Showing posts with label Cyber-Lobbying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cyber-Lobbying. Show all posts

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Internet Fosters Local Political Movements, AP News

~~~ It appears from this article the Internet is finally causing some political activity , that otherwise would not happen. But I still feel for the most, the Internet has done little to change the balance of powers in elections , nor seriously impacted how legislation is passed & public policy formed. Even in the the headline here, note the choice of the word "fosters" as oppossed to "galvanizes" or "energizes" . [Click HERE for another recent post & article on this suject] ~~` TP
.
----------
"Internet Fosters Local Political Movements"
By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1135653

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Frustrated by government and empowered by technology, Americans are filling needs and fighting causes through grass-roots organizations they built themselves -- some sophisticated, others quaintly ad hoc. This is the era of people-driven politics.

From a homemaker-turned-kingmaker in Pittsburgh to dog owners in New York to a 'gym rat' here in southwest Florida, people are using the Internet to do what politicians can't -- or won't -- do."

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Internet redefining politics: new survey

~~ I disagree with the findings here. While the Internet is becoming "part" of politics in the USA, there has not been , nor will there be soon any major shift in political power.

The Republicans have used the internet to help
solidify their base better than the Democrats have.

This is because there is still a major Digital Divide in the USA,
with the wealthier Republicans having more broadband to use politically . ~~ ` `TP
----------------------------------------------------------------

Internet redefining politics: new survey: "Online campaigning is transforming US politics and empowering individual voters dwarfed by the might of the print and broadcast media, the author of a major new Internet use survey said."

http://www.physorg.com/news8706.html

Wednesday, August 07, 2002

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

Thompson, Nicholas.

Machined Politics. How the Internet is really, truly-seriously-going to change elections.

Washington Monthly Online. May 2002. Last accessed Sept. 1 2002 @ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.thompson.html.

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Internet Used by Organizers of Israeli, Palestinian Rallies

by: Sheridan, Mary Beth. :

Different Causes, Similar Tactics. Internet Used by Organizers of Israeli, Palestinian Rallies.

Washington Post Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page B08


By Mary Beth Sheridan

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page B08

"The pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrations organized in Washington this week represent the emotional culmination of weeks of smaller rallies across the country, indications of how the violence in the Middle East has alarmed many Americans.

The proliferation of demonstrations reflects the strength of Jewish organizations and efforts by much smaller Muslim and Arab American groups to play a bigger role in U.S. politics. Adding to the mix is the power of the Internet, both to pull together rallies and to connect Americans with those suffering in the Middle East




by: Sheridan, Mary Beth. :

Different Causes, Similar Tactics. Internet Used by Organizers of Israeli, Palestinian Rallies.

Washington Post Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page B08

Accessed date of publication @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63371-2002Apr17.html ,

And last accessed Nov 7, 2005 @

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63371-2002Apr17&notFound=true

Saturday, March 09, 2002

"One Citizen's Determination to Make a Difference"

==================================

http://www.e-advocates.com/case_studies.html

One Citizen's Determination to Make a Difference

The StopFamilyViolence.org

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org

.... {The} campaign was the result of one concerned citizen's recognition of the devastating effects Congress' failure to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would have on her community.

VAWA provides vital resources, including hotlines, shelters, and other services to women and children who are the victims of family violence. With just 37 working days left in the session, the VAWA reauthorization was stalled in the 106th Congress and considered unlikely to pass.


In just 12 weeks, Irene Weiser and e-advocates helped move a stagnant issue, delivering two major votes and doubling funding for the Violence Against Women Act.

=====

Thursday, February 28, 2002

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, #S.1731,

The FARM BILL of 2002 .
~~ by technopolitical ~~ ` `

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, #S.1731, passed by the Senate on February 13, 2002, ( and vernacularly known as the “2002 Farm Bill”), is far-reaching and elaborate legislation touching on most every facet of the American agriculture industry. The Farm Bill regulates the prices of America’s staple crops, livestock, and dairy products. Payments of subsidies to farmers of corn, wheat, and cotton, comprise the bulk of the bill’s total expenditures, estimated at $171 billion over the next 5 years. [Miller]. The bill also includes issues of conservation, land / water rights and usage, and allots $800 million more per year for food-stamp payments and nutrition programs than current levels. [AP]

It is important to note that there are not fixed amounts of money distributed by the Farm Bill, only the “mechanisms” of how the money is paid out is fixed. Many factors that affect crop prices are beyond human control. So specific payments can vary according to volatile economy of the agriculture industry. Weather factors, like drought, flood, and early frosts can reduce crop productions, while good weather conditions can cause bumper crops. A main function of the farm bill is to insulate farmers from major price fluctuations by stabilizing their earnings with subsidies.

The passage of a Farm Bill is a forgone conclusion, as the legislation is the centerpiece of domestic agricultural policy. The battle becomes what will be in the Farm Bill. As we will see a Senator’s foremost concern is what they can get included into the bill for their home state.

While the final vote on the bill broke mostly on partisan lines --with 48 Democrats voting for and 38 Republicans voting no--- the bills sponsor and prime architect Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) hailed the outcome as a “bipartisan” victory. (The word bipartisan appears no less than 5 times in the bill’s brief press release on Harkin’s official website.)

In reality, the Farm Bill is a parochial piece of legislation. Senators and their home state farm interests tended not look into the big picture of the national bill, but more just how much money came to their state. Nine Republicans voted for the bill, and two Democrats voted against it. Here we will highlight a few of these swing Senators, who split from their party leaders, as they give an excellent overview of the issues involved in the Farm Bill’s particulars.

Six of the nine Republican yes votes came from just three states-- Alabama, Maine, and Virginia— where both senators are Republican and both voted for the bill.

Of the three other Republicans who voted yes, two--- Chuck Grassly of Iowa and Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois--- come from states that fair well with the Farm Bill. The votes of Grassly, whose co-senator Democrat Tom Harkin was the bills Prime Sponsor, and Fitzgerald, whose co-senator is Democrat Dick Durban, were never really in doubt.

(Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, was the only Republican ‘yes’ vote whose co-senator did not also vote yes, as fellow Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum voted against the bill.)

******

The technology of the Internet greatly affected the shaping of the debate of this year’s Farm Bill, by way of a single group called the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Using the freedom of information act, the EWG compiled comprehensive statistics on exactly to whom and to where subsidies from the previous Farm Bill went from 1996-2001 and posted them on their website for all to see. [www.ewg.org] The data posted on the EWG site became embedded into the debate on the bills formation, and provided Senators, interest groups, and reporters covering the bill, with volumes of statistical information. (Most every article used to research this paper mentioned the role and/or contained statistics from EWG.) A New York Times article published a week after the Senate’s vote summed up the impact of the EWG website:

“Throughout the angry Senate debate about whether to limit subsidies to wealthy farmers, lawmakers kept referring to ‘the Web site’ to make their points. ‘You can see on the Web site — 10 percent of the farmers get most of the money,’ said Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma. ‘I looked up Indiana on the Web site,’ said Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, ‘and very few Indiana farmers would be affected by a modest limit.’ [Becker]

EWG revealed that 75 percent of farm subsidies from 1996-2001 went to only 15 states. As well, EWG showed that many of the largest recipients of payments via the 1996 Farm Bill were to Fortune 500 Corporations who own major farming concerns.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) put together what was dubbed the “Eggplant Caucus”, a bi-partisan coalition of mostly northeastern senators whose goal was to bring regional equity to federal farm subsidies. (This caucus included Maine’s two Republican senators whose votes in favor of the final bill were crucial to its passage and will be highlighted below.)

The Eggplant Caucus secured the major provision of the Senate 2002 Farm Bill that greatly lowered the cap on subsidy payments. The 1996 Farm Bill contained a cap of $460,000 per farm, while the 2002 Senate bill places the cap at $275,000 per farm. [Zremski] This cap reduction is designed to make more money available to be distributed to states --outside the Midwest---- that in the past have received fewer moneys.

Maine’s republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins joined Northeast Democrats in voting yes and were important swing votes, with Collins in the undecided camp until just a few days before the Senate’s final vote. The prime motivating factors for the Snowe and Collins vote, was how it would affect the dairy industry in Maine, which has lost one-fifth of it dairy farms in the past decade. [Jensen]

The Farm Bill of 1996 included price supports for milk, but the program expired last September 30, and Maine’s senators battled vigorously to reacquire those moneys plus some. Senator Snowe was instrumental to the addition of $2 billion a year for payments to dairy farmers within the bill. $500 million of which would be divided among the Northeast states. [ibid]

It is important to note that subsidy payments for a particular product—in this case milk—are not uniform and varies from state to state. Republican Pete Domenci of New Mexico, claimed that in final Senate bill New Mexico farmers would get only 6 cents per 100 pounds for milk, while Maine farmers would average 90 cents per 100 pounds. [ibid]

Senator Snowe’s fight for this milk money also put her at loggerheads with Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana whom as the ranking Republican on the Agriculture committee was a prime opponent of the final bill. Lugar singled out the milk issue for criticism saying, “there is no sound policy reason for this disparity.” [ibid]

Whether or not the milk price support system is sound fiscal policy, it was part of the “pork” that Maine’s Republican senators demanded in return for their support of the Senate Farm Bill.

Senator Collins held out her support of the bill until Sponsor Tom Harkin agreed to include an experimental savings program intended to help insulate farmers from price drops. Under this program the government would match the first $5,000 that farmers put aside into their savings accounts.

As well, Maine’s senators won major increases in money available for conservation. The 1996 Bill gave Maine $4.6 million a year for conservation, while the 2002 bill will give the state least $12 million per year and maybe as much as $29 million per year [ibid].

Alabama’s two Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby also voted for the bill because of what they got for their homestate. Sessions was able to get four additional Alabama counties added to Delta Regional Authority, which provides grants to farmers in eligible counties.

"I am pleased the Senate voted to add these four counties to the 16 Alabama counties already included in the Delta Regional Authority," Sessions said. "These counties will benefit from DRA grants to improve their infrastructure and draw jobs to those areas. I am hopeful that conferees will work expeditiously, so President Bush can sign this bill as soon as possible. Planting season is quickly approaching and our farmers need the certainty that a new five-year farm bill provides. [Sessions]

The only two Democrats who voted against the bill; Sen.Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Sen. Jon Cozine of New Jersey, each had different specifics of why they opposed the legislation, but the common factor was that that saw the bill as bad for the folks back home. After her no vote Lincoln stated: “My support for the Senate farm bill was dependent upon what it did for my state, and I voted against this bill because it unfairly inhibits Arkansas farmers and ranchers.” (AP-1)

Sen. Lincoln opposed the final bill because it contained a provision that prohibited meat-packers from also owning the cattle within 14 days of slaughter. Lincoln argued that this provision would prevent the Arkansas meat-packers from running at full capacity at all times. [ibid]

Meanwhile, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Jon Carzine saw the Farm Bill as unfair to Jersey farms as “the overwhelming bulk of subsidies in this bill will go for commodities that, by and large are not produced in the Garden State” [Miller].

The Farm Bill clearly demonstrates the axiom that “all politics are local.” Despite its massive size and scope, in the end legislation got an individual up or down vote from our swing senators solely on what the bill did for that Senator’s home state. Loyalty to homestate interests outweighed all other factors in the formation and passage of the legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------END OF PAPER

See here for more ;

http://technopolitical.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_technopolitical_archive.html#_ednref82


-----------------end ---END of paper >>>>>>

NOTES :


AP

“Senate Passes Farm Subsidies Bill” by The Associated Press

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com . 13 February 2002.

-------------------------------------

AP-1

“Arkansas Senators vote no on bill.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire. 13 February 2002

(Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March 2002)

-------------------------------------------------------

Becker, Elizabeth

“Web Site Helped Change Farm Policy” The New York Times 24 February 2002

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com , accessed 24 February 2002

(Available via Lexis-Nexis)

