.
as to whether someone should be allowed to Twitter, my thought is to
make a rule that all congresspersons and congressional staff must
register their Twitter names so that the Congress can monitor the
Twits as well as create an archive for historical and transparency
sake. when and if Twitter becomes more commercial/ad driven or paid
service, than the issue should be reexamined.
Members’ activity online – including both their web sites and email
newsletters - are derived from rules created for franked mail." Rather
the Franking rules are a part of a whole set of rules (see:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/hrm/browse_110.html ) Although it is true
that conservative forces equated the Franking of postal communication
with an unfair advantage for incumbents when the Democrats were in
control (which is not to say that they were completely wrong), the
"fact" that the Internet makes a more even playing field for
incumbents and potential rivals does not address much of the rules.
For example, the gift ban which is not a Franking rule does apply to
the use of the Internet. Free web hosting would be considered a gift.
Even after explaining why the gift ban does not be apply to open
source software and double checking with committee lawyers, people
worry about perception that they will be tarred unfairly with breaking
it by offering free open source software to Congress even as it is
free to the public.
At the crux of it is perception. What people who want to expand use of
technology should do is to provide the best analogies, think hard
about the implications of "free" media, make sure that all things are
reported, archived and publicly available and when they break the
rules... be ready to make a fair argument in their defense (not just
bash the other side of the aisle).
Daniel Bennett
P.S. below is a response to someones question about @culberson
\\\
This fight seems to be about the problems I mentioned of understanding
the analogous situation offline and applying the rules regarding
corruption, campaigning using official resources, advertising/
endorsing commercial firms, making requests for money or actions that
might appear to have the force of law (asking for donations for
RedCross may sound good, but may come across as more than a suggestion
when done in the official capacity of Congress). So for example
posting on a site like YouTube:
1. first may allow the congressperson to hide from following the rules
of Congress (posting surreptitiously campaign ads using congressional
staff and resources)
2. may involve spending money in ways that might need to be reimbursed
by Congress for inappropriate things
3. may include official work that is no longer under the jurisdiction
of the House/Senate Sergeant of Arms (not a big deal for public data,
but if private material were stored outside of House/Senate and
subpoena was issued to private firm instead of to Congress). this may
seem esoteric but is important aspect of separation of powers invoked
in constitution.
4. the YouTube page may include advertisements or other material that
conflicts with the rules. this may seem silly, but when it appears to
show collusion of congresspersons and inappropriate parties ends up
being front page scandal. general rules promote protection for all if
reasonable.
5. if the reason that congresspersons use outside services is because
the internal services are inadequate, that is a shame and can lead to
quid pro quo agreements with the outside services that the gift ban
and anti-corruption/bribery rules are intended to combat. a
congressperson should be able to post all videos to an Internet site
within Congress. than others should feel free to copy/download/upload/
publish to youtube etc.
in this age of informality it is hard to explain how we all wear
different hats and that "free" services often involve compromises of
integrity, but Congress is an institution that needs to keep to the
formality that protects it from the vicissitudes of corrupting
influences. too often outsiders confuse transparency with rules of
conduct. of course, often the rules that congress establishes do not
fit the technology. but in this balancing act, we should all be aware
of all the potential corruptions and misunderstandings.
as to whether someone should be allowed to Twitter, my thought is to
make a rule that all congresspersons and congressional staff must
register their Twitter names so that the Congress can monitor the
Twits as well as create an archive for historical and transparency
sake. when and if Twitter becomes more commercial/ad driven or paid
service, than the issue should be reexamined.
John Wonderlich
Jul 10, 2008, 12:23:06 AM7/10/08
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Daniel,
I find your input on this issue to be extremely valuable.
On this point:
...I would suggest that if tweeting or other new media content is created for a purpose that ends up necessarily being NARA relevant later (committee records), then there should be some guidelines about how to harvest such relevant content.
For members, however, since their records become their personal property after their last term, I'd suggest something more like best practices would be in order to explain to Members how their online presence (both within and outside house.gov servers) might be kept track of for future preservation. Occassional consultation with an archivist (if not a full staff position, as some offices have) is probably the best way to ensure non-traditional digital content still ends up a part of the permanent record, whether that collection ends up a university library in the district, or if it goes to NARA. I'm sure the House and Senate Archivists would have thoughts about how to best deal with digital content outside the House for members, even if there isn't solid procedure yet.
As to compliance monitoring, I'm intrigued by your suggestion that there should be a central list of official twitter names or profiles. It raises other questions for me: if a member wants to anonymously comment on a blog writing about official business, is that wrong (i don't know)? How about if a staffer posts on daily kos or redstate anonymously, as many do. Is that wrong?
Online interaction breaks down familiar comfortable boundaries, and in more senses than just decorum, improper commercial activity, or improper political activity. I suspect that our ability to distinguish between ethical and unethical behavior from our representatives is going to have to get a whole lot more nuanced, probably quicker than we expect.
I have a ton of other reactions to your suggestions, and the nuances they raise about different types of liability that may be incurred by online interaction in an official capacity. I'm still skeptical of their impact, but I'm interested in looking further into the concerns you've raised. (hopefully i get there tomorrow; been a long day.)
I find your input on this issue to be extremely valuable.
On this point:
as to whether someone should be allowed to Twitter, my thought is to
make a rule that all congresspersons and congressional staff must
register their Twitter names so that the Congress can monitor the
Twits as well as create an archive for historical and transparency
sake. when and if Twitter becomes more commercial/ad driven or paid
service, than the issue should be reexamined.
make a rule that all congresspersons and congressional staff must
register their Twitter names so that the Congress can monitor the
Twits as well as create an archive for historical and transparency
sake. when and if Twitter becomes more commercial/ad driven or paid
service, than the issue should be reexamined.
For members, however, since their records become their personal property after their last term, I'd suggest something more like best practices would be in order to explain to Members how their online presence (both within and outside house.gov servers) might be kept track of for future preservation. Occassional consultation with an archivist (if not a full staff position, as some offices have) is probably the best way to ensure non-traditional digital content still ends up a part of the permanent record, whether that collection ends up a university library in the district, or if it goes to NARA. I'm sure the House and Senate Archivists would have thoughts about how to best deal with digital content outside the House for members, even if there isn't solid procedure yet.
As to compliance monitoring, I'm intrigued by your suggestion that there should be a central list of official twitter names or profiles. It raises other questions for me: if a member wants to anonymously comment on a blog writing about official business, is that wrong (i don't know)? How about if a staffer posts on daily kos or redstate anonymously, as many do. Is that wrong?
Online interaction breaks down familiar comfortable boundaries, and in more senses than just decorum, improper commercial activity, or improper political activity. I suspect that our ability to distinguish between ethical and unethical behavior from our representatives is going to have to get a whole lot more nuanced, probably quicker than we expect.
I have a ton of other reactions to your suggestions, and the nuances they raise about different types of liability that may be incurred by online interaction in an official capacity. I'm still skeptical of their impact, but I'm interested in looking further into the concerns you've raised. (hopefully i get there tomorrow; been a long day.)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages