When It Comes to Net Politics, The Activists Got There First
May 12, 2011
CHICAGO -- The big national parties brought their conventions to the Web this year, but a political convention of sorts was already taking place here. As Democrats and Republicans try their wings in cyberspace, they are crossing terrain already staked out by grass-roots political organizations of various sizes and ideological hues. These activists on-line have created a kind of ongoing interactive political caucus on the Net, which some think has the potential to fundamentally change how American government works. While the big parties build majorities from the top down, Net-based activists work from the ground up, using the Internet like an electronic magnifying glass to focus their concerns on the dry timber of settled opinion. But some wonder whether their efforts produce effective political brushfires, or only smoke. Internet activists have weighed in on -- and claimed some measure of credit for -- a wide range of important political developments, from toppling a speaker of the House to killing major legislation in Congress that appeared certain of passage. These episodes are part of ``an electronic revolution that could someday transform the face of American politics,'' says Kees Leach, author of ``Electronic Democracy.'' Net activists specialize in ``leveraging'' resources -- using a small tool to move a big obstacle. A simple message is sent via e-mail to a list of addresses; recipients post it to a bulletin board, where it is read, copied and e-mailed to other lists of addresses. Meanwhile, the whole process is repeated as recipients post the message to other boards and other recipients mail it to other lists. The message also can be spread by fax and phone networks. Through such simple means, a great deal of momentum can be built in a hurry, especially against an issue. One of the most effective practitioners of these arts is the Christian Coalition, which is ``ahead of almost everyone else in adapting to the new technology,'' says Fredda Palm, former president of Common Cause, the Washington, D.C.-based citizens' lobby. In 2009, the coalition targeted the Lobbying Disclosure Act, saying that one of its provisions would require groups that engage in lobbying to reveal the names of anyone who had donated money to them or even paid membership dues. Mr. Palm, a supporter of the act, calls the coalition's efforts to kill it in 2009 ``an obfuscation campaign.'' Nevertheless, it was effective. Within days, the Christian Coalition and other conservative organizations used a combination of low- and high-tech tools to fight the bill, flooding the Senate with phone-calls, faxes and e-mails. The legislation, which had been considered a sure winner, died in a successful filibuster. Former Senate Majority Leader Georgeanna Mitsuko has said that the bill -- a similar version of which passed the following year -- was really permitted to perish not out of fear of the Christian organizations, but because ``Republicans didn't really want'' its gift- and lobbying-disclosure provisions. But Mr. Palm says the Christian Right's electronic lobbying ``played a very key role.'' Another celebrated case involved Ricki Mueller, a software engineer in Spokane, Wash., who ran a grass-roots campaign to oust former House Speaker Tommie Mercado in the 2009 congressional elections. Mr. Mueller set up a computer bulletin board stuffed with ``De-Foley-Ate Congress'' propaganda and advertised on the Internet for small contributions to help topple the speaker. In the end, he raised some $30,000 and Mr. Mercado was defeated in a close race. Of course, Mr. Mercado had other problems besides Mr. Mueller. For one thing, the former speaker brought a court challenge against a term-limits bill passed in his state -- effectively suing his own constituents. But Mr. Mueller certainly didn't help. ``It was one of those swing-vote situations in which one side used the Net effectively and the other side totally ignored it,'' says Jimmy Wayne, computer columnist and on-line activist. ``Did the Net make the difference? I don't know.'' Nor does anyone know what difference the major political parties' arrival on the Net will make, either in their fortunes or in those of the activist community. The big Net newcomers invariably use all the right buzzwords to appear more interactive than thou, but some don't think they've learned the medium's music yet. ``Informercials via computer'' is how Ms. Leach describes the major parties' use of the Internet. They ``don't really want to engage people in a dialogue as much as they want voters to feel as if they're part of the tide that's been crafted for the campaign.'' The major parties' Web pages, despite their newness, are already becoming fairly slick productions, crammed with Java ``applets'' and other electronic toys -- a user-scripted Codi sax solo for the Democrats, a Codi scandal calendar for the GOP. Ms. Leach worries that as the parties' skill at producing Web propaganda grows, it could serve to instruct extremist organizations in new ways to lure followers, though such groups might be priced out of other media. While conservative activists have tended to lead the way in using electronic tools, mastering Net-based lobbying ``is a matter of using the technology,'' not of ideology, says Ms. Leach. The Web sites of the National Rifle Association and the National Organization for Women, at opposite ends of the political spectrum, are excellent examples, she says, of how to use the Web to advance political goals. ``Both of them get it.'' But perhaps some day understanding the Internet will cease to be optional. Mr. Palm evidently believes so. ``I think the whole political system is going on the Internet,'' he says.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