------------------------------------------------------

EWG

Environmental Working Group website www.ewg.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jansen, Bart

“Farm Bill Supports Dairy Farmers, Conservation” Maine Sunday Telegram. 17 February 2002

Sec: Insight; Washington Politics: page 2C.

(Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March 2002)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sessions, Jeff. United States Senator. “Senate Farm Bill Would Add Four Alabama Counties To Delta

Regional Authority” Posted at : www.sessions.gov/headlines/farmrelease.htm and last accessed

5 May 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------

Miller, Micheal.

“More Aid Unlikely For NJ Farmers.” The Press of Atlantic City. 25 February 2002

(This article was obtained through it’s posting at: http://sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=6604 )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zremski, Jerry

“Farm Bill Aims for Level Playing Field; Congress is Poised to Correct A Disparity in Federal

Aid That Has Overwhelmingly Favored the South and Midwest.” The Buffalo News.

19 February 2002. Sec: Local, p. B1 (Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March

2002)

>>>>


END... END .......END ..........END..... END ..........END -----------------------

Sunday, February 24, 2002

“Web Site Helped Change Farm Policy”

Becker, Elizabeth.

“Web Site Helped Change Farm Policy”

The New York Times.
February 24, 2002

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com,
February 24 2002.


(Available via Lexis-Nexis or by paying the New York Times

Friday, February 01, 2002

"Spam campaigns by Mideast groups damage only themselves"

‘You’ve got hate mail’

"Spam campaigns by Mideast groups damage only themselves"

By Michael Moran
MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.com/news/736217.asp?0na=x227D2G4-


"HonestReporting.com describes itself as "a fast-action Web site dedicated to ensuring that Israel receives fair media coverage."

In fact, it is one of a whole new category of Web sites catering to both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that do what Washington lobbying groups have been doing for decades: general prefabricated mailing campaigns in an effort to sway opinion."


---------------
----------

Thursday, January 31, 2002

*** Email Activists Score Major Victory. California Passes Landmark Global Warming Bill

*

LANDMARK GLOBAL WARMING BILL PASSES CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY

Environmentalists scored a major victory over automobile and oil interests as Assembly Bill 1058 (Pavley) narrowly won approval in the state Assembly on January 31, 2002.

The bill, which will enact the first-in-the-nation regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, inspired a frenzy of last minute lobbying from business interests led by the auto and oil industries intent on killing the bill.

AB 1058 is sponsored by Bluewater Network and the Coalition for Clean Air and supported by a broad coalition which includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC, the California State Firefighters, the American Lung Association, the California League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense and the California Council of Churches.

Coalition member Bob Epstein, a member of a Silicon Valley business group Environmental Entrepreneurs, said the bill "is a precedent setting proposal that puts California in the lead on reducing the economic and environmental threats posed by global climate change."

** Email Activists Score Major Victory. California Passes Landmark Global Warming Bill *** Letters to the California State Assembly from Environmental Defense Action Network activists helped win approval of a bill limiting CO2 pollution from motor vehicles sold in the state. Heat trapping CO2 emissions from the millions of cars and trucks is a major source of greenhouse gas pollution in California. It's now onto the State Senate and the Governor. Stay tuned! For more information, click here: http://actionnetwork.org/ct/.1aLAPK1jcJl/ca_victory

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>.

Wednesday, January 09, 2002

"100,000 Messages to Congress to Help Farmers Help the Environment"

From an email alert:

Dear Robb Halperin, January 2002 *************************** Action Network from Environmental Defense finding the ways that work *************************** CONTENTS: ACTION NETWORK AT WORK! 2001 YEAR IN REVIEW - Arctic Refuge Wins Reprieve; 100,000 Messages to Congress to Help Farmers Help the Environment;

