From: Jim Warren Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 20:44:58 -0800 Subject: Using the Net for Effective Political Action [First published in _Boardwatch_, Dec. 93; redistributed with permission] **Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation.** Copyright Jim Warren 1993 This may be copied-in-full by anyone, anywhere, at any time, in any form, provided no fee is charged for the specific copy. This was my December, 1993, column. It uses AB1624 as an example of how the computer nets can be used for effective political action -- uh, when the cause is "just", i.e., would have widespread public support. Nicely, it is totally useless for sleezy legislation benefitting only unworthy special interests -- those must still be bought in backroom deals. This mechanism *can*, however, be used to *oppose* sleezy deals. :-) --Jim W. *********************************** ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA'S NEW LEGISLATIVE ACCESS PROVIDES MODEL FOR OTHER STATES California's Assembly Bill 1624 (by Bowen, D-Marina del Rey) provides comprehensive online public access via the public nets to information about legislation-in-process and to already-enacted state statutes, without charge by the state, all mandated by law. On Oct. 11th, the last night California's Governor could act on AB1624, he signed the bill. Like most new laws, it takes effect Jan. 1st -- and there is reason to believe that public electronic access will actually be possible within a week or two of that date, perhaps even within a day or two. * YOU CAN DO IT This kind of public-access legislation can be implemented in any state. Almost _anyone_ can do it. Here's how (which works equally well for any legislative effort that would enjoy public support): 1. Find one or several legislators willing to author the bill. The most likely candidates are those who have authored successful public- records and open-government legislation in the past. Call your legislative representatives' offices and ask; they're easy to locate. Your authors should be members of the majority party in your legislature. Reality note: Legislation by minority-party members is much more difficult to get passed and much more likely to be gutted during partisan turf tiffs. It is essential that the author have an aide -- preferably a senior aide -- who is interested in such public-access legislation and is willing to take on the burden of shepherding the bill, with his or her boss's approval. Reality note: Expect almost no contact with, nor significant assistance from, the legislators; depend on the staffer. The authors' functions are to protect the bill and round up the votes for it. Beyond that, they're swamped. If possible, the authors should be senior legislators, ideally members of Rules or Budget committees. Reality note: When Rules and Budget majority-party members want something, they generally get it. 2. As soon as possible -- even before finding the author(s) -- begin building an online and off-line coalition of supporters. Individuals, community leaders, reputable nonpartisan public-sector and private- sector organizations and reporters, editors and radio talk-show hosts. Set up an email distribution-list for those who are online. {EFFector editor's recommendation: Gate this list to a local Usenet newsgroup and an echomail conference in FidoNet and other BBS networks, so you reach a more diverse net.audience. - mech@eff.org} For those who still suffer the antiquity of being electronically disconnected, set up at least a snailmailing list, plus a telephone tree for key contacts -- especially major media contacts. Keep your bill-authors or prospective authors updated on the size and reputability of the list -- through your staff contact. Body-counts of potential voters is the ultimate political lever; flaunt it (without inflating numbers); use it! 3. Keep in close contact with the staffer who is shepherding the bill. They will know who its supporters and opponents are -- targets for praise, or for vigorous public pressure. They will know what issues, concerns and complications are on the horizon. Most importantly, they will know when hearings will occur and what legislators need to receive public input -- and when -- including those legislators' key staffers, fax numbers, etc. 4. Monitor the wording of the original bill and each of its amendments like a hawk. The staffers who will draft the language are very knowledgeable of legislative and legal requirements but are almost invariably technologically naive and/or illiterate (as much so as most of us are about their areas of legislative expertise). Don't hesitate to suggest -- or urge! -- language changes as soon as you notice any imperfection or possible misinterpretation or vagueness in an amendment. The sooner; the better -- preferably while the amendment is still in an informal, draft stage. If you develop a good working relationship and trust with the staffer, you will often have access to such drafts. 