FITUG e.V. Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft

FC: Weekly column: Is it time for a GeekPAC?

------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:55:40 -0500 To: politech@politechbot.com From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Weekly column: Is it time for a GeekPAC? Send reply to: declan@well.com

http://news.com.com/2010-1023-971115.html

Is it time for a GeekPAC? By Declan McCullagh November 25, 2002, 4:00 AM PT

WASHINGTON--Geeks are beginning to realize they need to punish the Luddites in Congress who are standing in the way of progress.

In a recent column, I suggested that the technology industry find a way to reward its friends and, more importantly, punish its enemies. Politicians have spent the past few years concocting increasingly dangerous schemes, and targeting them for defeat in the next election is one way to make them abandon their plans.

I didn't know it when I wrote that column, but there's good news to report: Some efforts already are under way.

One plan is to resuscitate the dormant League for Programming Freedom (LPF), which was founded in 1989 to oppose software patents. It's now moribund, but the LPF may find a new life as a political action committee opposing the disturbing expansions of copyright and patent law.

Dean Anderson, who has been president of the LPF since 1993, says he's planning to work with free software maven Richard Stallman to organize a meeting in the next few weeks in the Cambridge, Mass., area. "We're going to get some people together from the old LPF and decide how we want to proceed," Anderson says. "What I'd like to do is get more people together to develop a consensus on what the next mission should be, especially if we're going to re-incorporate (as a PAC)."

In its heyday, the LPF focused on software patents and user interface copyright, including the Lotus v. Borland lawsuit over the design of the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet. Software patents are as problematic for today's programmers as they were a decade ago, but new threats such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have since emerged.

[...]

But forget PACs. Probably the best model to follow is that adopted by Steve Moore, who runs the Club for Growth, which punishes pro-tax candidates and rewards those who favor lower taxes and limited government. It raised about $9.3 million during the last two-year election cycle, and spent about $7 million to influence races (the rest went to salaries, rent and overhead expenses).

Moore's group is incorporated as a PAC, but to avoid spending limits, it doesn't operate as one. Under federal law, PACs are permitted to spend only $5,000 on each candidate in an election. Instead, Club for Growth targets an important race, asks its members to write checks, then bundles them together and sends them to the candidate.

[...]

---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

------- End of forwarded message -------

Zurück