Offshore Oil Drilling Moratorium Protects Most US Coast TAKE ACTION NOW - Canada Fights Oil Drilling Off Coast ECO-TIP - Stop Catalogues from Flooding your Mailbox ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE'S NEW WEBSITE ***************************** ACTION NETWORK AT WORK! SUCCESS STORIES AND UPDATES: Environmental Defense Action Network activists like you were very active in 2001. In a year marked by the tragic events of September 11, we also can share some notable successes in our efforts to take action online to protect the environment. Together, we now reach nearly 150,000 email activists who sent nearly 1 million pro-environment messages last year. Highlights in 2001 include: *** Arctic Refuge Wins Reprieve...For Now *** Last year, 200,000 messages from email activists helped ensure that the Bush Administration and special interests were unsuccessful in pushing a bad energy bill through the Senate that would have increased our dependence on oil, opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling, and more. However, the oil industry and their allies will be at it again with a new push to open the Arctic to oil drilling. Act now to protect the Arctic Refuge and provide true energy security. Take action! http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/energy_senate/w5d3w54p78xwdb *** Helping Farmers Help the Environment *** Nearly 100,000 messages from email activists helped Environmental Defense lead the way in a national campaign to pass a conservation-oriented Farm Bill in Congress. The Senate has delayed consideration of a conservation-oriented Farm bill until early this year, allowing us to mobilize more public support for this important issue. Get more information about the Farm Bill debate and our plans for this year. Stay tuned! Click here: http://actionnetwork.org/ct/cdaLAPK1uPDO/farmbill_update

Saturday, January 06, 2001

Get Out the Vote: The Web has become a must tool for most political lobbyists. Some do it better than others

"Get Out the Vote: The Web has become a must tool for most political lobbyists. Some do it better than others"

By MICHAEL TOTTY

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1018650866755190720,00.html

"The Congress Online Project, a research program by George Washington University and the Congressional Management Foundation, last year completed a study of the use of e-mail by members of Congress. While the study found that all but about two dozen House and Senate offices regularly used e-mail to communicate with constituents, it also found that Congress was unable to keep pace with a flood of electronic missives: Representatives received more than 48 million messages from constituents in 2000, up from 20 million in 1998, and the numbers are rising by an average of a million messages a month."


&&&

Monday, November 01, 1999

New Statesman: Change the world via e-mail - use of Inernet by political activists - Brief Article

New Statesman: Change the world via e-mail - use of Inernet by political activists - Brief Article: "FindArticles > New Statesman > Nov 1, 1999 > Article > Print friendly

Change the world via e-mail - use of Internet by political activists - Brief Article
Brian Doherty

Open to everyone, the Internet offers new possibilities to those trying to challenge the established order.

'The revolutionary forces of the future may consist increasingly of widespread multi-organisational networks that have no particular national identity, claim to arise from civil society and include aggressive groups and individuals who are keenly adept at using advanced technology for communications.' So spoke the Rand Corporation in 1993.

But did they mean multinational corporations or the social movements opposing them? Both sides could fit the description, and that tells us something about the most important political battle of our time, one in which the Internet is playing an increasingly important role.

For campaigning groups such as Earth First!, where actions speak louder than words, the real measure of the difference the Internet makes is in its effectiveness as a mobilising tool. Detailed tactical manuals on everything from tripods to tunnels are available online and may explain why this technology has spread so fast. It is also easy to find a local Earth First! group in Br"

Monday, April 01, 1996

"This type of chain-letter petition can also counterproductively annoy the legislative staffers

~~~ This is the earliest academic electronic posting I have found reviewing the lack effectiveness of Email - Cyber -Lobbying. Cyber-Lobbying will never match the power of hand-written letters and grassroots voter action. ~

~~ `Technopolitical ~~ `



by Phil Agre April 1996

Department of Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90095-1520
USA"
pagre@ucla.edu
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/

"This type of chain-letter petition can also counterproductively annoy the legislative staffers and other lowly individuals who are supposed to open the petitions when they arrive in the mail. The problem lies in the mathematics of Internet chain letters."

"Most of them, for one thing, have been very badly designed. They usually have no cut-off date, source of background information, signature from the organization or individual who is sponsoring the alert, or instruction to post the alert only where appropriate. As a result, these alerts have caused a lot of disruption and annoyance all around the net, and it would not surprise me if the negative sentiment they cause outweighs the positive benefit of the actions they encourage."

http://www.oneworld.net/anydoc_mc.cgi?url=http://www.netaction.org/training/

by Phil Agre April 1996

"Feel free to circulate this article for any noncommercial purpose.

Department of Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90095-1520
USA"
pagre@ucla.edu
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/