5. As hearings and votes approach, issue fast, accurate online, snailmailed and telephone updates and "action alerts." (Bowen and her staff have said that AB1624 simply would not have passed without the public pressure that flooded in before each hearing and vote -- which was almost entirely prompted by online alerts I issued, that many dozens of fellow supporters cascaded across the nets, plus some crucial phone trees by some public-access advocacy organizations.) 6. Don't let up. Don't take vacations. Many a bill has suddenly been sunk when the leadership of its support relaxed during what appeared to be a lull. Also: Focus only on the one bill, no matter how zealously you believe in other "righteous" legislation. Reality note: Attempting to promote multiple political agendas at the same time will fragment your attention and energy. Much worse, it will often generate suspicion and distrust of all of your efforts, and endangers and fragments the support you can organize for any of them. * LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE When you begin promoting legislation -- even public-interest legislation -- by your legislative activism, you become a lobbyist. Don't involve your employer or company -- often classified as a reportable political contribution-in-kind. Expect legislators to be almost totally ignorant of the issues, the potentials of online access and certainly of the technology. Expect almost all of them to occasionally _sound_ supportive but usually be totally uninterested in the bill. Expect them to be highly suspicious of your motives. Reality note: They are so inundated with hustlers wanting legislation that is personally beneficial, that the notion of activists actually wanting something merely for the public good is typically greeted with beady- eyed suspicion. And the notion that programmers would volunteer to assist with implementation pro bono, without getting something in return, is typically rejected as being simply unbelievable. * FOR THE CYNICAL CITIZEN I say this from personal experience as a longtime activist and sometime political irritant: Contrary to popular (cynical) belief, most elected officials -- federal, state and local -- are quite willing to have most of their proposed statutes and ordinances publicly disclosed. (Appointed and career bureaucrats, as opposed to elected officials, too-often practice the opposite viewpoint.) Most elected officials feel that most legislation they author is "good," and would be supported by the public -- if the public only knew about it. (Admittedly, they sometimes have to talk to themselves a lot in order to convince themselves how "good" some of their special- interest legislation really is -- but they're good talkers.) Most also believe that "bad" legislation -- always authored by someone else, of course -- would be defeated, if only the public knew its details and ramifications. And the _vast_ majority of government officials feel that they and the policies in which they are interested don't get nearly the publicity and public exposure they should have -- from sound-bite newscasters and all-the-news-that-fits newspapers. * THE CALIFORNIA MODEL, VERBATIM If you're gonna pursue such ventures, you may as well try reading some legislation -- and have a model to work from. Though a bit tedious, it is actually reasonably intelligible. This is AB1624 as it was signed into law [bracketed notes are mine]: [First, the non-functional principles.] > SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that it is now > possible and feasible in this electronic age to more widely distribute > legislative information by way of electronic communication in order to > better inform the public of the matters pending before the Legislature > and its proceedings. The Legislature further finds that it is desirable > to make information regarding these matters and proceedings available to > the citizens of this state, irrespective of where they reside, in a > timely manner and for the least possible cost. [Now, the enforceable, operational specifics.] > SEC. 2. Section 10248 is added to the Government Code, to read: > 10248. (a) The Legislative Counsel... [who operates the Legislative Data Center] > ...shall, with the advice of the Assembly Committee on Rules > and the Senate Committee on Rules, make all of the following information > available to the public in electronic form: > (1) The legislative calendar, the schedule of legislative > committee hearings, a list of matters pending on the floors of both > houses of the Legislature, and a list of the committees of the > Legislature and their members. > (2) The text of each bill introduced in each current legislative > session, including each amended, enrolled... [passed by the Legislature] > ...and chaptered... [signed or otherwise passed into law] > ...form of each bill. > (3) The bill history... [hearings, votes, etc.] > ...of each bill introduced and amended in each current legislative > session... [in California, a session is two years; some bills are completed in one year, like AB1624; others are 'two-year bills']. > (4) The bill status... [remaining committee hearings, etc.] > ...of each bill introduced and amended in each current legislative session. [about 5,000 bills are introduced