The Majority on the Committee on House Administration is later today proposing new rules which would severely restrict constituent access to their Member of Congress and limit the ability of those Members to adopt new technologies. In an **Internet Freedom Alert** Memorandum (pasted in-full below) by Republican Leader John Boehner, he says of the Rule:
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 at http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF.
This Rule is extremely troubling on several fronts. First and foremost, limiting constituent access to an "approved list of third-party websites" threatens the openness and access provided only through the Internet to constituents, limiting constituents to use a handful of "currently hot"/approved sites and force Members of Congress to ignore emerging websites that could quickly become the next outlet for conversation with their constituents.
Second, how exactly does the CHA plan to enforce this Rule? Do they control the Internet? For example, Republican John Culberson and Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan have been leading with their use of Twitter. And where would the Committee on House Administration come down on Rep. Tim Ryan's interview with Internet evangelist Robert Scoble on Qik? Would they force Qik to yank the video? How ridiculous.
Beyond those two points, this Rule shows a clear misunderstanding of the access which the Internet provides to constituents and Members of Congress to have a very real, open, level and honest relationship at a minimal/if any cost to the American taxpayer.
As you may recall, last year I helped co-author a non-partisan report known as "The Open House Project." The report was authored by a number of citizens who wear all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. urging Congress to better use the Internet to provide more access, availability, openness, and honesty to the annals of Capitol Hill.
Of note, Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation and I served as the two Republican coordinators of the project. Past TechRepublican coverage here and here.
At the press conference announcing the report, Republican Leader John Boehner made it a point to attend the press conference to announce his endorsement of the project:
Both Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sent letters endorsing the project.
As a former House staffer extremely familiar with the Rules governing a Members web-use (we broke them all and won a major award for it) I co-authored the chapter in The Open House Project urging Congress to modernize or eliminate the Rules limiting a Members use of the Internets. Here's an op-ed we co-wrote on the issue last year.
One of the more interesting findings in our analysis was that not a single complaint had ever been filed against a Member of Congress for their web-use (only exception was when a Member email outside of their Congressional district).
The bottom-line is that the Committee on House Administration should re-think it's entire position on the Internet--especially now that they are trying to reach government's long arm into the lives of a citizens use of the Internet to better connect with their Member of Congress.
UPDATE 3:13 PM: John Wonderlich who headed up The Open House Project has weighed in with a strong post urging the House to get with the picture:
If Members can use whatever brand of inkpen, or any brand of paper, or buy whatever shoes they want, they should be given radically expanded freedom to use the Internet, and make the same empowering discoveries that their constituents are. Even if that same pen was once used to scribble a ransom note.
The Committee on House Administration still has a line to draw, and plays an important function through the Franking Commission in preventing abuse of taxpayer funded resources. The restrictions, however, should reflect a balance between the liability they’re meant to avoid, and the potential benefits Congress could realize. The conflict of interest (or undignifiedness), is minimal, at best, and the potential benefits are nothing short of revolutionary.
Citizens are overcoming their fears about engaging online, and Congress should follow suit.
Congressional staff working on reforming Franking restrictions should be praised for their efforts, and Republican Leader Boehner should be praised for his bold stance on such reforms.
Also, Soren Dayton at The Next Right has a post which argues that this play by the Democrats could be a partisan move to keep the Republicans from communicating effectively:
Who gets technology? Either, as Capuano noted to the Post, ""To me, the Web is a necessary evil like cellphones," or House Democrats are trying to make it harder for the opposition to get their message out.
====================
FULL MEMO RELEASED BY REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER
====================
**** Internet Freedom Alert ****
From: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
TO: Online Community & Activists
RE: An Attack on Internet Free Speech
DATE: 08 July 08
I’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 at http://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 be significantly curtailed. Americans who currently use free websites like 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.schaper@mail.house.gov.
Comments
great post David
great post David
While there are certainly
While there are certainly some who are opposed to using Congressional use of outside websites such as YouTube, don't pretend that all Democrats are some how opposed to it. The Speaker has the most active YouTube account of any member of Congress, not to mention her Facebook profile, and there are many other Democratic Reps that are using it as well. Yes, this one stupid letter came from a Democratic Rep, but it is intellectually dishonest to argue that somehow all Democrats are against using this technology.
this doesn't pass the smell test by a mile...
This "save free speech" thing doesn't come close to passing the smell test and I don't think it will yield very positive results for you. In fact, unfortunately for Culberson, the very crowd he was beginning to make some inroads with and win kudos from, is now looking at him as an irresponsible partisan.
This has been portrayed by people on the GOP side as an attempt to shut down the process. The rules (which date back from at least the Republican Majority if not before) already shut down the process; they're just being ignored by everyone in both parties.
There is an honest effort to change the rules to open up the process for everyone and allow them to take advantage of all the new communications mediums. So the idea that the GOP leadership would twist the facts around to try and whip people up in a frenzy is dishonest and has already been recognized as such:
Techdirt: "Politician Using Twitter To Ignite Misleading Partisan Fight Over Politicians Posting To Twitter"
Disagree
Actually Justin - the story you point to is ALL about John Culberson's Twittering up folks in a frenzy and barely scratches the surface of Capuano's letter, its intent, or the reaction from both sides of the aisle on the issue. I doubt Culberson truly understood the issue and he tweeted a bit too early.
The fact that rocket scientist Vern Ehlers is the one pushing back for the Republicans is all the proof you need that Capuano's letter is off base. Let's not forget that Vern Ehlers has long been an advocate of opening restrictions governing web use--and scoffed when mailing/franking restrictions were applied to email/web-use:
Unlike most weighing in on this discussion, I've spent a considerable amount of time talking with the "enforcers" of these rules, researching the rules, breaking the rules, writing up suggestions for the rules, and trying to understand why there are rules in the first place.
Of all people, I'd expect you to be stepping up to the plate for the sake of the cause. Instead, you'd rather distill my argument to a partisan swipe. Hard to believe.
with all due respect...
...for me, this is not a matter of being pro-franking reform or anti-franking reform (you clearly know that I am for changing these outdated rules that date back from the GOP control of Congress).
What I think is unhelpful is the inpropper mischaracterization of Capuano's efforts as an attempt to shut down or limit members oppoortunities to utilize the various new mediums and channels for communication.
If anything, Capuano is working to open up a process and increase opportunities that have been limited since the Republican's were in power.
On a side note, I just got around to reading my "Campaigns and Elections"...enjoyed your contribution to the issue.
Post new comment