in a two-year California legislative session] > (5) All bill analyses prepared by legislative committees in > connection with each bill in each current legislative session. [Partisan analyses by party caucuses are sometimes more important, but are apparently _not_ included in AB1624. Try to get them included.] > (6) All vote information concerning each bill in each current > legislative session. > (7) Any veto message concerning a bill in each current legislative > session [if a Governor vetoes a bill, he or she usually explains why -- or gives excuses, depending on your viewpoint]. > (8) The California Codes. [the state's laws or statutes; previously sold on magtape for over $200,000 per copy] > (9) The California Constitution. [which includes enacted ballot initiatives, which helps make it a _bizarre_ document!] > (10) All statutes enacted on or after January 1, 1993. [this is essentially redundant with (8), but assures continuing updates of the codes] > (b) The information identified in subdivision (a) shall be made > available to the public by means of access by way of the largest > nonproprietary, nonprofit cooperative public computer network [i.e., via the Internet, which in turn is gatewayed to Fidonet, Delphi, GEnie, America Online, CompuServe, etc. -- when I suggested this phrasing, I assumed it was best to be generic, rather than show Internet brandname loyalty and risk giving legislators something to pick at]. > The information shall be made available in one or more formats and > by one or more means in order to provide the greatest feasible access to > the general public in this state. > Any person who accesses the information may access all or any part > of the information. > The information may also be made available by any other means of > access that would facilitate public access to the information. [Although I suspect it wasn't intended, this clearly authorizes independent BBS and computer-host operators to systematically copy all information, continuously update their files, and offer access and value-added options, limited only by their imagination!] > The information that is maintained in the legislative information > system that is operated and maintained by the Legislative Counsel shall > be made available in the shortest feasible time after the information is > available in the information system. [the Legislature's $25-million internal system used by staff throughout the Capitol and in legislators' district offices. This, it turns out, is a potential problem. It seems that the legislators' own internal information system is sometimes days or even a week or more behind. In a previous version of the bill, I had gotten language included that specified a time limit for public availability based on when the electronic copies were sent to the Office of State Printing for overnight printing of the paper bills. But the Legislative Counsel managed to slickly skewer that language by behind-the-scenes manipulation in the Senate.] > The information that is not maintained in the information system > shall be made available in the shortest feasible time after it is > available to the Legislative Counsel. [This is sometimes a major problem regarding the crucial analyses of bills and their impacts.] > (c) Any documentation that describes the electronic digital formats > of the information identified in subdivision (a) and is available to the > public shall be made available by means of access by way of the computer > network specified in subdivision (b). > (d) Personal information concerning a person who accesses the > information may be maintained only for the purpose of providing service > to that person. > (e) NO FEE OR OTHER CHARGE MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE > COUNSEL AS A CONDITION OF ACCESSING THE INFORMATION that is > accessible by way of the computer network specified in subdivision (b). [emphasis added] > (f) The electronic public access provided by way of the computer > network specified in subdivision (b) shall be in addition to other > electronic or print distribution of the information [to state the obvious]. > (g) No action taken pursuant to this section shall be deemed to > alter or relinquish any copyright or other proprietary interest or > entitlement of the State of California relating to any of the > information made available pursuant to this section." [Some Sacramento powerhogs actually propose that records about legislation-in-process might be public, but are nonetheless the exclusive property of the Legislature!] *********************************** JIM'S "SELF-INFLATING PUFF-PIECE" Jim Warren - 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062 US; +1 415 851 7075; Internet - has been a computer writer, lecturer and organizer for more than 20 years. He founded _InfoWorld_, the Computers, Freedom & Privacy conferences, the huge Computer Faires of the `70s, was founding host of PBS' "Computer Chronicles" and founding Editor of _Dr._Dobb's_Journal_. He began working as a minicomputer programmer in 1968, holds three graduate degrees and has taught computing at Stanford and other universities.